The Professional Regulatory Board of Architecture (PRBoA)
URL/ website: www.architectureboard.ph
_____________________________________________________________________________
PUBLIC NOTICE
as of 12 October 2009
by Electronic Re-Publication
(reposted 30 September 2010 at the PRBoA website)
TO: ALL National Government Agencies (NSAs) and their infrastructure staff, LGUs and their Acting Building Officials Building Officials and Civil Engineers (CEs) who insist on signing and sealing ARCHITECTURAL Plans and Documents (despite the clear provisions under several valid and subsisting laws), Planning/ Design Consultants, Contractors/ Constructors, Developers and Building/ Project Owners, Etc.
_______________________________________________________________________
The Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers (PICE) has published DPWH Memorandum Circular No. 2 signed by DPWH Secretary Hermogenes E. Ebdane, Jr., dated 16 September 2009 and directing all building officials “to process and issue the necessary permits and certificates to all applicants/owners notwithstanding whether the designs/plans and/or other pertinent documents xxx are prepared, signed or sealed by either a registered architect and/or civil engineer” until there is a final and executory decision in the xxx case;
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Before deciding and attempting to comply with the said 2009 DPWH directive, ALL Public Officials are advised (and warned anew) by the PRBoA to seriously consider the following:
1) R.A. No. 9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004) is a LAW that fully reflects State Policy!
R.A. No. 9266 LIMITS to registered and licensed architects (RLAs) the professional PRIVILEGE of preparing, signing and sealing Architectural Documents.
The 2008 and 2009 DPWH Orders now relied upon by the PICE and its Members (supposedly allowing Civil Engineers/ CEs to sign and seal Architectural documents or the “A” sheets of building plans) are mere Executive Issuances and are therefore NOT LAWS i.e.
Due to their inferior status, executive issuances CANNOT supersede the dictates of State Policies such as R.A. No. 9266.
2) As apparently certified thrice (3x) by two (2) agencies of the National Government (including the National Printing Office that publishes the Official Gazette), the authentic text of Sec. 302 of the 1977 National Building Code of the Philippines (P.D. No. 1096 i.e. another Law) NEVER stated that CEs can prepare, sign or seal Architectural Documents.
3) The CE law R.A. No. 544 of 1950, as amended by R.A. No. 1582 of 1956 apparently does NOT state that CEs can prepare, sign or seal Architectural Document NOR does it state that CEs are also privileged to practice the separate State-regulated profession of Architecture.
To date (more than 60 years later), the said law still apparently lacks a codified set of implementing rules and regulations (IRR).
The CEs are NOT academically nor sub-professionally (apprentice-level) trained to practice Architecture. The CEs have also NOT been tested by the State for their capability to satisfactorily understand architectural concepts and processes, much less undertake architectural services. Their curriculum and licensure examination syllabi/ table of specifications do NOT include the Architectural planning and design of buildings for human habitation or the preparation of Architectural Documents.
4) Only the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) through its Professional Regulatory Boards (PRBs) have jurisdiction over the 44 State-regulated professions. Thus, only the PRC and the Professional Regulatory Board of Architecture (PRBoA) have EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION over the practice of the State-regulated profession of Architecture.
Clearly, the DPWH Secretary does NOT have the power to regulate the practice of Architecture in the
In recognition of this State Policy, the AUTHENTIC Sec. 304.5.b. of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 (The 1977 NBCP), as promulgated in October 2004 by a former DPWH Secretary states:
“SECTION 304. Issuance of Building Permit xxx
5. Terms and Conditions of Permits xxx
a. xxx
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.” (underscoring by the PRBoA)
R.A. No. 9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004) is one such professional regulatory LAW (PRL) i.e. the SPECIAL and LATER LAW on the practice of Architecture in the Philippines, that must be complied with in the issuance of the Building Permit by Building Officials nationwide.
The foregoing Sec. 304.5.b of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 (The 1977 NBCP) is a valid provision i.e. NO TRO nor injunction, that MUST be fully implemented and enforced by Building Officials nationwide.
5) To date (or more than 6 years after becoming the new Law on the practice of Architecture in the Philippines), there is NO TRO, NO injunction and NO pending constitutional question whatsoever on ANY of the provisions of R.A. No. 9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004) or of its 2004 IRR, particularly the ones that LIMIT to registered and licensed architects (RLAs) the professional PRIVILEGE of preparing, signing and sealing Architectural documents.
R.A. No. 9266 is therefore a valid and subsisting law that MUST be implemented by ALL Government officials, specifically including local government (LGU) officials such as city/ municipal administrators, legal officers, planning officers, treasurers and building officials, under pain of sanctions and administrative/ criminal liability, particularly under its Sec. 29.
6) Similarly, there is apparently NO standing TRO nor injunction on Secs. 302.3 and 302.4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 (the 1977 NBCP) since early 2008 (with the Court’s lifting/ dissolution of the 2005 injunction secured by the PICE and dismissal of the PICE petition filed against the DPWH Secretary).
Unless the DPWH Secretary expressly amends the said provisions under the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 (by way of another set of revised IRRs that must be crafted by the DPWH, then be subjected through a properly documented public consultation and national publication), the Secs. 302.3 and 302.4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 MUST likewise be implemented and enforced by
7) As the 2008 and 2009 DPWH Orders apparently intentionally VIOLATED R.A. No. 9266 (and therefore unduly favored the CEs/ PICE in the course of the violation of said Law), a former DPWH Secretary and 2 of his Undersecretaries were eventually SUED FOR GRAFT at the Office of the Ombudsman by the PRBoA in November 2009.
Also impleaded in the PRBoA Ombudsman complaint were the PICE and the publisher of the intercalated version of Sec. 302 of P.D. No. 1096, purporting (making it appear) that CEs could sign and seal Architectural Documents.
Similar cases are still being readied by the PRBoA for filing in the remaining months of 2010 against the concerned LGU officials, specifically Building Officials who continually refuse or willfully neglect to implement and enforce R.A. No. 9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004) despite sufficient public notices or calls from the PRBoA.
The issue involved is the implementation of Sec. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No.1096, otherwise known as the 1977
After its publication by the DPWH in April 2005, Sec. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No.1096 became effective over the period 01 through 24 May 2005 but was subsequently the subject of a writ of preliminary injunction dated 24 May 2005, issued by Manila RTC Branch 22 in Civil Case No. 05-112502 (PICE vs. Ebdane);
This writ of preliminary injunction was later LIFTED/ DISSOLVED by the Court in its Decision on 29 January 2008, and later re-affirmed on 04 May 2009 in a ruling which denied PICE’s 2008 motion for reconsideration; although the Decision is not yet final, Secs. 302. 3 & 4 are already executory by virtue of the lifting of the injunction;
While the foregoing ruling was elevated on appeal to the Court of Appeals, PICE has NOT secured a TRO or injunction against the implementation of Sec. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No.1096 to date;
The certified text of Sec. 302 of P.D. No.1096 (1977 NBCP) does NOT state that civil engineers (CEs) can sign or seal architectural plans/ documents i.e. perspectives, floor/ ceiling/ roof plans, sections; elevations, detailed architectural drawings, schedules of finishes/ doors/ windows, architectural interior (AI) plans and designs, specifications, and the like for ALL buildings on Philippine soil;
Neither does the CE law R.A. No. 544 of 1956, as amended by R.A. No. 1582 of 1956 provide that civil engineers (CEs) can prepare, sign or seal architectural plans or documents;
On the contrary, R.A. No. 9266, otherwise known as the Architecture Act of 2004, which repealed R.A. No. 545 of 1950, as amended by R.A. No. 1581 of 1956, expressly LIMITS the preparation, signing or sealing of architectural plans/ documents for ANY building on Philippine soil, only to registered and licensed Architects (RLAs); the PICE-published DPWH Memorandum Circular No. 2 cannot supersede, amend nor disregard R.A. No. 9266, a law that has been in full effect since 10 April 2004;
Since there is NO legal impediment in the implementation of R.A. No. 9266 and its IRR after it became effective into law on 10 April 2004, the PICE has NOT acquired any right to publicly sanction the signing nor sealing of architectural plan/ documents for ANY building on Philippine soil by its member-civil engineers;
Under R.A. No. 9266, civil engineers (CEs, even if PRC-registered) are classified as unregistered persons who CANNOT undertake the preparation, signing or sealing of ANY architectural plan/ document for ANY building on Philippine soil; the CEs who insist on doing otherwise may thus be held LIABLE for the ILLEGAL practice of architecture and other violations of R.A. No. 9266;
Unless with the prior official concurrence of the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) and the Professional Regulatory Boards (PRBs), NO person (not even the DPWH Secretary) has the unbridled right to unilaterally interpret the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 with respect to State-regulated professional practices and documents, and to mislead the public into believing that civil engineers (CEs) are allowed to sign and seal architectural plans/ documents when the law says otherwise;
The DPWH, through its LGU Building Officials nationwide are therefore under formal advisement to CONTINUE with the implementation and enforcement of Sec. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No.1096 since the same is consistent with at least 4 national laws i.e. R.A. No. 9266, P.D. No. 1096, R.A. No. 9514 (Fire Code of 2008) and R.A. No. 544/ 1582;
It is therefore the purpose of this publication to make the public AWARE that until such time that the constitutionality or validity of the said laws are properly challenged in the Supreme Court, the unabated practice of allowing civil engineers to sign and seal ANY architectural plan or document must be STOPPED once and for all, and those that may have already been signed and sealed by civil engineers (CEs) from 10 April 2004 to date are consequently of doubtful veracity and may render the concerned buildings as illegally constructed;
In the foregoing situation, the building owners who commissioned the CEs, the constructors and developers who used such plans i.e. architectural plans/ documents signed and sealed by CEs, as well as the LGU officers who approved such documents may be held LIABLE civilly, criminally and administratively; and
In the same vein, National Government and/or LGU officials who approved such documents may first be separately impleaded in administrative and/or special cases that might arise from the flagrant violations of R.A. No. 9266 and of P.D. No. 1096; legal steps in the future shall include the identification and prosecution of the concerned parties who may have conspired to violate R.A. No. 9266 and/or P.D. No. 1096.
Nothing follows.
No comments:
Post a Comment