Rey E. Requejo Feb. 12, 2015 at 12:01am The Supreme Court has directed the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA) to explain its order last month stopping the construction of the Torre de Manila condominium along the sight line of the monument of national hero Dr. Jose Rizal in Luneta Park. In its en banc session Wednesday, the SC said NCCA must substantiate the need for a cease and desist order (CDO) against property developer DMCI Homes Inc. Controversial building. The 46-story Torre de Manila looms large behind the statue of Lapu Lapu at the Rizal Park. The Supreme Court has given the National Commission on Culture and the Arts 10 days to explain its issuance of an order stopping the construction of the building. Danny Pata According SC spokesman Theodore Te, the NCCA, which is mandated to promote and protect Filipino culture and heritage, is given 10 days from receipt of notice to comply with the order. Last January 5, NCCA Chairman Felipe de Leon Jr. issued a CDO pending the SC’s ruling on the petition filed by Knights of Rizal in Sept. last year seeking to stop work on the condominium project. The agency is an intervenor-respondent in the case before the high court. De Leon said the high rise violated Republic Act 10066 protecting the physical integrity of heritage sites as well as the constitutional provision on the preservation of cultural landmarks. “The construction of the condominium tower destroys or significantly alters the landscape of the Monument and the park,” his order stated. The commission also directed law enforcement agencies to serve the mandate, saying that failure to comply with the order would be considered a “criminal offense.” The SC has yet to resolve the prayer for issuance of temporary restraining order (TRO) in the petition of Knights of Rizal. Petitioners said defacing the visual corridors of the monument, DMCI violated several laws mandating the protection and preservation of the Rizal Monument. These laws include Republic Act 4846 (Cultural Properties Preservation and Protection Act), Republic Act 7356 (law creating the National Commission on Culture and the Arts) and Republic Act 10066 (National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009 or an Act Providing for the Protection and Conservation of the National Cultural Heritage). The petitioners also claimed that Torre de Manila could be considered as an act of nuisance under the Civil Code. Article 694 of the said law provided that “a nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, condition of property, or anything else which “annoys or offends the senses; or shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality.” They also lamented that the project likewise violated the zoning ordinance of the City of Manila. Petitioners cited admission by the legal counsel of DMCI that the company failed to follow the procedure prescribed under Manila City Ordinance 8119, otherwise known as the Zoning Ordinance of Manila, for obtaining the zoning and building permits. According to them, Torre de Manila is located within the city’s “institutional university cluster,” a zone reserved for schools and government buildings under the ordinance. http://manilastandardtoday.com/mobile/2015/02/12/sc-takes-up-condo-halt-order