(Eagle News Service) –The Supreme Court has allowed construction of the Torre de Manila condominium project near Luneta, Manila to continue, saying, among others, that there was no law that prohibits such.
Voting 9-6, SC spokesperson Theodore Te on Tuesday said the High Court lifted the temporary restraining order it issued on the 49-story building construction on June 15, 2015, after it dismissed the petition for mandamus filed by the Order of the Knights of Rizal against the property developer, DMCI Project Developers Inc.
“The court…dismissed (the) petition..for reasons that one, the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter,” Te said.
He added the the court found that the petitioners “have no standing to sue,” and they “stand to suffer no injury” from the construction.
“Furthermore, the court also found that there is no law that prohibits the construction of the challenged Torre de Manila project,” he said.
Those who voted for the lifting of the TRO and the dismissal of the petition were Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, Carpio, and Justices Presbitero Velasco Jr., Mariano del Castillo, Lucas Bersamin, Bienvenido Reyes, Estela Perlas-Bernabe, Marvic Leonen, and Noel Tijam.
Those who voted against these were Justices Francis Jardeleza, Teresita de Castro, Peralta, Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, Jose Mendoza, Samuel Martires.
“Under procedure, every party can file an MR. It’s up to them (Order of the Knights of Rizal),” Te said.
But in a statement, the Order of the Knights of Rizal said it “respects the decision of the Supreme Court on the Torre de Manila issue.”
“We thank the public for carrying this issue with us, and for making the same as a test case for Philippine heritage for whatever the outcome would have been,” it said.
It noted that the public support was “an indication not only of the importance of the national monument, but also of the continued relevance and reverence our national hero, Jose Rizal, still enjoys,” it added.
The P2.7-million high-rise condominium project has outraged Filipino conservationists as it allegedly mars the skyline of a heritage site, the Rizal monument, and was therefore a “photobomber.”
In defending the construction, DMCI said that the “concept of photobombing in relation to national monuments and shrines is not in the law.” With a report from Erwin Temperante, Eagle News Service
