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

 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.;
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,
including architectonics and structural design i.e. already
segregated from the recognized modern-day scope of the
practice of architecture (specially in the Philippines, by law);
4) was NEVER part of any other known professional calling i.e.
architecture has never ever been part of civil engineering;
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 use possibly only in the
last 450 years while the term “civil engineering” is
apparently only about 170 years old;
2) encompassed many modern-day professions including
geodetic & sanitary engineering i.e. already segregated from
the recognized modern-day scope of the practice of civil
engineering in the Philippines (by law);
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 on Philippine soil;
4) governs the practice of about 24,500 Philippine registered
architects (PRAs) and approx. 14,000 registered and licensed
architects (RLAs), the only natural persons under Philippine
law who can legally prepare, sign and seal
ARCHITECTURAL documents (specifically architectural
PLANS) .
 PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph

IVa. The Philippine Civil Eng’g (CE) Law . .

1) is R.A. No. 544 of 1950, as REPEALED by R.A. No. 1582 of
1956 (which repealed Sec. 24 of R.A. No. 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 arch’l 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 design CANNOT prepare, sign nor seal
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING documents;
6) governs the practice of about 114,000 Philippine registered
CEs (PRCEs) and approx. 80,000 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.
 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
 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
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; and
5) membership in the integrated & accredited professional
organization of architects (IAPOA).
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 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 Sec. 302 NEVER stated that Civil Engineers (CEs) can sign
or seal ARCHITECTURAL plans/ documents i.e. 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 24 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 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
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).
No TRO issued by the CA (as of 18 Oct 2009).
 PRBoA www.architectureboard.ph

XII. Has the Philippine Institute of CEs (PICE) Appealed

the 29 January 2008 & 04 May 2009 Court Orders?
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.
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?
Not really. They are both valid and subsisting laws enacted
by entities exercising legislative and executive functions.

What is R.A. No. 9266 (of 2004) in relation to

P.D. No. 1096 (of 1977)?
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 he wants to be a usurper
of PRC and PRBoA functions, which is still illegal.

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).
Yet, he apparently still obstinately refuses to implement the law.
Could it be that the DPWH Secretary thinks he is above the law???
 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/ 18 Oct 2009).
No Injunction (from 10 April 2004 to date/ 18 Oct 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 states 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.
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 (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
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 24 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).
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 Chartered Cities of Davao and Butuan

(Mindanao); Tacloban and Iloilo (Visayas);
and Legaspi and Vigan (Luzon).

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 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 to fully implement 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 18 October 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 than50 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. 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 24 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 eighteen (18) months since the Court promulgated its 2008
LIFTING/ DISSOLUTION Order. To date i.e. 18 October 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
 PRBoA
www.architectureboard.ph

Mabuhay ang mga

Arkitektong Pilipino!
Mabuhay ang mga TAMANG BATAS, mga
takdang regulasyon at mga Utos ng Korte na
nararapat lamang na ipatupad o sundin
ng Pamahalaang Pilipinas
at ng LAHAT ng kawani nito !!!

Thank You
and a Pleasant Morning to You All !!!