CORRECT VERSION of the 2010 Update of the 2009 PRBoA Public Notice

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. NOT State Policy.

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 Philippines, particularly as regards the matter of the preparation, signing and sealing of Architectural Documents.

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 ALL Building Officials nationwide.

7) Over the years 2002 through 2010, the Philippine Congress (the legislative branch of Government), the Court (representing the judicial branch of Government) and the Departments of Justice and Public Works/ DoJ/ DPWH and some LGUs (representing the executive branch of Government) have all ruled in favor of the Architects, without fail.  

The RLA-supportive actions of the 3 branches of Government include:

a.   The January 2004 DoJ Opinion (signed by then DoJ Secretary, now Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez) which ruled that Architectural documents are for Architects and civil/ structural documents are for CEs i.e. based on the repealed Architecture Law R.A. No. 545 of 1950, amended by R.A. No. 1581 of 1956 and on the CE Law R.A. No. 544 of 1950, amended by R.A. No. 1582 of 1956;   

b.   the passage of H.B. 8539 and S.B. No. 2710 respectively by the 2 Houses of Congress and their approval into law on 17 March 2004 as R.A. No. 9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004) by the executive branch of Government, represented by the President of the Philippines;

c.   the October 2004 promulgation by the DPWH of Secs. 302.3 and 302.4 as part of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 (the 1977 NBCP), which LIMIT to RLAs the act of signing and sealing Architectural Documents;

d.   the January 2008 lifting/ dissolution of the Court of the PICE-secured 2005 preliminary injunction on Secs. 302.3 and 302.4 as part of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 (the 1977 NBCP); the lifting/ dissolution Order formed part of the Court Decision;

e.   the 2010 denial by the Court of the PICE Motion for the Reconsideration of its 2008 Decision that lifted/ dissolved the PICE-secured 2005 preliminary injunction on Secs. 302.3 and 302.4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 (the 1977 NBCP); and

f.     some LGUs are already actively implementing R.A. No. 9266 in full compliance with the rule of LAW (and NOT with a mere DPWH Memorandum Order, which is NOT the LAW). 

8) 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 the former/ incumbent Local Chief Executives and their Building Officials who continually refuse/d or willfully neglect/ed to implement and enforce R.A. No. 9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004) despite sufficient public notices or calls from the PRBoA or from the RLA community.

Similarly, private sector entities such as CEs who sign and seal Architectural Documents and the Owners, Constructors and Developers of the subject buildings/ structures shall be impleaded in said PRBoA complaints.

Source: Architecture Board