Torre de Manila controversy: Lack of context reduces issue to photobombing

By Albert Lawrence Idia

FOLLOWING THE issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) by the Supreme Court (SC) last June, the Torre de Manila controversy surged back into the media. The battle between the Knights of Rizal (KOR) and the DM Consunji Inc. (DMCI) housing division DMCI Homes entered its third year with no less than the Supreme Court (SC) entering the picture.

From July to August, the SC heard oral arguments from both KOR and DMCI Homes, during which their respective legal counsels squared off. KOR grounded its opposition to the construction of the DMCI condominium on city ordinances, heritage laws and the National Historical Commission of the Philippines’ (NHCP) guidelines that were allegedly violated. KOR also argued that the “Torre” “despoils a National Cultural Treasure.” DMCI Homes insisted it did everything legally and did not violate any law.

The case of the “Torre” has been three years in the making. Since tour guide and cultural activist Carlos Celdran launched the petition against the structure in 2012, the issue has come and gone in the media, depending on developments.

From the start, the Torre de Manila was a controversy waiting to happen. Intended to be a 49-storey building (including basement parking and penthouse levels), it was to be constructed along Taft Avenue, on the former Jai Alai property – a location identified in Manila City Ordinance No. 8119 as a “University Cluster Zone” which specifies the types of structures that could be built as well as a floor-to-area ratio. It is also some 800 meters away from the Rizal monument.

In June 2012, DMCI Homes, having obtained the necessary permits, proceeded with the project. Two months later, the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) withdrew its objection to the project and issued a clearance, saying that the project is outside the boundaries of the park and is behind the monument; therefore it cannot obstruct the front view of the latter.

It was in November 2013 when the Manila City Council suspended construction for alleged zoning violations. Two months later, DMCI Homes resumed work on it after being granted an exemption by the Manila Zoning Board of Adjustments and Appeals. On September 2014, KOR filed a petition for injunction before the SC, asking the Court to stop the project. But the Torre continued to rise, slowly appearing in the backdrop of the Rizal monument; hence it’s being tagged on social media as a “photobomber”.

After ignoring a cease and desist issued by the National Commission for Culture and the Arts in January 2015, DMCI’s construction came to a halt when the SC issued a temporary restraining order. The Torre was then already 40 floors high, and had sold 90% of its units — and completely visible behind the monument.

The Center for Media Freedom & Responsibility reviewed the coverage of three broadsheets (Manila Bulletin, Philippine Daily Inquirer and The Philippine Star) and free TV primetime newscasts (ABS-CBN’s TV Patrol, GMA-7’s 24 Oras and TV-5’s Aksyon) after the TRO was issued and found room for improvement. Being a three-year old issue, the controversy over the Torre needed context, but most of the reports lacked the backgrounding needed to enable newspaper readers and TV viewers to understand the issue. The reports of the Inquirer and TV Patrol were exceptions; both as well as the online news website Rappler.com provided a timeline of events to enhance citizen understanding and appreciation of the complexities involved.

Over-simplified

The arguments of both parties were also over-simplified. The KOR anchored its petition on a claim that the Torre desecrates the sanctity of the monument and the park. It is in fact seen in the background of the monument and perhaps it is why it was limited to the obvious — the Torre being a photobomber.

However, beyond the tag are various guidelines and laws that the KOR also used in arguing their case against the construction. The media failed to explain these other bases for the KOR objections.

In stating that the project despoils a National Cultural Treasure, the KOR cited RA 4846 (Cultural Properties Preservation and Protection Act), RA 10066 (National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009) and R.A. 7356 (Law creating the National Commission for Culture and the Arts).

When the KOR stated that the construction was started and continued to be built in bad faith and was in violation of a zoning ordinance, it cited City Ordinance 8119 (Zoning Ordinance of Manila). KOR also claimed that the Torre was a “nuisance per se” and referred to Article 695 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

The KOR also referred to the NHCP’s “Guidelines on Monuments Honoring National Heroes, Illustrious Filipinos and Other Personages” to strengthen its objections. The guidelines include such injunctions as the need to “Keep vista points and visual corridors to monuments clear for unobstructed viewing appreciation and photographic opportunities.”

That these were missing in reports on almost all the print and broadcast news reviewed from the day the SC issued the TRO until the Court began hearing oral arguments meant a missed opportunity in casting light on the KOR’s objections. In effect, the KOR argument was reduced to the claim that the Torre spoils people’s view of the Rizal monument.

An exception was the Bulletin, which did mention these in its “Supreme Court issues TRO on Torre de Manila” published in its June 17 issue. Rappler.com’s “Torre de Manila: No law protecting sightline of nat’l monuments” on August 11 was also able to explain the KOR’s claim that the Torre spoils the view. The article also touched on the lack of legal weight of the NHCP guidelines as these were “merely recommendatory,” as argued by DMCI Homes’ legal counsel Victor Lazatin.

While most reports cited ‘Heritage Laws’ as one of KOR’s basis for its objections, none of the broadcast news programs explained what the National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009 actually says, and how DMCI Homes could have violated the Act. Explanations were also lacking in print, except for the Inquirer which ran the commentary “Torre de Manila: law and aesthetics” in its June 25 issue.

The violation of the city zoning ordinance was frequently mentioned, but not explained. Ditto the case with the international charter for the conservation and restoration of monuments, the Venice Charter of 1964  — which the KOR also mentioned in its petition.

And yet the focus on the Torre coverage was vital, especially since DMCI Homes assailed the KOR’s claims by claiming that the NHCP’s guidelines lacked legal weight and that no laws protected sightlines.

Word war

The battle was not confined to key players KOR and DMCI Homes. Since the latter defended its position by saying that they had obtained all the necessary permits in the first place, a word war between the current and former mayors of Manila also erupted as a consequence.

Current Manila Mayor Joseph Estrada and former Mayor Alfredo Lim had a fair share of the media limelight as they blamed each other for giving DMCI Homes the green light to erect the condominium. Estrada claimed that it was during Lim’s term when DMCI Homes was given the go signal to construct the Torre. Lim countered by stating that he allowed DMCI to build a building of only 19 floors, and that if there were anomalies, then Estrada should have halted the project when he was elected Mayor of the city in 2013.

The media were quick to feast on the row, from mentioning accusations that one was suffering from Alzheimer’s disease to claims that money had changed hands. The Inquirer, Star and Bulletin as well as TV Patrol and Aksyon ran stories on the blame game without saying who actually allowed what.

Both the KOR and DMCI Homes were unrelenting in their arguments, but when the coverage shifted focus on other conflicts (Erap vs. Lim), casualties (construction workers, tourists) and shifting stances (NHCP), the issue was further muddled.

For the most part, the media coverage was inadequate in looking closely into the arguments of the key players in the Torre de Manila issue. Explaining the exact provisions of the ordinances, guidelines and laws — or the lack of, or vagueness of such provisions — could have helped the public understand the issue more rather than reducing it to a conflict between those who want a view of the monument of the national hero without an eyesore in the background, and those who were arguing that they had complied with the law.