GROUP 3

Arjay Arzadon
Ellen Bohayo
Cristopher Cogal
Chris Ohlliver Cuizon
Jenny Rose Gonzales
Lionelyn Nuñez
Jhan Michael Pindot
Local Case:

Torre De Manila
(Manila 2014)
The construction of Torre de Manila
has been hit for violating Manila City
zoning laws. (2014)
Torre de Manila

■ Torre de Manila is a high-rise residential building being built by DMCI Homes in

Ermita, Manila.
■ The tower has been publicly known as “a national photobomber” and “a national
disgrace to Rizal”

Floor Area: 7,448 sq. m

Floor Count: 49
June 2012
- Carlos Celdran, first initiated an online campaign to protest the planned
construction of the condominium stating its negative effect on the sight-lines of the
monument of Jose Rizal (national hero)
- the zoning permit was issued
September 13, 2013
- the foundation for Torre de Manila was completed
2014

 aside from its impact on the Rizal Shrine, a National Historical Landmark, the
construction of Torre de Manila has been hit for violating Manila City zoning
laws
 its floor-to-area ratio exceeds the limit set for its location.
 DMCI Homes has reiterated that it had all the necessary permits to begin
construction (obtained during the term of then Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim)
 As of August 20, the tower was already 19 floors high
 The Knights of Rizal have filed a petition with the Supreme Court (SC) for the
demolition of the condominium
Knights of Rizal

 The 49-storey building must be demolished because it ruins the view of the
historic Rizal Monument
DMCI HOMES

 given clearances by city officials

 argued that there is no law saying the sightline of national monuments must
be protected and there is no law against photo bombing
 was able to secure a formal exemption from the floor are restriction under the
zoning ordinance which was subsequently approved by the City Council of
Manila
Zoning Laws (Ordinance No.8119)

o A zoning ordinance in Manila states that if the building is within the university
cluster, where Torre de Manila stands, it should follow a floor-area ratio of 4.
Torre’s building plans indicate it has a floor-area ratio of 7.79.

o Manila City’s planning and development officer, Resty Rebong, approved the
zoning permit for Torre de Manila in June 2012, but it was later revealed that
Manila Zoning Board of Adjustments and Appeals (MZBAA) only approved it in
2014.
Decision of the Supreme Court

April 25, 2017

 The Supreme Court allowed DMCI Homes to resume the construction of the
Torre de Manila condominium near Luneta Park (Vote 9-6)
 SC Associates Justice Francis Jardeleza, said the rule of law was not followed
when the Manila government granted permits for the construction of the
condominium.
 Guidelines of the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NCHP),
which the KOR cited, have no legal weight.
 NCHP noted that Torre de Manila sits outside the boundaries of the protected
Rizal Park (870 meters away from the monument)
Republic Act 10066 (National Cultural heritage Act of 2009)
An Act Providing for the Protection and Conservation of the National Culture
Heritage

Republic Act No. 4846 (Cultural Properties Preservation and Protection Act)

Republic Act 7356

The law creation the National Commission for Culture and the Arts that protect
the background or backdrop of any historical or cultural property.
International Case:

Ronan Point
(London 1968)
 In the early morning hours of May 16,
1968, the occupant of apartment 90 on
the 18th floor of the Ronan Point
Apartment Tower lit a match for her
stove to brew her morning cup of tea.
The resulting gas explosion, due to leak,
knocked her unconscious.
Design and Construction

■ The Ronan Point Apartment Tower was constructed using the Larsen-Neilsen
system.
■ Larsen-Neilsen system
– Developed in Denmark in 1948
– Composed of factory-built precast concrete components designed to minimize
on site construction work
– Walls, floors, and stairwys are all precast
Collapse

■ The collapse was initiated by a gas-stove leak on the 18th floor in apartment 90. The
resident struck a match to light the stove to make a cup of tea, and was knocked
unconscious by the resulting explosion. The force of the explosion knocked out the
opposite corner walls of the apartment. This walls where the sole support for the
walls directly above. This created a chain reaction in which floor 19 collapsed, then
floor 20 and so on, propagating upward.
Cause of Failure

■ Brass Nut
– used to connect the hose to the stove
– had a thinner flange than the standard
– had an unusual degree of chamfer
– a force of 15.6 kN or 3500 lbs would break the connection
– fractured by over tightening during installation
■ Structural redundancy
– BRSICL, performed an extensive battery of tests to discover how much internal
force Ronan Poinrt couldwithstand
■ Walls – 19.3kPa or 2.8 psi
■ Kitchen and Living Room walls – 1.7 kPa or 0.25 psi
■ Extrerior Walls – 21 kPa or 3 psi

– had no fail-safe mechanism

Ethical Aspects

■ Substandard workmanship had been detected in the initial inquiry of the collapse.
Even though it was determined to be a negligible factor in the corner collapsing, this
information was hidden from the public. Was it a question of ethic or politics? By the
time the inquiry’s findings were published in 1968, many large panel concrete
buildings has been completed.