Thursday, August 28, 2014

#DMCI should not be penalised for construct of Torre de Manila if rules followed

The rules should be applied fairly and properly and not what is popular at the moment. Because seriously, it just does not make sense.

Like for the area around UST, I know there is a zoning rule there than no building should be higher than the UST Main building so that the focal point (highest point) would be UST's building. But you can clearly see that other building have gone way above it already.

Mabuhay Rotunda should also be higher than the surrounding, but that's also out the window. If I am not mistaken on this issue.

If DMCI pursued the proper channels, getting zoning exemptions and what not, and were given the go ahead, why would it be illegal then?

I am not pro-DMCI here but I am just against kneeling to the loudest voice in a crowd.

If the entity (DMCI in this situation), got proper permits and clearances, yet is still hindered by outside forces even after going through the proper channels, shouldn't there be more discussion as to why it ended up happening instead of just focusing on the building itself?

True, zoning is said to have allowed only 7 storeys but I found articles saying they sought exemption and were granted it. If so, then the pursuit of the exemption is not wrong. Where were those who sought to "preserve" the view during the hearing for the application of exemption? Wasn't Carlos Celdran already part of Manila LGU at the point already (2012 to present)?

Since everything is technically legal then, if this building is to be torn down, then since it is a legal construction but for compliance, then the city/national government should technically reimburse them for the costs given the flip flopping of the decision of legality as well as exemption.

To avoid these issues, areas where there is a national concern governing it should go first through a national agency then before going to the local level/LGU (City hall).

This is a GRP Featured Comment. Join the discussion!


  1. correction: the exemption was only granted this year. question is why have they started the construction if not all required papers/legalization have been acquired? Pia Cayetano is correct in saying that DMCI has not acted in good faith because of that action. And like any ruling, the national interest or the Supreme court can still reverse the judgment regarding this matter. - just my opinion

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. But still DMCI was granted with all the permits despite the delay. They pursued construction mainly because to avoid economic loss for the company. I think DMCI has all the rights to complete this project.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...