1 / 37

Get the Facts Right! And Do What is Right!

Get the Facts Right! And Do What is Right! (A RLA ’s* Generic Briefing Material for Government Officials / Public Sector and for Clients/ the Private Sector and the Media ) * Registered and Licensed Architect updated 18 October 2009

renata
Download Presentation

Get the Facts Right! And Do What is Right!

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Get the Facts Right! And Do What is Right! (A RLA’s* Generic Briefing Materialfor Government Officials/ Public Sector and for Clients/ the Private Sector and the Media) *Registered and Licensed Architect updated 18October 2009 PRC Professional Regulatory Board of Architecture (PRBoA) Ar Armando N. ALLÍ fuap, hfpia, aaif, apecar Chairman, PRBoA (Resource Person) PRBoAwww.architectureboard.ph

  2. PRBoAwww.architectureboard.phI. The Architectural Profession . . . • is a several thousand (millennia) old profession that dates back to the antiquities i.e. pre-Greek civilizations, etc.; • was the profession of the master builders i.e. “arkitekton” in Greek or the prime “professionals” for buildings at the time; • encompassed parts of many modern-day professions, including architectonics and structural design i.e. already segregated from the recognized modern-day scope of the practice of architecture (specially in the Philippines, by law); • was NEVER part of any other known professional calling i.e. architecture has never everbeen part of civil engineering; and • is internationally associated with (and is dictionary-defined as the profession most related to) BUILDINGS i.e. structures used for habitation and related uses.

  3. PRBoA www.architectureboard.phII. The Civil Engineering (CE) Profession . . . • evolved from military/ fortifications engineering in the past i.e. the term “engineering” came into use possibly only in the last 450 years while the term “civil engineering” is apparently only about 170 years old; • encompassed many modern-day professions including geodetic & sanitary engineering i.e. already segregated from the recognized modern-day scope of the practice of civil engineering in the Philippines (by law); • has NEVER ever encompassed or subsumed the separateprofession of architecture in the history of civilization; and • is internationally associated with (and is dictionary-defined as the profession most related to)roads, bridges, dams, civil works, etc. and with the construction of (and never the architectural planning nor design of) buildings.

  4. PRBoA www.architectureboard.phIII. The Philippine Architecture Law . . . • is R.A. No. 9266 (the Architecture Act of 2004) which has been signed into law by HE PGMA on 17 March 2004 and which has been in effect since 10 April 2004; • is implemented and enforced by the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) and the Professional Regulatory Board of Architecture (PRBoA)thru representations with the executive agencies and instrumentalities of the national and local governments i.e. NGAs, GOCCs, LGUs, etc.; • prescribes that only registered and licensed architects (RLAs)shall practice architecture on Philippine soil; • governs the practice of about 24,500 Philippine registered architects (PRAs) and approx. 14,000 registered and licensed architects (RLAs), the only natural persons under Philippine law who can legallyprepare, sign and seal ARCHITECTURAL documents(specifically architectural PLANS) .

  5. PRBoAwww.architectureboard.phIVa. The Philippine Civil Eng’g (CE) Law . . • is R.A. No. 544 of 1950, as REPEALED byR.A. No. 1582of 1956 (which repealed Sec. 24 of R.A. No. 544); • provides for the segregation of the practice and responsibilities of CEs and Architects (reference R.A. No. 1582, Sec. 24); • does NOT state that CEs can prepare, sign or seal ARCHITECTURAL documents, specifically arch’l PLANS; • does NOT state that CEs can prepare, sign or seal electrical/ mechanical/ sanitary/ electronics engineering documents; • does NOT state that CEs who have NOTspecialized in structural design CANNOT prepare, sign nor seal STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING documents; • governs the practice of about 114,000 Philippine registered CEs (PRCEs) and approx. 80,000 registered and licensed CEs (RLCEs), the only natural persons under Philippine law who can legally prepare, sign and seal CIVIL AND/OR STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING documents.

  6. PRBoAwww.architectureboard.phIVb. Sec. 24 of R.A. No. 1582 reads as follows . . . REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1582  - AN ACT TO REPEAL AND REPLACE SECTION TWENTY-FOUR OF REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED FIVE HUNDRED FORTY-FOUR, ENTITLED "AN ACT TO REGULATE THE PRACTICE OF CIVIL ENGINEERING IN THE PHILIPPINES" Section 1.    Section twenty-four of Republic Act Numbered Five hundred forty-four is hereby repealed, and in lieu thereof, the said section shall provide as follows:  "Section 24.    The practice of civil engineering is a professional service, admission to which must be determined upon individual, personal qualifications. Hence, no firm, partnership, corporation or association may be registered or licensed as such for the practice of civil engineering: Provided, however, That persons properly registered and licensed as civil engineers may, among themselves or with a person or persons properly registered and licensed as architects, form, and obtain registration of, a firm, partnership or association using the term "Engineers" or "Engineers and Architects," but, nobody shall be a member or partner of such firm, partnership or association unless he is a duly licensed civil engineer or architect, and the members who are civil engineers shall only render work and services proper for a civil engineer, as defined in this Act, and the members who are architects shall also only render work and services proper for an architect, as defined in the law regulating the practice of architecture; individual members of such firms, partnership or association shall be responsible for their own respective acts.Section 2.    This Act shall take effect upon its approval. Approved: June 16, 1956  

  7. PRBoAwww.architectureboard.phIVc. As early as June 1956 (53 years ago), Sec. 24 of R.A. No. 1582 (the CE law) already clearly distinguished the roles and responsibili- ties of Civil Engineers and Architects. . . "Section 24.    xxx That persons properly registered and licensed as civil engineers may, among themselves or with a person or persons properly registered and licensed as architects, form, and obtain registration of, a firm, partnership or association xxx, and the members who are civil engineers shall only render work and services proper for a civil engineer, as defined in this Act,and the members who are architects shall also only render work and services proper for an architect, as defined in the law regulating the practice of architecture; individual members of such firms, partnership or association shall beresponsible for their own respective acts.

  8. PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph V. The Main Architectural Documents are… • site development plan (SDP); • architectural perspectives (exterior, interior & sectional) for buildings; • architecturalfloor, ceiling and roof PLANS for buildings; • architectural sections and elevations for buildings; • architectural detail designs and drawings; • architectural interior (AI) plans, designs, etc.; • architectural specifications(including schedules of finishes, fixtures & non-engineering equipment or FFE); and • architectural estimates.

  9. PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph VI. The Main Civil Eng’g Documents are… • site civil works plan (including grading and drainage); • foundation plan for buildings; • floor, ceiling and roof structural framing plans for buildings; • structural engineering sections and elevations for buildings; • civil works & structural detail designs and drawings; • civil works and structural engineering design specifications, schedules and computations; and • civil works and structural engineering design estimates.

  10. PRBoA www.architectureboard.phVII. Minimum Qualifications under Philippine Law of Registered and Licensed Architects (RLAs) to Prepare, Sign and Seal ARCHITECTURAL Documents, specifically architectural PLANS:1)B.S. ARCHITECTURE degree (5-year course); 2)2 year (or equivalent 3,840 hours) of diversified experience in architecture (DEA) i.e. apprenticeship under a Mentor-RLA;3)a general average of 70% (as passing mark) in the licensure examination for architects (LEA) given by the PRC; the LEA is ALL about the ARCHITECTURAL planning & design of BUILDINGS, their grounds and environs.4)Architect’s Certificate of Registration & PRC ID card, signature in the Architect’s Registry Book and Recitation of the Architect’s Oath before the PRC/ PRBoA; and5)membership in the integrated & accredited professional organization of architects (IAPOA).

  11. PRBoA www.architectureboard.phVIII. Minimum Qualifications under Philippine Law of Registered and Licensed Civil Engineers (RLCEs) to Prepare, Sign and Seal CIVIL & STRUCTURAL Documents:1)B.S. Civil Engineering degree (5-year course);2)a passing grade in the licensure examination for civil engineers (LECE) given by the PRC; Very Important Note: the LECE does NOT test site development planning nor architectural planning and design capabilities/ skillsets required for buildingsi.e. there is NO LECE subject on the site planning of building grounds/ environs nor of the architectural planning and design of buildings; and3)Civil Engineer (CE)’s Certificate of Registration & PRC ID card, signature in the CE Registry Book and Recitation of the Professional’s Oath.

  12. PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph IX. P.D. No. 1096(The 1977 National Building Code of the Philippines/ NBCP) . . . • Its Sec. 302 NEVER stated that Civil Engineers (CEs) can sign or seal ARCHITECTURAL plans/ documents i.e. duly certified by the National Printing Office (which publishes the Official Gazette) and by the Malacañang Records Office (which safeguards all documents promulgated by the Office of the President); • Its Sec. 302 also did NOT state that Architects shall sign or seal ARCHITECTURAL documents (which was later repealed by R.A. No. 9266, The Architecture Act of 2004); and • It is a valid and subsisting lawi.e. in full effect, that has remained unchanged since 1977, as duly certified by the Malacañang Records Office in 2005 and 2009.

  13. PRBoAwww.architectureboard.ph IXa. Sec. 302 of P.D. No. 1096 (The 1977 NBCP)Original (Authentic/Correct) TextIntercalated (& Wrong) Text

  14. PRBoAwww.architectureboard.ph IXb. June 2009 National Govt Certifications for Sec. 302 of P.D. No. 1096 (The 1977 NBCP)Office of the President National Printing Office

  15. PRBoAwww.architectureboard.ph IXc. Sec. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 (The 1977 NBCP) as published thrice in 2005 by DPWH

  16. PRBoAwww.architectureboard.ph X. Status of Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 (the 1977 National Building Code of the Philippines/ NBCP) • was briefly in effect over the period 01 to circa 24 May 2005; • effectivity interrupted by the 2 temporary restraining orders (TROs) and the injunction secured by the PICE on the basis of the intercalated(and wrongly worded) text of Sec. 302 of P.D. No. 1096 which purported that CEs can sign and seal ARCHITECTURAL PLANS/ documents; • injunction LIFTED/ DISSOLVED through a Decision promulgated by the Court (Manila RTC Branch 22) on 29 January 2008; despite the executory nature of the Decision, the DPWH refused to comply; • January 2008 Court order AFFIRMED on 04 May 2009; the DPWH apparently still refusesto comply without reason; contrast this with the DPWH action in 2005 when the DPWH almost immediately complied with the TROs & injunction (already DISSOLVED).

  17. PRBoAwww.architectureboard.ph XI. Are there legal impediments to the implementation of Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 (NBCP)? NONE whatsoever !!!No TRO by any RTC (as of 24 May 2005). No RTC Injunction (as of about 29 January 2008). Already fullyharmonizedby the DPWH with R.A. No. 9266, a valid and subsisting law (as of 01 May 2005).With a lawful and EXECUTORY Decision/ Court Order mandating their implementation and enforcement by ALL national and local government officials (as of 04 May 2009). No TRO issued by the CA (as of 18 Oct 2009). No CA Injunction (as of 18 Oct 2009).

  18. PRBoA www.architectureboard.phXII. Has the Philippine Institute of CEs(PICE) Appealed the 29 January 2008 & 04 May 2009 Court Orders?Yes. The PICE Notice of Appeal is now with Court of Appeals (CA).Does an Appeal mean that Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 cannot be implemented and enforced despite the Court Decision and Order promulgated by Manila RTC Branch 22?NO. As with the 2005 TROs/ injunction on Secs. 302.3&4 that were immediately enforced by the DPWH, the January 2008 Decision (& May 2009 Court Order) LIFTING/DISSOLVING the injunction on Secs. 302.3&4 are EXECUTORY, particularly in light of the validity of R.A. No. 9266 The DPWH, NGAs, GOCCs and the LGUs must perforce fully comply immediately and unconditionally. Otherwise, their officials may become clearly liable for GRAFT charges, etc. before the Office of the Ombudsman.

  19. PRBoAwww.architectureboard.phXIII. What does the PICE hope to achieve with its appeal filed at the Court of Appeals (CA)? The PICE is hoping to overturn the 29 January 2008RTC Manila Branch 22Decision and to secure an injunction on Secs. 302.3 & 4 from the CA.Can the CA issue another set of TRO/s and injunction?Apparently Yes but only if there is absolute merit in the PICE appeal. The PICE are probably still relying on the intercalated (and wrongfully worded) text of Sec. 302 of P.D. No. 1096 that purports that CEs can sign and seal ARCHITECTURAL PLANS/ documents.

  20. PRBoAwww.architectureboard.phXIV. Is P.D. No. 1096 a higher law compared to R.A. No. 9266? Not really. They are both valid and subsisting laws enacted by entities exercising legislative and executive functions. What is R.A. No. 9266(of 2004) in relation to P.D. No. 1096(of 1977)?R.A. No. 9266 is a SPECIAL lawthat may actually be considered as higher than a general law like P.D. No. 1096. R.A. No. 9266 is also a LATER lawthat contains implied REPEAL provisions directly affecting the content, interpretation, implementation and enforcement of P.D. No. 1096, an earlier law.

  21. PRBoAwww.architectureboard.phXV. Does the DPWH Secretary regulate the separate State-regulated professions of architecture and civil engineering? NO. NEVER. ABSOLUTELY NOT, unless he wants to be a usurper of PRC and PRBoA functions, which is still illegal.Can the DPWH Secretary be held liable for NOT implementing and enforcing R.A. No. 9266 and P.D. No. 1096?ABSOLUTELY. He has been sworn to uphold valid and subsisting laws such as R.A. No. 9266 and P.D. No. 1096(the very law the DPWH Secretary is supposed to implement and enforce). Yet, he apparently still obstinately refusesto implement the law. Could it be that the DPWH Secretary thinks he is above the law???

  22. PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph XVI. R.A. No. 9266 Stipulation that only a Registered and Licensed Architect (RLA) shall Prepare, Sign & Seal Architectural DocumentsSEC. 20. Seal, Issuance and Use of Seal. - A duly licensed architect shall affix the seal prescribed by the Board bearing the registrant's name, registration number and title "Architect" on allarchitectural plans, drawings, specifications and all other contract documents prepared by or under his/her direct supervision.(2) No officer or employee of this Republic, chartered cities, provinces and municipalities, now or hereafter charged with the enforcement of laws, ordinances or regulations relating to the construction or alteration of buildings, shall accept or approve any architectural plans or specifications which have not been prepared and submitted in full accord with all the provisions of this Act(R.A. No. 9266); nor shall any payments be approved by any such officer for any work, the plans and specifications for which have not been so prepared and signed and sealed by the author (referring to a registered/ licensed architect).Allarchitecturalplans, designs, specifications, drawings and architectural documentsrelative to the construction of a building shall bear the seal and signature only of an architect registered and licensed under this Act together with his/her professional identification card number and the date of its expiration.

  23. PRBoAwww.architectureboard.ph XVII. R.A. No. 9266 Stipulation that only a Registered and Licensed Architect (RLA) shall fill ALL Positions in Government Requiring the Services of RLAs (already in FULL EFFECT since 10 April 2007)Sec. 35. Positions in Government Requiring the Services of Registered and Licensed Architects. - Within (3) years from the effectivity of this Act, all existing and proposed positions in the local and national government, whether career, permanent, temporary or contractual and primarily requiring the services of an architect shall be filled only by registered and licensed architects.What are these positions in Government?1)Building Official, if other than in an acting capacity as provided for in Sec. 477 of R.A. No. 7160, (The Local Government Code), the pertinent portions of which are already considered repealed by R.A. No. 9266, a special and later law; and 2)Staff or Officials of the local or national government agency or office who prepare, review or approve ANY form of ARCHITECTURAL PLAN/ document.

  24. PRBoAwww.architectureboard.ph XVIIIa. Are there legal impediments to the full implementation and enforcement of R.A. No. 9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004)?NONE whatsoever!!! No TRO (from 10 April 2004 to date/ 18 Oct 2009). No Injunction (from 10 April 2004 to date/ 18 Oct 2009). No Pending Constitutional Question. A valid and subsisting law since 10 April 2004and for the implementation and enforcement by ALL national and local government officials.Has a codified/ coherent set of implementing rules and regulations (IRR) to guide the executive branch of the Philippine Government (at all its levels)in the full and proper implementation and enforcement of R.A. No. 9266.

  25. PRBoAwww.architectureboard.ph XXVIIIb. What does Sec. 43 of R.A. No. 9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004) Say and Mean?Sec. 43. Act Not Affecting Other Professionals. – This Act shall not be construed to affect or preventthe practice of any other legally recognized profession.This provision dates back to the 1950s and is reprised in R.A. No. 9266. The legislative intent was precisely to segregate the professional practices of the Architects and the civil engineers (CEs) i.e. NO overlaps intended by the lawmakers. This provision CANNOT be invoked by the CEs to say that they have been preparing ARCHITECTURAL documents since the 1950s, simply because NO Philippine law states that CEs can prepare, sign or seal ARCHITECTURAL plans/ documents.

  26. PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph XIXa. How does R.A. No. 9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004) Relate to Other Laws?R.A. No. 9266 is a special and later law that contains implied and express repeal provisions that amend or supersede conflicting provisions in other general, special or earlier laws i.e. P.D. No. 1096 (1977 Natl Bldg Code of the Phils./ NBCP), R.A. No. 544, as amended by R.A. No. 1582 (CE law), R.A. No. 7160 (Local Gov’t Code) and R.A. No. 9184 (Gov’t Procurement Reform Act/ GPRA of 2003), P.D. No. 957 (Condominium & Subdivision Law), etc.

  27. PRBoAwww.architectureboard.ph XIXb. How does R.A. No. 9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004) Relate to the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRRs) of Other Laws, Department Administrative Orders and Memorandum Circulars (especially those issued by the DPWH Secretary)?R.A. No. 9266 is a LAW/ STATUTE crafted by the legislative and executive branches of the Philippine Government. R.A. No. 9266CAN NEVER BE MODIFIED, AMENDED NOR SUPERSEDED by mere or inferior EXCUTIVE ISSUANCES such as IRRs of other laws, DPWH Administrative or DPWH Memorandum Circulars. These executive issuances can and MUST be fully HARMONIZED with R.A. No. 9266 but NOT/ NEVER go against it, unless their legal bases i.e. special laws approved after 10 April 2004 specifically provide for such. NOTE:R.A. No. 9266 is a valid and subsisting law that has been in effect since 10 April 2009 (5.5 years ago). There is NO TRO, NO injunction and NO pending constitutional question on ANY provision of R.A. No. 9266 and it MUST therefore be fully implemented and enforced by ALL Philippine national and local government officials.

  28. PRBoAwww.architectureboard.ph XIXc. What is the effect of the 2008 Decision & 2009 Court Order by Manila RTC Branch 22?The Court Decision and Order basically mandates the DPWH Secretary to RESUME the INTERRUPTED implementation and and enforcement of Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 (the 1977 Nat’l Bldg Code of the Phils.), which were already in effect over the period 01 May 2005 through circa 24 May 2005. What is the effect of a DPWH Memorandum Circular issued after 2005 on the Original Effectivity of Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 (1977 NBCP)? NOTHING. All DPWH Memorandum Circulars, issued after 2005 and which may violate or visibly fail to comply with executory Court Orders, appear NOT to modify, amend repeal nor supersede the original effectivity of the said sections, attained by three (3) national publications of the DPWH on 01, 08 & 15 April 2005.

  29. PRBoAwww.architectureboard.ph XIXd. Is a DPWH Memorandum Circular (issued by the DPWH Secretary) superior to a Court Order?NO, NEVER. The DPWH Secretary MUST dutifully comply with lawful Court Orders, such as the 2 that require the DPWH to implement and enforce Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 (the 1977 Nat’l Bldg Code of the Phils.). Is an LGU Official LIABLE for following a DPWH Memorandum Order ? YES, particularly if the DPWH Memorandum Circular violates or visibly fails to comply with executory Court Orders (for compliance by all Philippine national and local government officials).

  30. PRBoA www.architectureboard.phXX. What LGUs are already actively and fully implementing and enforcing R.A. No. 9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004) as of September 2009?The Chartered Cities of Davao and Butuan(Mindanao); Tacloban and Iloilo(Visayas); and Legaspi and Vigan(Luzon).The Province of Cavite(Luzon).

  31. PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph XXI. From April 2004 to date, is there any case, complaint or petition filed by CEs/ PICE in any venue Against R.A. No. 9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004) itself?NONE whatsoever!!! Why is this? It is probably because R.A. No. 9266 is a STRONG LAW with very sound legal bases. It is also probably because representatives of the PICE took part in its crafting fro 2002 through 2004. As may be recalled, a specific provision of R.A. No. 9266 relating to the appointment of RLAs to positions in government i.e. requiring the expertise of RLAs, was amended at the Congressional Bi-Cameral Conference Committee level in early 2004 precisely to accommodate the various last minute representations made by the CEs in Congress.

  32. PRBoAwww.architectureboard.ph XXII. Are there legal impediments to the full implementation and enforcement of R.A. No. 9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004) and of P.D. No. 1096 (The 1977 National Building Code of the Philippines)?NONE whatsoever!!! Why is this? R.A. No. 9266 and P.D. No. 1096, both HAVE a codified/ coherent set of implementing rules and regulations (IRR) promulgated by the Professional Regulatory Board of Architecture (PRBoA) and approved by the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) in the case of R.A. No. 9266 andby the DPWH in the case of P.D. No. 1096. Thus, the DPWH, the other NGAs, the GOCCs and the LGUs HAVE very firm legal bases to implement and enforce both R.A. No. 9266 and P.D. No. 1096 and ALL of their provisions, specifically Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096, which LIMIT to Architects (RLAs) the matter of signing and sealing ARCHITECTUIRAL PLANS/ documents. Lastly, the 2008 Decision & 2009 Court Order to fully implement Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 (1977 NBCP) are EXECUTORY by ALL Philippine Government officials. While it may be true that the PICE has filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals (CA), there is apparently NO TRO/ injunction issued by the CA as of 18 October 2009.

  33. PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph XXIII. Are there possible legal IMPEDIMENTS to the full implementation of R.A. No. 1582 of 1956, which amended R.A. No. 544 of 1950, the Civil Engineering Law) by the Executive Branch of Government?YES! Why is this?R.A. No. 1582, which amended R.A. No. 544, apparently to this date (or after more than50 years after their passage) still does NOT have a codified/ coherent set of implementing rules and regulations (IRR) promulgated by the Professional Regulatory Board of Civil Engineering (PRBoCE) nor approved by the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC). Thus, the DPWH, the other NGAs, the GOCCs and the LGUs, which are all executive agencies, apparently do NOT have a firm legal basis to implement and enforce R.A. No. 1582 or ANY of its provisions.

  34. PRBoA www.architectureboard.phXXIV. Why are the 2008 and 2009 Court Orders re Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 (the 1977 NBCP)EXECUTORY by ALL national and local Philippine Government Officials?The Court’s 04 May 2009 Order AFFIRMING its 29 January 2008 Decision LIFTING/ DISSOLVING its 24 May 2005 injunction are all EXECUTORY i.e. reference Rule 39 Sec. 4 of the Rules of Court; Crisostomo vs. SEC, 179 SCRA 146; Santiago vs. Vasquez, 217 SCRA 633; Marcelo Steel Corp vs. 54 SCRA 89; Golez vs. Leonidas, 107 SCRA 187. Since Sections 302.3 and 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096(1977 National Building Code of the Philippines/ NBCP) have already been IN EFFECT from 01 through circa 24 May 2005 (by virtue of the IRR effectivity obtained by national publication), the DPWH and ALL other Philippine Government Officials must therefore CONTINUE with the INTERRUPTED implementation/ enforcement of the said sections, to fully comply with the Court’s 2009 Order and 2008 Decision. Important Note: It has been more than eighteen (18) months since the Court promulgated its 2008 LIFTING/ DISSOLUTION Order. To date i.e. 18 October 2009, the DPWH apparently continues to resist not only the Court Order but also fail to implement/ enforce valid & subsisting laws such as R.A No. 9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004) and even P.D. No. 1096 itself, the very law the DPWH is supposed to fully implement/ enforce.

  35. PRBoA www.architectureboard.phXXVI. Will DPWH Memorandum Circulars protect National and Local Government Officials from Possible Complaints/ Suits Arising from Violations of Valid and Subsisting Laws such as P.D. No. 1096 and R.A. No. 9266 or of EXECUTORY Court Orders?NO. Mere executive issuances such as DPWH Memorandum Circulars issued to ALL Building Officials Nationwide MUST have a clear basis in law. If such DPWH Memorandum Circulars violate valid and subsisting laws such as P.D. No. 1096, R.A. No. 9266, etc. (or are issued without the benefit of a proper public consultative process or of national publication),thereby making the same benefit a particular sector of society (such as civil engineers who INSIST on practicing architecture), then the Philippine Government Officials who subscribe to, implement and enforce such potentially illegal executive issuances themselves become administratively, criminally and civilly LIABLE under the laws violated. The DPWH Memorandum Circulars are NOT laws but are only supposed to be tools to implement, NOT violate laws .

  36. PRBoA www.architectureboard.phXXVII. A. Is a national/ LGU Official LIABLE for following a DPWH Memorandum Circular that may be violative of a Court Order?YES, and he/she can also be sued for Indirect Contempt at the RTC!B. Is a national/ LGU Official LIABLE for following a DPWH Memorandum Circular that may be violative of the original effectivity of Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 (1977 NBCP), already effectively mandated for RESUMPTION by the Court ‘s Order?YES, and he/she can be sued administratively and criminally for such acts!C. Is a national/ LGU Official LIABLE for possible violations of R.A. No. 9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004)? YES, and he/she can be sued CRIMINALLY at the RTC!D. Can a national/ LGU Official be charged with GRAFT for the foregoing?YES, he/she can be sued at the Ombudsman, together with the private sector entities (e.g. CEs insisting on the practice of architecture) who directly/ indirectly benefit from the acts of the national/ LGU official!

  37. Mabuhay ang mga Arkitektong Pilipino!Mabuhay ang mga TAMANG BATAS, mga takdang regulasyon at mga Utos ng Korte na nararapat lamang na ipatupad o sundin ng Pamahalaang Pilipinasat ng LAHAT ng kawani nito !!!Thank You and a Pleasant Morning to You All !!! PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph

More Related