SolGen quits NHCP in Torre case for sake of PH republic

Saying its “ultimate client” is the republic, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) has formally withdrawn as counsel for the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) in the case seeking the demolition of the controversial high-rise Torre de Manila.

The withdrawal came amid the OSG’s divergent position with the agency over the legality of the so-called Rizal Monument “photobomber,” which recently prompted NHCP Chair Maria Serena Diokno to get a private counsel, her brother, Jose Manuel Diokno.

In a manifestation filed in the Supreme Court on Monday, Solicitor General Florin Hilbay said the OSG could not accommodate the NHCP stand on the matter “without compromising the OSG’s statutory duty to articulate a legal argument that will best serve its ultimate client, the republic.”

“…[W]hen an agency, as an immediate client, recommends a position to the OSG that is contrary to interests of the government, the OSG can decline representing said agency,” Hilbay said in the pleading.

“It is thus respectfully manifested that the OSG can neither represent the NHCP in this case nor can it collaborate with the NHCP’s counsel,” he said.

3 impleaded agencies

The OSG had represented the NHCP in the case, being among three government agencies impleaded in the Knights of Rizal’s petition for the demolition of the 49-story Torre de Manila, a DM Consunji Inc. project, for obstructing the vista of the Rizal Monument.

The two others—the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA) and the National Museum (NM)—remain Hilbay’s clients as the case undergoes oral arguments in the Supreme Court.

The falling out between the OSG and the NHCP followed Hilbay’s about-face. He told the court in a pleading on July 30 that the construction of Torre de Manila was “illegal” and that it was in violation of the Rizal Monument’s physical integrity because it was obstructing the landmark’s sight line.

This was contrary to a pleading that Hilbay filed in January on behalf of the three agencies in which he said the monument “is not threatened with destruction or alteration by Torre de Manila.”

He also said that the building stands on “private property, the use of which cannot be arbitrarily interfered with by a government agency, such as the NHCP, without clear legal grounds.”

In his latest pleading, Hilbay recalled how the NHCP had stated that it “‘… did not and does not like the Torre,’ yet expressed that it was maintaining its stance that the NHCP, as a matter of law, could not do anything about Torre de Manila.”

He also attached a copy of his correspondence with Serena Diokno, the NHCP chair, where he explained his change in position. He said the OSG had legal grounds to better defend the NHCP, NCCA and NM in the case, while at the same time protecting the Rizal Monument.

Good arguments

“[T]hat we have finally found good constitutional and legal arguments for the case now means that the agencies’ professed opposition to Torre de Manila can now finally be credibly ventilated before the SC and fought in a legal battle we believe we can win,” Hilbay said in the letter to Diokno.

“I am therefore at a loss to explain how, notwithstanding the advice of the OSG that the Rizal Monument’s vista can—and ought to be—legally and constitutionally protected, the chair of the NHCP could still rationally insist on a position that disables her office from even attempting to respond to an undeniable disaster for conservationists,” he said.

Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza recently spoke about the role of the OSG as counsel for the people, saying the chief solicitor was duty-bound to stand “for the ultimate benefit of the people” even if it means disagreeing with a client government agency.

Duty to defend people

“To be the tribune of the people means to take a position that may contradict that of your immediate client if this is necessary in the pursuit of your obligation to the true and only client [to whom] you have the undeniable duty to defend, no matter what the cost—the people,” Jardeleza said at the 114th anniversary rites of the OSG on Aug. 14.

Making an implied reference to Hilbay’s parting of ways with the NHCP, Jardeleza noted how the OSG was “once again coming to terms” with such duty “when you chose to defend heritage conservation in the Supreme Court.”

“It is your duty to approach your client’s case with intellectual honesty. If you differ with the position of your client, it is your duty to tell them. It is not your duty to craft legal and technical sounding arguments for unworthy causes,” Jardeleza said.–Tarra Quismundo