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)
PRBoA
Opening Statements (1)
1) 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).
2) 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 .
PRBoA
Opening Statements (2)
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.
4) 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).
PRBoA
Opening Statements (3)
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).
6) 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 .
7) 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.
PRBoA
R.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 Batasang
Pambansa 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).
PRBoA
P.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 effectivity interrupted 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; and
i)Copy of the 04 May 2009 Court Order delivered to DPWH & to
OSG by the RTC Manila Branch 22 Court Sheriff.
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 Court of
Appeals (CA) but NO TRO has yet been issued as of 10 September 2009.
PRBoA
Urgent 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 campaign for the architectural profession and
volunteerism at community level & a civic face for RLAs.
PRBoA
What the RLAs Must Now DO
to Protect Their Privileges that are Apparently
Being (Illegally) Co-opted by the CEs
1) 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.
2) OPENLY ENGAGE IN PUBLIC DISCOURSES AND
PUBLIC DISSEMINATION ANENT THE ROLES OF THE
ARCHITECTS VIS-À-VIS CIVIL ENGINEERS (CEs)
PRBoA
Initial Complaints to be Filed by RLAs
and Their Organizations
in Various Venues
A. Administrative Complaints
B. Criminal Complaints
C. Special Complaints
D. Civil Complaints/ Suits/
Petitions
PRBoA
A. 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;
PRBoA
B. 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);
and
2) 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.
PRBoA
C. 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; and
2) 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.;
PRBoA
D. 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) ; and
2) At the RTC vs. the PICE (only
after the finality of Court decisions).
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!