SUBJECT TOPIC DIGEST MAKER

Constitutional Law 1 Soft Law Kai Uy

G.R No. 213948 April 18, 2017

Knights of Rizal v DMCI Homes Inc

b) it was against the guidelines of NHCP’s ​“Guidelines on

Monuments Honoring National Heroes, Illustrious Filipinos
FACTS
and Other Personages”
Respondent DMCI Inc. acquired property near Taft Avenue to
c) the Torre de Manila project violated the country’s
build a condominium on the lot. DMCI planned to build a
commitment under the Venice Charter
"Forty Nine (49) Storey w/ Basement & 2 penthouse Level
Res'l./Condominium" on this lot. They acquired building
permits despite initial suspensions due to the development
plans of the building which will result in the obstruction of the
national hero’s monument, as it will rise up high above the
back of the Rizal Monument which would ruin the line of HELD
sight of the Rizal Shrine from the frontal Roxas Boulevard
No, the Supreme Court ruled that the petition lacks merit and
vantage point.
must be dismissed.
Following the commencement of the construction, KOR
RATIONALE
(KNIGHTS OF RIZAL: non-sectarian and non-profit
organization) filed a TRO and permanent injunction against (A and B not important but just to note)
the construction of Torre de Manila, stating that a) the
building was a nuisance per se and that desecrated the Rizal a) No, the Court ruled that it is not a nuisance per se as
Monument by overshadowing the entire monument and b) it the Torre de Manila project cannot be considered as a
was against the guidelines set by the National Historical "direct menace to public health or safety." Not only is
Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) and lastly, ​c)​ ​that the a condominium project commonplace in the City of
construction of the building was against commitments Manila, DMCI-PDI has, according to the proper
under the Venice Charter. government agencies, complied with health and
safety standards set by law through the permits and
ISSUE clearances that they have acquired.

(A and B not important but just to note)

b) No, the construction did not violate NHCP’s
Whether or not: guidelines since there is no law prohibiting the
construction of Torre de Manila due to its effect on
a) it is a nuisance per se the background of the Rizal Monument.
Furthermore, Section 47 of Ordinance No. 8119 specifically
regulates the "development of historic sites and
facilities." Section 48 regulates "large commercial
signage and/or pylon." There is nothing in Sections
 47 and 48 of Ordinance No. 8119 that disallows the
construction of a building outside the boundaries of a
historic site or facility, where such building may
affect the background of a historic site. In this case,
the Torre de Manila stands 870 meters outside and to
the rear of the Rizal Monument and vannot possibly
obstruct the front view of the Rizal Monument
c) No. The Court ruled that the Venice Charter is
merely a codification of guiding principles for the
preservation and restoration of ancient
monuments, sites and buildings. It is still up to
each state to remain responsible for applying the
plan within the framework of its own culture and
traditions. The Court stated that the Venice
Charter is not treaty and cannot become
enforceable as a law as it is mere guidelines.
Explanatory Notes
(For the mandamus issue)
The case was originally filed as a petition for Injunction/writ
of Preliminary Injunction then, when it was reviewed
by the Supreme Court, they have decided to treat it as
a petition for Mandamus.
The reason for this must be traced from the history of the case.
KOR's prayers were asking for a permanent stoppage
on the construction of the Torre de Manila. Since the
construction has already started, KOR wants to
demolish what was already started because they
allege that a right has been violated and lifted from
the case, this is the paragraph which explains their
cause:
"Further, the KOR argues that the Rizal Monument, as a
National Treasure, is entitled to "full protection of the
law" and the national government must abate the act
or activity that endangers the nation's cultural
heritage "even against the wishes of the local
government hosting it."
That is why they filed it under a petition for Injunction.
It may seem – at first glance – that KOR wants to preserve
their rights from being further violated, but under
careful observation, one can see that KOR WANTS
the Gov’t to do an act which will help protect these
“rights with regard to the nation’s cultural heritage”
It’s not a direct violation of their right but of the
“nation’s” right. Hence, the Supreme Court’s
decision to treat the case as a Mandamus.
DEFINITIONS
(IN CASE YOU WERE “WTF??” CAUSE I HONESTLY
HAD THE SAME PROB ????? CAUTION: THIS
IS REAL ADVANCED > REMEDIAL LAW
SHIT. )
Injuction is defined as:
n. a writ (order) issued by a court ordering someone to do
something or prohibiting some act after a court
hearing. The procedure is for someone who has been
or is in danger of being harmed, or needs some help
(relief) or his/her attorney, to a) petition for the
injunction to protect his/her rights; to b) get an "order
to show cause" from the judge telling the other party
to show why the injunction should not be issued; c)
serve (deliver or have delivered) the order to show
cause on the party whom he/she wishes to have
ordered to act or be restrained ("enjoined"); d) appear
at a scheduled hearing in which both sides attempt to
convince the judge why the injunction should or
should not be granted.
Preliminary Injunction, in this case is defined under the
Revised Rules of Court:
Section 1, RULE 58, Revised Rules of Court on
Preliminary Injunction, to wit:
"Section 1. Preliminary injunction defined; classes. — A
preliminary injunction is an order granted at any
stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment
or final order, requiring a party or a court, agency or
a person to refrain from a particular act or acts. It
may also require the performance of a particular act
or acts, in which case it shall be known as a
preliminary mandatory injunction. (1a)"1
"Section 2. Who may grant preliminary injunction. — A
preliminary injunction may be granted by the court
where the action or proceeding is pending. If the
action or proceeding is pending in the Court of
Appeals or in the Supreme Court, it may be issued by
said court or any member thereof. (2a)"2
Section 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction. —
A preliminary injunction may be granted when it is
established:
(a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief
demanded, and the whole or part of such relief
consists in restraining the commission or
continuance of the act or acts complained of, or
in requiring the performance of an act or acts
either for a limited period or perpetually;
(b) That the commission, continuance or
non-performance of the act or acts complained of
during the litigation would probably work
injustice to the applicant; or
(c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing,
threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or
suffering to be done some act or acts probably in
violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the
subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to
render the judgment ineffectual. (3a)3”

While a petition for ​Mandamus ​is defined as:

a judicial ​remedy in the form of an order from a superior

court to any government, subordinate
court, corporation, or public authority, to ​do (or
prohibit from doing) some specific act which that
body is obliged under law to do (or refrain from
doing), and which is in the nature of public duty, and
in certain cases one of a statutory duty.
It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do
something against statutory provision.
(This phrase is important later on kasi ieexplain sa dulo ng
decision na hindi pwede iapprove ang mandamus na
hinihingi ng KOR, because there was no clear finding
that said act was a "grave abuse of discretion,
manifest injustice, or palpable excess of authority” in
the part of City of Manila sa pag approve nila sa
permits ni DMCI. Why? BECAUSE THERE IS NO
LAW THAT PROHIBITS DMCI TO BUILD A
CONDO IN AN AREA THAT IS A) PRIVATELY
OWNED AND B) FAR FROM ANY HISTORIC SITE.

That’s it really.