1. Featured Articles
  2. Real Estate News
  3. Featured Properties
  4. Real Estate Tips
  5. Broker Tips
  6. Lifestyle
  7. Free Resources
See all Real Estate News

Zoning Permit of Torre De Manila Questioned by SC

Manila, Philippines – A series of oral arguments have been set in The Supreme Court to hear Knights of Rizal’s case against DMCI on Torre De Manila’s visual dominance to Rizal Monument.

No Compromise on Torre De Manila’s Facade

Proposals to alter the facade of Torre De Manila were rejected by DMCI Project Developer Inc. in an oral argument in The Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday, August 11. DMCI Lawyer Roberto Dio stated that the proposal raised by Knights of Rizal to compromise Torre De Manila’s façade is not feasible due to the building’s balconies. Other proposals such as converting its exterior to a mirror wall to reflect Rizal Park is also not feasible, said Dio.

According to Dio, DMCI offered a proposal to the management of Rizal Park to plant trees around the historical landmark, protecting Rizal Park’s view. However, Dio revealed that the proposal was rejected. There are no plans to compromise design of Torre De Manila with Dio stating that over 800 unit buyers are unlikely to agree on alterations to the building’s design.

Layers of Protection Ignored

On the oral argument in The Supreme Court on August 11, Dio affirmed that DMCI did not violate the Constitution. Lawyers of DMCI told the high court that Torre De Manila is not a photobomber to Rizal Park and pleaded The Supreme Court to lift the temporary restraining order which prevents the completion of the building.

During the fourth oral argument on the Torre De Manila case on Tuesday, August 18, The Supreme Court (SC) justice confirmed that the rule of law was violated when former Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim approved the permit to DMCI’s application on the construction of the 49-storey building despite height limits on its site on Taft Avenue.

Associate Justice Francis H. Jardaleza cited excerpts from the Ordinance No. 8119, or known as the Manila Zoning Ordinance, stating that four layers of protection were not followed when Manila government issued the permit to developer DMCI:

  1. A maximum floor area-ratio of 4 is imposed on buildings under University Cluster;
  2. Building regulations in histo-cultural preservation zones is prescribed under the Section 22 of the ordinance;
  3. The floor-area ratio must be complied with in all instances and validity of this requirement will only be superseded by regulations specified zone as stated in Section 23;
  4. Under Section 47, a heritage impact statement must be submitted to the city planning gand development office.

No Application for Variance

On the oral argument on August 11, Supreme Court Associate Justice Marvic Leonen questioned the validity of the zoning permit approved by the Manila Government when the variance was approved two years after DMCI’s grant on zoning permit.

Moreover, in the oral argument on August 18, Jardaleza found that on June 19, 2012, the Lim Administration processed the zoning permit for Torre De Manila project without the application for variance for the zoning restrictions. Jardaleza stressed that developers seeking for exemptions from the prescribed land use limits must apply for variance approved by the city council before they can be granted zoning permit, as required by the ordinance under Section 60, 61, and 62.

Administrative Liability

In a series of questions by Associate Justice Jardaleza to Manila City Legal Officer Jose Alberto Flaminiano, Flaminiano stated that a city planning officer and building official who gives zoning permit under the same circumstances is acting beyond the scope of his authority and may be held criminally liable for serious or grave misconduct.

Lim and Estrada Pointing Fingers

In a conversation with Rebong in 2012, Flaminiano recalled Rebong mentioning Former Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim’s order to process DMCI’s applications even without the approval of City Council so developers wouldn’t have a difficult time.

Upon change of administration, DMCI consulted city planning and development officer Danilo Lacuna Jr. on process of application for variance and other necessary steps to comply with Manila Zoning ordinance.

Estrada instructed Lacuna  to help DMCI go through processes. Asked by Jardelaza on what could Estrada have meant, “he encourages developers to invest in the city,” said Lacuna.

Amidst the criticism on Torre de Manila, Estrada called Lim a “liar” and “a forgetful man” on issuing the permit to construct the project of DMCI.

The next round of oral argument will be on Tuesday, August 25.

Source:

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/714076/tale-of-2-mayors-on-torre-de-manila-issue

http://www.rappler.com/nation/102980-torre-de-manila-supreme-court-jardeleza

http://www.rappler.com/nation/102297-torre-de-manila-zoning-permit-questioned

http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2015/08/11/1486876/live-oral-arguments-torre-de-manila-case

Related articles