Обновление к петицииDismantle Torre De Manila Jail Manila Building Officials and DMCI Consunji photobombing desecrated JoseRizal MonumentPark view and violated 2009 NHCA (RA 10066) Manila Ordinance 8119 Resolution 121, 7-storey building height limit in historical sitesNovember 08, 2013 TORRE DE MANILA By Ducky Paredes
Jam FlorDapitan, Филиппины
22 июл. 2015 г. — http://www.malaya.com.ph/business-news/opinion/us-bases-2-torre-de-manila www.persquare.com.ph US BASES 2; TORRE DE MANILA By Ducky Paredes on November 08, 2013 WE have a letter: I am really surprised that Secretary Alberto Del Rosario of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) said so many times today he knows very little about the state of our OFWs in Saudi Arabia. He actually said it would not surprise him if 80 % were ‘illegally’ there, he had no idea... “He either has been unconcerned about their plight up to now or is now diplomatically pretending not to understand the scope of the problems of Filipinos in Saudi Arabia (and in the Middle East). Many workers have been ‘ illegal’ or ‘undocumented’ for years, living from job to job. “They deserve to be better served.” The letter-writer asks to be anonymous. *** In 1991, the Philippine Senate voted to shut down the US bases in the country. Eight years later, the legislative body ratified the Visiting Forces Agreement which allowed American soldiers to conduct joint drills with their Filipino counterparts. Then, the Philippines and the US adopted a policy of American troops’ increased rotational presence to counter China’s actions in the West Philippine Sea, also called the “South China Sea.” Talks between the Philippines and the United States (US) on the increased rotational presence are, however, at an impasse. We have yet to reach agreement on the establishment of the American facilities in the country. Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin admits: “It is at the stage where there is negotiation so it’s a give and take process. Right now, we have not agreed on the issues raised.” Gazmin admits that what needs to be threshed out is the access of Filipino troops to the temporary US facilities. But, says Gazmin: “I don’t think it will collapse. I am very optimistic that these issues will be resolved. Of course these are difficult at first but eventually, there will be processes that will lead to understanding.” “Well, everything should be beneficial to the Philippines. That is the major idea,” Gazmin adds. The presence of American forces is a controversial issue, with some believing this will violate Philippine sovereignty. Security officials believe that providing temporary access to US troops will help the country attain a minimum credible defense. Philippine officials said the negotiations would be guided by the principles of strict compliance with the Philippine Constitution, laws, and jurisprudence, Philippine sovereignty, non-permanence of US troops in Philippine territory, non-exclusivity of use of facilities by the US side, and mutuality of benefits. Not physically present at the talks but is a ghost hovering over the two sides is the Chinese takeover of parts of the Philippine territory that have been effectively taken over by the Chinese who thus have military troops in Philippines without any agreement or having negotiated anything with us. The two panels have completed four rounds of negotiations but have yet to schedule a fifth one. Torre de Manila is a 46-story residential building currently being constructed between Rizal Park and Adamson University. Located within Manila City’s Institutional University Cluster, it is only allowed a maximum gross-floor-area-to-area-of-the-plot ratio of 4. (Gross floor area refers to the total floor area inside the building.) But based on construction plans, its floor area ratio will be 7.79, thus violating zoning laws under Ordinance No 8119. But it’s the desecration of the national park across the street that bothers, much more than the zoning violation. Once Torre de Manila is completed, it will rise behind and above the Rizal Monument, dwarfing the shrine and resting place of the national hero. Does this ruin what heritage advocate Carlos Celdran calls “the sanctity of the Rizal sightline”? After all, the building is more than a kilometer away from the Rizal Monument at the Luneta. Celdran’s online petition urging Manila Mayor Joseph Estrada to suspend the building permit of Torre de Manila now has more than 7,900 signatures. Public outcry against Torre de Manila started in June 2012 when Celdran found out about the construction and raised a ruckus online. But DMCI countered that it had all the required building permits from City Hall. The Manila City Council at the time then conducted an investigation on Melvin Balagot, the City Building official in charge of issuing permits for construction projects in the city. The investigation concluded that there was a “conspiracy” between Balagot and DMCI. Both Balagot and DCMI did not attend public hearings held by the Council to discuss Torre de Manila’s alleged violations. They also ignored the Council’s unanimously approved Resolution No 121 enjoining Balagot to “temporarily suspend the building permit of the Torre de Manila project until an acceptable development design is approved under proper compliance with the standards and policy guidelines set by the National Historical Commission.” The City Council then decided to shift gears and oppose the project by citing its negative effects on the Rizal Shrine. City Councilor DJ Bagatsing, contacted the National Historical Commission (NHCP) for their stance on Torre de Manila. NHCP is the government agency dealing directly with national monuments and cultural and historical landmarks. Republic Act 10066 or the National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009 gives the NHCP the power to issue a Cease and Desist Order “when the physical integrity of the national cultural treasures or important cultural properties are found to be in danger of destruction or significant alteration from its original state.” The same law states that the “appearance of streets, parks, monuments, buildings…within a locality shall be maintained as close to their appearance at the time the area was of most importance to Philippine history as determined by the National Historical Institute.” (NHI is the former name of NHCP) When NHCP attended the June 22, 2012 hearing on Torre de Manila, their position was clear: Torre de Manila violates NHCP guidelines on monuments honoring national heroes. In fact, according to Bagatsing who was present at the hearing, the NHCP representatives Wilkie Delumen and Crisanto Lustre presented the guidelines as basis for why DMCI’s project should not push through. According to the guidelines which can be found in the NHCP website, the dominance of national monuments like the Rizal Shrine should be protected: “Monuments should be given due prominence since they symbolize national significance…the Rizal National Monument in Luneta and the Bonifacio National Monument are established as objects of reference. The monument should preferably be the focal point of a city or town center.” The guidelines further state that one measure for preserving dominance is to “keep vista points and visual corridors to monuments clear for unobstructed viewing appreciation and photographic opportunities.” Manila should have passed a building code that includes a maximum height of buildings for specific areas. Then, controversies like these would not have to come up. *** Readers who missed a column can access www.duckyparedes.com/blogs. This is updated daily. Your reactions are welcome at duckyparedes@yahoo.com or you can send me a message through Twitter @diretsahan. November 08, 2013 http://www.malaya.com.ph/business-news/opinion/us-bases-2-torre-de-manila
Скопировать ссылку
WhatsApp
Facebook
Nextdoor
Эл. почта
X