THE ARTICLE “Clashing positions on Torre by gov’t” (Front Page, 9/2/15)—meaning between the solicitor general and the National Historical Commission of the Philippines—confuses me no end, indeed!
If the former and present mayors of Manila gave the go-signal for Torre de Manila’s construction (“Lim, Estrada approved Torre de Manila permits,” Front Page, 8/19/15) and that, according to Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio, there is no specific law prohibiting the construction of the building (“SC Justice Carpio: vs Torre construction,” Front Page, 8/12/15), why must DMCI, the Torre de Manila’s owner-developer, suffer the consequences of its demolition (as petitioned by the Knights of Rizal) now that it is almost complete?
I am aware of the provision of Section 15, Article 14 of the Constitution, which says: “The State shall conserve, promote and popularize the nation’s historical and cultural heritage and resources, as well as artistic creations”—this is, in turn, what the Knights of Rizal is invoking in this controversy. Nevertheless, this is not unlike the antipolitical dynasty provision in the Constitution: it needs an enabling law to be enforceable. And so, even as a related bill has now been filed in Congress, political dynasts will continue to be with us until such bill is signed into law. In more or less the same fashion, even as the Charter also requires us to respect our national anthem, there is an enabling law—I just cannot readily recall its name and number—that describes how it should be played and/or sung, and provides the appropriate penalties for violation thereof.
Meanwhile, I find it rather amusing that in the last hearing some justices kept recalling so many things, truly surprisingly unknown to many, about what, how and where Rizal had wanted the nation to remember him by. Alack, did our honorable justices really know that much about our national hero’s last will and testament, if I may use this term? I sincerely apologize if I am wrong but, perhaps—just perhaps—the justices might have just read and were inspired by Ambeth Ocampo’s recent column in the Inquirer (“Torre de Manila: flap repeats itself,” Front Page, 8/30/15) and quoted it, without so saying. At any rate, I am just mentioning this in passing and, honestly, with malice toward none.
Methinks that howsoever Rizal had really wanted his remains to be handled is totally irrelevant here. The real issues being: One, there is no specific law to protect the sight line or visual corridor of the Rizal Monument, or of any other artistic creations in our midst and times, for that matter; and two, the construction of the Torre on DMCI’s own property had been under the watch of two Manila city mayors, at that—practically unhampered for many years, except only lately when it is almost complete.
From the standpoint of sheer logic and fair play, then, I could not but knit my brows, mumbling: “What, for heaven’s sake, has been keeping the high tribunal from resolving this controversy?”
—RUDY L. CORONEL, rudycoronel 2004@gmail.com