Memorandum of Law

TITLE: Torre de Manila Legislation

REQUESTED BY: Prof. Emerson Banez
DATE SUBMITTED: December 21, 2017

QUESTION PRESENTED

In order to prevent another “Torre de Manila” marring the skyline behind a national
monument or heritage site, Congress decides to pass appropriate legislation. What are the statutes,
case law, and legal principles, here or abroad that can guide this legislation?

BRIEF ANSWER

Most laws concerning the construction of certain buildings are limited by what is stipulated
in local laws like Presidential Decree 1096, otherwise known as the “National Building Code of
the Philippines”. When important heritage or cultural sites may be affected, laws like Republic
Act 10066, otherwise known as “National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009” may indirectly be sought
for guidance. Internationally, similar laws are in place, like the “symbolic primacy” rule followed
in the construction of buildings in Ottawa, Canada, and the Height of Buildings Act of 1910
followed in Washington, D.C. in the United States.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Torre de Manila is a condominium project of DM Consunji Inc (DMCI), the real estate
arm of DMCI Holdings which is engaged in general construction services in the Philippines.
Construction for Torre de Manila commenced in June 2012, when DMCI was able to secure a
zoning permit which allowed the construction of the condominium in a lot along Taft Avenue in
Manila. Upon the granting of the zoning permit, online campaigns against the construction was
launched by Carlos Celdran, a local tour guide and activist. Celdran stated that, upon completion
of Torre de Manila, it would mar the Manila skyline and affect the view of the Rizal Monument
located in Luneta Park. In July of that same year, Manila City Mayor Alfredo Lim granted DMCI
the building permit to construct Torre de Manila. However, in November 2013, the Manila City
Council suspended the building’s construction, citing a zoning violation that only allows schools
and government buildings of up to seven stories to be built in that part of Manila City. In January
2014, the Manila Zoning Board of Adjustments and Appeals granted DMCI an exemption from
the zoning regulation, thus construction was continued. Numerous petitions were filed to stop
DMCI from continuing with the construction of Torre de Manila, citing that its demolition was
needed in order to preserve the visual corridors of the Rizal Monument for posterity. The Supreme
Court ordered the inclusion of the National Commission on Culture and the Arts (NCCA), the
National Museum of the Philippines, the National Historical Commission of the Philippines, and
Manila City officials as intervenors in the case.1 The Rizal Monument was designed by Swiss
sculptor Richard Kissling and inaugurated at Luneta Park in 1913, to commemorate and honor the
memory of the Philippines’ national hero.2

DISCUSSION

In the City of Manila, Ordinance No. 8119, otherwise known as the “Manila
Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance of 2006” stipulates that the prescribed
maximum Floor-Area Ratio (FAR) of buildings to be constructed is 4, and that only school and
government buildings of up to seven floors may be constructed.3 Torre de Manila’s FAR, as
designed, was 7.79, which is nearly twice the prescribed limit. Additionally, Torre de Manila was
designed to have 49 floors, also exceeding the prescribed limit on building height. However, the
point of contention raised by many petitioners is the fact that, even during construction, the Torre
de Manila will serve as a “photobomber” upon viewing the Rizal Monument in Luneta Park.
Presidential Decree No. 1096, otherwise known as the “National Building Code of the Philippines”
was enacted:

1
Philippine Daily Inquirer, What Went Before: The saga of Torre de Manila,
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/698994/what-went-before-the-saga-of-torre-de-manila (June 17, 2015), accessed
December 21, 2017
2
Ambeth Ocampo, Torre de Manila: Heritage laws require updating, http://opinion.inquirer.net/88286/torre-de-
manila-heritage-laws-require-updating (September 6, 2015), accessed December 21, 2017
3
Manila Ordinance 8119, June 16, 2006
 “to provide for all buildings and structures, a framework of
minimum standards and requirements to regulate and control their
location, site, design quality of materials, construction, use,
occupancy, and maintenance.”4

Additionally, Republic Act No. 10066, otherwise known as the “National Cultural Heritage
Act of 2009” was established “to protect, preserve, conserve and promote the nation’s cultural
heritage, its property and histories, and the ethnicity of local communities.”5 Taken together, all
efforts must be concentrated to preserve and honor the memory of Jose Rizal thru the conservation
of the skyline view of Rizal Monument. Even though it does not necessarily affect the actual
physical structure, the Torre de Manila serves as a visual distraction. This is aided by Article 694
of the Civil Code, which defines a “nuisance” as “any act, omission, establishment, condition of
property, or anything else which … (2) annoys or offends the senses.”6 In this sense, Torre de
Manila can qualify as a nuisance.
In a similar case in Turkey, three luxury apartment blocks were ordered to be bulldozed by
an Istanbul court. as they were found to obstruct views on national historic sites and sights. The
Onalti Dokuz Residence towers located in Istanbul were ruled to be illegal, as they “negatively
affected the world heritage site that the Turkish government was obliged to protect.”7 The heritage
sites in question are the Blue Mosque, Topkapi Palace, and the Hagia Sophia.
In the United States of America, the Height of Buildings Act restricted the height of
buildings to preserve the sightlines of monuments and other structures.8 Additionally, building
height limits are more restrictive along the major streets, as protecting scenic resources like the
visual prominence of a city’s capitol building, is a common public policy objective.9
In Ottawa, Canada, a policy protecting “the symbolic primacy” of Ottawa’s “national
symbols” has prevented high-rise buildings from being constructed in certain parts of the city.

4
Pres. Decree No. 1096 (1977)
5
Rep. Act No. 10066 (2009), sec. 2
6
Civil Code, art. 694
7
The Guardian, Istanbul’s ‘illegal’ towers to be demolished after landmark court ruling,
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2014/aug/21/istanbuls-illegal-towers-to-be-
demolished-after-landmark-court-ruling (August 21, 2014), accessed December 21, 2017
8
U.S. Height of Buildings Act (1910)
9
James A. LaGro, Site Analysis: A Contextual Approach to Sustainable Land Planning and Site Design (2011)
Twenty one locations around Ottawa and Gatineau were marked, stating that people must be able
to see the Parliament’s silhouette from these viewpoints. Apart from the Parliament, the Supreme
Court and National Art Gallery are included in this rule, which was crafted through the 1990s.10

CONCLUSION

Building codes are the most common laws which help guide in the construction of
buildings in both urban and rural areas. Special zoning limitations may also complement existing
codes for certain places, like cultural heritage sites. These laws are often put in place to highlight
the conservation efforts of such places and promote their importance not only to the local
community, but also to foreigners. When construction for buildings, especially for commercial
purposes like high-rise condominiums or similar commercial centers, is tolerated at the expense of
national cultural heritage sites, it effectively portrays the priorities of the local government.

Respectfully submitted,
Arthel D. Caronongan Jr.

10
Ottawa Business Journal, Parliament sightline rules could prevent taller Ottawa towers,
http://www.obj.ca/index.php/article/parliament-sightline-rules-could-prevent-taller-ottawa-towers (January 26,
2017), accessed December 21, 2017
 Memorandum of Law

TITLE: “Doxing”
REQUESTED BY: Prof. Emerson Banez
DATE SUBMITTED: December 21, 2017

QUESTION PRESENTED

What are the legal remedies (criminal, civil, and administrative) a person can avail of (both
here and abroad) if she is “doxed” online? Would it matter that her anonymous online persona
blogged about politics?

BRIEF ANSWER

Laws have been passed which aim to protect the personal information of the public.
Republic Act No. 10175, otherwise known as the “Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012”, is one
such measure. Related to this is Republic Act No. 10173, otherwise known as the “Data Privacy
Act of 2012”.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The term “doxing” refers to “compiling and releasing a dossier of personal information on
someone”.11 This tactic emerged from hacker culture in the 1990s, and is used to reveal and
publicize records of an individual, which were previously private or difficult to obtain. Doxing is
usually done using malware or a form of computer virus. However, social media platforms like
Facebook and Twitter may serve as an avenue for potential doxers, as users themselves publish
their personal information online with low levels of security.12

11
Mat Honan, What is Doxing?, https://www.wired.com/2014/03/doxing/ (March 6, 2014), accessed December 21,
2017
12
Srikanth Ramesh, What is Doxing and How it is Done?, https://www.gohacking.com/what-is-doxing-and-how-it-
is-done/ (May 1, 2017), accessed December 21, 2017
 DISCUSSION

Republic Act No. 10175, otherwise known as the “Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012”,
offers preventive measures as well as legal remedies to Filipino citizens who may be victims of
doxing. Section 4 states a list of computer-related offenses, which includes Computer-related
Identity Theft:
The intentional acquisition, use, misuse, transfer, possession,
alteration or deletion of identifying information belonging to
another, whether natural or juridical, without right13

The corresponding punishment for such an offense is stated in Section 8:

Penalties – Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts

enumerated in Sections 4 (a) and 4 (b) of this Act shall be punishable
with imprisonment of prision mayor or a fine of at least Two
hundred thousand pesos (Php 200,000.00) up to a maximum amount
commensurate to the damage incurred or both.14

Republic Act No. 10173, otherwise known as the “Data Privacy Act of 2012” states that it
is the policy of the State to protect the fundamental human right of privacy of communication
while ensuring free flow of information to promote innovation and growth.15 Section 25 covers
penalties from unauthorized processing of personal information and sensitive personal
information:

(a) The unauthorized processing of personal information shall be

penalized by imprisonment ranging from one (1) year to three
(3) years and a fine of not less than Five hundred thousand pesos
(Php 500,000.00) but not more than Two million pesos

13
Rep. Act No. 10175 (2012), sec. 4
14
Rep. Act No. 10175 (2012), sec. 8
15
Rep. Act No. 10173 (2012), sec. 2
 (Php2,000,000.00) shall be imposed on persons who process
personal information without the consent of the data subject, or
without being authorized under this Act or any existing law. 16

When there is a breach of personal data, the National Privacy Commission has set forth
17
guidelines for management. The guidelines include a creation of a data breach response team
which is in charge of implementing security measures and mitigation of possible harm and
negative consequences.
In the United States, measures are also provided in maintaining the privacy of personal
data. Rule 25-5 lays down guidelines when personal data is exposed when necessary in court
proceedings. For example, only the last 4 digits of a person’s Social Security Number, Taxpayer
Identification Number, or Financial Account Number may be presented. Also, only initials of
minor children may be mentioned. 18 Failure to comply will lead to the failure of the case.
The state of California passed the Online Privacy Protection Act of 2003 (OPPA), which
requires operators of commercial websites that collect personally identifiable information from
California’s residents to conspicuously post and comply with a privacy policy. Failure to comply
may lead to civil penalties or equitable relief by government officials, and private parties may also
seek for private claims and damages.19
With regards to information concerning politics, Republic Acts No. 53 and 1477 exempts
publishers, editors, or reporters of any newspaper, magazine, or periodical of general publication
from revealing the source of published news or information obtained in confidence unless the court
or a House or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security and
interests of the State.20 21 Under these RAs, if any news published by anyone covered by the Acts
comes from an online source, their privacy shall be respected.

16
Rep. Act No. 10173 (2012), sec. 8
17
NPC Circular No. 03-16 (2016), sec. 4-5
18
United States Ct. of App. 11th Cir. Rule 25-5, 28 (2003)
19
United States The Online Privacy Protection Act of 2003, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code (2003), sec. 22575-22579
20
Rep. Act No. 53 (1946), sec. 1
21
Rep. Act No. 1477 (1956), sec. 1
 CONCLUSION

The intrusion and possible exploitation of a person’s personal information should never be
tolerated. The right to privacy is constitutionally-guaranteed, and must be kept at a standard equal
to a person’s rights to life, liberty, and property. Some groups have resorted to doxing to deliver
their own personal brands of justice, like the Anonymous group of hackers. While they may have
good intentions, their means of vigilantism does not justify their acts.

Respectfully submitted,
Arthel D. Caronongan Jr.