PRBoA
The Implementation &
Enforcement of R.A. No. 9266
(as of August 2009)
Delivered at a UAP-IAPOA
Induction/ Oath-taking Ceremony
August 2009
for the
PRC Professional Regulatory Board of Architecture
(PRBoA)
Archt. Armando N. ALLÍ
fuap, hfpia, aaif, apec ar
Chairman, PRBoA
(Resource Person)
PRBoA
R.A. No. 9266 and the Stream of Laws, Rules & Regulations LOWER than
International Agreements and the 1986 Philippine Constitution
Annotations:
Only the R.A. is the national
law i.e. a product of the
collaboration between the
legislative and executive
branches of government.
LGU ordinances must
conform to what is stated
under national laws such as
R.A.s, P.D.s and B.P.s.
IRRs are not laws but tools
to implement the law. IRRs
and all other regulations
are mere executive
issuances that could be
amended or repealed by the
executive branch as the
needs arise.
Most national laws do not
go beyond IRRs.
Laws/ Regulations
(Local Level)
Note: Laws do not Operate in Isolation but in Full
Interaction with Other Laws that are in Place.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Implementation & Enforcement of R.A. No. 9266 (as of August 2009)
August 2009
UAP-IAPOA Induction
PRBoA
R.A. No. 9266 Primary Stakeholders:
+/-24,000
Registered Architects or RAs (Natural Persons/ NPs,
including the deceased and retired);
+/-14,000 Registered & Licensed Architects or RLAs (NPs with
renewed, valid and current PRC ID cards/ licenses;
9,000 UAP-IAPOA Members (NPs including +/-300
College of Fellows/CoF Members, excluding GA & SA );
(+/-2,000) PIA Members (NPs);
(+/-200) AAIF Members (NPs);
+/-60 CODHASP Member Schools (Juridical Persons/
JPs made up of RLAs in a collaborative activity);
+/-35 Alumni Associations;
Student Associations; and
No Association of Firms (to succeed the CCAPP which folded up in late 2006).
+/-
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Implementation & Enforcement of R.A. No. 9266 (as of August 2009)
August 2009
UAP-IAPOA Induction
PRBoA
R.A. No. 9266 & Architectural Laws-Brief History:
Took effect 10 April 2004;
Signed into law by PGMA on 17 March 2004;
Crafted from 2001 through 2004 in Congress by the
UAP, PIA and AAIF with the participation of the Phil.
Inst. of Civil Engineers (PICE);
Effort to amend R.A. 1581 at the Batasang Pambansa in
the early 1980s by the UAP;
R.A. No. 1581 (amended Architecture Law) signed June
1956 together with R.A. No. 1582 (amended civil
engineering/CE law);
R.A. No. 545 (organic Architecture Law) signed June
1950 together with R.A. No. 544 (organic CE law).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Implementation & Enforcement of R.A. No. 9266 (as of August 2009)
August 2009
UAP-IAPOA Induction
PRBoA
P.D. No. 1096 (1977 NBCP)-Brief History:
Took effect 1977 after it was signed into law by PFEM in
February 1977;
Extensive IRR promulgated by the DPWH in 1979;
initial IRR revisions in the early 1990s;
Revised IRR revisions promulgated by DPWH on 29 October 2004,
published thrice in April 2005 and took effect on 01 May 2005;
2004 Revised IRR in effect over the period 01 – 24 May 2005;
2004 Revised IRR effectivity interrupted by TROs and Injunction
of 24 May 2005 on Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR;
May 2005 Injunction on Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR
lifted/ dissolved by Court Order on 29 January 2008;
Lifting/ dissolution of the May 2005 Injunction on Secs. 302.3 & 4
of the 2004 Revised IRR affirmed by Court Order; and
Copy of the 04 May 2009 Court Order delivered to DPWH by the
RTC Manila Branch 22 Court Sheriff.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Implementation & Enforcement of R.A. No. 9266 (as of August 2009)
August 2009
UAP-IAPOA Induction
R.A. No. 9266 in relation to
p.d. no. 1096 (1977 NBCP) and its 2004 R-IRR
Sec. 302 of P.D. No. 1096 (the 1977 NBCP) does NOT state that Civil Engineers
(CEs) can sign or seal ARCHITECTURAL Documents was again Reconfirmed in
June 2009 by the National Printing Office (NPO) and the Malacañang Records
Office as Authentic & Un-amended since February 1977
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Implementation & Enforcement of R.A. No. 9266 (as of August 2009)
August 2009
UAP-IAPOA Induction
for the PRC PRBoA (Archt. Armando N. ALLI, fuap, hfpia, aaif, apec ar, PRBoA Chairman as Resource Person)
PRBoA
Section Nos. No. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of p.d. no. 1096 (1977 NBCP) HAVE BEEN IN
EFFECT SINCE FEBRUARY 2008
1) The May 2005 Injunction (based on a clear misrepresentation of Sec. 302 of P.D. No. 1096 and
the supposed right of the CEs to sign and seal ARCHITECTURAL documents ) on Secs. 302.3 & 4
of the 2004 Revised IRR (R-IRR) of P.D. No. 1096 (1977 NBCP) was LIFTED/ DISSOLVED by the
Court (RTC Mnaila Branch 22) in its Order (cum Decision) signed 29 January 2008; the Court
Order was to take effect automatically in accordance with the Rules of Court and with Philippine
jurisprudence, notwithstanding the CEs’ Motion for Reconsideration (resolved by the Court on 04
May 2009) and all the issued 2005, 2007 and 2008 DPWH Memoranda; all national and local
government officials had to comply with the 29 January 2008 Court Order; this meant that the 2004
R-IRR implementation interrupted by the May 2005 Injunction had already RESUMED effectivity
automatically; as early as February 2008, the DPWH and its Building Officials had to LIMIT the
signing and sealing of ARCHITECTURAL documents only to RLAs and clearly abide by the
DEFINITION of the ARCHITECTURAL documents; all these officials who refused to abide by the
Court Order have clearly violated the 29 January 2008 Court Order and are clearly LIABLE;
2) The 04 May 2009 Court Order AFFIRMING its 29 January 2008 lifting/dissolution of the
Injunction on Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 R-IRR confirms that these are in full effect! the DPWH
and its Building Officials have to LIMIT the signing and sealing of ARCHITECTURAL documents
only to RLAs and clearly abide by the DEFINITION of the ARCHITECTURAL documents. While
the CEs may have the right to appeal the Court Orders/ Decision at the Court of Appeals (CA), the
29 January 2008 and the 04 May 2009 Court Orders have to be followed in the absence of any Order
form the CA. Should the CA issue a TRO/Injunction again based on the possible misrepresentations
of Sec. 302 of P.D. No. 1096 by the CEs , the case must be elevated soonest by the RLAs to the
Supreme Court on a question of law (petitions for certiorari and mandamus).
The Implementation & Enforcement of R.A. No. 9266 (as of August 2009)
August 2009 UAP-IAPOA Induction
for the PRC PRBoA (Archt. Armando N. ALLI, fuap, hfpia, aaif, apec ar, PRBoA Chairman as Resource Person)
PRBoA
R.A. No. 9266 in relation to
p.d. no. 1096 (1977 NBCP) and its 2004 R-IRR
Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D.
No. 1096 (1977 NBCP) are in full effect! These
sections LIMIT the signing and sealing of
ARCHITECTURAL documents only to RLAs and
clearly DEFINE the ARCHITECTURAL
documents;
NO Temporary Restraining Order (TRO); and
NO Writ of Preliminary Injunction;
Very Important Notes: The May 2005 Injunction secured by the PICE was lifted/
dissolved on 29 January 2008 by a Court Order/ Decision. The Order/ Decision
was affirmed by 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 already appealed to the CA.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Implementation & Enforcement of R.A. No. 9266 (as of August 2009)
10 August 2009
UAP Taytay Induction
PRBoA
What is the Effect of the 10 August 2009
Serving of the 04 May 2009 Court Order by
Personal Service (by the Sheriff of RTC Manila Branch 22)
to DPWH Sec. Ebdane & his Counsel?
The event means that the interrupted implementation and
enforcement of Secs. 302.3 & 4 (already in effect from 01
through 24 May 2005) have RESUMED as of 10 August
2009.
All Building Officials (BOs) nationwide must now
implement and enforce Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004
Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 (1977 NBCP).
There may be no need for a DPWH Memorandum Order
as the Court Order is immediately executory under the
Rules of Court and Phil. Jurisprudence.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Implementation & Enforcement of R.A. No. 9266 (as of August 2009)
August 2009
UAP-IAPOA Induction
PRBoA
Why did the UAP-IAPOA Intervene in the 2005
Petition Filed by the PICE vs. DPWH Sec. Ebdane?
1) While purportedly about Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised
IRR of P.D. No. 1096 (1977 NBCP), the 2005 PICE Petition was
an indirect attack on R.A. No. 9266; it appeared to be an attempt to
amend R.A. No. 9266 through a court decision;
2) The RLAs through the UAP-IAPOA had to protect R.A. No.
9266 in the subject civil case only through intervention i.e. the
UAP was not originally a party to the civil case; and
3) An uncontested lower court decision favoring CEs and with a
certificate of finality could have the effect of changing the
provisions of R.A. No. 9266 that LIMIT to RLAs the signing and
sealing of ARCHITECTURAL documents and that DEFINE
ARCHITECTURAL documents i.e. just as Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the
2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 did.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Implementation & Enforcement of R.A. No. 9266 (as of August 2009)
August 2009
UAP-IAPOA Induction
PRBoA
R.A. No. 9266 Implementation Successes:
Some LGUs are already fully or partially
implementing/ enforcing R.A. No. 9266 via Administrative
Orders (AOs);
Some National Government Agencies (NGAs) and
LGUs require RLAs or registered architectural firms
(RAFs) in their procurement activities under R.A. No. 9184/GPRA;
HLURB now requires temporary/ special permits
(TSPs) for Foreign Architects (FAs) preparing plans for
subdivision and condominium projects;
BID now also requires TSPs from PRC for Foreign
Architects (FAs) preparing plans for Philippine projects;
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Implementation & Enforcement of R.A. No. 9266 (as of August 2009)
August 2009
UAP-IAPOA Induction
PRBoA
+/-2-Year Due Process Flow of Criminal
Complaints for R.A. No. 9266 Violations:
1) Complaint filed at the PRC;
2) PRBoA establishes prima facie finding;
3) Complaint Endorsed to DoJ Secretary;
4) after review, DoJ Secretary endorses to either
the NBI or Local Prosecutor/Fiscal;
5) Local Fiscal investigates and either files information with the Court (if there is probable cause) or reverseendorses the complaint to either the DoJ Secretary or the
PRC/ PRBoA (in case of no finding of probable cause) i.e.
STILL NO CRIMINAL CASE FILED IN COURT AFTER +/-2 YEARS!!!
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Implementation & Enforcement of R.A. No. 9266 (as of August 2009)
August 2009
UAP-IAPOA Induction
PRBoA
Continuing Threats to Philippine registered &
licensed architects (RLAs) & their practice:
GOVERNMENT in general (National & LGUs);
MEDIA in general;
BIG BUSINESS in general;
OTHER PROFESSIONALS in general;
FOREIGN CONSULTANTS/ BPO Firms;
UNREGISTERED PERSONS;
(including persons with some knowledge of architecture
e.g. students, apprentices, etc.)
RLAs themselves, Apathy, Complacency, etc.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Implementation & Enforcement of R.A. No. 9266 (as of August 2009)
August 2009
UAP-IAPOA Induction
PRBoA
Urgent and Special Concerns:
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) the Standards of Professional Practice;
3) the GATS, APEC Architect Registry and ASEAN MRA;
4) the CPE/ CPD program;
5) 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;
6) the B.S. Architecture curriculum;
7) media campaign for the architectural profession; and
8) volunteerism at community level and a civic face for RLAs.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Implementation & Enforcement of R.A. No. 9266 (as of August 2009)
August 2009
UAP-IAPOA Induction
PRBoA
Mabuhay ang mga Arkitektong Pilipino!
Mabuhay ang mga tamang batas na nararapat lamang
ipatupad ng pamahalaan!
Thank You
and
a Pleasant Evening
to You All!
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Implementation & Enforcement of R.A. No. 9266 (as of August 2009)
August 2009
UAP-IAPOA Induction