FOR

:
Atty. Angela Ylagan
FROM
:
Jingco & Associates
DATE
:
July 11, 2015
RE
:
Torre De Manila Construction

!
!

The construction of the Torre de Manila Condominium has been the center of controversy

since 2012 when DMCI began its operation on the building. The planned 49-storey building
supposedly destroyed ones view of the Rizal Monument as it towers from afar. And it is my
belief that culture is much more important than commerce.

Above photo shows before the Torre de Manila construction.

Torre de Manila erected in the background of the Rizal Monument.

!
Article 14 of the 1987 Constitution contains provisions which protect the countrys
cultural heritage. Section 15 provides that The state shall conserve, promote, and popularise the
nations historical and cultural heritage and resources, as well s artistic creations.1 Section 16
also provides that All the countrys artistic and historic wealth constitutes the cultural treasure
of the nation and shall be under the protection of the state which may regulate its disposition.2

1.

PHIL CONST. art. XIV, 15.

2.

PHIL CONST. art. XIV, 16.

Now, in pursuance of these constitutional protections and mandates, does the state have
the power to intervene in the construction by exercising its police power? I would think so.
Pursuant to the landmark decision Churchill v. Rafferty. In that case, Act. No. 2339 authorised
the CIR to remove after due investigation, any billboard exposed to the public view if it decides
that it is offensive to the sight or is otherwise a nuisance.3 What the case mandates is that
aesthetics may be regulated by the police power of the state, as long as it is justified by public
interest and safety.

!
The preservation of our cultural heritage is enough to involve public interest in this issue.
With that being said, it is the stand of the firm that the state has the power to order the suspension
of the construction, or even the demolition of the Torre de Manila Condominium. Furthermore,
Section 25 of the National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009 has provided that the National
Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) has the power to issue cease and desist orders
when the physical integrity of the national cultural treasures or important cultural properties are
found to be in danger of destruction or significant alteration from its original state.4 Lastly,
Republic Act No. 10066, An Act Providing for the Protection and Conservation of the National
Cultural Heritage, Strengthening the National Commission for Culture and the Arts and Its
Affiliated Cultural Agencies, and for Other Purposes also provides that immovable national
cultural treasures shall not be rebuilt, defaced or otherwise changed in a manner which would

3.

Churchill v. Rafferty, 32 Phil 580, (1915).

An Act Providing for the Protection and Conservation of the National Cultural Heritage, Strengthening
the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA) and its Affiliated Cultural Agencies, and for
Other Purposes [National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009], Republic Act No. 10066, 25 (2009).
4.

destroy the propertys dignity and authenticity, except to save such property from destruction due
to natural causes.5 These laws further protects the integrity of our heritage and culture and puts it
a step above commerce.

!
Another point of interest is that, according to the records of the case, Torre de Manila
initially violated City Order 8119, otherwise known as An Ordinance Adopting the Manila
Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Regulations of 2006, with respect to the floor area
ratio and the percentage of land occupancy. It provides that the residential buildings must
conform to the land use intensity control ratings, the maximum floor area ratio of which must not
exceed a floor area ratio of four.6 However, according to the building plan submitted by DMCI,
the Torre de Manila has a floor area ratio of 7.4, clearly exceeding the maximum floor area ratio
laid down by the Ordinance by 3.4 units. DMCI appealed this violations by claiming exemption,
which was eventually granted, despite the rules and regulations clearly laid out. The haphazard
application of the laws requires the Supreme Court to take a second look at the exemptions
granted and hopefully uphold what is right which is the revocation of the exemptions granted.

!
!
!
5.

Id.

City of Manila Ordinance No. 8119, Sangguniang Panlungsod of Manila, An Ordinance Adopting the
Manila Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Regulations of 2006 and Providing for the
Administration, Enforcement and Amendment Thereto [Manila Comprehensive Land Use Plan and
Zoning Ordinance of 2006], (2006).
6.