The House of Representatives moved recently to provide a law that the Supreme Court said was missing when government agencies and nationalist groups sought to stop the construction of the Torre de Manila skyscraper from “photobombing” the Rizal monument in Manila.
This, after the Lower House approved on second reading House Bill 8829 proposing to protect the physical integrity of a cultural property of national shrines, monuments and landmarks by penalizing the obstruction to its view and sightline.
Authored by Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, HB 8829 was endorsed for plenary approval by the House Committee on Basic Education and Culture chaired by Pasig City Rep. Roman T. Romulo.
In filing the bill, Lagman cited the SC ruling that lifted a temporary restraining order issued by a lower court for the suspension of the construction of the Torre de Manila by DMCI Homes.
“There is one fact that is crystal clear in this case. There is no law prohibiting the construction of the Torre de Manila due to its effect on the background, ‘view, vista, sightline or setting of the Rizal Monument,” said the High Tribunal.
The National Commission for Culture and the Arts, the National Parks Development Committee and the Knights of Rizal have assailed the construction of the condominium building for ruining the view of the Rizal monument.
“It is too conspicuous to be denied that the DMCI Homes tower derogates the national hero’s shrine. It obstructs the skyline even as it distracts the viewers from remembering Rizal’s heroism and martyrdom in Luneta and the dire effects of Spain’s colonial rule,” explained Lagman.
He noted that netizens have condemned the tower as a “photobomber”.
According to Lagman HB 8829 proposes to prohibit any construction or real estate development that could “ruin the view and sightline of any national shrine, monument, landmark and other historic edifices and structures”.
HB 8829 proposes to amend Republic Act 10066, otherwise known as the National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009” by modifying the definitions of ‘cultural property’, historical monument’ and ‘historical shrine’.
It expands Section 20 of the law to include national historical landmarks, shrines, monuments, and sites that should not be relocated or altered through substantive development that would adversely affect their visual impact.
Under the bill, local government units are mandated to pass an ordinance for the protection of any cultural property in their respective jurisdictions.