If what you mean is design "structurally", YES. "Architectural design", maybe not. And as long as it was your original design and you're the owner.

^^
...ohh..i see...
...thanks...

For the information CE's never enroach the practice of architecs but CEs have been preparing, signing and sealing building plans not only for the past 50yrs (RA544) but for thousands of yrs even before the professions or Architecture and Civil Engineering were regulated. It has been a practice by law, history and tradition, It was only recently (2004, the passage of RA9266) that the works were delineated.

RA 544 mentions that:
Section 23, RA 544 – “It shall be unlawful for any person to order or otherwise cause the construction, reconstruction, or alteration of any building or structure intended for public gathering or assembly such as theaters, cinematographs, stadia, churches or structures of like nature, and any other engineering structures mentioned in section two of this Act unless the designs, plans and specifications of the same have been prepared under the responsible charge of, and signed and sealed by a registered civil engineer, and unless the construction, reconstruction and/or alteration thereof are executed under the responsible charge and direct supervision of a Civil Engineer.”

It is clear that RA 544 mentions the lawful practice of CE's..

...very well said sir...
...thanks for the information...

You need to be specific as far as your term "building plans" is concerned. There are ONLY 2 types of building plans as far as CE and Arch is concerned; that is: Architectural and Structural -- and they don't overlap as far as definition and practice is concerned. If you refer to the "structural design or plans", then that's the accurate definition that can be done by civil engineers. You can see it in the "S" plans of a building permit. But if you PREPARE, sign and seal the "A" plans, then you are engaged in the illegal practice if you are not an architect. That being said -- you cannot engaged yourself in making schematic designs of buildings but only the structural part of it.

On the other hand, the general practice of architecture is defined in RA 9266 and its derivative regulations:

RA 9266 SECTION 3
(3) "General Practice of Architecture" means the act of planning and architectural designing, structural conceptualization, specifying, supervising and giving general administration and responsible direction to the erection, enlargement or alterations of buildings and building environments and architectural design in engineering structures or any part thereof; the scientific, aesthetic and orderly coordination of all the processes which enter into the production of a complete building or structure performed through the medium of unbiased preliminary studies of plans, consultations, specifications, conferences, evaluations, investigations, contract documents and oral advice and directions

In fairness to the civil engineers, they are supposed to be an allied professional of the architect in every building project since they do the civil/structural part of it. The same goes with the other allied professions such as electrical and mechanical. But they cannot offer to produce a building plan as “stand alone” without the architect. The architect is the “prime professional” in that he is the author of every building design.

But what is happening in our country is that civil engineers are preparing the architectural designs of buildings. One thing is that they tend to redefine the meaning of architectural design by saying that it is a “building plan”. Well, it’s either one or the other. You cannot have two terms but the same definition, otherwise it will result in confusion. The law is clear on the meaning of “architectural design” and how it is done in the practice of the profession.

Also, kamao mentions that CE’s were allowed to sign and seal “building plans”. Again, I don’t know if his definition of a “building plan” is no different than the definition of “architectural plan”, OR if it’s the same definition of a “civil/structural plan.” If it’s the former, then it a violation of RA 9266 and its meaning as well from RA 545.

Furthermore, the National Building Code, clearly estates the following submittal that will go with every building permit:

SECTION 302, Revised National Building Code:
A. Geodetic Engineer, in case of lot survey plans;
B. Architect, in case of architectural documents; in case of architectural interior/interior design documents, either an architect or interior designer may sign;
C. Civil Engineer, in case of civil/structural documents;
D. Professional Electrical Engineer, in case of electrical documents;
E. Professional Mechanical Engineer, in case of mechanical documents;
F. Sanitary Engineer, in case of sanitary documents;
G. Master Plumber, in case of plumbing documents;
H. Electronics Engineer, in case of electronics documents.

Architectural Documents
a. Architectural Plans/Drawings
i. Vicinity Map/Location Plan
ii. Site Development Plan
iii. Perspective
iv. Floor Plans drawn to scale of not less than 1:100 showing: gridlines, complete identification of rooms or functional spaces.
v. Elevations, at least four (4), same scale as floor plans showing: gridlines; natural ground to finish grade elevations; floor to floor heights; door and window marks, type of material and exterior finishes; adjoining existing structure/s, if any, shown in single hatched lines
vi. Sections, at least two (2), showing: gridlines; natural ground and finish levels; outline of cut and visible structural parts; doors and windows properly labeled reflecting the direction of opening; partitions; built-in cabinets, etc.; identification of rooms and functional spaces cut by section lines.
vii. Reflected ceiling plan showing: design, location, finishes and specifications of materials, lighting fixtures, diffusers, decorations, air conditioning exhaust and return grills, sprinkler nozzles, if any, at scale of at least 1:100.

Civil/Structural Documents
a. Site Development Plan
Site Development Plan showing technical description, boundaries, orientation and position of proposed non-architectural horizontal structure such as: sewerage treatment plan (STP), silos, elevated tanks, towers, fences, etc. building/structure in relation to the lot, existing or proposed access road and driveways and existing public utilities/services. Existing buildings within and adjoining the lot shall be hatched and distances between the proposed and existing buildings shall be indicated.
b. Structural Plans
i. Foundation Plans and Details at scale of not less than 1:100.
ii. Floor/Roof Framing Plans and Details at scale of not less than 1:100.
iii. Details and Schedules of structural and civil works elements including those for deep wells, water reservoir, pipe lines and sewer system.
c. Structural Analysis and Design for all buildings/structures except for one storey and single detached building/structure with a total floor area of 20.00 sq. meters or less.
d. Boring and Load Tests
e. Seismic Analysis
f. Other related documents

The above is very clear and there is no overlapping of the documents to be prepared between architect and CE.

I would want to echo the seminar/dissemination conducted by Angel L. Lazaro III, Ph.D., Chairman, Board of Civil Engineering,
Professional Regulation Commission on the Update on the Revised IRR of National Building Code.

In which he concluded that:

- The right of Architects to prepare, sign and seal “Architectural Plans”, as provided for in RA 9266, should be recognized and respected
- The right of Civil Engineers to prepare, sign and seal “Building Plans”, as provided for in RA 544, should be recognized and respected
- The Preliminary Injunction obtained by the PICE should be respected and implementation of Section 302 of the Revised IRR suspended

In my opinion, the issue does not on large scale projects as owners hire architecs and have plans and specifications with proper labels on it (plans, architectural, structural, etc) but for small scale residential building whose owners have a minimal budget whose purpose is to obtain building permits for its construction; and would even wants to fit everything in a 5 page plan(s).


He emphasized that:
• Invoking the principle of Overlap among Professions, the documents enumerated in Section 302.4 are “Building Documents” and not generically “Architectural Documents”
• The documents enumerated in Section 302.4 are “Architectural Documents” only if prepared, signed and sealed by an Architect
• The documents enumerated in Section 302.4 are “Civil Engineering Documents” if they are prepared, signed and sealed by a Civil Engineer.

It is then clear that if it is only prepared, signed and sealed by a Civil Engineer then it is a “Civil Engineering Documents”. Whether the Office of the Building Official approved it or not, it is up to them, but it is not a case wherein a CE committed “illegals” as you want it to portray.

Again it has been an industry practice for the last 50 yrs since the law on Building Code have been into law and it is unfair for CE’s to be tagged “encroaching” the works of architects, in which the law on RA9266 was recently approved and took effect.

There has been no case filed in the courts of law declaring the a CE, illegal or have encroach the works of architects. The courts you mentioned is not a case of criminal but a temporary injuction and restraining orders on the implementation of the IRR and the law. Hence, there is no “illegals” here as you would always want to project.
It has only been 3yrs since the approval of the Revised IRR which obviously will have a transition period. The law on RA9184 on the procurement of Civil Works has been into law since 2003 but full understanding of the law specially on rural areas have not been fully disseminate, same goes with any other law. Hence, revisions have been made since then.

Again it is unfair to CE’s to tagged “encroaching” the works of architects far worse to be tagged “illegals” when no court have decided on it, civil or criminal case..

CEs and architects work hand in hand, none is above the other.

what i can deduce from the posts, is that there are laws pertaining to the practice of the mentioned professions. question is what takes precedent in the RA mentioned and in effect/enforceable as of to date. it is very clear that there is a violation of our laws and somebody has to be sanctioned or better be fined or put in jail. and is really the people in government that too ignorant that they tolerated such practice, either by the architect or civil engineer.

it can be surmise further that any plans for construction (buildings, may it be 1 storey of multiple storeys) has to have the signatures of not only architect but likewise civil engineers, electrical engineers, sanitary engineers, mechanical engineers and other professionals as the case so required.

it is therefore, as always, that the people in government are nincompoop and lack of concern in implementing the laws of nation.

angay amo anay it ibutang ha prisohan.

has anybody tried to sue (civil/criminal) for violation of the said laws presented in this tread.

how about waray2architect maghimo ka hin pitad na ikiha na ini na naviolate hit balaod hit pinas. dida la ha tacloban para sikat

Its not lack of concern. My point is, stop accusing someone to the point that you make them look illegal. As ive said it was a practice until the law on RA9266 was passed in 2004. And everything was done by CE's to a point the Architects were alarmed due to competition. It was in the law of National Building Code prior to the Revised. We are aware that not all are well informed but to those who are adheres the law.

It has come to issue because it was previously acted by CEs. Now the law has defined it. Ok lets go away with sues coz it is has come to go far. Complaints to the proper forum is the first step to settle simple issues but none were presented to the proper forum. Only false accusations of issues that was deemed by some to discredit others.

Before I continue my response to Kamao-o, I would like to request the Moderator to provide a different thread specifically for “RA 9266: The Architecture Law.” This is a good and important topic to discuss in a separate thread for people to be aware of.

Now, going back to Kamao-o’s argument. He stated the point of contention made by Engr. Lazaro, as quoted below:



Kamao-o also said:



MY ANSWER to the above arguments:

The above contention by Engr. Lazaro on Section 302.4 of the Revised IRR of PD 1096 is about NOT USING the term “Architectural Documents” to refer to the architectural plans but instead “Building Documents” as a generic term. Furthermore, notice how they are trying to redefine the term by saying that if it’s prepared by an architect, it should be termed “Architectural Documents”, and if it is prepared by an Engineer, it should be termed “Civil Engineering Documents.” IN OTHER WORDS, CE’s can also do the practice of architects. There is no way to get around that conclusion. Now, that is clear and unequivocal violation of RA 9266 and its derivative regulations as it is a defined practice of the Architectural Profession.

Mr. Lazaro (and Kamao-o)FAILS to mention that Section 302.5 of the same Revised IRR mentions the “CIVIL and STRUCTURAL Documents” and what those documents are. If we stretch this law based on the same argument by Lazaro, we can name it “Architectural Documents” if an architect prepares those documents. Now, let’s stretch it even further: mechanical, electrical, plumbing, etc. plans is also considered “Building Documents” because you cannot build a building without these documents, hence building permit requires these as well. So, CE’s can also prepare, sign and seal them as well if they prepare them? This is absurd.

Here’s the chronological history of the laws regulating the practice of Architecture and CE:
1. In June 1950, the passage of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 544, the Civil Engineering (CE) law; the law does not mention that civil engineers (CEs) can prepare, sign and seal architectural plans and documents.

2. Also, in June 1950, the passage of R.A. No. 545, the organic Architecture law; this special law specifically mentions that ONLY registered and licensed architects can prepare, sign and seal architectural plans and documents. Notice the word – ONLY. You cannot be a civil engineer and do the work of an architect. So, if you fall into the category and functions of the work of an architect, you are engaging in the practice of that profession. Kamao needs to refrain from saying that CE’s was all along allowed to prepare, sign and seal architectural plans. This is an urban legend claim. It is unthinkable that architects makes it so hard to pass the licensure examination in order to practice the profession, but a civil engineer just have to be licensed as such and practice the architecture profession. Again, this is absurd and illogical at best!

3. In 1956, the passage of R.A. No. 1581, the amended Architecture law; the amended portion specifically delineate the responsibility and liability of the architect IN CONTRAST to the CE; there is therefore no overlap in professional function. Again, this law doesn’t apply to a Civil Engineer. So, if we again based this on the account of Lazaro’s argument, a CE will not be responsible for this law. But if it’s an architect, he is responsible. Is this logical then?

4. In June 1956, the passage of R.A. No. 1582, the amended CE law; the amended portion (Sec. 24) specifically delineate the responsibility and liability of the CE IN CONTRAST To the architect; there is therefore no overlap in professional function.

5. In February 1957, Promulgation of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1096, otherwise known as the 1977 National Building Code of the Philippines (NBCP) by Philippine Pres. Ferdinand E. Marcos. I will explain further in another response about this law and the claims of Civil Engineers referencing this law.

6. In March 2004, R.A. No. 9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004) was finally signed into law by PGMA.

7. DPWH publication of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096.

NOW, let’s go back to the National Building Code of the Philippines, otherwise known as PD 1096, and the CE’s (and Kamao-s’) argument on this particular law.

Kamao-o, I am well aware of the arguments of Engr. Lazaro. For the information of everyone, especially reading this thread, and most especially to you Kamao-o: It was the CE’s (and it was them who was alarmed, not architects) that filed a case against the Secretary of the DPWH back in April and May of 2005 against the provisions of the Revised IRR of the National Building Code, Section 302 -- arguing that CE’s have the supposed right to prepare, sign and seal architectural documents. THEY apparently BASED their arguments on the INTERCALATED AND INCORRECT VERSION of Section 302 of PD 1096 that was published by Atty. Vicente Foz in his textbook “The National Building Code of the Philippines and its Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations”, 2005 edition. This is the same argument that you Kama-o is contesting above to justify the illegal practice of CE's when they engaged in the practice of the architectural profession-- the version of Vicente Foz book that contains the following:



HOWEVER, Section 302 of said law as APPEARING in the OFFICIAL gazette AND as found in the Malacanang Records Office DOES NOT CONTAIN THE PHRASE – “licensed architect or civil engineer in case of architectural and structural plans.” THERE IS NOTHING in either the Civil Engineering Law or the Revised IRR that would indicate that the same “plans” enumerated under Section 302.4 of the Revised IRR are the plans mentioned in Section 2 and 23 of the Civil Engineering Law. Under the CEs interpretation of said Section 2 and 23, ANY PLAN remotely connected with the construction of a building is covered by the practice of civil engineering. This, as architects contend, IS ABSURD. Civil Engineers will also then be allowed to sign electrical, mechanical, sanitary etc. documents, which is beyond the scope of their practice and would constitute an overlapping of the different professions.
Architects is stressing that CEs neither have the authority to prepare, sign and seal architectural plans under the last paragraph of Section 302 of P.D. 1096. Under the said law, the application for permits requires that the plans and specifications submitted should be prepared, signed and sealed by professionals SPECIALIZING IN THEIR RESPECTIVE FIELDS. As stated above, the official version of the National Building Code as published in the Official Gazette and as certified by the Malacanang Records Office, mentioned only two professionals, namely, mechanical and electrical engineers, while Atty. Vicente Foz’ version mentions two additional professionals, “duly licensed architect or civil engineer in case of architectural and structural plans”. The CEs cannot validly invoke Section 302 of PD 1096 as the legal basis to justify the alleged authority of civil engineers to prepare, sign and seal architectural plans, said authority not having been expressly conferred under the official and correct version of the law. Neither they can invoke Ministry Order No. 57, Implementing Rules and Regulations issued in 1976 since it is not supported by the very law it seeks to implement.

THAT IS WHY, the CEs lost this case.

On the first statement, I would say yes and no. The civil engineer cannot change the architectural plans but only the structural. Here, Kamao-o is mentioning “structural” for civil engineer, but is hesitant to claim it when it’s “architectural.” Clearly, he is playing with words and their apparent meaning because you cannot refer to an architectural plan as structural. He only makes the argument by referring to the "architectural plans” as “building plans” to get away with the technicality. You can read my previous explanation why this use of term "building plans" cannot be a valid claim by civil engineers to justify their illegal practice of architecture. Let me also point out that not all CE's are illegally practicing architecture. But most of them do.

On the second statement, technically, if you are an owner of the building, you cannot just revise the design of the building WITHOUT the approval of the Architect. An Architect has the right to change his design if he sees that the design will somehow have an adverse affect or if there is a flaw in the design. The Owner is not liable under the Civil Code but the Architect.

Kamao-o, I don't know if you are aware of the developments of the case.

First off, the PICE filed a case against the Secretary of the DPWH on the provision on Section 302 of PD 1096. It didn't include any provisions of RA 9266, a valid and existing law, which specifically delineates the practice of architecture and limits it only to Architects to legally prepare, sign and seal architectural documents.

The latest development, if you are not aware of (and I don't know when that seminar conducted by Engr. Lazaro's took place), the PICE didn't obtain the Preliminary Injunction they were fighting for in the case. Get the facts correctly. On the contrary, last January 2008, the Court ordered the lifting/dissolving of the May 2005 writ of preliminary injunction on Sections 302.3 & 302.4 of the 2004 Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of P.D. No. 1096.

That being said, it is presently quite clear that CEs are specifically excluded from signing and sealing architectural documents i.e. architectural plans, designs, drawings, specifications, estimates, etc. i.e. the “A” sheets forming part of the building plans/ designs/ drawings. Whoever continues to do this, whether the LGU, OBO, CE and others will be violating the multiple provisions of PD 1096 and RA 9266.

And here's another NEW development: in late October 2008, the Davao City LGU issued its Administrative Order (AO) complying with the January 2008 Court Order, with the 1977 P.D. No. 1096 and its 2004 Revised IRR and with R.A. No. 9266. We, architects, are proud of the Davao City's action. The rest of te LGU's around the country should follow thru to correct this injustice being done to the Filipino Architects.

this discussion will not go anywhere, as i have pointed out, there are laws now enacted to govern the practice of the mentioned professions. who are we to interpret and say one is correct and the other is not? i have made my position that unless there is a court interpretation of such laws, this issue will not be resolve. but as i see it. laws have been violated and it's not in any other forum/s that will settle the issue.

sue somebody and from that 1st step it can be concluded maybe, who is correct, and i will say it again, only the court can interpret the laws and the interpretation on the RA's mentioned.

private associations cannot and will not conclude the issue, sanglit para ha akon, mag sample daw pagkiha para hisabtan it tinuod na balaod.

from the premise presented it is clear to me that building documents (plans & others) will be signed by an architect, civil engineer, electrical and other required profesionals if needed. without one of the mentioned pro, is a violation.

in applying for building permits, without this pro who "signed and sealed" building documents should not be approved by the agencies concern in granting such permits.

alagad i2 na debate?!

tsk3X