TORRE de Manila developers on Thursday made the final appeal before the Supreme Court to lift the restraining order it issued against the construction of the controversial 49-story condominium.
In its 116-page memorandum, DMCI-Project Developers Inc. (PDI) urged the high court to dismiss the petition filed by Knights of Rizal (KoR),which sought the demolition of the building for marring the view of the Rizal Monument.
The property developer insisted that the restraining order amounts to unjust interference of their right to property, reiterating that they did not violate any laws and obtained the necessary permits for Torre de Manila’s construction.
They said not only DMCI but its workers, buyers are hurting from the injunction.
DMCI added that the monument and the park were surrounded by tall buildings including the former Meralco Tegen power plant and its two smoke stacks rising behind the monument.
“In the absence of any constitutional or legal provision protecting or conserving sightlines, the Torre de Manila remains to be a legitimate expression of DMCI’s right to property,” they told the high court.
“The construction of Torre de Manila did not and does not violate any laws, rules on easement or requirements of aerial navigation. The construction of Torre de Manila was in fact duly authorized by the concerned national and local government agencies. In particular, the City of Manila did not and does not object to the construction of Torre de Manila,” they added.
The company also called a “hoax” without any basis in law, fact or science the new position taken by Solicitor General Florin Hilbay of the “physics” of the Rizal Monument such that the obelisk, statue and the sky must be treated as an integrated whole.
The Solicitor General earlier changed its position and went against the position of his clients, the National Museum, National Historical Commission of the Philippines, and the National Commission for Culture & Arts, that DMCI did not violate any law in building the Torre de Manila.
“No existing law or ordinance mandates a sightline, which is defined as the straight line along which an observer has an unobstructed vision, or a visual corridor, which is defined as an architectural opening or transportation corridor in the cityscape that frames a natural or cultural scenic feature, or even a vista point, which is defined as a more or less distant view through or along an avenue or opening, particularly one that applies to the Rizal Monument or other monuments,” the memorandum stated.
The respondent also told the high court to uphold the “stability of laws.”
“Private enterprises have the right to rely on permits granted by government, to encourage further investments in housing and contribute to urban renewal and development,” DMCI said.
The Court is expected to rule on the merit of the case after all the parties have submitted their respective memoranda.