Got a tip? Send it to us at manila@coconuts.co.
DMCI Homes defended on Tue, Aug 4, its controversial 49-storey Torre de Manila condominium project along Taft Avenue before magistrates of the Supreme Court (SC) during the continuation of oral arguments on a petition that seeks the demolition of the building.
Atty. Victor Lazatin, DMCI lawyer, told magistrates of the SC that DMCI was able to secure all necessary permits, licenses and variance for the construction of the high-rise condominium.
The Order of the Knights of Rizal (OKOR) filed a petition against Torre de Manila, claiming that it destroys the vista and sightline of the monument of national hero Dr. Jose Rizal at nearby Rizal Park in Luneta. OKOR claims that the project destroys the national heritage and cultural heritage that is the Rizal Park.
“Manila City Resolution No. 5, dated January 16, 2014…. ratifies and confirms all previously issued permits, licenses and approvals in favor of DMCI,” Lazatin said.
DMCI stressed that the grant of variance to the Torre de Manila project under Resolution No. 5 is a “legislative act” which “may not be reversed” through a case for mandamus, as is the case of OKOR before the high court.
DMCI also pointed out that Torre de Manila “does not stand on a national heritage site,” and that the National Building Code “does not prescribe height limits for buildings.”
“DMCI verified that the lot is not situated within a heritage site… per [National Historical Commission of the Philippines] minutes of 19 October 2012, the area has not been declared a historic center or heritage zone,” Lazatin said.
DMCI also presented photographs of the Rizal Monument with the SC that do not show Torre de Manila in the background, and alleged that photographs with the condominium as a “photobomber” of the monument uses special effects and lenses.
“Using a normal camera, it is still possible for a visitor to take photographs without the Torre de Manila in the background. These are the normal and realistic photographs,” Lazatin said.
DMCI claimed it has already suffered “irreparable damages” caused by the stoppage of the project’s construction in keeping with the temporary restraining order (TRO) the high court had issued in favor of OKOR. DMCI claimed that over 700 of its laborers have been out of work, with only “a few” absorbed in the company’s other projects; millions of pesos worth of perishable supplies on-site have also been lost; and “irreparable reputational damage to DMCI” caused by the stoppage of the construction.
“The TRO should be immediately lifted to prevent further irreparable damage to DMCI, its fabricators, its buyers, laborers, etc,” Lazatin said.
DMCI also argued that the SC has no original jurisdiction over the OKOR petition since it is not a trier of facts that can weigh in on the evidence from both sides.
During his interpellation of DMCI, Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza, the justice-in-charge of the case, stressed that the high court converted the OKOR petition into a petition for mandamus because of “transcendental importance” and because it has “far-reaching effects.”
While Jardeleza agrees that questions of fact surrounding the case may not be resolved by the SC, he pointed out that the high court has to rule on the “threshold and purely legal issues” involving the OKOR petition, specifically, to determine whether the term “conserve” in Section 15 (Arts and letters shall enjoy the patronage of the State. The State shall conserve, promote, and popularize the nation’s historical and cultural heritage and resources, as well as artistic creations.) of Article 14 of the 1987 Constitution also refer to “vista,” “sightline,” and all other similar terminologies used by OKOR.
“This court is limited to laying down the definition of ‘conserve…’ if it includes protection of the sightline of cultural heritage sites,” Jardeleza said.
Text: Ina Reformina, ABS-CBN News
Photo: Gov.ph
This article has been re-published with permission from ABS-CBNnews.com.
Reader Interactions