INTEGRATED AND

ACCREDITED
PROFESSIONAL
ORGANIZATION OF
ARCHITECTS (IAPOA)
THE ROAD TO IAPOA
STATUS
September 4,
1973
The Panel of
negotiators signed a
landmark document
in the history of
Philippine
Architecture –
THE JOINT
COMMUNIQUE ON
INTEGRATION
THE INTEGRATION
 The League of Philippine Architects (LPA),
 The Association of Philippine Government
Architects (APGA) and the
 Philippine Institute of Architects (PIA)

agreed to merge in order to ultimately

achieve the Integration of all Filipino
Architects into one organizational set-up that
would effectively serve the ideals and
purposes of the Architectural Profession.
UAP WAS BORN
PRC issued certificate
No. 001 to UAP for
having satisfactorily
complied with all the
requirements for
accreditation as
“Accredited Bonafide
Professional
Organization of
Architects in the
Phillipines” in
accordance with the
pertinent provisions of
PD 233
 WAS THERE REALLY AN
INTEGRATION OF ALL
ARCHITECTURAL ORGANIZATIONS
IN THE COUNTRY?
MARCH 17, 2004:
RA 9266 or The
Architecture Act of
2004 was signed into
law
Backgrounder:
 The House Bill version was
initiated by Arch Roger
Villarosa and The Philippine
Institute of Architects (PIA)
 The Senate version was by
Arch Greg Timbol and the
Architecture Advocacy
International Foundation
(AAIF) through Senator
Aquilino Pimentel
 AAIF was the one who
introduced the UAP to Sen
Pimentel
UAP had
little to do
with the
passage
of RA 9266
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND
RA 9266
Article V, Sec 40
An architect duly registered with the Board
shall automatically become member of the
integrated and accredited professional
organization of architects and shall receive
the benefits and privileges provided for in
this act upon payment of the required fees
and dues.
What are
these
Benefits and
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

Privileges?

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

RA 9266
Article V
Final Provision
 Sec 40. Integration of the Architecture Profession – The Architecture
profession shall be integrated into one (1) national organization
which shall be accredited by the Board, subject to approval by the
Commission, as the Integrated and Accredited Professional
Organization of Architects (IAPOA): Provided however, that such an
organization shall be registered with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC), as a non-profit, non-stock corporation to
governed by by-laws providing for a democratic election of its
officials.
May 19,2004
UAP applied for  Philippine Institute of Architects
accreditation as the
(PIA) – signed by its
Integrated and
Accredited NationalPresident: Arch Orlando
Professional Villarin and its officers
Organization of  Architecture Advocacy
Architects (IAPOA) to InternationalFoundation, Inc. –
the PRC in reference signed by its President: Arch Greg
to Sec 40, Article IV of Timbol II, FUAP and its officers.
RA 9266.
carrying Letters of  Council of Consulting Architects of
Support (LoS) from the the Philippines (CCAP) – signed by
following its President: Arch Geronimo
organizations: Manahan, FUAP and its officers
May 23, 2004
UAP was
accredited by the
PRC and the
Professional
Regulatory Board
of Architecture
(PRBOA)thru
PRBOA Resolution
No. 03, Series of
2004 as the official
IAPOA
November 15, 2004

THE IMPLEMENTING RULES AND

REGULATIONS OF RA 9266 WAS APPROVED.
The IRR incorporated UAP as the
INTEGRATED AND ACCREDITED
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION OF
ARCHITECTS, including its Functions,
Duties and Responsibilities
Again, was there really an
integration of Architectural
Organizations into one (1)
Professional Organization?
Is the IAPOA
A quasi-public corporation is a
purely a type of corporation in the
Private private sector that is backed by
a branch of government that
Organization has a public mandate to
or a Quasi- provide a given service.
Public Entity?
The creation of the IAPOA was
mandated under Article V, Sec 40 of
RA 9266 –
“The Architecture profession shall be integrated into one (1)
national organization which shall be accredited by the Board,
subject to the approval by the Commission, as the integrated and
accredited professional organization of architects: Provided,
however, That such an organization shall be registered with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, as a non-profit, non-stock
corporation to governed by by-laws providing for a democratic
election of its officials.”
CAN AN ORGANIZATION,
WHO’S CREATION WAS
MOLDED BY LAW BE
DECLARED AS PURELY A
“PRIVATE ORGANIZATION”?
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA-NC
“SECTION 42. Appropriations. - The Chairperson of the
Professional Regulation Commission shall immediately
include in the Commission programs the implementation
of this Act, the funding of which shall be included in
the annual General Appropriations Act.”

 Since Appropriation is available for the

implementation of RA 9266 and the creation of the
IAPOA is part of the law, it is safe to conclude that
funds for the IAPOA should also be programed to
be included in the Annual General Appropriations
Act?
 “SECTION 40. Integration of the Architecture Profession.
An architect duly registered with the Board shall
automatically become member of the integrated and
accredited professional organization of architects and
shall receive the benefits and privileges provided for in
this Act upon payment of the required fees and dues.”

If
there are Required Fees and Dues and
Appropriation may be allotted from the
GAA , does it follow that these funds may
be subjected COA Audit, and may be
considered as public funds?
2003:
 UAP and PICE signed a joint
resolution supporting the
passage of the Architecture and
Civil Engineering Bills delineating
their respective scope of
practice and strengthening their
collaborative efforts in common
goals.
 The two professional groups
through their leaders stressed the
need for immediate passage of
their respective bills, which will
benefit their members
nationwide.
Note:
The UAP Officers who
signed the MOA
• Robert Sac – National
President
Witnessed by:
• Prosperidad C. Luis
• Yolanda D. Reyes
• Emmanuel Cuntapay
• Jaime C. Marquez
• Abelardo Miraflor
• Edilberto F. Florentino –
Chairman, Committee on
Legislation
PICE itself agreed to jointly support,
with UAP, the enactment of laws to
eliminate any overlaps between
the two professions. In one of the
committee hearings on the then-
proposed amended Architecture
Law,

PICE’s representative very clearly

stated that PICE was supporting a
clear delineation of the functions of
architecture and civil engineering.
In late 2004, the Revised IRR
of P.D. No. 1096, the 1977
NBCP was promulgated by the
DPWH; the CEs were very well
represented in the crafting of
said IRR, which echoed the
provisions of the new
architecture law, R.A. No. 9266
that only Architects shall sign
and seal ARCHITECTURAL
documents (also defined in
the IRR)
THE “DUPLICITY”

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA-NC

2005:
On May 3, 2005, PICE and Engr. Leo Cleto Gamolo filed for
declaratory relief to declare null and void sections 302 (3) and
(4) of the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (Revised
IRR) of Presidential Decree (PD) 1096 or The National Building
Code of the Philippines. The said provisions require that
Architectural Documents submitted for building permits must
be prepared, signed and sealed by architects. The petitioners
claim that the said provisions, by effectively prohibiting Civil
Engineers from also preparing, signing and sealing Architectural
Documents, are contrary to the National Building Code and RA
544 (The Civil Engineering Law) which purportedly gave Civil
Engineers the said right.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE CIVIL
ENGINEERS WANTED TO BE
ABLE TO SIGN NOT ONLY THE
CIVIL/STRUCTURAL
DOCUMENTS EXCLUSIVELY
RESERVED TO THEM IN THE
REVISED IRR.
THEY ALSO WANTED TO
BE ABLE TO SIGN THE
DOCUMENTS CLASSIFIED
AS ARCHITECTURAL
DOCUMENTS THAT ARE
EXCLUSIVELY RESERVED
FOR ARCHITECTS.
THUS, THEY
SOUGHT TO
NULLIFY THE
QUESTIONED
PROVISIONS
OF THE
REVISED IRR.
THEIR EFFORTS
FAILED IN THE
REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, BUT
EVENTUALLY
SUCCEEDED IN THE
COURT OF
APPEALS.
IN JANUARY 2012, THE
COURT OF APPEALS
(CA) RULED IN FAVOR
OF THE PICE IN THE
2005 CASE IT FILED VS.
THE THEN DPWH
SECRETARY, WITH THE
UAP AS INTERVENOR;
THE UAP APPEALED
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

THE DECISION AT THE

SC
WHAT
HAS UAP
DONE
SINCE
THEN?
 THE ARCHITECTURE ACT OF
2004 [R.A. 9266] REGULATES
THE PRACTICE OF
ARCHITECTURE AND DEFINES
THE SCOPE THEREOF. THE
SAID LAW IS CLEAR AND
CATEGORICAL — ONLY
ARCHITECTS CAN PREPARE
AND SIGN ARCHITECTURAL
DOCUMENTS (SECTION 20,
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA
PAR. 5).
 IT ALSO PROHIBITED
BUILDING OFFICIALS
FROM ACCEPTING OR
APPROVING
ARCHITECTURAL PLANS
OR SPECIFICATIONS
WHICH ARE NOT
SIGNED BY ARCHITECTS
(SECTION 20, PAR. 2).
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed
QUEZON CITY
BUILDING
PERMIT
REQUIREMENTS
NO MENTION OF
ARCHITECTURAL
PERMIT
IRONIC THAT
UAP HQ IS IN
QUEZON CITY
ALTHOUGH THEY WERE SUCCESSFUL
IN SOME AREAS, LIKE IN ANGELES
CITY PAMPANGA………..
BUT….HOW MANY OF
THE 82 PROVINCES,
135 CITIES AND 1493
MUNICIPALITIES IN THE
COUNTRY DO
IMPLEMENT RA9266?
Municipalities and Cities - now implementing the
ARCHITECTURAL PERMIT.

1. Valenzuela City 2. Alaminos City, Pangasinan 3.

Davao City 4. Tagbilaran City, Bohol 5. Zamboanga City
6. Ormoc City, Leyte 7. Vigan City, Ilocos Sur 8.
Tuguegarao City 9. Ilagan City, Isabela 10. Benito
Soliven, Isabela 11. Cauayan, Isabela 12. Tarlac City 13.
Taguig City 14. Cotabato City 15. Porac, Pampanga 16.
Mexico, Pampanga 17. Sto. Tomas, Pangasinan 18.
Mabini, Pangasinan 19. Burgos, Pangasinan 20. Dasol,
Pangasinan 21. Bani, Pangasinan 22. Calamba, Misamis
Occidental 23. Plaridel, Misamis Occidental 24. Lala,
Lanao del Norte 25. Polanco, Zamboanga del Norte 26.
Real, Quezon 27. Kalibo, Aklan 28. Legazpi City, Albay
29. Tabaco, Albay 30. Daraga, Albay 31. Sorsogon City,
Bicol 32. Gainza, Bicol 33. Paranaque City 34. Bulan,
Sorsogon 35. Mariveles, Bataan 36. Quezon, Nueva
Vizcaya 37. Gapan City, Nueva Ecija 38. Pasig City 39.
Masbate City, Masbate 40. Lebak, Sultan Kudarat
40 LGU’s OUT OF 135 CITIES
AND 1493 MUNICIPALITIES
LGU’s
who
do-2%

LGU’s who
don’t
implement
RA9266-98%
FIFTEEN YEARS HAS PASSED AND
YET THE LAW IS NOT BEING
IMPLEMENTED IN MANY AREAS IN
THE PHILIPPINES.

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

WHEN
WILL WE
ACT?
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY