Transcript I&E of RA 9266 - Professional Regulatory Board of Architecture
PRBoA
www.architectureboard.ph
Get the Facts Right!
And Do What is Right!
(A RLA’s* Generic Briefing Material for Government Officials/ Public Sector and for Clients/ the Private Sector and the Media)
* Registered and Licensed Architect updated 10 December 2009 (at 39 slides) for the Nationwide Architecture Week (NAW)
PRC
Professional Regulatory Board of
Architecture
(
PRBoA
)
Ar Armando N. ALLÍ
fuap, hfpia, aaif, apec ar
Chairman, PRBoA
(Resource Person)
PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph
A Layman’s Model of Philippine Laws (Laws Lower than the Philippine Constitution and Lower Than International Treaties/ Agreements Ratified by the Philippine Senate)
Laws do not Operate in Isolation but Must Act in Full Interaction with Other Laws that are in Effect.
PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph
I. The Architectural Profession . . .
1) is a several thousand (millennia)-old profession that dates back
to the antiquities i.e. pre -Greek civilizations, etc., c. 4,000 B.C.
(making the architectural profession
about 6,000 years old
);
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, included architectonics and structural design i.e. already segregated by law from the recognized modern-day scope of the professional
practice of architecture (specially in the Philippines);
4) was NEVER part of any other known professional calling i.e. architecture has NEVER EVER been part of civil engineering
(which appears to be less than 200 years old); 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.
PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph
II. The Civil Engineering (CE) Profession . . .
1) evolved from military/ fortifications engineering in the past i.e. the term “engineering” came into possible use only in the last 450 years while the term “civil engineering” has apparently been in use only for the last 170 to 200 years; 2) encompassed many modern-day professions including geodetic & sanitary engineering i.e. already segregated by law from the recognized modern-day scope of the practice of civil engineering in the Philippines; 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.
PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph
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 for ALL buildings on Philippine soil ; 4) governs the practice of about 24,700 Philippine registered
architects (PRAs) and approx. 14,000 RLAs (+/-57%), the only
natural persons under Philippine law who can legally prepare, sign and seal ARCHITECTURAL documents
(specifically
architectural PLAN, designs, drawings and specifications
) .
PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph
IVa. The Philippine Civil Eng’g (CE) Law . .
1) is R.A. No. 544 of 1950,
as REPEALED (actually only amended)
by R.A. No. 1582
of 1956 (which
repealed Sec. 24 of R.A. 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 architectural 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 6) design CANNOT prepare, sign nor seal STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DESIGN documents;
governs the practice of about 117,000 Philippine registered CEs (PRCEs) and approx. 83,000 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 .
PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph
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
PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph
IVc. As early as June 1956 (+53 years ago), Sec. 24 of R.A. No. 1582 (the CE law) already
clearly distinguished the roles and responsibili 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 .
PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph
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.
PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph
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 ; and 7) civil works and structural engineering design estimates.
PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph
VII. Minimum Qualifications under Philippine Law of
Registered and Licensed Architects (RLAs) to Prepare,
Sign and Seal ARCHITECTURAL Documents, specifically architectural PLANS:
1)
B.S. ARCHITECTURE
degree (5-year course); 2)
2 year
(or equivalent 3,840 hours) of diversified experience in architecture (DEA) i.e.
apprenticeship under a Mentor-RLA;
3) a general average of 70% (as passing mark) in the licensure examination for architects (LEA) given by the PRC;
the LEA is ALL about the ARCHITECTURAL planning & design of BUILDINGS, their grounds and environs .
4)
Architect’s Certificate of Registration & PRC ID card signature in the Architect’s Registry Book and Recitation of the Architect’s Oath before the PRC/ PRBoA; ,
5)
membership in the integrated & accredited professional
organization of architects (
IAPOA
) ; and
6) CPE/D credit hours.
PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph
VIII. Minimum Qualifications under Philippine Law of Registered and Licensed Civil Engineers
(RLCEs) to Prepare, Sign and Seal CIVIL &
STRUCTURAL Documents:
1)
B.S. Civil Engineering
degree (5-year course); 2)
a passing grade in the licensure examination for civil engineers
(LECE) given by the PRC;
Very Important Note: the LECE does NOT test site development planning nor architectural planning and design capabilities/ skillsets required for buildings i.e. there is NO LECE subject on the site planning of building grounds/ environs nor of the space planning, architectural planning and design of buildings; and
3) Civil Engineer (CE)’s
Certificate of Registration & PRC ID card, signature in the CE Registry Book and Recitation of the Professional’s Oath.
PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph
IX.
P.D. No. 1096
(The 1977 National Building Code of the Philippines/ NBCP) . . .
1) Its AUTHENTIC Sec. 302 NEVER stated that Civil Engineers
(CEs) can sign or seal
ARCHITECTURAL plans/ documents i.e. a matter that has been 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.
PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph
IXa. Sec. 302 of P.D. No. 1096
(The 1977 NBCP)
Original (Authentic/Correct) Text Intercalated (& Wrong) Text
PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph
IXb. June 2009 National Govt Certifications for Sec. 302 of P.D. No. 1096
(The 1977 NBCP)
Office of the President National Printing Office
PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph
IXc. Sec. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096
(The 1977 NBCP) as published thrice in 2005 by DPWH
PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph
X. Status of Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096
(the 1977 National Building Code of the Philippines/ NBCP)
1) was briefly in effect over the period 01 to circa 12 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 and LGUs 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)
.
PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph
XI. Are there legal impediments to the implementation of Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the
2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 (NBCP)?
NONE whatsoever !!!
No
TRO by any RTC (as of 24 May 2005).
No
RTC Injunction (as of about 29 January 2008).
Already fully harmonized by the DPWH with R.A. No.
9266, a valid and subsisting law (as of 01 May 2005).
With a lawful and EXECUTORY Decision/ Court Order mandating their implementation and enforcement by ALL
national and local government officials (as of 04 May 2009).
Apparently No
TRO issued by the CA (as of 09 Dec ‘09).
Apparently No
CA Injunction (as of 09 Dec ‘09)
PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph
XII. Has the Philippine Institute of CEs
(PICE)
Appealed the 04 May 2009 Court Order
(affirming the 29 Jan ’08 Decision)
?
Yes. The PICE Notice of Appeal is now with Court of Appeals (CA).
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 Decision and Order promulgated by Manila RTC Branch 22?
NO . As with the 2005 TROs/ injunction on Secs. 302.3&4 that were immediately enforced by the DPWH, the January 2008 Decision (& May 2009 Court Order) LIFTING/DISSOLVING the injunction on Secs. 302.3&4 are EXECUTORY , particularly in light of the validity of R.A. No. 9266 The DPWH, NGAs, GOCCs and the LGUs must perforce fully comply immediately and unconditionally . Otherwise, their officials may become clearly liable for GRAFT charges, etc. before the Office of the Ombudsman i.e. reference ‘09 PRBoA suit .
PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph
XIII. What does the PICE hope to achieve with its appeal
filed at the Court of Appeals
(CA)?
The PICE is hoping to overturn the 29 January 2008
RTC Manila Branch 22
Decision and to secure an injunction on Secs. 302.3 & 4 from the CA
.
Can the CA issue another set of TRO/s and injunction?
Apparently Yes but only if there is absolute merit in the PICE appeal. The PICE are probably still relying on the
intercalated (and wrongfully worded) text of Sec. 302 of
P.D. No. 1096 that purports that CEs can sign and seal ARCHITECTURAL PLANS / documents
.
PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph
XIV. Is P.D. No. 1096 a higher law compared to R.A. No. 9266?
They are both valid and subsisting laws enacted by entities exercising legislative and executive functions. However, P.D. No. 1096 is a general and older law while R.A. No. 9266 is a special and later (or newer) law. Such conditions/ qualities apparently make R.A. No. 9266 relatively superior with respect to P.D. No. 1096.
What is R.A. No. 9266 (Architecture Act of 2004) in relation to P.D. No. 1096 (1977
National Building Code of the Phils./NBCP
)?
R.A. No. 9266 is a SPECIAL law that may actually be considered as higher than a general law like P.D. No. 1096. R.A. No. 9266 is also a LATER law that contains implied REPEAL provisions directly affecting the content, interpretation, implementation and enforcement of P.D. No. 1096 , an earlier law .
PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph
XV. Does the DPWH Secretary regulate the separate State-regulated professions of architecture and civil engineering? NO. NEVER. ABSOLUTELY NOT , unless the DPWH Secretary wants to be a usurper of PRC and PRBoA functions, which is still illegal. In late October 2009, in a meeting of the DPWH NBCRC and DPWH BoC with the PRC and some PRBs at the DPWH Central Office Operations Room, the entities represented have AGREED that all professional practice-related issues shall be resolved by the PRC, not by the DPWH.
Can the DPWH Secretary be held liable for NOT implementing and enforcing R.A. No. 9266 and P.D. No. 1096?
ABSOLUTELY. He has been sworn to uphold valid and subsisting laws such
as R.A. No. 9266 and P.D. No. 1096 (the very law the DPWH Secretary is supposed to implement and enforce).
As the former DPWH Secretary thought that he was above the law and apparently obstinately refused to implement the law, he was SUED (together with other parties) by the PRBoA before the Office of the Ombudsman on 04 November 2009 .
PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph
XVI. R.A. No. 9266 Stipulation that only a Registered and
Licensed Architect (RLA) shall Prepare, Sign & Seal
Architectural Documents
SEC. 20.
Seal, Issuance and Use of Seal
. - A duly licensed architect shall affix the seal prescribed by the Board bearing the registrant's name, registration number and title "Architect" on
all architectural plans, drawings, specifications and all other contract documents
prepared by or under his/her direct supervision.
(2)
No officer or employee of this Republic , chartered cities, provinces and municipalities
, now or hereafter charged with the enforcement of laws, ordinances or regulations relating to the construction or alteration of buildings,
shall accept or approve any architectural plans or specifications which have not been prepared and submitted in full accord with all the provisions of this Act
(
R.A. No. 9266
); 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 author (referring to a registered/ licensed architect).
All architectural plans, designs, specifications, drawings and architectural documents relative to the construction of a building shall bear the seal and signature only of an architect registered and licensed under this Act
together with his/her professional identification card number and the date of its expiration.
PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph
XVII. R.A. No. 9266 Stipulation that only a Registered and
Licensed Architect (RLA) shall fill ALL Positions in Government Requiring the Services of RLAs (already in FULL 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?
1) Building Official, if other than in an acting capacity as provided for in Sec. 477 of R.A. No. 7160, (The Local Government Code), the
pertinent portions of which are already considered repealed by R.A.
No. 9266, a special and later law; and 2) Staff or Officials of the
local or national government agency or office who prepare, review or approve ANY form of ARCHITECTURAL PLAN/ document.
PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph
XVIIIa. Are there legal impediments to the full implementation and enforcement of R.A. No. 9266
(The Architecture Act of 2004)
?
NONE whatsoever !!!
No TRO
(from 10 April 2004 to date/ 09 Dec 2009)
. No Injunction
(from 10 April 2004 to date/ 09 Dec 2009)
. No Pending Constitutional Question.
A valid and subsisting law since 10 April 2004 and for the implementation and enforcement by ALL national and local government officials.
Has a codified/ coherent set of implementing rules and
regulations (IRR) to guide the
executive branch of the
Philippine Government (at all its levels)
in the full and proper implementation and enforcement of R.A. No. 9266 .
PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph
XXVIIIb. What does Sec. 43 of R.A. No. 9266
(The Architecture Act of 2004) Say and Mean
?
Sec. 43. Act Not Affecting Other Professionals. – This Act shall
not
be construed to affect or prevent the practice of
any other
legally recognized profession.
This provision dates back to the 1950s and is reprised in R.A. No. 9266. The legislative intent was precisely to segregate the professional practices of the Architects and the civil engineers (CEs) i.e. NO overlaps intended by the lawmakers. This provision CANNOT be invoked by the CEs to say that they have been preparing ARCHITECTURAL documents since the 1950s, simply because NO Philippine law apparently EVER stated that CEs can prepare, sign or seal ARCHITECTURAL plans/ documents.
PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph
XIXa. How does R.A. No. 9266
(The Architecture Act of 2004) Relate 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.
R.A. No. 9266 is a
professional regulatory law (PRL)
. Under Sec. 304.5.b of the authentic DPWH-published 2004 Revised IRR (effective 01 May 2005), it was clearly intended for PRLs to be fully observed/ complied with in the implementation and enforcement of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 (1977 NBCP).
PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph
XIXb. What is stated under Sec. 302.5.b
of the 2004
Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 (The 1977 NBCP)? Sec. 304. Issuance of Building Permit xxx 5. Terms and Conditions of Permit b. This permit shall be accompanied by the various applicable ancillary and accessory permits, plans and
specifications signed and sealed by the corresponding design professionals, who shall be responsible for the comprehensiveness and correctness of the plans in
compliance to the Code and its IRR and to all applicable referral codes and professional regulatory laws. Very Important Note:
Sec. 304.5.b
of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 as published thrice nationally by the DPWH in April 2005, clearly puts compliances with the professional regulatory laws (PRL) such as R.A. No. 9266 as a major requirement under the 2004 Revised IRR. The above provision has been conveniently (and possibly fraudulently/ illegally) deleted/ omitted/ replaced in the privately published versions of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 (1977 NBCP) such as the version published by Atty. Vicente Foz and openly sold (over the counter) at National Bookstore (NBS) branches nationwide.
PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph
XIXb. How does R.A. No. 9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004) Relate to the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRRs) of Other Laws, Department Administrative Orders and Memorandum Circulars (especially those issued by the 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 (more than 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.
PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph
XIXc. What is the effect of the 2008 Decision & 2009 Court 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 12 May 2005.
What is the effect of a DPWH Memorandum Circular issued after 2005 on the Original Effectivity of Secs. 302.3
& 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 (1977 NBCP)?
NOTHING. All DPWH Memorandum Circulars, issued after 2005 and which may violate or visibly fail to comply with executory Court Orders, appear NOT to modify, amend repeal nor supersede
the original effectivity of the said sections, attained by three (3)
national publications of the DPWH on 01, 08 & 15 April 2005.
PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph
XIXd. Is a DPWH Memorandum Circular (issued by the DPWH Secretary) superior to a Court
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 Memorandum Order ?
YES, particularly if the DPWH Memorandum Circular violates or
visibly fails to comply with executory Court Orders (for compliance by all Philippine national and local government officials). The
PRBoA is presently preparing separate|Ombudsman complaints against a Metro Manila and a provincial mayor as examples.
PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph
XX. What LGUs are already actively and fully implementing and enforcing R.A. No.
9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004) as of September 2009?
The UAP-IAPoA Report delivered on 05 Sep 2009 mentioned
the Chartered Cities of Davao and
Butuan (Mindanao); Tacloban and Iloilo (Visayas); and Legaspi and Vigan (Luzon)
and
The Province of Cavite (Luzon).
PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph
XXI. From April 2004 to date, is there any
case, complaint or petition filed by CEs/
PICE in any venue Against R.A. No. 9266
(The Architecture Act of 2004) itself?
NONE whatsoever !!!
Why is this?
It is probably because R.A. No. 9266 is a STRONG LAW with very sound legal bases. It is also probably because representatives of 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 appointment of RLAs to positions in government i.e. requiring the expertise of RLAs, was apparently amended at the Congressional Bi-Cameral Conference Committee level in early 2004 precisely to accommodate the various last minute representations made by the CEs in Congress.
PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph
XXII. Are there legal impediments to the full implementation and enforcement of R.A. No. 9266
(The Architecture Act of 2004) and of P.D. No.
1096 (The 1977 National Building Code of the
Philippines)?
NONE whatsoever !!!
Why is this?
R.A. No. 9266 and P.D. No. 1096, both HAVE a codified/ coherent set of implementing
rules and regulations (IRR) promulgated by the Professional Regulatory Board of Architecture (PRBoA) and approved by the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC)
in the case of R.A. No. 9266 and by the DPWH in the case of P.D. No. 1096 . Thus, the DPWH, the other NGAs, the GOCCs and the LGUs HAVE very firm legal bases to implement and enforce both R.A. No. 9266 and P.D. No. 1096 and ALL of their provisions, specifically Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096, which
LIMIT to Architects (RLAs) the matter of signing and sealing ARCHITECTUIRAL
PLANS/ documents. Lastly, the 2008 Decision & 2009 Court Order that paved the way for the full implementation of Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 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 with the Court of Appeals (CA), there is
apparently NO TRO/ injunction issued by the CA as of 09 December 2009.
PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph
XXIII. Are there possible legal IMPEDIMENTS to the full implementation of R.A. No. 1582 of 1956, which amended R.A. No. 544 of 1950, the Civil
Engineering Law) by the Executive Branch of Government?
YES !
Why is this?
R.A. No. 1582, which amended R.A. No. 544, apparently to this
date (or after more than 50 years after their passage) still does
NOT have a codified/ coherent set of implementing rules and
regulations (IRR) promulgated by the Professional Regulatory Board of Civil Engineering (PRBoCE) nor approved by the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC).
Thus, the DPWH, the other NGAs, the GOCCs and the LGUs, which are all executive agencies, apparently do NOT have a firm legal basis to implement and enforce R.A. No. 544 (amended by
R.A. No. 1582) or ANY of its provisions.
PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph
XXIV. Why are the 2008 and 2009 Court Orders re Secs. 302.3 & 4 of
the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 (the 1977 NBCP) EXECUTORY
by ALL national and local Philippine Government Officials?
The Court’s 04 May 2009 Order AFFIRMING its 29 January 2008 Decision LIFTING/ DISSOLVING its 24 May 2005 injunction are all EXECUTORY i.e. reference Rule 39 Sec. 4 of the Rules of Court; Crisostomo vs. SEC, 179 SCRA 146; Santiago vs. Vasquez, 217 SCRA 633; Marcelo Steel Corp vs. 54 SCRA 89; Golez vs. Leonidas, 107 SCRA 187. Since Sections 302.3 and 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096
(1977 National Building Code of the Philippines/ NBCP) have already been IN EFFECT from 01 through circa 12 May 2005 (by virtue of the IRR effectivity obtained by national publication),
the DPWH and ALL other Philippine Government Officials must therefore CONTINUE with the INTERRUPTED implementation/ enforcement of the said sections, to fully comply with the Court’s 2009 Order and 2008 Decision .
Important Note: It has been more than twenty two (22) months since the Court promulgated its 2008
LIFTING/ DISSOLUTION Order. To date i.e. 09 December 2009, the DPWH apparently continues to resist not only the Court Order but also fail to implement/ enforce valid & subsisting laws such as
R.A No. 9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004) and even P.D. No. 1096 itself, the very law the DPWH is
supposed to fully implement/ enforce.
PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph
XXVI. Will DPWH Memorandum Circulars protect National and Local Government Officials from Possible Complaints/ Suits Arising from Violations of Valid and Subsisting Laws such as P.D. No. 1096 and R.A. No. 9266 or of EXECUTORY Court Orders?
NO . Mere executive issuances such as DPWH Memorandum Circulars issued to ALL Building Officials Nationwide MUST have a 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. (or are
issued without the benefit of a proper public consultative process or
of national publication), thereby making the same benefit a particular sector of society (such as civil engineers who INSIST on practicing architecture),
then the Philippine Government Officials who subscribe to, implement and enforce such potentially illegal executive issuances themselves become administratively, criminally and civilly LIABLE under the laws violated.
The DPWH Memorandum Circulars are NOT laws but are only supposed to be tools to implement, NOT violate laws .
PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph
XXVII. A. Is a national/ LGU Official LIABLE for following a DPWH Memorandum Circular that may be violative of a Court Order?
YES, and he/she can also be sued for Indirect Contempt at the RTC!
B. Is a national/ LGU Official LIABLE for following a DPWH Memorandum Circular that may be violative of the original effectivity of Secs. 302.3 & 4
of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 (1977 NBCP), already effectively mandated for RESUMPTION by the Court ‘s Order?
YES, and he/she can be sued administratively and criminally for such acts!
C. Is a national/ LGU Official LIABLE for possible violations of R.A. No.
9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004)?
YES, and he/she can be sued CRIMINALLY at the RTC!
D. Can a national/ LGU Official be charged with GRAFT for the foregoing?
YES, he/she can be sued at the Ombudsman, together with
the private sector entities (e.g. CEs insisting on the practice of architecture) who directly/ indirectly benefit from the acts
of the national/ LGU official!
PRBoA
www.architectureboard.ph