A. Ipaliwanag ang mga dahilan kung bakit natalo ang petitioner/respondent sa kaso?
In the case of G.R. No. 213948, the petitioner or Knights of Rizal lost to the respondent DMCI Homes Inc. due to lack of legal basis. One of the highlighted laws that the petitioners used for the case was RA 10066 or the National Cultural Heritage Act, wherein it focused on the protection of the physical integrity of a historical site should be preserved. However, the same law did not mention or include the sightline or view of a historical site.
DMCI was also proved to be following the said laws as the Torre de Manila building was well beyond the buffer zone and in no way harmed the physical integrity of the monument. All required permits, such as clearances from the City of Manila, including a barangay clearance, a zoning permit, and a building permit, were obtained before construction began. Therefore, the Commission or other related agencies have no jurisdiction or right over the construction of the Torre de Manila.
B. Sumasang-ayon ka ba sa desisyon ng korte? Ipaliwanag ang iyong tindig mula sa perspektiba at interes ng kamanahang kultural.
I do not agree with the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the case. The Rizal monument has played a big role in the country’s history, culture, and even tourism which should’ve been put into consideration. We may admit it or not but laws related to the case lack in-depth description. RA 10066 has never defined physical integrity. It never mentioned whether the sightline or view is excluded as a standard.
Also if we were to talk about the legal basis, the DMCI should have not been built in the first place. The Torre de Manila building may have acquired all permits required but the DMCI clearly violated the Manila City zoning laws. DMCI only sought the approval of the Manila Zoning Board Of Adjustment and Appeals (MZBAA) for variation only after the construction started. The violation could even lead to demolition, which at the time it was recognized, the building was already 19-storey high.
In addition to the responder’s defense, they questioned the intention of the petitioners as they proposed structures back in the 1950s that were also significantly taller and closer to the Rizal monument. But if we were to compare measures, the highest structure the KOR proposed was only 30 meters tall as opposed to the 165-meter-tall condominium. The only structure that was built among those proposals was the National Library which is about 25 meters tall and despite the close distance of 200 meters from the Rizal monument, it has never obstructed the monument’s sightline.
In conclusion, both parties have gaps that have been overlooked. But these issues could’ve been easily avoided if only the government recognized the importance of these historical sites/monuments/shrines and provided a more comprehensive law regarding our historical sites and national treasures that are crucial to the Philippines' culture and identity.