ADNAapec NDCS

23/06/2026

A POSSIBLE BROADSTROKES FRAMEWORK PLAN FOR THE METROPOLITAN MANILA AREA (MMA), A CONSOLIDATION OF KNOWN PROPOSALS FOR THE PERIOD 1989 THROUGH 2050 AND BEYOND (showing Possible Future Linkages/Redevelopment/New Development Directions at All Cardinal Directions)

This version shows the existing major arterial road, i.e., both radial roads which are INTER-regional linkages and circumferential roads, which are mainly INTRA-regional linkages. The circumferential roads (C-3, C-4, C-5/C-5 extension to the New Manila Intl Airport/NMIA in Bulacan Province, PLUS the proposed C-6/C-6 extension to NMIA Bulacan may be supplemented by the proposed C-7 starting at Sucat Road-Coastal Road/R-1, crossing 14 kilometers (km) of Laguna de Bay to Rizal Province (i.e., using a shallow water variant of the long bridge technology employed for the ADB-funded 32-km Bataan-Cavite Interlink Bridge (BCIB) Project, with the C-7 eventually ending at the area north of the NMIA Bulacan.

Another Laguna de Bay crossing, i.e., Circumferential Road 8 (C-8) can still be introduced further south but it may essentially service the CALABARZON Sub-Region, Rizal Province in particular (since it has long lagged in CALABARZON development). The C-8 crossing was first proposed in 1994 when Talim Island was being considered as a possible location for the transfer of all general aviation (GA) operations from the MIAA-NAIA complex (excluding commercial aviation/CA), in order to make room for the then proposed Manila International Cargo Terminal (MICT) Complex. The MICT Complex was not built BUT its elevated expressway component around the NAIA Complex (and linking to the Coastal Road/R-1) was the one that was built/operated.

These possible future linkages (C-7 and C-8 lake crossings) can offer potentially viable inter-regional connections to Region III (R3) and the CALABARZON Sub-Region of Region IV-A (R4A). Both lake crossing proposals are premised on the technical and environmental feasibility of shallow lake crossings (i.e., considering the presence of 2-3 calderas/collapsed extinct or dormant underwater volcanoes on the east side of Talim Island).

The image also includes a version of the proposed Pasig River Expressway (PAREx) at MMA center but as per a 1993 private sector proposal, said tollway system shall NOT use the waterway itself BUT only utilize the air and land rights along the legal easement (LE) and a portion of the air rights alongside the banks (via a cantilevered structure), i.e., along the south bank of the Pasig River from Roxas Blvd (Radial Road 1) to an area east of the Nagtahan Bridge and thereafter along the north bank of the Pasig River from east of the Nagtahan Bridge area all the way to Laguna de Bay, where it may eventually intersect with the proposed SouthEast Metropolitan Manila Expressway, i.e., the pre-1993 Circumferential Road 6/C-6 Project.

A key proposal is the viaduct system at Manila Bay to interconnect all proposed land reclamation projects, initially from the Bulacan area (of R3) all the way to the Cavite coastal area (R4A).

Please note that all proposed tollway alignments (as shown in broken lines, including SEMME and potentially including PAREx), may potentially include a medium-haul transit line and a utility corridor right below the tollway system, which must have dedicated truck lanes. Thank You.

Sources: 2026 TAM Planners Co. (TAMpc); 2013 Architecture Advocacy International Foundation (AAIF), Inc.; 1994 Arch. Armando Alli (AAA); 1993 DACY Architects/Planners Co. (DACYapc); and 1989 SHELLINK Planners, Inc. (SPI)

17/06/2026

MORE ON INCREMENTAL SETBACKS (IS)

Very Important Note: Please refer to the 3 attached examples (at 2 images each) of the resultant total gross floor area (TGFA) – floor-to-lot area ratio (FLAR, i.e., exactly the same as the international floor area ratio/FAR), based on the applied IS for a 32-storey (sty), 48- sty and a 60 sty building, which may all likely be situated in highly urbanized cities (HUC) like those found in the Metropolitan Manila Area (MMA, also officially known as the National Capital Region/NCR), and at first class cities in the Philippines (PH).

The determination of the correct TGFA based on NBCP 2004 RIRR prescriptions is the work of the PH Architect. If OVER-BUILDING results from the improper computation of the resultant TGFA and the resultant FAR, the concerned PH Architect may be held professionally responsible by the State and civilly liable by the Client (or Project Proponent/developer).

If such OVER-BUILDING results, the following MAY also be held additionally accountable for possible willful/witting and/or unwitting NBCP violations:
1) the Project Manager/Owner/Developer, particularly IF they individually/collectively override/ignore the PH Architect’s technical recommendations on the applicable/resultant TGFA-FLAR; and
2) the LGU Building Official (LBO, who MUST know that there is that precise relationship between total lot area (TLA) size and the applicable FLAR, i.e., a SMALL lot area does NOT mean that the higher limits of TGFA, FLAR or even building height limit/BHL, allowable maximum building footprint (AMBF) and percentage of site occupancy (PSO) can apply, as the same are reserved for LARGER lots located at HUCs and larger cities/LGUs.

IF the PH Architect commits the mistake of recommending high resultant TGFA-FLAR resulting in OVER-BUILDING, the Project Proponent/Owner may also hold the PH Architect civilly liable, particularly IF the LGU and/or the DPWH officially cite the OVER-BUILDING, and if there are severe legal consequences for the Project Owner and the buyers of the units that were built in excess of the permissible TGFA-FLAR.

Lastly, we may need to note here that OVER-BUILDING could be potentially taxed on a long-term basis by the national government and by the LGUs as these represent developments (from which the Owners profited) that should NOT exist by virtue of the powers vested on the Government to LIMIT property development within their respective jurisdictions, noting as well the overall effect of the development on general public welfare and considerations of potentially unjust enrichment on the part of the Project Owners/Proponents. Thanks.

29/03/2026

A MID-2025 POSITION OF THE ARCHITECTURE ADVOCACY INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION (“AAIF”), INC., A PHILIPPINE (“PH”) NON-GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION (“NGO”):

“CONTRACTING IS A BUSINESS, AND MUST NEVER BE CONFUSED WITH THE LAWFUL PRACTICE OF ANY STATE-REGULATED PROFESSION (“SRP”)”

While there are common commercial offers from Philippine/“PH” Contractors Accreditation Board (“PCAB”)-licensed contractors to undertake BOTH the design and construction of infrastructure and/or building/grounds projects, there is definite need to officially distinguish “CONTRACTING” (i.e., a business or a commercial activity regulated by the PCAB, sometimes also referred to as the “business of building”), and “DESIGNING” (which is the lawful practice of a state-regulated profession/”SRP”, duly governed by various professional regulatory laws/”PRL” implemented by the Department of Labor and Employment/”DoLE” through the Professional Regulation Commission/”PRC”).

The construction-related PRLs (including their respective streams of regulation/”SoR”, NOT limited to their implementing rules and regulations/”IRR”, codes of ethical conduct/”CEC”, standards of professional practice/”SPP”, guidelines and procedural manuals/”GPM”, and similar executive issuances (”EI”), including Joint Memorandum Circulars/”JMC”, currently and collectively administered/indirectly implemented by the PRC through the concerned Professional Regulatory Boards/”PRB”.

In the mid-1970s, “CONTRACTING” was transferred from PRC to the then Ministry of Trade (now the Department of Trade and Industry/”DTI”) as it was then CORRECTLY classified as a BUSINESS and NOT the practice of a SRP, which is a PRIVILEGE officially granted by the state mainly to NATURAL persons and duly-qualified juridical entities, based on the pertinent PRL, as in R.A. No. 9266 (for Architecture) and R.A. No. 10587 (for Environmental Planning).

The PH Supreme Court in its General Resolution (“G.R.”) No. 217590, March 10, 2020, Philippine Contractors Accreditation Board (“PCAB”), Petitioner, V. Manila Water Company, Inc., Respondent (at link https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66190), has reinforced that classification of CONTRACTING as a BUSINESS, states:

“x x x the supposed government interest in limiting the practice of a profession to Filipino citizens is inapplicable to construction considering that contracting for purposes of engaging in construction activities is not a profession, as it is not one regulated by the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) and the term "professional" refers to an individual not a corporation or firm.” (emphases and underscoring supplied)

x x x
“x x x. Section 14, Article XII of the Constitution refers to the privilege of a natural person to exercise his profession in the Philippines. On the other hand, under Article IV of R.A. No. 4566, even partnerships, corporations and organizations can qualify for a contractor's license through its responsible officer. The "profession" under the aforesaid provision refers to the practice of natural persons of a certain field in which they are trained, certified, and licensed. Being a licensed contractor does not automatically qualify within the ambit of the Constitution as a "profession" per se.
A contractor under R.A. No. 4566 does not refer to a specific practice of profession, i.e., architecture, engineering, medicine, accountancy and the like. In fact, Section 9(a) and (b) of R.A. No. 4566 reads x x x
Suffice it to say that a corporation or juridical person, in this case a construction firm, cannot be considered a "professional" that is being exclusively restricted by the Constitution and our laws to Filipino citizens. The licensing of contractors is not to engage in the practice of a specific profession, but rather to engage in the business of contracting/construction.
The basis for petitioner's argument, that construction is considered a profession, is also out of context. x x x. It does not follow that just because a license is required under R.A. No. 4566, a licensed contractor is already considered a professional under the Constitution.
Professionalizing the construction business is different from the exercise of profession which the Constitution exclusively restricts to Filipino citizens. To reiterate, the license required under R.A. No. 4566 is for purposes of engaging in the business of contracting under the terms of the said act for a fiscal year or a certain period/project, and not for the purpose of practicing a particular profession. The responsible officer who secures a license for contracting, for his own business or for the company, may already be a professional in his own field (i.e., engineer, architect). Then again, the license acquired under R.A. No. 4566 does not make the licensed contractor a "professional" within the meaning contemplated under Section 14, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.
More telling is the fact that applicants for contractor's licenses are not required to have Philippine citizenship unlike those who are considered as professionals in the country. x x x. The law merely requires at least two years of experience in the construction industry, and knowledge of building, safety, health and lien laws of the Republic of the Philippines and the rudimentary administrative principles of the contracting business. x x x. (emphases and underscoring supplied)
From a layman’s viewpoint, the foregoing can mainly be interpreted as follows:
1) that PCAB-registered contractors have NEVER been granted the privilege to practice state-regulated professions (“SRP”) under their contractor licenses; at most, they may probably render construction-related services as part of their business, i.e., construction management (“CM”) services, including fulltime construction supervision (“FCS”) services through their fulltime sustaining technical employees (“STE”);
2) to lawfully render SRP, the PCAB-registered contractors must do any of the following:
• formally associate with natural or juridical persons permitted by law to engage in SRP to prepare the design documents and to assume the mandated professional responsibilities and civil liability under law; or
• operate a subsidiary operation, separately registered with DTI or SEC, and mainly focused on the rendition of SRP; or
• utilize the STE as natural persons to render SRP in a separate private capacity covered by a professional service contract (“PSC”) detailing professional compensation per project and the manner of assumption of civil liability, e.g., professional liability insurance/”PLI”, and the like) once the STE is separated from service.
3) PCAB-licensed contractors who continue to perhaps unlawfully render SRP may be sued for violations of the pertinent PRL, i.e., for illegal practice of a SRP/willful violation of PRL/s. Thanks.
Nothing follows.

20/03/2026

A late March 2026 AAIF (NGO) document “combining (integrating)” the text of three (3) valid and subsisting construction laws, viz:

1) R.A. No. 4566 (i.e., the original 1965 Contractor's License Law, a special law), supported by its 1980 Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations/RIRR (i.e., the latter being not forming part of the attached document);

2) P.D. No. 1746 (i.e., the 1980 law amending provisions under R.A. No. 4566), supported by its 1998 IRR), with the latter being not forming part of the attached document; and

3) R.A. No. 11711 (i.e., the 2022 law further amending provisions under R.A. No. 4566).

The attached 8-page AAIF document (i.e., images only) is a PRIVATE (unofficial) document and is an updated version of a circa 3rd quarter 2023 AAIF document, originally prepared to perhaps help technical professionals attain a better and fuller understanding of Philippine construction law.

The readers/users of the attached document, especially if contractors, are advised to seek the assistance of sufficiently-experienced lawyers and/or technical professionals (preferably also well-versed in construction), in their appreciation and interpretation of the document (and its contents). Thank You.

19/03/2026

UNOFFICIAL (and Largely General) Information on the Philippine Contractors Accreditation Board (“PCAB”) and Its Current Processes

Very Important Notes: As this is largely UNOFFICIAL information, it is best to always secure the desired information from official internet sites/public offices. Potential PCAB license applicants are also advised to directly seek the assistance of sufficiently-experienced lawyers, certified public accountants (“CPA”) and duly-qualified technical professionals like project/construction managers (“PCM”), or architects or engineers or other contractors in the preparation, self-vetting/checking and online submission of their application documents and in the preparation of their key officials for the conduct of PCAB interviews.

The PCAB is a government agency attached to the Department of Trade and Industry (“DTI”) and is one of the 5 implementing Boards in the Construction Industry Authority of the Philippines (“CIAP”). R.A. No. 4566 (the Contractor’s License law of 1965 (at link https://www.gppb.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Republic-Act-No.-4566.pdf; https://construction.gov.ph/laws/laws-pcab/irr-of-ra-4566-for-licensing-of-constructors/) was amended by P.D. No. 1746 of 1980 (at link https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/26/15909), later further amended by R.A. No. 11711 in 2022 (at link https://construction.gov.ph/issuances/ciap-implementing-rules-and-regulations-of-pd-1746-2/). The law provides that no contractor (including sub-contractor and specialty contractor or labor contractor or installer) shall engage in the business of contracting (including labor supply and material/equipment installation, which are construction activities), without first having secured a PCAB license to conduct business.

It is an offense to engage in contracting business without a license first being obtained and serious fines and other punitive measures await those who either wittingly or unwittingly violate the law.

To secure a PCAB license, one needs to go through the PCAB portal through account creation. Thereafter, more detailed instructions are issued. It is very important to follow all instructions faithfully to avoid the disapproval of Your PCAB license application. Depending on an applicant’s compliances, the application process time (for new licenses or license renewal or other licensing cm classification transactions) may take approximately nineteen (19) days for successful license applicants. Unsuccessful (or repetitive) applicants may take much, much longer than 19 days as they would then need to rejoin the application queue at the back of the line. The reprocessing of disapproved applications may also mean paying additional fees.

The relevant links are as follows:
1) PCAB Portal at link https://pcabgovph.com/
2) Instructional Guide at link https://pcabgovph.com/instructionalguides.php
3) Rules and Regulations Governing Licensing of Constructors in the Philippines at linkhttps://pcabgovph.com/assets/Rules%20and%20Regulation%20Governing%20Licensing%20of%20Constructors.pdf
4) Data Privacy Policy at linkhttps://pcabgovph.com/assets/PCAB_DATA_PRIVACY_POLICY.pdf

All PCAB license applicants must have the following FULLTIME staff:
1) An authorized managing officer (“AMO”) who will be primarily responsible for ensuring that the construction company fully complies with all mandates under the applicable construction and related laws; and
2) At least one (1) sustaining technical employee (“STE”) who if suitably experienced, will essentially be the State-regulated professional/s (“SRP”) for their construction company. Both the PCAB license category (E through AAAA) and the contractor classification (mainly general buildings/”GB” and/or general engineering/”GE”) will be highly dependent on both the STE qualifications and the company CAPITALIZATION, among other requirements. NO GB and/or GE classification is granted to category E PCAB license holders.

Both the AMO and the STE would need to attend seminars, including those relating to construction safety, pass written tests and hurdle interviews (mostly conducted online, i.e., recorded under oath).
Construction companies desiring PCAB licensing may have intentions of joining private or public procurement processes, may be local or foreign construction companies, or may be joint ventures (“JV”) among PCAB-licensed contractors.

All PCAB-licensed contractors assume the mandatory CIVIL LIABILITY under Article 1723 of R.A. No. 386, the 1949 New Civil Code of the Philippines (“CCP” at link https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1949/06/18/republic-act-no-386/), and in the case of building collapse, may need to wait for a 10-year period within which a case for damages against the erring/failing contractor could be brought.

Contracting is classified as a business, and that is the main reason why it was removed from the Professional Regulation Commission (“PRC”) in the mid-1970s and transferred to the DTI (i.e., refer also to a more recent PH Supreme Court decision at link https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66190).

More importantly, the business of constructing/contracting does NOT allow the PCAB-licensed contractors to engage in the practice of State-regulated professions (“SRP”) governed by professional regulatory laws (“PRL”) such as R.A. No. 9266, already reinforced by a 2023 Supreme Court decision (at link https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/2/1491; https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-only-registered-and-licensed-architects-may-sign-architectural-documents/), R.A. No. 544, as amended by R.A. No. 1582 (at link. https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1950/ra_544_1950.html) and R.A. No. 10587 (at link https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/2/57103), among many other SRPs. Contractors are generally advised to directly engage the services of qualified SRPs or qualified consulting firms for their physical planning and/or building/grounds design needs. FYI only. Thank You.

SEC. 5. Qualifications of Members of the Professional Regulatory Board. — Each member shall, at the time of his/her appointment, posses the following qualifications:

19/03/2026

Active Links to a Reference Philippine (“PH”) Local Government Unit (“LGU”) Zoning Ordinance (“ZO”) Based on Both the 2014 HLURB Comprehensive Land Use Planning (“CLUP”) Guidebook Volume 3 (Model Zoning Ordinance/”MZO”) and the Most Recent Technical Interpretations of the 2004 Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (“RIRR”) of P.D. No. 1096, the 1977 National Building Code of the Philippines (“NBCP”) and Its Stream of Regulations (“SoR”)

Primary Sources: 2022 - 2024 Tomeldan, Alli & Molina (T.A.M.) Planners Co. (with RSDPI), Architecture Advocacy International Foundation (AAIF), Inc., and the LGU of Pasig City NCR

Very Important Note: The LGU of Pasig City’s Zoning Ordinance (“ZO”) and Stream of Regulations (“SoR”), i.e., not limited to its Implementing Rules and Regulations (”IRR”) embodied in its accompanying Annexes and Appendices Volume (”AAV”) were all ratified by the PH Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development in late 2024, and were rolled out for general information dissemination cm implementation/enforcement by the LGU of Pasig City NCR (i.e., a highly urbanized city/”HUC”) sometime immediately thereafter.

A) Pasig City Full Disclosure Portal
https://pasigcity.gov.ph/full-disclosure-portal?fbclid=IwY2xjawP89NhleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETExMzZvbEJvM1NvM1A3b2wxc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHnXVKohBW9TrbVP3zXRM_kvk04Sk6M7KSLIfpDZQfEWUhhj7Azds2pJQRWPU_aem_-LhZ7HDshSrXNgvP9sXNJA

B) Ordinance No. 63, Series of 2024: A Zoning Ordinance (ZO) for the City of Pasig, Providing for the Administration, Enforcement and Amendment Thereof and for the Repeal of All Ordinances in Conflict Therewith [Updated], signed by the concerned Pasig City LGU officials (led by the Hon. Mayor Vico Sotto) on 21 October 2024, at link:
https://assets.pasigcity.gov.ph/storage/city_ordinance/2024/10/21/67d7c7bb8d3821742194619Ord%20No.%2063-2024.pdf?fbclid=IwY2xjawP89PtleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETExMzZvbEJvM1NvM1A3b2wxc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHuhq0dOeScgx1ZM-75_5dp3hVHwKEXu89vKQDOB8v38IpYXqXTBj1-kuZ51C_aem_sF_09hE97WF3rvxwsuHZcQ

C) Annexes (ZO.23 Implementing Rules and Regulations/IRR) Part 1/6 (pp 1-231) at link:
https://assets.pasigcity.gov.ph/storage/city_ordinance/2024/10/21/67c675622ba621741059426part%201.pdf?fbclid=IwY2xjawP89TJleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETExMzZvbEJvM1NvM1A3b2wxc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHp6yCN5gMidvRinJoQXZatlpN5GF_zPqSgQSL8F0BX-zfNdQpyW4wQHYu3HS_aem_KYFI80UuhT9Y8-giHU9iFQ

D) Annex (ZO.23 IRR) Part 2/6 (pp 231-467) at link:
https://assets.pasigcity.gov.ph/storage/city_ordinance/2024/10/21/67c6757b45bf71741059451part%202.pdf?fbclid=IwY2xjawP89VtleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETExMzZvbEJvM1NvM1A3b2wxc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHnXVKohBW9TrbVP3zXRM_kvk04Sk6M7KSLIfpDZQfEWUhhj7Azds2pJQRWPU_aem_-LhZ7HDshSrXNgvP9sXNJA

E) Annexes (ZO.23 IRR) Part 3/6 (pp 468-692) at link:
https://assets.pasigcity.gov.ph/storage/city_ordinance/2024/10/21/67c67609b6e701741059593part%203.pdf?fbclid=IwY2xjawP89ZtleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETExMzZvbEJvM1NvM1A3b2wxc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHm3l1c0MsueJXH02HhF0e5rbR1XkxUz5JTWO8YTmOMBAbK4lFry30u_5g0ic_aem_LUQ3FpLtDp5bvu0euqTeNA

F) Annexes (ZO.23 IRR) Part 4/6 (pp 693-1020) at link:
https://assets.pasigcity.gov.ph/storage/city_ordinance/2024/10/21/67c676b7de9891741059767part%204.pdf?fbclid=IwY2xjawP89ctleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETExMzZvbEJvM1NvM1A3b2wxc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHj3HY1F-pDfCeT65wkk3XVQ3qDFB6A-ROCd6IuXA5uI3rvKN5kBDQ10-JMex_aem_mxLs-jRLUnxYjyEt6zU6dw

G) Annexes (ZO.23 IRR) Part 5/6 (pp 1021-1207) at link:
https://assets.pasigcity.gov.ph/storage/city_ordinance/2024/10/21/67c67723b856c1741059875part%205.pdf?fbclid=IwY2xjawP89fNleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETExMzZvbEJvM1NvM1A3b2wxc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHm3l1c0MsueJXH02HhF0e5rbR1XkxUz5JTWO8YTmOMBAbK4lFry30u_5g0ic_aem_LUQ3FpLtDp5bvu0euqTeNA

H) Annexes (ZO.23 IRR) Part 6/6 (pp 1208-1214) and
Appendices (ZO General Technical References/GTR), i.e., pp 1215-1474) at link:
https://assets.pasigcity.gov.ph/storage/city_ordinance/2024/10/21/67c678f258fc71741060338part%206.pdf?fbclid=IwY2xjawP89hlleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETExMzZvbEJvM1NvM1A3b2wxc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHnXVKohBW9TrbVP3zXRM_kvk04Sk6M7KSLIfpDZQfEWUhhj7Azds2pJQRWPU_aem_-LhZ7HDshSrXNgvP9sXNJA

Nothing follows.

15/01/2026

Happening this Saturday (starting 5pm on 17 January 2026) at Don Bosco Technical Institute (DBTI) Makati City (at corners Arnaiz Ave./formerly Pasay Road and Chino Roces Ave./formerly Pasong Tamo (a Half Century After High School):
Together as One/Don Bosco Makati Alumni Homecoming 2026 at link

Get ready to reconnect with old friends and relive the good times at the Don Bosco Makati.

09/08/2025

Greetings, Dear Colleagues,

In 2022, another colleague, Atty./Arch./EnP Marlon Cariño (i.e., also a fellow construction arbitrator at the DTI CIAP CIAC and an active educator), invited me to collaborate on an article for the Ateneo Law Journal (“ALJ”), which was subsequently published by the ALJ sometime in 2023 as part of its ALJ Volume 67 (pages 347 though 376). The following are active links to said 2022 ALJ article entitled: “The Beauty and Madness of Metropolitan Manila: Laws Sharing Its Built Environment”, for citation as 67 ATENEO L.J. 347 (2022), viz:https://archive.ateneolj.com//storage/OxyaTyS7HtFx4q7xw7KRv9q4LS5y2gyZv26Cmk15.pdf and at link: https://ateneolj.com/archive/authors/carino-marlon-m-alli-armando-n

Personally, I viewed this as a most welcome step in re-introducing (and driving the appreciation of) our legal community to/anent an array of development controls (“DC”) that have been with us since the Europeans first established human settlements in the country, i.e., the Laws of the Indies. The 2022 ALJ article speaks about P.D. No. 1096, the 1977 National Building Code of the Philippines (“NBCP”), our main NATIONAL-level DC (since its passage as R.A. No. 6541 of 1972, just before martial law was declared). You may not be surprised in finding that many of its provisions hark back to R.A. No. 386, the 1949 Civil Code of the Philippines (“CCP”) and even to earlier American and Spanish regime laws. However, the NBCP is not alone as a NATIONAL-level DC as there are many more that are valid and subsisting to this day, e.g., P.D. No. 957 (on subdivisions/open market & medium-cost dwellings and condominiums), B.P. Blg. 220 (on socialized and economic housing), R.A. No. 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act/”UDHA” of 1992), plus an array of environmental laws, development and construction laws, professional regulatory laws (“PRL”), property laws, and the like.
Again (personally), I do hope that we get another opportunity to take a look at how all these NATIONAL-level and LOCAL-level DCs interface and how these affect our daily lives. I also hope that we may get another opportunity to take a second, more nuanced look at LOCAL-level DC such as ordinances, specifically LGU zoning ordinances (“ZO”) as general local laws and the special ordinances (“SO”) that may spring from ZOs, and to take a very good look at PRIVATE/SELF-REGULATORY (“PSR”) DCs, e.g., Deed of Restrictions (“DoR”), Design Standards and Guidelines (“DSG”), Construction Guidelines (“CG”) and the like, that generally accompany property purchases.
Finally, it is generally understood that PSR DCs and LOCAL-level DCs may be made more stringent/stricter than NATIONAL-level DCs, provided the latter support such levels of stringency. In NO case however can the former DCs relax provisions found in NATIONAL-level DCs. Thank You.

The Ateneo Law Journal, for its 69th Volume, is now accepting Articles, Notes, Comments, and Essays from legal practitioners and scholars.