Get the Facts Right! And Do What is Right!

Get the Facts Right!Get the Facts Right!And Do What is Right!And Do What is Right!

(A (A RLARLA’s* ’s* Generic Briefing MaterialGeneric Briefing Material for for Government OfficialsGovernment Officials/ Public Sector and / Public Sector and

for Clients/ the Private Sector and the for Clients/ the Private Sector and the MediaMedia))

**Registered and Licensed ArchitectRegistered and Licensed Architect

updated updated 1818 October 2009October 2009PRC PRC Professional Regulatory Board of Professional Regulatory Board of Architecture Architecture

((PRBoAPRBoA)) Ar Armando N. ALLAr Armando N. ALLÍÍ fuap, hfpia, aaif, apec arfuap, hfpia, aaif, apec ar

Chairman, PRBoAChairman, PRBoA (Resource Person)(Resource Person)

PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph

PRBoAPRBoA www.architectureboard.phwww.architectureboard.ph

I. The Architectural Profession . . .I. The Architectural Profession . . .

1) is a several thousand (millennia) old profession that dates back to the antiquities i.e. pre-Greek civilizations, etc.;

2) was the profession of the master builders i.e. “arkitekton” in Greek or the prime “professionals” for buildings at the time;

3) 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);

4) was NEVER part of any other known professional calling i.e. architecture has never ever been part of civil engineering; and

5) is internationally associated with (and is dictionary-defined as the profession most related to) BUILDINGS i.e. structures used for habitation and related uses.

PRBoAPRBoA www.architectureboard.ph www.architectureboard.ph

II. The Civil Engineering II. The Civil Engineering ((CECE)) Profession . . . Profession . . .

1) 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;

2) 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);

3) has NEVER ever encompassed or subsumed the separate profession of architecture in the history of civilization; and

4) 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.


III. The Philippine Architecture Law . .III. The Philippine Architecture Law . . . . 1) 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;

2) 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.;

3) prescribes that only registered and licensed architects (RLAs) shall practice architecture on Philippine soil;

4) 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 legally prepare, sign and seal ARCHITECTURAL documents (specifically architectural PLANS) .


IVa. The Philippine Civil Eng’g IVa. The Philippine Civil Eng’g ((CECE)) Law . . Law . . 1) is R.A. No. 544 of 1950, as REPEALED by R.A. No. 1582 of

1956 (which repealed Sec. 24 of R.A. No. 544);2) provides for the segregation of the practice and responsibilities

of CEs and Architects (reference R.A. No. 1582, Sec. 24);3) does NOT state that CEs can prepare, sign or seal

ARCHITECTURAL documents, specifically arch’l PLANS;4) does NOT state that CEs can prepare, sign or seal electrical/

mechanical/ sanitary/ electronics engineering documents;5) does NOT state that CEs who have NOT specialized in structural

design CANNOT prepare, sign nor seal STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING documents;

6) 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.


IVb. Sec. 24 of R.A. No. 1582 reads as follows . . .IVb. 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


IVc. As early as June 1956 IVc. As early as June 1956 ((53 years ago53 years ago)), , Sec. 24 of R.A. No. 1582 Sec. 24 of R.A. No. 1582 ((the CE lawthe CE law)) already already clearly distinguished the roles and responsibili- clearly distinguished the roles and responsibilities of Civil Engineers and Architects. . . 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 be responsible for their own respective acts.


V. The Main Architectural Documents are…V. The Main Architectural Documents are…

1) site development plan (SDP);2) architectural perspectives (exterior, interior &

sectional) for buildings;

3) architectural floor, ceiling and roof PLANS for buildings;

4) architectural sections and elevations for buildings; 5) architectural detail designs and drawings; 6) architectural interior (AI) plans, designs, etc.;

7) architectural specifications (including schedules of finishes, fixtures & non-engineering equipment or FFE); and

8) architectural estimates.


VI. The Main Civil Eng’g Documents are…VI. The Main Civil Eng’g Documents are…

1) site civil works plan (including grading and drainage);

2) foundation plan for buildings;3) floor, ceiling and roof structural framing plans for

buildings; 4) structural engineering sections and elevations for

buildings; 5) civil works & structural detail designs and drawings; 6) civil works and structural engineering design

specifications, schedules and computations; and7) civil works and structural engineering design

estimates.

PRBoA PRBoA www.architectureboard.phwww.architectureboard.ph

VII. VII. MinimumMinimum Qualifications under Philippine Law Qualifications under Philippine Law of Registered and Licensed Architects of Registered and Licensed Architects ((RLAsRLAs)) to to Prepare, Sign and Seal Prepare, Sign and Seal ARCHITECTURALARCHITECTURAL Documents, specifically architectural Documents, specifically architectural PLANSPLANS::11)) B.S. B.S. ARCHITECTUREARCHITECTURE degree degree ((5-year course5-year course); ); 22)) 2 year 2 year ((or equivalent 3,840 hoursor equivalent 3,840 hours)) of diversified experience in of diversified experience in architecture architecture ((DEADEA)) i.e. i.e. apprenticeshipapprenticeship under a Mentor-RLA; under a Mentor-RLA; 33)) a general average of 70% a general average of 70% ((as passing markas passing mark)) in the licensure in the licensure

examination for architects examination for architects ((LEALEA)) given by the PRC; given by the PRC; the LEA is the LEA is ALL about the ARCHITECTURAL planning & design of ALL about the ARCHITECTURAL planning & design of BUILDINGS, their grounds and environsBUILDINGS, their grounds and environs..44)) Architect’s Certificate of Registration & PRC ID cardArchitect’s Certificate of Registration & PRC ID card, , signature in the Architect’s Registry Book and Recitation signature in the Architect’s Registry Book and Recitation of the Architect’s Oath before the PRC/ PRBoAof the Architect’s Oath before the PRC/ PRBoA; and; and55)) membership in the membership in the integrated & accredited professional integrated & accredited professional

organization of architects organization of architects ((IAPOAIAPOA))..


VIII. Minimum Qualifications under Philippine Law VIII. Minimum Qualifications under Philippine Law of Registered and Licensed Civil Engineers of Registered and Licensed Civil Engineers ((RLCEsRLCEs)) to Prepare, Sign and Seal to Prepare, Sign and Seal CIVIL & CIVIL & STRUCTURALSTRUCTURAL Documents: Documents:11)) B.S. B.S. CivilCivil Engineering Engineering degree degree ((5-year course5-year course););

22)) a passing grade in the licensure examination for civil engineers a passing grade in the licensure examination for civil engineers ((LECELECE)) given by the PRC; given by the PRC;

Very Important Note: the Very Important Note: the LECE does LECE does NOT testNOT test site development site development planningplanning nor nor architecturalarchitectural planning and design capabilities/ skillsets required for planning and design capabilities/ skillsets required for buildingsbuildings i.e. i.e. there is there is NO LECE subject NO LECE subject on the site planning of building grounds/ environs nor on the site planning of building grounds/ environs nor of the architectural planning and design of buildingsof the architectural planning and design of buildings; and; and

33)) Civil Engineer Civil Engineer ((CECE))’s ’s Certificate of Registration & PRC ID card, Certificate of Registration & PRC ID card, signature in the CE Registry Book and Recitation of the signature in the CE Registry Book and Recitation of the Professional’s Oath.Professional’s Oath.

PRBoA PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph www.architectureboard.ph

IX. IX. P.D. No. 1096P.D. No. 1096 ((The 1977 National Building The 1977 National Building

Code of the Philippines/ NBCP Code of the Philippines/ NBCP)) . . . . . . 1) 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);

2) 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

3) It is a valid and subsisting law i.e. in full effect, that has remained unchanged since 1977, as duly certified by the Malacañang Records Office in 2005 and 2009.


IXa. Sec. 302 of P.D. No. 1096 IXa. Sec. 302 of P.D. No. 1096 ((The 1977 NBCPThe 1977 NBCP))

Original Original ((Authentic/CorrectAuthentic/Correct)) Text Text Intercalated Intercalated (& (& WrongWrong) ) TextText


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


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


X. Status of Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised X. Status of Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 IRR of P.D. No. 1096 (the 1977 National Building (the 1977 National Building

Code of the Philippines/ Code of the Philippines/ NBCPNBCP)) 1) was briefly in effect over the period 01 to circa 24 May 2005;2) 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;

3) 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;

4) January 2008 Court order AFFIRMED on 04 May 2009; the DPWH apparently still refuses to comply without reason; contrast this with the DPWH action in 2005 when the DPWH almost immediately complied with the TROs & injunction (already DISSOLVED).


XI. Are there legal impediments to the XI. Are there legal impediments to the implementation of Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the implementation of Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 ((NBCPNBCP))? ? NONE whatsoever !!!NONE whatsoever !!! NoNo TRO by any RTC TRO by any RTC ((as of 24 May 200as of 24 May 20055)). . NoNo RTC Injunction RTC Injunction ((as of about 29 January 200as of about 29 January 20088)). . Already Already fullyfully harmonizedharmonized by the DPWHby the DPWH with R.A. No. with R.A. No. 92669266, a valid and subsisting law , a valid and subsisting law ((as of 01 May 200as of 01 May 20055))..With a With a lawful and lawful and EXECUTORYEXECUTORY Decision/ Court Order Decision/ Court Order mandating their implementation and enforcement by mandating their implementation and enforcement by ALLALL national and local government officials national and local government officials ((as of 04 as of 04 May 200May 20099)).. No No TRO issued by the CA TRO issued by the CA ((as of 18 Oct 200as of 18 Oct 20099)). . NoNo CA Injunction CA Injunction ((as of 18 Oct 200as of 18 Oct 20099)). .


XII. Has the XII. Has the Philippine Institute of CEsPhilippine Institute of CEs ((PICEPICE)) Appealed Appealed

the 29 January 2008 & 04 May 2009 Court Ordersthe 29 January 2008 & 04 May 2009 Court Orders?? Yes. The PICE Notice of Appeal is now with Court of Appeals Yes. The PICE Notice of Appeal is now with Court of Appeals ((CACA))..

Does an Appeal mean that Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. 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 No. 1096 cannot be implemented and enforced despite the Court Decision and Order promulgated by Manila RTC Branch 22?Decision and Order promulgated by Manila RTC Branch 22?NONO. As with the 2005 TROs/ injunction on Secs. 302.3&4 that were . As with the 2005 TROs/ injunction on Secs. 302.3&4 that were immediately immediately enforced by the DPWH, the January 2008 Decision (& enforced by the DPWH, the January 2008 Decision (& May 2009 Court Order) LIFTING/DISSOLVING the injunction on May 2009 Court Order) LIFTING/DISSOLVING the injunction on Secs. 302.3&4 are Secs. 302.3&4 are EXECUTORYEXECUTORY, particularly in light of the validity , particularly in light of the validity of R.A. No. 9266of R.A. No. 9266 The DPWH, NGAs, GOCCs and the The DPWH, NGAs, GOCCs and the LGUs must LGUs must perforce perforce fully comply immediately and unconditionallyfully comply immediately and unconditionally. Otherwise, . Otherwise, their their officials may become clearly liable for officials may become clearly liable for GRAFTGRAFT charges, etc. charges, etc. before the Office of the Ombudsmanbefore the Office of the Ombudsman..


XIII. What does the PICE hope to achieve XIII. What does the PICE hope to achieve with its appeal with its appeal filed at the Court of Appeals filed at the Court of Appeals ((CACA))? ? The PICE is hoping to overturn the 29 January The PICE is hoping to overturn the 29 January 20020088 RTC Manila Branch 22RTC Manila Branch 22 Decision and to secure Decision and to secure an injunction on Secs. 302.3 & 4 an injunction on Secs. 302.3 & 4 from the CAfrom the CA..

Can the CA issue another set of Can the CA issue another set of TRO/s and injunction?TRO/s and injunction?Apparently Yes Apparently Yes but only if but only if there is absolute merit in the there is absolute merit in the PICE appeal. PICE appeal. The PICE are probably still The PICE are probably still relying on relying on the the intercalated intercalated ((and wrongfully wordedand wrongfully worded)) text of Sec. 302 of text of Sec. 302 of P.D. No. 1096P.D. No. 1096 that that purportspurports that CEs can sign and seal that CEs can sign and seal

ARCHITECTURALARCHITECTURAL PLANS PLANS/ documents/ documents..


XIV. Is P.D. No. 1096 a higher law XIV. Is P.D. No. 1096 a higher law compared to R.A. No. 9266compared to R.A. No. 9266? ? Not really. They are Not really. They are both valid and subsisting laws both valid and subsisting laws enacted enacted by entities exercising legislative and executive functions. by entities exercising legislative and executive functions.

What is What is R.A.R.A. No. No. 92669266 ((of 2004of 2004)) in relation to in relation to P.D.P.D. No. No. 10961096 ((of 1977of 1977))??R.A. No. R.A. No. 92669266 is a is a SPECIAL lawSPECIAL law that may actually be that may actually be considered as considered as higher than a general law higher than a general law like P.D. No. 1096. like P.D. No. 1096. R.A. No. 9266 is also a R.A. No. 9266 is also a LATER lawLATER law that contains implied that contains implied REPEALREPEAL provisions provisions directly affecting the content, directly affecting the content, interpretation, implementation and enforcement of P.D. interpretation, implementation and enforcement of P.D.

No. No. 10961096, an , an earlier lawearlier law..


XV. Does the DPWH Secretary regulate the XV. Does the DPWH Secretary regulate the separate State-regulated professions of separate State-regulated professions of architecture and civil engineeringarchitecture and civil engineering? ? NONO. . NEVERNEVER. . ABSOLUTELY NOTABSOLUTELY NOT, unless he wants to be a usurper , unless he wants to be a usurper of PRC and PRBoA functions, which is still illegal.of PRC and PRBoA functions, which is still illegal.

Can the DPWH Secretary be held liable for Can the DPWH Secretary be held liable for NOT implementing and enforcing R.A. No. 9266 NOT implementing and enforcing R.A. No. 9266 and P.D. No. 1096?and P.D. No. 1096?ABSOLUTELYABSOLUTELY. He has been sworn to uphold . He has been sworn to uphold valid and subsisting valid and subsisting laws laws such as R.A. No. such as R.A. No. 92669266 and P.D. No. and P.D. No. 10961096 ((the very law the the very law the DPWH Secretary is supposed to implement and enforceDPWH Secretary is supposed to implement and enforce)). . Yet, he apparently still Yet, he apparently still obstinately refusesobstinately refuses to implement the law. to implement the law. Could it be that the DPWH Secretary thinks he is above the lawCould it be that the DPWH Secretary thinks he is above the law??????


XVI. R.A. No. 9266 Stipulation that only a Registered and XVI. R.A. No. 9266 Stipulation that only a Registered and Licensed Architect Licensed Architect ((RLARLA)) shall Prepare, Sign & Seal shall Prepare, Sign & Seal Architectural DocumentsArchitectural Documents

SEC. 20. SEC. 20. Seal, Issuance and Use of SealSeal, Issuance and Use of Seal. - A duly licensed architect shall affix the seal . - A duly licensed architect shall affix the seal prescribed by the Board bearing the registrant's name, registration number and title prescribed by the Board bearing the registrant's name, registration number and title "Architect" on "Architect" on allall architecturalarchitectural plans, drawings, specifications and plans, drawings, specifications and all other all other contract contract documentsdocuments prepared by or under his/her direct supervision. prepared by or under his/her direct supervision.(2) (2) No officer or employee of this RepublicNo officer or employee of this Republic, chartered cities, provinces and , chartered cities, provinces and municipalitiesmunicipalities, now or hereafter charged with the enforcement of laws, ordinances , now or hereafter charged with the enforcement of laws, ordinances or regulations relating to the construction or alteration of buildings, or regulations relating to the construction or alteration of buildings, shall accept or shall accept or approve any architectural plans or specifications which have not been prepared approve any architectural plans or specifications which have not been prepared and submitted in full accord with all the provisions of this Actand submitted in full accord with all the provisions of this Act ((R.A. No. 9266R.A. No. 9266); ); nor shall any payments be approved by any such officer for any work, the plans and 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 specifications for which have not been so prepared and signed and sealed by the author (referring to a registered/ licensed architect).author (referring to a registered/ licensed architect).AllAll architecturalarchitectural plans, designs, specifications, drawings and architectural plans, designs, specifications, drawings and architectural documentsdocuments relative to the construction of a relative to the construction of a building shall bear the seal and building shall bear the seal and signature signature onlyonly of an architect registered and licensed under this Act of an architect registered and licensed under this Act together together with his/her professional identification card number and the date of its expiration.with his/her professional identification card number and the date of its expiration.


XVII. R.A. No. 9266 Stipulation that only a Registered and XVII. R.A. No. 9266 Stipulation that only a Registered and Licensed Architect Licensed Architect ((RLARLA)) shall fill ALL Positions in shall fill ALL Positions in Government Requiring the Services of RLAs Government Requiring the Services of RLAs ((already in already in FULL EFFECT since 10 April 2007FULL 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?What are these positions in Government? 11)) Building OfficialBuilding Official, if other than in an , if other than in an actingacting capacity as provided capacity as provided for in Sec. 477 of R.A. No. 7160, for in Sec. 477 of R.A. No. 7160, ((The Local Government CodeThe Local Government Code)), the , the pertinent pertinent portionsportions of which are already considered of which are already considered repealedrepealed by R.A. by R.A. No. No. 92669266, a , a special and laterspecial and later law; and 2 law; and 2)) Staff or OfficialsStaff or Officials of the of the local or national government agency or office who prepare, review local or national government agency or office who prepare, review

or approve ANY form of or approve ANY form of ARCHITECTURALARCHITECTURAL PLAN/ document. PLAN/ document.


XVIIIa. Are there legal impediments to the XVIIIa. Are there legal impediments to the full implementation and enforcement of full implementation and enforcement of R.A. No. 9266 R.A. No. 9266 ((The Architecture Act of 2004The Architecture Act of 2004))?? NONE whatsoeverNONE whatsoever !!! !!! NoNo TRO TRO ((from 10 April 200from 10 April 20044 to date/ to date/ 18 Oct18 Oct 200 20099)). . NoNo Injunction Injunction ((from 10 April 2004 to date/ from 10 April 2004 to date/ 18 Oct18 Oct 2009 2009)). . NoNo Pending Constitutional Question. Pending Constitutional Question. A A valid and subsisting law valid and subsisting law since 10 April 2004since 10 April 2004 and for and for the the implementation and enforcement implementation and enforcement by by ALLALL national national and local government officials.and local government officials.HasHas a codified/ coherent set of implementing rules and a codified/ coherent set of implementing rules and regulations regulations ((IRRIRR)) to guide the to guide the executive executive branch of the branch of the Philippine Government Philippine Government ((at all its levelsat all its levels)) in the full and in the full and

proper proper implementationimplementation and enforcement of and enforcement of R.A. No. R.A. No. 92669266..


XXVIIIb. What does Sec. 43 of R.A. No. 9266 XXVIIIb. What does Sec. 43 of R.A. No. 9266 ((The Architecture Act of 2004The Architecture Act of 2004) ) Say and MeanSay 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. This provision dates back to the 1950s and is reprised in R.A. No. 9266. The legislative intent was precisely to 9266. The legislative intent was precisely to segregatesegregate the the professional practices of the Architects and the civil engineers professional practices of the Architects and the civil engineers (CEs) i.e. (CEs) i.e. NO overlaps intendedNO overlaps intended by the lawmakers. This provision by the lawmakers. This provision CANNOT be invoked by the CEs to say that they have been CANNOT be invoked by the CEs to say that they have been preparing ARCHITECTURAL documents since the 1950s, simply preparing ARCHITECTURAL documents since the 1950s, simply because NO Philippine law states that CEs can prepare, sign or because NO Philippine law states that CEs can prepare, sign or seal seal ARCHITECTURALARCHITECTURAL plans/ documents. plans/ documents.


XIXa. How does R.A. No. 9266 XIXa. How does R.A. No. 9266 ((The The

Architecture Act of 2004Architecture Act of 2004) ) Relate to Other LawsRelate 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.


XIXb. How does R.A. No. 9266 XIXb. How does R.A. No. 9266 ((The Architecture Act of The Architecture Act of 20042004) ) Relate to the Implementing Rules and Regulations Relate to the Implementing Rules and Regulations ((IRRsIRRs)) of of OtherOther Laws, Department Administrative Orders Laws, Department Administrative Orders and Memorandum Circulars and Memorandum Circulars ((especially those issued by especially those issued by the DPWH Secretarythe DPWH Secretary))??R.A. No. 9266 is a LAW/ STATUTE crafted by the legislative and executive branches of the Philippine Government. R.A. No. 9266 CAN 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.


XIXcXIXc. What is the effect of the 2008 Decision & 2009 Court . What is the effect of the 2008 Decision & 2009 Court Order by Manila RTC Branch 22?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 What is the effect of a DPWH Memorandum Circular issued after 2005 on the Original Effectivity of Secs. 302.3 issued after 2005 on the Original Effectivity of Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 ((1977 1977 NBCPNBCP))? ? NOTHINGNOTHING. All DPWH Memorandum Circulars, issued . All DPWH Memorandum Circulars, issued after 2005 after 2005 and which and which maymay violate or visibly violate or visibly fail to complyfail to comply with executory with executory Court Orders, appear NOT to modify, amend repeal nor supersede Court Orders, appear NOT to modify, amend repeal nor supersede the the original effectivityoriginal effectivity of the said sections, of the said sections, attained by three attained by three ((33)) national publicationsnational publications of the DPWH on 01, 08 & 15 April 200 of the DPWH on 01, 08 & 15 April 20055..


XIXdXIXd. Is a DPWH Memorandum Circular . Is a DPWH Memorandum Circular ((issued issued by the DPWH Secretaryby the DPWH Secretary) ) superior to a Court superior to a Court Order?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 Is an LGU Official LIABLE for following a DPWH Memorandum Order ? Memorandum Order ? YESYES, particularly , particularly ifif the DPWH Memorandum Circular the DPWH Memorandum Circular violates or visibly violates or visibly fails to complyfails to comply with with executoryexecutory Court Court Orders Orders ((for for compliancecompliance by all Philippine national and by all Philippine national and local government officialslocal government officials)). .


XX. What LGUs are already actively and XX. What LGUs are already actively and fully implementing and enforcing R.A. No. fully implementing and enforcing R.A. No. 9266 9266 ((The Architecture Act of 2004The Architecture Act of 2004) as of ) as of September 2009September 2009?? The Chartered Cities of The Chartered Cities of DavaoDavao and and ButuanButuan ((MindanaoMindanao)); ; TaclobanTacloban and and IloiloIloilo ((VisayasVisayas)); ; and and LegaspiLegaspi and and ViganVigan ((LuzonLuzon))..

The Province of The Province of CaviteCavite ((LuzonLuzon)). .


XXI. From April 2004 to date, is there any XXI. From April 2004 to date, is there any case, complaint or petition filed by CEscase, complaint or petition filed by CEs// PICE in any venue Against R.A. No. 9266 PICE in any venue Against R.A. No. 9266 ((The Architecture Act of 2004The Architecture Act of 2004) ) itself?itself? NONE whatsoeverNONE whatsoever !!! !!! Why is this? Why is this? It is probably because R.A. No. It is probably because R.A. No. 92669266 is a is a STRONG LAW with very STRONG LAW with very sound legal basessound legal bases. It is also probably because representatives of . It is also probably because representatives of the PICE took part in its crafting fro 2002 through 2004. As may 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 be recalled, a specific provision of R.A. No. 9266 relating to the appointment of RLAs to positions in government i.e. requiring the appointment of RLAs to positions in government i.e. requiring the expertise of RLAs, was amended at the Congressional Bi-Cameral expertise of RLAs, was amended at the Congressional Bi-Cameral Conference Committee level in early 2004 precisely to Conference Committee level in early 2004 precisely to accommodate the various last minute representations made by the accommodate the various last minute representations made by the CEs in Congress.CEs in Congress.


XXII. Are there legal impediments to the full XXII. Are there legal impediments to the full implementation and enforcement of R.A. No. 9266 implementation and enforcement of R.A. No. 9266 ((The Architecture Act of 2004) and of P.D. No. The Architecture Act of 2004) and of P.D. No. 1096 (The 1977 National Building Code of the 1096 (The 1977 National Building Code of the

PhilippinesPhilippines))?? NONE whatsoeverNONE whatsoever !!! !!! Why is this? Why is this? R.A. No. R.A. No. 92669266 and P.D. No. 1096, both and P.D. No. 1096, both HAVEHAVE a codified/ coherent set of implementing a codified/ coherent set of implementing rules and regulations rules and regulations ((IRRIRR)) promulgated by the Professional Regulatory Board of promulgated by the Professional Regulatory Board of Architecture Architecture ((PRBoAPRBoA)) and approved by the Professional Regulation Commission and approved by the Professional Regulation Commission ((PRCPRC) ) in the case of R.A. No. in the case of R.A. No. 92669266 and and by the DPWH in the case of P.D. No. by the DPWH in the case of P.D. No. 10961096 . . Thus, the DPWH, the other NGAs, the GOCCs and the LGUs Thus, the DPWH, the other NGAs, the GOCCs and the LGUs HAVEHAVE very firm legal very firm legal bases to implement and enforce both R.A. No. bases to implement and enforce both R.A. No. 92669266 and P.D. No. and P.D. No. 10961096 and ALL of their and ALL of their provisions, specifically Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096, which provisions, specifically Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096, which LIMIT to Architects LIMIT to Architects ((RLAsRLAs)) the matter of signing and sealing the matter of signing and sealing ARCHITECTUIRALARCHITECTUIRAL PLANS/ documents. PLANS/ documents. Lastly, Lastly, the 2008 Decision & 2009 Court Order to fully implement Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 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 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 Government officials. While it may be true that the PICE has filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals with the Court of Appeals ((CACA)), there is apparently NO TRO/ injunction issued by the CA , there is apparently NO TRO/ injunction issued by the CA as of 18 October 2009.as of 18 October 2009.


XXIII. Are there possible legal IMPEDIMENTS to XXIII. Are there possible legal IMPEDIMENTS to the full implementation of R.A. No. 1582 of 1956, the full implementation of R.A. No. 1582 of 1956, which amended R.A. No. 544 of 1950, the Civil which amended R.A. No. 544 of 1950, the Civil Engineering LawEngineering Law) by the ) by the ExecutiveExecutive Branch of Branch of

GovernmentGovernment?? YESYES! ! Why is this?Why is this? R.A. No. R.A. No. 15821582, which amended R.A. No. 544, apparently to this , which amended R.A. No. 544, apparently to this date date ((or after more than50 years after their passageor after more than50 years after their passage)) still does still does NOTNOT have a codified/ coherent set of implementing rules and have a codified/ coherent set of implementing rules and regulations regulations ((IRRIRR)) promulgated by the Professional Regulatory promulgated by the Professional Regulatory Board of Civil Engineering Board of Civil Engineering ((PRBoCEPRBoCE)) nor approved by the nor approved by the Professional Regulation Commission Professional Regulation Commission ((PRCPRC)). . Thus, the DPWH, the other NGAs, the GOCCs and the LGUs, Thus, the DPWH, the other NGAs, the GOCCs and the LGUs, which are all which are all executiveexecutive agencies, apparently do agencies, apparently do NOTNOT have a firm have a firm legal basis to implement and enforce R.A. No. legal basis to implement and enforce R.A. No. 15821582 or ANY of its or ANY of its

provisions.provisions.

PRBoA www.architectureboard.phPRBoA www.architectureboard.ph XXIVXXIV. Why are the 2008 and 2009 Court Orders re Secs. 302.3 & 4 of . Why are the 2008 and 2009 Court Orders re Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 ((the 1977 NBCPthe 1977 NBCP)) EXECUTORYEXECUTORY

by ALL national and local Philippine Government Officials?by ALL national and local Philippine Government Officials? The Court’s The Court’s 04 May 2009 Order AFFIRMING04 May 2009 Order AFFIRMING its its 29 January 2008 29 January 2008 Decision LIFTING/ DISSOLVINGDecision LIFTING/ DISSOLVING its 24 May 2005 injunction are its 24 May 2005 injunction are all all EXECUTORY EXECUTORY i.e. reference i.e. reference Rule 39 Sec. 4 of the Rules of Court; Rule 39 Sec. 4 of the Rules of Court; Crisostomo vs. SEC, 179 SCRA 146; Santiago vs. Vasquez, 217 SCRA Crisostomo vs. SEC, 179 SCRA 146; Santiago vs. Vasquez, 217 SCRA 633; Marcelo Steel Corp vs. 54 SCRA 89; Golez vs. Leonidas, 107 633; Marcelo Steel Corp vs. 54 SCRA 89; Golez vs. Leonidas, 107 SCRA 187SCRA 187. . Since Since Sections 302.3 and 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096Sections 302.3 and 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 ((1977 National Building Code of the Philippines/ NBCP1977 National Building Code of the Philippines/ NBCP)) have already have already been been IN EFFECT from 01 through circa 24 May 2005 IN EFFECT from 01 through circa 24 May 2005 ((by virtue of the by virtue of the IRR effectivity obtained by national publicationIRR effectivity obtained by national publication)), the DPWH and ALL , the DPWH and ALL other Philippine Government Officials must therefore CONTINUE with other Philippine Government Officials must therefore CONTINUE with the the INTERRUPTEDINTERRUPTED implementation/ enforcement of the said sections, implementation/ enforcement of the said sections, to fully comply with the Court’s 2009 Order and 2008 Decision. to fully comply with the Court’s 2009 Order and 2008 Decision. Important NoteImportant Note: It has been more than eighteen : It has been more than eighteen ((1818)) months since the Court promulgated its 2008 months since the Court promulgated its 2008 LIFTING/ DISSOLUTIONLIFTING/ DISSOLUTION Order. To date i.e. 18 October 2009, the DPWH apparently continues to Order. To date i.e. 18 October 2009, the DPWH apparently continues to resistresist not only the Court Order but also not only the Court Order but also failfail to implement/ enforce valid & subsisting laws such as to implement/ enforce valid & subsisting laws such as R.A No. 9266 R.A No. 9266 ((The Architecture Act of 2004The Architecture Act of 2004)) and even P.D. No. 1096 itself, the very law the DPWH is and even P.D. No. 1096 itself, the very law the DPWH is

supposed to fully implement/ enforce.supposed to fully implement/ enforce.

PRBoA www.architectureboard.phPRBoA www.architectureboard.ph

XXVIXXVI. . Will DPWH Memorandum Circulars protect National and Local Will DPWH Memorandum Circulars protect National and Local Government Officials from Possible Complaints/ Suits Arising from Government Officials from Possible Complaints/ Suits Arising from Violations of Valid and Subsisting Laws such as P.D. No. 1096 and Violations of Valid and Subsisting Laws such as P.D. No. 1096 and

R.A. No. 9266 or of R.A. No. 9266 or of EXECUTORYEXECUTORY Court Orders? Court Orders? NONO. Mere . Mere executive issuances such as DPWH Memorandum executive issuances such as DPWH Memorandum CircularsCirculars issued to ALL Building Officials Nationwide MUST have a issued to ALL Building Officials Nationwide MUST have a clear basis in law. If such DPWH Memorandum Circulars violate valid 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. and subsisting laws such as P.D. No. 1096, R.A. No. 9266, etc. ((or are or are issued without the benefit of a proper public consultative process or issued without the benefit of a proper public consultative process or

of national publicationof national publication)),, thereby making the same benefit a particular thereby making the same benefit a particular sector of society sector of society ((such as civil engineers who INSIST on practicing such as civil engineers who INSIST on practicing

architecturearchitecture)),, then the Philippine Government Officials who then the Philippine Government Officials who subscribe to, implement and enforce such subscribe to, implement and enforce such potentially potentially illegalillegal executive issuances themselves become executive issuances themselves become administratively, criminally and civilly LIABLE under the administratively, criminally and civilly LIABLE under the laws violatedlaws violated. . The DPWH Memorandum Circulars are NOT laws The DPWH Memorandum Circulars are NOT laws

but are only supposed to be tools to implement, NOT violate laws .but are only supposed to be tools to implement, NOT violate laws .

PRBoA www.architectureboard.phPRBoA www.architectureboard.ph XXVIIXXVII. A. Is a national/ LGU Official LIABLE for following a DPWH . A. Is a national/ LGU Official LIABLE for following a DPWH

Memorandum Circular that Memorandum Circular that maymay be violative of a Court Order? be violative of a Court Order? YES, and YES, and he/she can also be sued for Indirect Contempt at the RTChe/she can also be sued for Indirect Contempt at the RTC!!

B. Is a national/ LGU Official LIABLE for following a DPWH Memorandum B. Is a national/ LGU Official LIABLE for following a DPWH Memorandum Circular that Circular that maymay be violative of the be violative of the original effectivityoriginal effectivity of Secs. 302.3 & 4 of Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 ((1977 NBCP1977 NBCP), already effectively ), already effectively

mandated for RESUMPTION by the Court ‘s Ordermandated for RESUMPTION by the Court ‘s Order?? YES, and he/she YES, and he/she can be sued administratively and criminally for such actscan be sued administratively and criminally for such acts!!

C. Is a national/ LGU Official LIABLE for possible violations of R.A. No. C. Is a national/ LGU Official LIABLE for possible violations of R.A. No.

9266 9266 ((The Architecture Act of 2004The Architecture Act of 2004))? ? YES, and he/she can be sued YES, and he/she can be sued CRIMINALLY at the RTCCRIMINALLY at the RTC!!D. Can a national/ LGU Official be charged with D. Can a national/ LGU Official be charged with GRAFTGRAFT for the foregoing? for the foregoing?

YES, he/she can be sued at the Ombudsman, together with YES, he/she can be sued at the Ombudsman, together with the private sector entities the private sector entities ((e.g. CEs insisting on the practice e.g. CEs insisting on the practice of architectureof architecture)) who directly/ indirectly benefit from the acts who directly/ indirectly benefit from the acts of the national/ LGU officialof the national/ LGU official!!

Mabuhay ang mga Mabuhay ang mga Arkitektong Pilipino!Arkitektong Pilipino!

Mabuhay ang mga Mabuhay ang mga TAMANG BATAS, mga TAMANG BATAS, mga takdang regulasyon at mga Utos ng Kortetakdang regulasyon at mga Utos ng Korte na na

nararapat lamang na nararapat lamang na ipatupad o sundin ipatupad o sundin ng ng Pamahalaang PilipinasPamahalaang Pilipinas

at ng at ng LAHATLAHAT ng kawani nito !! ng kawani nito !!!!

Thank You Thank You and a Pleasant Morning to You All !!!and a Pleasant Morning to You All !!!

PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph

Get the Facts Right! And Do What is Right!

Documents

Transcript of Get the Facts Right! And Do What is Right!