^^ intellectual minds. hehehehe ayaw naman pag OT Tyrone.

ou na!!

mahubya pagbinasa so an katikangan la tak ginbabasa...

hahahha...

what are they talking about anyway??

Building code.

	emeroy wrote: 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.

Let me give my 2 cents here...

Correct me if I am wrong but this discussion.... that is going on forever.... applies only to residential buildings mostly one or two levels in height.... where the competing architects and civil engineers are both capable of developing the necessary design drawings, specifications, and other construction documents required for construction. This discussion will not apply to larger structures such as commercial buildings, etc.... and again.... correct me if I am wrong.

Here are the main reasons this discussion will not apply to larger structures (from a 17 years old CAD operator's point of view)

1. The architect is always the descipline who initiates the design concept using scale models, preliminary plans, renderings, Code analysis, ball park "guesstimates", etc. to be presented for review and comments by the owner. Once all the comments and changes are incorporated and the concept is accepted by the owner, the architects will start creating floor plans, reflected ceiling plans, sections, and other details for the first phase.... usually for 30% submission. All drawings are created using Computer Aided Design (CAD).... usually Autocad or Microstation. Drafting by hand is no longer practical especially larger projects such as commercial buildings.

2. Civil will then start creating structural drawings by referencing architectural plans as background. Civil will also create site utilities drawings.

3. Electrical, Communication, HVAC, Plumbing, and Fire Protection drawings will be created by referencing both architectural and structural plans as backgrounds. Layout of HVAC diffusers, lighting, sprinkler heads, fire and smoke detectors, alarms, etc. are coordinated using architectural reflected ceiling plans as background. If they hit beams or walls and need more spaces to run their ducts, pipes, conduits, communication cables, etc... they will ask both the architects and civil to adjust their design to provide more room.

In other words.... other trades will not be able to start working on most of their design layout without the architectural drawings available for reference as backgrounds. At final submission, each trade is responsible for their own design, i.e., "A" drawings are signed and sealed by architect, "ST" drawings by civil engineer, "E" drawings by prof electrical engineer, and so forth....

Wrong. This was an "urban legend" claim by Civil Engineers, referencing the "inserted" text into the National Building Code by author Vicente Foz (see my explanation in previous reply). As I said, this "inserted" text is not in the official gazette nor in the records of Malacanang. There is no provision in the Architecture Law, both RA 9266 and RA 545 (enacted in 1950) that says so. And you cannot find it in the National Building Code and its Revised IRR. And you cannot find it either in RA 544 (Civil Engineering Law).



This is the accurate interpretation that applies to all types of buildings, even if it's residential.



Another correct interpretation. Notice why the architect is considered "prime professional" in that he is the author of the design of the building. Without his concept, there will be no civil, elec. mech. plumbing, etc. that can be created. I am not saying though that the other professionals (CE, Mech, EE, etc) are considered inferior.

Right now, we are in the extensive campaign process to let all agencies of government to enforce the law. We will see how they are supposed to act.

If these agencies fail to act, after all the necessary information is disseminated and received, then they will have no excuse of ignorance. The agencies who regulate the practice of architecture, the architect's organization, and even individual architects may file cases in the proper agencies of government. Let's see how this development goes.

Emeroy, I don't have any disagreement with your observation. In fact, as you have mentioned above, building documents should have the signature and seal of each professional. I don't know why kamao-o is trying to twist the law by saying that a CE can do the work of an architect without being registered first as an architect. I have known CE's who are also registered as Architects. They are the only ones allowed to do this type of practice.

First of all i am not twisting the law. The practice of CE's to sign and seal documents exists until the passage of RA9266. It is found in the old IRR of NBC. Hence it was revised now to distinguish the works of Architects and CE's. What was found to be a bad taste was to accuse CE's of "enroaching: the works of Architects, far worse to term them "illegals".

For the point of view of everybody, how would you like (Architects) to be called the highest form of legalized "Professional Robbers" in the country. Im not saying all, but most do practice it.

Heres: an example (but true)
1. An owner found a good if not excellent design from the net. At this Age of Internet, everything is on the web. With that she loved the design and downloads it from the web with a few $$ of fee of course. Had she browsed for more she could even download free from the net.

It was economical isnt it? Then, it was already in the standard form so she wanted it to be printed out. A friend of her whos a draftsman suggested that it be redrawn so that it will be in a standard form prescribed in the NBC copying the details and design found from the web. Here is the problem now, it has to be signed by an Architect for it to be approved by the Office of the Building Officials which of course is a requirement by the law. Here goes the problem, the Architect is asking for a price so extravagant, as if he was the one who thinks and prepared the design, the plans and specifications. What? not because you are an Architect and you've been furthermore given much power under the law would you held an owner under robbery and saying that it will not be approved unless signed by an Architect. Im not saying all Architects are like that but some are "yumabang dahil hawak hawak daw yung batas nila" Where is Justice and Equity with that?

2. Example No. 2, A govt Office in Palo Leyte remodelled their building, there was an existing plan and the buidling was constructed in the 70s. After all the works, replacement of windows, doors, roofing, tileworks, CR, painting and otherworks, the engineer of that Office made an As-built plan aided of course by an Autocadd to make things faster. The documents including plans are for the purposes of billing and audit. The engineer, did not sign the plans and specifications saying that he was only the Project Engineer besides it was just a mere rehabilitation/remodelling of the building. So, the Office look for an Architect. After several days there was a voucher from the Architect claing for his services. To the surprise of some of the Office, the bill amounted to P170,000.00.. What? for the works of others, passed to an architect just for him to sign the documents. It was not even an original design, it was just an As-built plan with an original plan. Some even suggested that even a draftsmen could do the plans. Even their very own engineers, which by the way of course have units in architecture and drafting in their College days.

The only words an architect could say that it was their standard rate, it was even cheaper daw and it is requirement under the law. Whoaah!! Architects are well brief saying these words. A "Professional Robbery" isnt it? The only difference is that it was legal.


Ok, it has gone out of issue but at least it makes sense. Here comes the old law, with that situation a CE could sign the documents not being under hostage of an Architect. For a very simple building that nowadays everybody could make a design as long as you have the knowledge in Autocadd and creative ideas.

Architects maybe "prime professional" for buidlings, but it depends upon building classifications. But only for pionerred, high class and artistic. After that, with most people seeing the structure, people could copy the concept and make few changes.
To consider engineers as inferior to architects, maybe in your term but its not. CE's have lots of works asside from buidlings, they have roads, bridges, dams, subterranean structures, surveys, etc. But CEs do prepare, sign, and seal these documents. They make plans even w/o an aide of draftsmen. Specially nowadays w/ an aide of an autocadd.

Now wheres the logic? If CEs can prepare those plans; sign and seal them why cant buildings? on small scale. Give the big ones nalang to the Architects. It is very common naman for to build nowadays with one-two storey residential houses. It is common na nga to construct houses even w/o an engineer but highly skilled foreman.

In reality, CE's have threaten the works of Architects no wonder they were son intense in lobbying it in Congress to solidify their position and furthermore enhance their role and powers.

And oh, if you consider btw architects as prime professionals, there were no design of yours could have been rected w/o the engineers. It is the beauty of your designs (no issue about that) that people appreciates, but it is the engineers who construct it to make it stable, reliable and structurally sound to make future generations see your works. As always credit is not due to the engineers but we are proud of are work.

No wonder, you see engineers as "illegals". Coz they are not always in the limelight.

Yo uare not reading my post Kamao-o. It is not in the old NBC. It is in the unofficial version of Vicente Foz, but version.

Everything you say here may seem reasonable. But that's why we have laws that regulate the practice of the profession, and there is a corresponding liability.

If you are a CE or a foreman or anybody who thinks you can do the work of an architect, the simple thing for you to do is to study and pass the board exam for architects. Then you will be given the previlege by the state to practice Architecture.

UNOFFICIAL VERSION of NBC by Vicente Foz:
Sec. 302. Application of Permits. In order to obtain a building permit, the applicant shall file an application therefore in writing and on the prescribed form from the Office of the Building Official. Every application shall provide at least the following information: To be submitted together with such application are at least five sets of corresponding plans and specifications prepared signed and sealed by a duly [i]licensed architect or civil engineer in case of architectural and structural plans[/i], mechanical engineer in case of mechanical plans, and by a registered electrical engineer in case of electrical plans, except in those cases exempted or not required by the Building Official under this Code. (emphasis added)

OFFICIAL VERSION of NBC from the Official Gazette and Records from Malacanang:
Sec. 302. Application of Permits. To be submitted together with such application are at least
five sets of corresponding plans and specifications prepared, signed and sealed by a duly mechanical engineer in case of mechanical plans, and by a registered electrical engineer in case of electrical plans, except in those cases exempted or not required by the Building Official under this Code.

Kamao-o, you cannot rely your argument on an unofficial version of the law.

I will not quote the rest of your example because it's too long...

Anyways, granting that your example is true, I don't think that you can apply it to the rest of the other architects. That's an illogical argument. Because as far as I am concerned, there are far more corrupt CE's holding positions in the DPWH and raking millions of taxpayer's money. There are also those who charge less money to their client, but install inferior materials during construction so they can make money.

But again, let's not apply this reasoning and conclude that that's what everybody is doing. If you see these malpractice, take them to the proper forum or courts.

Admin.. it would be best if you transfer the posts regarding the Building Code to a new thread. Suggestion ko la...

I hope the following will provide more info....
.
.
.

Republic of the Philippines
Professional Regulation Commission
City of Manila

Professional Regulatory Board of Architecture
(PRBoA)
_________________________________________________________________________________

Resolution No. 2007 - 07
Series of 2008

THE FILING OF ADMINISTRATIVE, CRIMINAL AND/OR CIVIL COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH), OTHER NATIONAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, ET. AL. BY THE PROFESSIONAL REGULATORY BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE (PRBOA) IN RESPONSE TO THEIR CONTINUING FAILURE AND/OR REFUSAL TO IMPLEMENT AND/OR ENFORCE REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9266 (THE ARCHITECTURE ACT OF 2004)
_________________________________________________________________________________

WHEREAS, Section 27, Article II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states that “The State shall maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and take positive and effective measures against graft and corruption.”;

WHEREAS, Section 17, Article VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states that “The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.”;

WHEREAS, Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states that “The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive departments, xxx and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. He shall also appoint all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. The Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of other officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards. xxx”;

WHEREAS, Section 1, Article XI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states that “Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.”

WHEREAS, in June 1950, separate laws for the regulated professions of civil engineering (R.A. No. 544) and architecture (R.A. No. 545) were enacted and that only R.A. No. 545 clearly stated that architectural documents are for architects to prepare, sign and seal;

WHEREAS, in June 1956, separate amendments for the civil engineering law (R.A. No. 1582) and architecture (R.A. No. 1581) were enacted and that both amendments highlight the distinctions of the roles that civil engineers and architects must perform;

WHEREAS, in February 1977, Pres. Ferdinand Marcos signed into law Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1096 (otherwise known as the 1977 National Building Code of the Philippines or NBCP), the authentic Sec. 302 of which only states:

“Section 302. Application for Permits.
xxx
To be submitted together with such application are at least five sets of corresponding plans and specifications prepared, signed and sealed by a duly mechanical engineer in case of mechanical plans, and by a registered electrical engineer in case of electrical plans, except in those cases exempted or not required by the Building Official under this Code.”

WHEREAS, P.D. No. 1096, particularly its authentic Sec. 302, has been duly amended by the repeal clause of R.A. No. 9266 and has not been amended nor repealed by any other law to date;

WHEREAS, Section 7 of R.A. No. 8981 (otherwise known as “The PRC Modernization Act of 2000”), which became law in December 2000, states:
“Powers, Functions and Responsibilities of the Commission. xxx
(o) To exercise administrative supervision over the various professional regulatory boards (PRBs) and its members;
(p) To adopt and promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to effectively implement policies with respect to the regulation and practice of the professions; xxx
(y) To perform such other functions and duties as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act, the various professional regulatory laws, decrees, executive orders and other administrative issuance.”

WHEREAS, the DPWH, at the behest of the civil engineers (CEs), sought in 2003 a Department of Justice (DoJ) opinion as to the rightful signatory to architectural documents to be submitted as part of the building permit application, in compliance with P.D. No. 1096;

WHEREAS, the CEs insist that they have the privilege to prepare, sign and seal architectural documents;

WHEREAS, the DoJ, in its opinion promulgated 09 January 2004, as signed by then DoJ Acting Secretary Ma. Merceditas M. Gutierrez, ruled that architectural documents are for licensed architects to prepare, sign and seal;

WHEREAS, Republic Act No. 9266 (otherwise known as the “Architecture Act of 2004”), was approved on 17 March 2004 and became effective on 10 April 2004 while its implementing rules and regulations (IRR) have been in effect since 01 December 2004;

WHEREAS, the civil engineers have officially participated in the crafting of R.A. No. 9266 from 2002-2003, as borne by congressional records;

WHEREAS, Secs. 302.3 and 302.4 of the 2004 revised implementing rules and regulations (R-IRR) of P.D. No. 1096 (the 1977 NBCP) were thereafter harmonized in 2004 by the DPWH with R.A. No. 9266, thereby limiting the preparation, signing and sealing of architectural documents only to registered and licensed architects (RLAs) ;

WHEREAS, in their desire to continue to practice architecture by preparing, signing and sealing architectural documents submitted as part of building permit applications, civil engineers sought judicial relief against Secs. 302.3 and 302.4 of the 2004 R-IRR of the 1977 NBCP and were initially successful in securing a writ of preliminary injunction on 24 May 2005 from RTC Manila Branch 22 (the “court”) against the said regulations;

WHEREAS, the civil engineer (CE)’s petition to secure the said injunction and the injunction itself relied heavily on a spurious and intercalated version of Section 302 of P.D. 1096, carrying a purported clause allowing CEs to sign architectural documents;

WHEREAS, said injunction on Secs. 302.2 and 302.4 of the 2004 R-IRR of the 1977 NBCP, while not applicable to R.A. No. 9266, is being widely used by the CEs and their very willing supporters in the national and local governments, to subvert the full implementation and enforcement of R.A. No. 9266, a valid and subsisting law;

WHEREAS, the artificial extra-legal situation created by said national and local government officials is grossly disadvantageous to RLAs despite the full effectivity of RA No. 9266 and to the general public which is unduly deprived of the rightful regulated professional’s services;

WHEREAS, RLAs have intervened in the said case and have moved to lift the injunction as early as December 2005 (more than 2 years ago), without any action from the court to date;

WHEREAS, the court’s decision on the case has not yet been promulgated for almost 2 years to date (reckoned from memoranda submittals in February 2006);

WHEREAS, in September 2006, DPWH Secretary Hermogenes Ebdane, Jr. issued a Memorandum/ Order allowing civil engineers (CEs) to prepare sign and seal architectural documents in clear/ willful violation of R.A. No. 9266 and of Sec. 302 of P.D. 1096 itself;

WHEREAS, the said DPWH order specifically undermines and usurps the powers and functions of the PRBoA, and by extension, that of the PRC, to exclusively regulate the practice of the profession of architecture in the Philippines i.e. powers and functions not delegated upon the DPWH Secretary;

WHEREAS, the DPWH Secretary has placed greater reliance on the injunction on 2 sections of the 2004 Revised IRR (portions of a mere executive issuance containing mere listings of documents for submission to the Office of the Building Official), of the 1977 NBCP rather than on the pertinent provisions of R.A. No. 9266, a valid and subsisting law, that limit the preparation and signing of architectural documents only to RLAs and that mandate all national and local government officials to implement and enforce R.A. No. 9266;

WHEREAS, the DPWH Secretary’s and other national and local government officials have also placed greater importance on contempt of court charges rather than on the severe penalties prescribed for their violation/s of R.A. No. 9266;

WHEREAS, each day that passes unduly benefits the civil engineers (who are also regulated professionals under the aegis of the PRC), and who are officially allowed by the DPWH to prepare, sign and seal architectural documents in willful violation of the pertinent provisions of R.A. No. 9266 that limit the preparation, signing and sealing of architectural documents only to RLAs and that mandate all national and local government officials to implement said law;

WHEREAS, the reconstitution of the Professional Regulatory Board of Architecture (PRBoA) as mandated under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9266, was completed in March 2007;

WHEREAS, the Sec.7 Article II of R.A. No. 9266 states:
“Powers and Functions of the Board. – The Board shall exercise the following specific powers, functions and responsibilities:
xxx
f. Monitor the conditions affecting the practice of architecture and adopt such measures as may be deemed proper for the enhancement and maintenance of high professional, ethical and technical standards of the profession; xxx”;

WHEREAS, the Sec.7 Article II of R.A. No. 9266 states:
“Grounds for Suspension or Removal of Members of the Board. – The President of the Philippines, upon the recommendation of the Commission, after giving the concerned member an opportunity to defend himself in a proper administrative investigation to be conducted by the Commission, may suspend or remove any member on the following grounds:
a. Neglect of duty or incompetence;
b. Violation of tolerance of the violation of this Act, or its implementing rules and regulations or the Code of Ethical Conduct and Standards of Professional Practice;”

WHEREAS, the Sec.44 Article V of R.A. No. 9266 states:
“Enforcement of the Act. - It shall be the primary duty of the Commission and the Board to effectively enforce the provision of this Act. All duly constituted law enforcement agencies and officers of national, provincial, city or municipal government or of any political subdivision thereof, shall, upon the call or request of the Commission or the Board, render assistance in enforcing the provisions of this Act and to prosecute any person violating the provisions of the same. The Secretary of Justice or his duly designated representative shall act as legal adviser to the Commission and the Board and shall render legal assistance as may be necessary in carrying out the provisions of this Act. xxx

The Board shall assist the Commission, Board or the aforementioned officers of the law, (sic) cases of illegal practice or violations of this Act committed by any person or party.

The Board shall assist the Commission in filing the appropriate charges through the concerned prosecution office in accordance with law and the Rules of Court.”

WHEREAS, the Sec.3 (18) Rule I of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9266, as covered by PRBoA Resolution No. 7, Series of 2004, approved by the PRC in September 2004, and effective 01 December 2004, states:
(18) “Architectural Documents” means an architectural drawings, specifications, and other outputs of an Architect that only an Architect can sign and seal consisting, among others, of vicinity maps, site development plans, architectural program, perspective drawings, architectural floor plans, elevations, sections, ceiling plans, schedules, detailed drawings, technical specifications and cost estimates, and other instruments of service in any form.”

WHEREAS, the reconstituted PRBoA has continually campaigned in 2007 with the executive branch of the Philippine Government to have R.A. No. 9266 fully implemented and enforced, with mixed results;

WHEREAS, as part of said PRBoA campaign with the executive branch of government, the PRBoA officially wrote in mid-2007 both DPWH OIC Manuel Bonoan and DPWH Sec. Hermogenes B. Ebdane, Jr. requesting that they officially furnish the PRBoA their legal basis/ bases for allowing civil engineers to continue to prepare, sign and seal architectural documents, as contained in their promulgated Memos/ Orders in 2006 and 2007;

WHEREAS, said official letters by the PRBoA to the DPWH, while dealing with matters of national importance, both merited no reply to date, a serious violation of R.A. No. 6713;

WHEREAS, the PRBoA also requested the DoJ in mid-2007 to render an opinion anew on the matter of the preparation, signing and sealing of architectural documents, and thereafter, the DoJ instructed the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) to resolve the issue;

WHEREAS, the PRBoA has officially requested the PRC on several occasions, from early 2007 through late 2007, to officially rule on the matter of the preparation, signing and sealing of architectural documents;

WHEREAS, PRC in its letter to the PRBoA dated 06 November 2007 suggested that to terminate the controversy, the most appropriate remedy is to file a Petition for Declaratory Relief (a civil proceeding) before the proper court to finally determine the rights of the concerned professionals insofar as the preparation, signing and sealing of architectural documents is concerned;

WHEREAS, the PRC in the same letter to the PRBoA, likewise suggested that a status quo be maintained between the PRBoA and the PRB of Civil Engineering (PRBoCE) pending the judicial construction of the term “architectural documents”;

WHEREAS, lawyers consulted by the PRBoA are one in saying that civil actions to enforce R.A. No. 9266 are the least effective since aside from the time element, civil cases shall only heighten public perception that both the PRC and the PRBoA may be incapable of fully implementing R.A. No. 9266, their primary mandates under the same law and that both entities may also appear to be doubtful of the efficacy of R.A. No. 9266, despite its full effectivity;

WHEREAS, the same lawyers consulted by the PRBoA have also determined that the present acts of public officials that are grossly prejudicial to RLAs, are clearly violative of R.A. No. 9266, making such entities liable for multiple counts of administrative and criminal violations under several statutes;

WHEREAS, in accordance with the authentic Sec. 302 of P.D. No. 1096, in accordance with the multiple provisions of R.A. No. 9266, a special law limiting the preparation, signing and sealing of architectural documents only to RLAs and in accordance with the promulgated DoJ legal opinions, the PRC suggested status quo must and can only mean that architectural documents are only for RLAs to prepare, sign and seal, since this condition has not changed since the 1950 enactment of R.A. No. 545 and the 1977 promulgation of P.D. No. 1096, particularly its authentic and non-intercalated version of Sec. 302;

WHEREAS, there is no writ of preliminary injunction on any provision of R.A. No. 9266 nor on any provision of its IRR;

WHEREAS, there is no pending legal question on the constitutionality of any provision of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9266 nor of any provision of its IRR nor of any of the derivative regulations issued in the name of R.A. No. 9266 or of its predecessor laws, R.A. No. 1581 of 1956 and R.A. No. 545 of 1950;

WHEREAS, since there is no injunction nor legal question on any provision of R.A. No. 9266, its IRR and derivative regulations and since the law has been in effect for almost four (4.0) years, there is serious need to implement and enforce the same immediately;

WHEREAS, officials of the national and local governments, such as DPWH Sec. Ebdane, possibly other Cabinet Secretaries and other officers of national agencies as well as various city/ municipal executives nationwide, have continually and willfully violated R.A. No. 9266 by citing certain legal arguments that do not in any way affect the status of R.A. No. 9266 as a valid and subsisting law;

WHEREAS, the acts of these national and local government officials appear to be clearly intended to give undue advantage to entities other than registered and licensed architects (RLAs), to practice the regulated profession of architecture, and in so doing have not only disenfranchised RLAs from fully enjoying the privilege granted to them by the state but have also contributed to their marginalization and have prevented the same from fulfilling their rightful role in Philippine society;

WHEREAS, since public entities in their official capacities are being cited as respondents in the administrative, criminal and/ or civil complaints to be filed by the PRBoA, the PRBoA must hire a private counsel to act on its behalf

WHEREFORE, the PRBoA hereby RESOLVES, as it so RESOLVES, to file administrative, criminal and/or civil complaints against the DPWH Secretary Hermogenes B. Ebdane, Jr. at the soonest possible date, for his culpable violations of R.A. No. 9266, P.D. No. 1096 and other applicable statutes and executive issuances, including but not limited to R.A. No. 3019, R.A. No. 6713, R.A. 8981, the Revised Penal Code, the Civil Code, E.O. 292 (Administrative Code) and others;

FURTHER RESOLVED, that other national and local government officials who have continually violated R.A. No. 9266 be similarly charged; and

FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chairman of the PRBoA represent and speak for the PRBoA in the filing of such administrative, criminal and/or civil complaints against the DPWH Secretary Hermogenes, other national and local government officials, et. al. during the pendency of said cases, or while he is still Chairman of the PRBoA;

RESOLVED FINALLY, that the PRBoA retain the services of a private counsel to actively represent the PRBoA and to collaborate with the PRC (and/or the PRC Legal and Investigation Division), on an absolute need basis, in the preparation and filing of the pertinent administrative and criminal complaints (and/or civil complaint/s as warranted) against said public officials, starting with DPWH Secretary Ebdane, and to represent the PRBoA during the pendency of said cases.

Done in the City of Manila this 5th day of February 2008.


ORIGINAL SIGNED

ARMANDO N. ALLÍ
Chairman


ORIGINAL SIGNED

ANGELINE T. CHUA CHIACO
Member

ORIGINAL SIGNED

MARIETTA B. SEGOVIA
Member

More than 50 years of toleration and injustice to the Filipino Architects. Only in the Philippines...

I know of a case here in the US, particularly in Texas where CE's also practiced architecture... claiming that they too can do the work of Architects... good thing architecs here were also vigilant and the CE's involved were penalized for their illegal practice.

I know of this resolution... Thanks for posting it.