August 04, 2015 11:18:00 PM Torre de Manila case highlights ‘clash of values,’ says SC justice “IT IS not a cultural site, for god’s sake! It was a parking lot!” Victor P. Lazatin, counsel for DMCI Homes, Inc. made this remark on Tuesday after Supreme Court (SC) Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza asked him why the developer had to build the Torre de Manila on the land behind the Rizal Monument. During the second round of oral arguments before the SC, Mr. Jardeleza, assigned to write the high court’s decision, grilled the counsel for a good four hours. He remarked the tribunal is deliberating on such a “difficult case.” “There is a clash of values in this case,” Mr. Jardeleza told Mr. Lazatin in his interpellation. He recounted the Knights of Rizal’s arguments against the construction of the tower that infringes on the skyline of the Rizal Monument, which he said “drove heavily” on the value of social function. CONDOS SOLD AT A DISCOUNT Mr. Lazatin, however, played the public service card and argued that DMCI Homes fulfills its social function by selling condominium units 20% cheaper than those by other developers. “It is only selling Torre at P70,000 per square meter. Isn’t that a social act, providing decent housing?,” he said. Insisting that DMCI Homes complied with rules and obtained the proper building permits, Mr. Lazatin said: “Isn’t that a legitimate concern, or are we just going to look at what heritage enthusiasts are saying, and forget about the rule of fairness where out of nowhere, the rules of the game are changed?” The justice pointed out that while the developer is relying on the value of property, the Knights of Rizal is trying to protect the “quintessentially Filipino value of reverence” for national hero Jose P. Rizal. But Mr. Lazatin said: “I believe in Jose Rizal for what he has accomplished but he is not a demigod. His statue does not possess a super-constitutional power that acts like a laser sword that any building exceeds the line of sight should be torn down.” RISK ASSESSMENT INSUFFICIENT? Mr. Jardeleza also questioned whether DMCI Homes was in good faith in going ahead with the P2.7-billion project (with a 17% return), despite the risk of being demonized by desecrating the nearby monument. During the debates, Mr. Lazatin insisted that DMCI Homes conducted due diligence and risk assessment and decided to go ahead under the belief that it complied with rules and obtained the proper permits, although he was not fully aware of details surrounding the 2012 property purchase. “The crux of my problem with the risk management [is]... They saw the problem of heritage as no problem,” Mr. Jardeleza remarked. “The risk of citizens going directly to this Court is a real risk under the Constitutional system that we have,” he added, noting that as early as 2012, heritage advocate Carlos Celdran started his online campaign against the project. “A property developer of the size of your client should be aware of heritage conservation issues,” he said. Mr. Lazatin said this was the first time DMCI Homes encountered problems with zoning regulations and heritage conservation issues. PROTECTION OF VISTAS DEBATED The crux of this case up for the SC’s decision may be the issue of whether “sightlines” can be protected under the Constitution, Mr. Jardeleza noted. While the bypassing of lower courts emerged as a main contention during the justices’ interpellation of the Knights of Rizal, Mr. Jardeleza said that the high court may still need to discuss what it means to conserve cultural heritage sites or whether vistas are meant to be protected. “This court is limited to laying down the definition of ‘conserve’... [but] what we cannot do is remand this to a body or to a lower court, for example, to hear whether this is a nuisance or not,” he opined. “That is a question of fact, but this court will be abdicating its duty to lay down constitutional principles [if we do so].” Mr. Lazatin still expressed hope the high court would find cause to remand the case to a lower court for a trial of facts. Mr. Jardeleza’s barrage of questions used up the whole four-odd hours of the hearing, with a third session of oral arguments set on Aug. 11 to further interpellate Mr. Lazatin. The arguments by the City of Manila, the National Historical Commission of the Philippines, the National Commission on Culture and the Arts, and the National Museum will also be heard. -- Vince Alvic Alexis F. Nonato http://www.bworldonline.com/content.php?section=Nation&title=Torre-de-Manila-case-highlights-%C2%91clash-of-values%2C%E2%80%99-says-SC-justice&id=112882