Ipaliwanag ang mga dahilan kung bakit natalo ang petitioner/respondent sa kaso.
The case revolved around the dispute between the Knights of Rizal, a public corporation dedicated to preserving the memory and upholding the ideals of Philippine National Hero Jose Rizal, and DMCI Homes, Inc, a real-estate construction company. The contention of the petition centers on DMCI’s construction of Torre de Manila, a 49-story residential unit, which the Knights of Rizal (KOR) argued that the condominium’s height and location would dwarf and obstruct the visual backdrop of the national historical monument situated in Luneta Park.
Ultimately, the supreme court dismissed the petition by the Knights of Rizal (KOR) based on three reasons. Firstly, there was an absence of a clear legal basis. Ordinance No. 8119’s provision did not outline any restrictions regarding the sightline impacts of a building outside a protected area, which in this case, is the Rizal Park. Secondly, the City of Manila did not practice the grave abuse of discretion upon the issuance of the required permits and licenses, meaning, the permits required for the condominium’s development were obtained in compliance with the standard procedures. Lastly, Torre de Manila did not qualify as a nuisance per say or a nuisance per accidens. The building was lawfully constructed, with no inherent harmful impact to public health and safety.
Sumasang-ayon ka ba sa desisyon ng korte? Ipaliwanag ang iyong tindig mula sa perspektiba at interes ng kamanahang kultural.
From a legal perspective, the construction and development of the Torre de Manila is correct. It followed the standard procedures and resumed construction upon acquiring the necessary clearances and permits from the City of Manila, including a zoning permit, a building permit, and a barangay clearance. In addition, the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) also confirmed that the residential unit was beyond the boundary of Rizal Park, meaning, that the said real estate development was outside the buffer zone (5 meters) of the historical site; hence, its exception from the Penal Provisions under Sections 48-49 of the RA 10066.
However, from a perspective rooted on the importance of cultural heritage, I personally disagree against the final ruling of the court against the petition. Not only because it obstructed the visual backdrop of the historical site, but it also implicated the symbolisms and cultural significance attached to it. The erection of Torre de Manila dwarfed the Rizal Monument and shifted emphasis away from the historical site.
This incident highlighted the limitations in the legislative framework of the Philippines regarding the preservation and safeguarding of the nation’s cultural heritage. It exposed that while local ordinances guided the preservation of historical sites, it lacked enforceable provisions in resolving the indirect obstructions, such as infrastructural development outside of the area of a historical site, which adversely affected the cultural heritage’s significance.