Pro-Active RLAs* Must Now Take the Legal Offensive *Registered and Licensed Architects 05 September 2009

1. PRBoA Pro-Active RLAs* Must Now Take the Legal Offensive *Registered and Licensed Architects 05 September 2009 PRC Professional Regulatory Board of Architecture (PRBoA) Ar Armando N. ALLÍ fuap, hfpia, aaif, apec ar Chairman, PRBoA (Resource Person)

2. Over the the past 4.5 years, the PICE, in representation of the Philippine civil engineers (CEs) has filed complaints in various venues against the DPWH Secretary, the Chairman of the Board of Architecture, the United Architects of the Philippines (UAP) i.e. against Registered and Licensed Architects (RLAs) in general, in the PICE’s/ CEs’ utterly mistaken and blind belief that their law (R.A. No. 1582 of 1956, which amended R.A. No. 544 of 1950) supposedly allows them to practice architecture (the preparation, signing and sealing of architectural documents). • Despite being proven wrong by multiple public documents issued by their official Philippine Government sources or official repositories and despite a Court Decision & 2 Court Orders, the PICE/ CEs still insist that Sec. 302 of P.D. No. 1096 (the 1977 National Bldg. Code of the Phils./ NBCP) supposedly allows them to practice architecture . PRBoAOpening Statements (1)

3. Because the PICE/ CEs took part in the crafting of R.A. No. 9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004), a valid and subsisting law i.e. that is in full effect and without any temporary restraining order (TRO), injunction nor pending constitutional question, the PICE/ CEs are unable to frontally challenge R.A. No. 9266 in court. • As part of their sworn duties and responsibilities, ALL national and local government officials are obligated to implement and enforce laws without fear nor favor. If in doubt as to the interpretation of the law, these entities must abide by the Orders and Decisions of the Court. To do otherwise leaves them open to charges of graft (under RA No. 3019 or even under RA No. 6713), especially if their actions/inaction unduly benefit a party (the PICE/CEs) to the material prejudice of another (RLAs). PRBoAOpening Statements (2)

4. 5) The three (3) branches of the Philippine Government have already supported the RLAs i.e. the legislative and executive branches with the approval into law of R.A. No. 9266; the executive branch, particularly the Department of Justice (DoJ) with its opinions , and the judiciary (the Courts) with Decisions and Orders in support of the registered and licensed architects (RLAs). • Despite the very clear and unequivocal support of the 3 co-equal branches of the Philippine Government for the RLAs, certain national government agencies (NGAs) such as the DPWH chose to disregard the lawful instructions and orders from the leaders/ lawful representatives the said 3 co-equal branches of government . • The PRBoA represents the State (the Republic of the Philippines through the PRC) and not private interests of RLAs but can sue on the matter of the implementation and enforcement of law. PRBoAOpening Statements (3)

5. PRBoAR.A. No. 9266 & Architectural Laws - Brief History:a) Took effect 10 April 2004;b) Signed into law by PGMA on 17 March 2004;c) Crafted from 2001 through 2004 in Congress by the UAP, PIA and AAIF with the full participation of the Phil. Inst. of Civil Engineers (PICE);d) Effort to amend R.A. No. 1581 at the BatasangPambansa in the early 1980s by the UAP;e) R.A. No. 1581 (amended Architecture Law) signed June 1956 together with R.A. No. 1582 (amended civil engineering/CE law); and f) R.A. No. 545 (organic Architecture Law) signed June 1950 together with R.A. No. 544 (organic CE law).

6. PRBoAP.D. No. 1096 (1977 NBCP)-Brief History:a) Took effect 1977 after it was signed into law by Pres. Ferdinand E. Marcos in February 1977;b) Extensive IRR promulgated by the DPWH in 1979;c) initial IRR revisions in the early 1990s;d) Revised IRR revisions promulgated by DPWH on 29 October 2004, published thrice in April 2005 and took effect on 01 May 2005;e) 2004 Revised IRR in effect over the period 01 – 24 May 2005;f) 2004 Revised IRR effectivityinterrupted by TROs and Injunction of 24 May 2005 on Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR;g)May 2005 Injunction on Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR lifted/ dissolved by Court Order on 29 January 2008; h)Lifting/ dissolution of the May 2005 Injunction on Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR affirmed by Court Order; andi)Copy of the 04 May 2009 Court Order delivered to DPWH & to OSG by the RTC Manila Branch 22 Court Sheriff.

7. PRBoAR.A. No. 9266 in relation to p.d. no. 1096 (1977 NBCP) and its 2004 R-IRR PRBoASecs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 (1977 NBCP) are in full effect! These sectionsLIMITthe signing and sealing of ARCHITECTURALdocuments only to RLAs and clearlyDEFINE the ARCHITECTURAL documents; NOTemporary Restraining Order (TRO); and NOWrit of Preliminary Injunction;Very Important Notes: The May 2005 Injunctionsecured by the PICE was lifted/ dissolvedon 29 January 2008 by a Court Order/ Decision. The Order/ Decision wasaffirmedby the Court on 04 May 2009. The 04 May 2009 Court Order was served by personal service today(10 August 2009) to the DPWH and the OSG by the Sheriff of RTC Manila Branch 22. PICE has alreadyappealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) but NO TRO has yet been issued as of 10 September 2009.

8. PRBoAUrgent and Special Concerns to be Addressed by RLAs:1) legal initiatives to fully implement and enforce R.A. No. 9266 e.g. addressing the continuing illegal practices by firms and individuals, acts by other state-regulated professions to co-opt the practice of architecture, continuing violations by national and local government officials, etc.;2) harmonize laws directly affecting practice under R.A. No. 9266 (P.D. No. 1096, R.A. No. 9514, B.P. No. 344, P.D. No. 957, B.P. No. 220, R.A. No. 9184, R.A. No. 7160, etc.) and their IRRs/derivative regulations;3) amend, repeal or create laws directly impacting the practice under R.A. No. 9266 (P.D. No. 1096, 4)media campaignfor the architectural profession and volunteerismat community level & a civic face for RLAs.

9. RLAs MUST NOW COMMENCE WITH THE FILING OF COMPLAINTS AT VARIOUS VENUES AGAINST KNOWN VIOLATORS OF BOTH R.A. NO. 9266 AND P.D. NO. 1096, TO SPECIFICALLY INCLUDE THE PICE, CIVIL ENGINEERS (CEs) WHO PREPARE, SIGN AND SEAL ARCHITECTURAL DOCUMENTS, BUILDING OFFICIALS & OTHER LOCAL AND NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO ACCEPT ARCHITECTURAL DOCUMENTS BEARING THE SIGNATURE AND SEAL OF CEs AND EVEN PRIVATE PERSONS WHO ENGAGE CEs TO DO AN RLA’s WORK. • OPENLY ENGAGE IN PUBLIC DISCOURSES AND PUBLIC DISSEMINATION ANENT THE ROLES OF THE ARCHITECTS VIS-À-VIS CIVIL ENGINEERS (CEs) PRBoAWhat the RLAs Must Now DO to Protect Their Privileges that are Apparently Being (Illegally) Co-opted by the CEs

10. PRBoAInitial Complaints to be Filed by RLAs and Their Organizations in Various VenuesA. Administrative Complaints B. Criminal ComplaintsC. Special Complaints D. Civil Complaints/ Suits/ Petitions

11. PRBoAA. Initial Administrative Complaints to File?1) At the Ombudsman vs. DPWH Sec. Ebdane, Mayor Robredo (Naga City), et.al. with the PICE/ CEs impleaded for being the primary beneficiary of their acts (RA No. 6713 & RA No. 3019 and for non-compliance with lawful court orders); 2) At the Integrated Bar of the Phils. (IBP) against the lawyers who had a hand in the preparation of the 2005 PICE Petition that relied on the apparently intercalated (potentially falsified) version of Sec. 302 of PD. No. 1096 to secure 2 TROs and an injunction against Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of PD No. 1096;

12. PRBoAB. Initial Criminal Complaint/s to File?1) At the RTC vs. PICE officials/ representatives (including their internal legal counsels) who signed the verified complaint, including those witnesses who falsely testified in open court that the intercalated documents i.e. Sec. 302 of P.D. No. 1096, being identified are true and authentic); and2) At the RTC vs. the publishers of intercalated versions of P.D. No. 1096 (1977 Natl Bldg Code / NBCP) & its 2004 Revised IRR and the DPWH Sec. for permitting/ endorsing such misleading publications.

13. PRBoAC. Initial Special Complaints to File?1) Indirect Contempt at the RTC vs. Sec. Ebdane, LGU officials, et.al. for their obstinate refusal to comply with 2 lawful Court Orders (re Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of PD No. 1096) despite their immediately executory nature; and2) at the Supreme Court with a Petition for Mandamus (R.A. No. 9266) vs. DPWH/Sec. Ebdane, DILG/LGUs, possibly the HLURB, HUDCC, et. al.;

14. PRBoAD. Initial Civil Complaints to File?1) At the RTC vs. the publisher of the intercalated (potentially falsified) version of P.D. No. 1096 and its 2004 Revised IRR (only if they refuse to correct the error after notice/ demand) ; and2) At the RTC vs. the PICE (only after the finality of Court decisions).

15. PRBoA Mabuhay angmgaArkitektong Pilipino!Mabuhay angmgatamangbatasnanararapatlamangipatupadngpamahalaan!Thank You and a Pleasant Evening to You All!