TORRE DE MANILA SKYSCRAPERS CONTROVERSY

ARGUMENTATIVE PAPER: NEGATIVE/OPPOSITION

INTRODUCTION:
Plenty of high rise buildings are currently taking shape across Metro
Manila, but Torre De Manila, the 49- storey luxury condominium tower
currently rising into the sky behind Luneta Park has attracted more
controversy.
Torre de Manila is a single tower high-rise residential condominium
development of DMCI Homes across Luneta Park along Taft Avenue in
Ermita Manila with a land area of 7,448 sq.meter .
As construction work continues, many are worried about the impact
the finished building - which has already been nicknamed Pambansang
Photobomber by the netizens - will have on the skyline behind the
monument of our national hero Dr. Jose P. Rizal. The residential tower is
clearly visible from the whole Luneta Park and sticks out of the scenery like
the proverbial sore thumb. Nevertheless, the high rise property, which
conservationists claim ruins the vista of the Rizal monument would bring
economic development with increasing employment opportunities, profits to
the city government and maximizes space capacity.
To understand more on the controversy and on how it started, here are
the key events involving the controversial housing project.
On June 2012, the DMCI Project Developer Incorporated.- a company
under the Consunji-led DMCI Holdings, got a zoning permit from the Manila
Zoning Board of Adjustments and Appeals (MZBAA) for the construction of
the condominium. However, cultural heritage activist Carlos Celdran
protested the plan on the argument that it will destroy the view of the Rizal
Monument.
On July 2012, City Building Official Melvin Balagot granted DMCI Homes
a building permit because the firm had submitted all the necessary
requirements. However, in the same month, Manila City Councilor Don Juan
DJ Bagatsing drafted a Resolution suspending the building permit issued by
Balagot. The resolution was approved by the Manila City Council.
On April 2013, Former City Mayor Alfredo Lim, vetoed the City Council
Resolution stopping the condominiums construction a month before the
2013 elections, while the council was on recess and officials were busy with
their respective election campaigns. This prompted Celdran to revive his
online petition against the buildings construction.

On November 2013, months after Joseph Estradas election as City

Mayor, City Councilor Bagatsing re-filed the Lim-vetoed resolution, saying
that the buildings construction violates a zoning ordinance pertaining to
floor area ratio and height restrictions within a University/Institution Cluster
Zone. The resolution suspended the condominiums construction temporarily.
The DMCI Homes appealed with the MZBAA, and such was approved on
January 2014, granting the firm an exemption to the local zoning laws.
According to Manila Councilor Joel Chua, Chairman of the Oversight
Committee of the Manila City Council, the taxes that the city will earn from
the condominium project can be used to pay Manilas debts.
On August 2014, Senator Pia Cayetano joined the fray, and filed a
resolution emphasizing the need to review laws and policies governing the
preservation of national and historical sites.
On September 2014, Knights of Rizal filed a petition before the
Supreme Court asking that the construction be stopped.
On October 2014, Kabataan Partylist Representative Terry Ridon
appealed to Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno to inhibit himself from the
Torre de Manila Case. He said he received information that Serenos husband,
Mario Jose Sereno, previously worked in DMCIs corporate planning office.
On November 2014, the Supreme Court included the National Museum,
National Historical Commission of the Philippines, and the National
Commission of Cultures and the Arts as respondents in the case.
On January 2015, the National Commission of the Cultures and the Arts
issued a cease-and-desist order to stop the construction of Torre de Manila.
DMCI however, did not heed the cease-and-desist order.
On February 2015, three months after the Supreme Court issued a
resolution making the National Museum, National Historical Commission of
the Philippines, and the National Commission of Cultures and the Arts as
respondents, the three agencies asked the high court to remove them as
respondents.
Finally on June 15, 2015, the Supreme Court issued a Temporary
Restraining Order temporarily halting the construction of the DMCI Homes
Condominium. Many contractual employees relying on the Torre de Manila
construction are left without jobs.
The Supreme Court issued the TRO after the Knights of Rizal sought
the high courts intervention, pronouncing that allowing the construction of
the Torre De Manila to continue would be the worst precedent imaginable to
devalue historical landmarks in the country and it seek for the demolition of
the Torre de Manila for ruining the view of the national shrine.

In line with the controversy, is the issue on whether or not the Torre de
Manila should be demolished so as not to alter and destroy the iconic
sightline of Rizal Monument?
We, on the Negative side believe that the construction of Torre de
Manila Project need NOT be demolished as matter of equity and fair play.
What will we earn if we demolished it? Less employment opportunities and
decline in realty economy? Or less space and better view for a selfie?

ARGUMENTS:
The following are the arguments to prove that construction of Torre de
Manila Project is legal and it need not be demolished.
1. That Torre de Manila Project stands on solid legal ground, thus a
builder in Good Faith;
2. The claim that Torre de Manila Condominium tagged as the
Countrys Biggest Photobomber is a mere propaganda;
3. That the Knights of Rizal has no legal standing to challenge the
case; and
4. That the DMCI Homes cannot be held liable in view of the Doctrine
of Operative Fact.
DISCUSSIONS:
Argument # 1: Stands on Solid Legal Ground
The Torre de Manila Project stands on solid legal ground because the
developer obtained and complied with all the required permits, clearances
and approvals of the City Government of Manila and other regulatory
agencies before it started construction.
The zoning permit that was issued on June 19, 2012 allows the DMCI
Homes to build 97, 549 square meters which was confirmed when the
building permit was issued the following month showing that they were
cleared to build a 49-storey project.
Section 306 of the National Building Code of the Philippines, provides
that the Building Official may order or cause non-issuance, suspension or
revocation of building permits on any or all of the following reasons or
grounds: Errors found in the plans and specifications; Incorrect or inaccurate
data or information supplied; and Non-compliance with the provisions of the
NBC or of any rule or regulation. Hence, aesthetic offensiveness was not
among the legal bases that would merit the suspension of the project.

The National Historical Commission cleared the project on November

2012, declaring that the Torre de Manila project is outside the boundaries of
Rizal Park as well to the rear which is 789 meters of the Rizal National
Monument.
According to the City Government of Manila, the present City Council
confirmed and ratified all the permits and approvals issued by the city hall
for the project early this year. Thus, all the permit, clearances and
certificates granted to Torre de Manila as well as those of the concerned
regulatory agencies of the National Government are valid and remain official
and legally binding.
The building was also alleged to have violated building and zoning
regulations. It was reported that the building's floor-to-area ratio is 7.79,
exceeding the limit set for buildings in Torre de Manila's location which is 4.
However, the City Government admitted that the buildings floor to area ratio
a measure of the buildings total surface area in relation to its height
exceeded zoning provisions in the area, this has been remedied with the
grant of a zoning exemption ratified by the city council.
Torre de Manila stands on private property. By law, the owner can build
thereon subject to certain restrictions structural design and capacity, type
of construction, character of occupancy, easements, sanitation, proper
lighting and ventilation.
Another point is that, Torre de Manila developer is a builder in good
faith. Article 527 of the Civil Code presumes good faith, and since no proof
exist to show that the constructions of the Torre de Manila was done in bad
faith by the developer, the latter should be presumed to have built them in
good faith. Good faith consists in the belief that the builder constructs the
building without knowing any defect or flaw in the land title or permits.
Pursuant to Section 301 of the National Building Code of the
Philippines, all public buildings to be erected/constructed must have the
necessary building permits issued by the concerned Local Building Officials
prior to its implementation. Moreover, Section 64 Article XI of the City
Ordinance No. 8119 or known as the Manila Comprehensive Land Use Plan
and Zoning Ordinance of 2006, all lot/land owners/land developers and
business establishments shall secure a zoning permit (locational clearance)
from the City Planning and Development Officer for all conforming uses, and
in cases of variances and exceptions from the Sangguniang Panlunsod as per
recommendation from the Manila Zoning Board of Adjustments and Appeals
through the Committee on Housing, Urban Development and Resettlement
prior to conducting any business activity or construction on their
property/land. The local officials and members of the MZBAA are presumed
to exercise the doctrine of regularity thus, they are automatically presumed
regular in the performance of their official duties and personal conduct.

Consequently, the DMCI developer had obtained zoning and building

permits from the Manila City government before their decision to proceed
with construction. There were no flaws from their permits because an
exemption was granted to them by the MZBAA and approved by the city
council that they are cleared to build the 49 storey project.
Argument # 2: Torre de Manila tagged as the Countrys Biggest
Photobomber is a mere propaganda
The media photos of the rising condominium were part of a mere
propaganda to make it appear very close to the Rizal Monument. According
to the DMCI developer, the Torre de Manila project is almost one kilometer
away from the monument and even a bit on the right side. Some parties only
took to the unethical approach of virtually juxtaposing pictures of the
condominium building right behind the monument. In effect, their claim of
photobomb was photoshopped. Thus getting the public to believe with the
propaganda, but it was at the expense of truth.

Argument # 4: Knights of Rizal has No Legal Standing

Knights of Rizal is not the real party in interest in this case. Standing is
the ability of a party to bring a lawsuit in court based upon their stake in the
outcome. A party seeking to demonstrate standing must be able to show the
court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged.
Otherwise, the court will rule that it "lack standing" to bring the suit and
dismiss the case. There are three requirements to prove standing: 1) Injury:
The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury. The injury
must not be abstract and must be within the zone of interests meant to be
regulated or protected under the statutory or constitutional guarantee in
question; 2) Causation: The injury must be reasonably connected to the
defendants conduct; and 3) Redressability: A favorable court decision must
be likely to redress the injury.
The Knights of Rizal was established under Republic Act No. 646 (An
Act to Convert the Orden De Caballeros De Rizal into a Public Corporation to
be known in English as Knights of Rizal and; in Spanish as Orden De
Caballeros De Rizal and to Define its Purposes and Powers) purposely to
study the teaching of Dr. Jose Rizal, to inculcate and propagate them in and
among all classes of Filipino people, and by words and deeds to exhort our
citizenry to emulate and practice the examples and teachings of our national
hero; to promote among the associated knights the spirit of patriotism and
Rizalian chivalry; to develop a perfect union among the Filipinos in revering
the memory of Dr. Jose Rizal; and to organize and hold programs

commemorative of Rizals nativity and martyrdom. It clearly shows that the

purposes are academic in character or primarily to advocate the ideas of
Rizal.
The National Historical Commission of the Philippines of the NHCP is
the agency charged with the duty to manage, maintain and administer
national shrines, monuments, historical sites, edifies and landmarks of
significant historic-cultural value. Hence, it is the NHCP who has the right to
institute an action for the preservation or protection of the Rizal Monument
not the KOR.

Nevertheless, it cannot represent or substitute for the National Parks

Development Committee which was created for the development and
maintenance of national parks like the Rizal Park and the true party of
interest in the case.
Argument # 5: Doctrine of Operative Fact
The DMCI Homes cannot be held liable in view of the Doctrine of
Operative Fact. The general rule is that an unconstitutional law is void. It
produces no rights, imposes no duties and affords no protection. It has no
legal contemplation, inoperative as if it has not been passed. Exception to
the general rule is the operative fact doctrine. Under this doctrine, the law is
recognized as unconstitutional but the effects of the unconstitutional law,
prior to its declaration of nullity, may be left undisturbed as a matter of
equity and fair play. The past cannot be erased by a new declaration. In
short, the operative fact doctrine affects or modifies only the effects of the
unconstitutional law, not the law itself.
Thus, applying the operative fact doctrine to the present case, the
construction of the controversial building remain unconstitutional because it
violates Section 16 of the Constitution which states that All the countrys
artistic and historic wealth constitutes the cultural treasure of the nation and
shall under the protection of the State which regulate its disposition. The
Rizal Monument has been declared as a National Cultural Treasure and as
such is entitled to the full protection of the law. However, the issuance of
building and zoning permits as well as the exemptions to the local zoning law
prior the project implementation may be recognized as valid and effective.
This does not mean that the constructions are valid only that it must remain
undisturbed as a matter of equity and fair play to innocent people who have
relied on the validity of the construction. Plenty have already bought
condominium units with the DCMI Homes and construction employees are
not to be deprived of their work. Thus, the doctrine of operative fact is
applicable to this case because declaring the construction as
unconstitutional that may result to the buildings demolition will impose an
undue burden on those who have relied on it.