The First 3.0 Years of RA 9266

1

IAPOA
PRBoA

• The First 3.0 Years of RA 9266
• (The Architecture Act of 2004, its IRR
  Derivative Regulations)
• Issues and Updates on the Implementation of RA
  9266
• 10 April 2007
• UAP Regional District B-5 Assembly
• Legazpi City, Region V (Bicol)
• by Archt. Armando N. ALLÍ, fuap, aaif, fspac
• Chairman, Professional Regulatory Board of
  Architecture (PRBoA)
• (Resource Person)

2

PRBoA

IAPOA 1. Simplified
Model of Philippine Laws (lower than the
1987 Constitution International Treaties
in which the Philippine Government is a
Signatory)

Laws do not Operate in Isolation but in Full
Interaction with Other Laws that are in Place.

• __________________________________________________
  __________________________________________________
  ________________________________The First 3.0
  Years of RA 9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004,
  its IRR Derivative Regulations) by Archt.
  Armando N. ALLI, fuap, aaif, fspac
• Chairman, Professional Regulatory Board of
  Architecture (PRBoA)

3

PRBoA

IAPOA 2. What Other Laws
Need to be Considered in the Implementation of RA
9266 (and by Architects in their Practice Under
RA 9266) in the Philippines?

• The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRRs) of
  RA 9266, including the Code of Ethical Conduct
  and Standards of Professional Practice (known as
  the UAP Documents) Board of Architecture
  Issuances (resolutions, circulars, etc.) under RA
  9266 and those under RA 545 of 1950 and RA 1581
  of 1956 (that have not been amended nor
  repealed)
• The PRC Modernization Act (RA8981) other PRC
  Issuances (resolutions, circulars, etc.)
• Other Professional Laws (particularly RA1582/
  RA544, RA 8534, PD1308)
• The New Civil Code of 1954 (particularly Article
  1723)
• The LG/ Internal Revenue/ Revised Penal/
  Corporate Codes and Other Codes IRR
• PD 1096 of 1977 (Natl Bldg Code of the Phils./
  NBCP), its 2004 revised IRR (effective 01 May
  2005) and its Referral Codes e.g. BP 344, PD 1185
  (Fire Code), Structural Code
• PD 957, BP 220 environmental laws and their
  respective IRRs
• General Agreement on Trade and Services (GATS)
  reference APEC Architects Registry
• RA 9285 (ADR Law of 2004) and EO 1008
  (Construction Arbitration Law)
• Constructors License Law of 1965 (RA 4566) and
  its IRR
• LGU ordinances (particularly the Zoning
  Ordinance) and
• National, Regional or Provincial Framework/ Land
  Use Plans (not laws but basis for ZO).

__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
________________________________The First 3.0
Years of RA 9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004,
its IRR Derivative Regulations) by Archt.
Armando N. ALLI, fuap, aaif, fspac Chairman,
Professional Regulatory Board of Architecture
(PRBoA)
4

PRBoA

IAPOA 3. What was done to
the National Building Code of the Phils
(NBCP)? Is it still the Law?

• The present NBCP was promulgated Feb 1977 as PD
  1096 by President FM its various Implementing
  Rules and Regulations (IRRs) were issued by the
  MPWTC (later the DPWH) from 1979 through 2004
• The 2004 Revised IRR, which was signed by the
  DPWH Secretary on 03 Nov 2004, was published
  April 2005 and took effect 01 May 2005
• The 20-day Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and
  the succeeding Writ of Preliminary Injunction
  (WPI) secured by the CEs i.e. subject of the
  ongoing court case in Manila only covers (2)
  sub-sections of the R-IRR of the NBC the rest of
  the 2004 R-IRR are all in full effect are not
  restrained by the WPI
• To date, PD 1096 of 1977 (NBCP) is still the only
  law on buildings as it has neither been amended
  nor repealed by any other law i.e. only its IRR
  (an executive issuance) was revised.

IAPOA

• __________________________________________________
  __________________________________________________
  ________________________________The First 3.0
  Years of RA 9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004,
  its IRR Derivative Regulations) by Archt.
  Armando N. ALLI, fuap, aaif, fspac
• Chairman, Professional Regulatory Board of
  Architecture (PRBoA)

5

PRBoA

IAPOA 4. What are Secs.302.3
4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of the NBC in
relation to RA 9266 ?

• Republic Act or RA 9266 (The Architecture Act of
  2004) took effect 10 April 2004 while its IRR
  (also an executive issuance) took effect 01
  December 2004
• Section 302.3 of the 2004 Revised IRR of the NBCP
  (PD1096 of 1977) is already fully harmonized with
  RA 9266 and its provisions limiting the
  preparation, signing and dry sealing of
  architectural documents only to Registered
  Architects
• Despite the existence of the WPI on Sec.302.3 4
  of the R-IRR of the NBCP i.e. mere regulations or
  executive isuances, Civil Engineers (CEs) who
  shall continue to sign and dry seal architectural
  plans, specifications and documents shall still
  be subject to the application of the severe
  penalties under a law or statute i.e. RA 9266
  its IRR (reference Sec. 29 of RA 9266) and
• 4) The DPWH can still legally bar CEs from
  signing and dry sealing architectural plans,
  specifications and documents by invoking multiple
  provisions under RA 9266 (Sections 20, 29, 31,
  32, 34, etc.) and its IRR, specifically Sec. 20.2
  of RA 9266 which prohibits acting Building
  Officials/ Building Officials (or any other
  officer or employee of the republic) from
  accepting or approving any architectural plans or
  specifications not prepared in accordance with
  RA9266 and Sec. 44 which mandates all public
  officials to enforce RA9266.

• __________________________________________________
  __________________________________________________
  ___________________________________
• The First 3.0 Years of RA 9266 (The Architecture
  Act of 2004, its IRR Derivative Regulations)
  by Archt. Armando N. ALLI, fuap, aaif, fspac
• Chairman, Professional Regulatory Board of
  Architecture (PRBoA)

6

PRBoA

IAPOA 5. What is happening/
going to happen to the practice of architecture
in the Philippines?
Three (3.0) years after RA 9266s approval, many
events have transpired, all of which are subtle
or overt attempts to allow other entities to
practice architecture or portions of
architectural pratice defined under RA 9266 and
its IRR 1) status quo for Sec.302 of the
R-IRR by virtue of WPI (not yet lifted) to date,
CEs have succeeded in wrestling control over the
DPWH Board of Consultants (BoC) 2) CEs
unilaterally interpreting RA 1582/ RA 544 and
even the WPI to suit themselves CEs make it
appear as if PD 1096 and its old and Revised
IRRs (mere executive issuances) can supersede RA
9266 and its provisions (a special law/ statute).
3) many non-architects/ non-professionals
still openly practice or offer architectural
services without fear of severe penal sanctions
4) many provisions of RA 9266 are still in need
of more detailed implementing rules and are
therefore cannot yet be fully implemented 5)
architects continue to violate their own law 6)
architects are unable to participate in public
sector projects (even for ODA-assisted projs)
7) the Local Government Code provisions
favoring CEs have not yet been corrected 8)
developers and contractors already offer and
practice architecture and 9) APEC
Architects/ Engineers Registry and globalization
to open the Philippine market to influx of more
foreign architects/ engineers/ designers/
construction professionals. This may not
necessarily be a bad thing as we must then
attempt to be world-class practitioners to allow
us to compete.

• __________________________________________________
  __________________________________________________
  ________________________________The First 3.0
  Years of RA 9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004,
  its IRR Derivative Regulations) by Archt.
  Armando N. ALLI, fuap, aaif, fspac
• Chairman, Professional Regulatory Board of
  Architecture (PRBoA)

7

PRBoA

IAPOA 6. What is the standing of RA
9266 with respect to the Writ of Preliminary
Injunction (WPI) Secured by the CEs Last May 2005
Against Secs. 302.3 4 of the R-IRR of the NBC?

• The 20-day Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and
  the succeeding Writ of Preliminary Injunction
  (WPI) secured by the CEs in May 2005 i.e. subject
  of the Manila court case, only covers 2
  sub-sections of the 2004 R-IRR of the NBCP i.e.
  Secs. 302.3 4 which are both mere listings of
  documents to be submitted as part of the building
  permit application these sub-sections do not
  prescribe the practice of architecture nor CE
  i.e. only laws such as RA 9266 and RA 1582 do
• The WPI is not against RA 9266 or any of its
  provisions
• 3. The WPI is not against the IRR of RA 9266 or
  any of its provisions and
• 4. The standing of RA 9266 and its IRR have not
  been diminished by the existence of the WPI and
  are both in full effect.

__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
________________________________The First 3.0
Years of RA 9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004,
its IRR Derivative Regulations) by Archt.
Armando N. ALLI, fuap, aaif, fspac Chairman,
Professional Regulatory Board of Architecture
(PRBoA)
8

PRBoA

IAPOA 7. If RA 9266 is still
in full effect and since the WPI does not
cover RA 9266 at all, then why did the UAP (as
IAPOA) intervene in the 2 RTC cases?

• The case is being heard in a lower court, the
  RTC if judgment is rendered by the RTC, the
  judgment shall eventually be reviewed by the
  Supreme Court (SC) i.e. as the final arbiter on
  questions of law and as the final interpreter of
  the law
• If the cases go to the Supreme Court without the
  UAP intervening in the RTC cases, architects
  will not have the personality to intervene (as
  they can be estopped for not having intervened
  while the case was still in the RTC)
• An RTC judgment favorable to the CEs (and not
  contested by Architects) may be confirmed by the
  SC in its decision
• the decision of the Supreme Court favorable to
  the CEs will have the effect of amending RA 9266
  and its provisions.

• __________________________________________________
  __________________________________________________
  ________________________________The First 3.0
  Years of RA 9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004,
  its IRR Derivative Regulations) by Archt.
  Armando N. ALLI, fuap, aaif, fspac
• Chairman, Professional Regulatory Board of
  Architecture (PRBoA)

9

PRBoA

IAPOA 8. Who is the Prime
Professional for Buildings?

• The Architect is the Prime Professional for a
  building or site development project the word
  Architect comes the Greek word meaning master
  builder
• The CEs think that they are the Prime
  Professional and have actually packaged that
  concept in their 2 bills in Congress which were
  initially defeated by Architects on 19 January
  2005
• the CEs think that they can also do the work of
  Architects and Environmental Planners (EnPs) by
  virtue of their superior numbers (at 90,000 CEs
  vs. 22,000 architects and 600 environmental
  planners) CEs think that their relative
  omnipresence have made them the market choice to
  be the Prime Professional for buildings and
  subdivision/ land development projects when in
  fact they lack the basic legal requisites to
  practice architecture
• CEs should do a better job of planning and
  building roads/ bridges and not position/ market
  themselves as architects or site/ physical
  planners.

• __________________________________________________
  __________________________________________________
  ________________________________The First 3.0
  Years of RA 9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004,
  its IRR Derivative Regulations) by Archt.
  Armando N. ALLI, fuap, aaif, fspac
• Chairman, Professional Regulatory Board of
  Architecture (PRBoA)

10

PRBoA

IAPOA 9. Where are the
Architects in Public Sector Projects?

• Since the implementation of RA 9184/ Government
  Procurement Reform Act of 2003 and its 2004 IRR
  and the EO 278 of 2004 (covering foreign-assisted
  projects) and its 2005 IRR and Guidelines,
  Architects have effectively declined
  participation in government/ public sector
  projects (even if ODA-assisted)
• The pre-qualification requirements of RA 9184 and
  EO 278 have effectively made it difficult for
  architectural firms to sign up for government
  projects so as not to surrender architectural
  practice to CEs however, some Architects are now
  cnstrained to come in as Consulting Architects
  (in their individual capacities or as
  subcontracting firms) under bids tendered by the
  larger CE firms
• RA 9184 somehow mandates a warranty for cost
  estimates prepared by the Architect and requires
  bond posting to cover excess in costs
• RA 9184 and EO 278 their derivative laws must
  allow for greater participation by Architects in
  government projects .

• __________________________________________________
  __________________________________________________
  ________________________________The First 3.0
  Years of RA 9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004,
  its IRR Derivative Regulations) by Archt.
  Armando N. ALLI, fuap, aaif, fspac
• Chairman, Professional Regulatory Board of
  Architecture (PRBoA)

11

PRBoA

IAPOA 10. What still needs to
be done for RA 9266?
Three (3) years after RA 9266s approval, the
work on the IRR is not yet fully done and the UAP
must exert all efforts to help the Professional
Regulatory Board of Architecture (PRBoA) finish
the job. Among these are 1) amendment of the
Standards of Professional Practice (UAP Documents
201 through 208, 209 through 211) which are part
of RA 9266 the PRBoA review of the proposed
revisions to UAP Documents 201, 207 and 208 is
almost complete but the amendatory process shall
still go through the PRC the language of the
amended UAP Documents must be reglamentary and
must not stray too far from its 1979 original
2) operationalization of the CPE/ CPD program
to tie these in with specialization programs or
even graduate academic programs for all
architects 3) completion of the registration
requirements for architectural firms monitoring
of SEC registrations for architectural firms 4)
operationalization of the liability insurance
provision for foreign architects 5) official
PRBoA listing of architectural documents and
projects that shall require the signature and dry
seal of an architect 6) need to clean up the
list of 22,000 registered architects (of deceased
or expatriate architects), the list of
approx. 10,000 architects who have updated
licenses/ PRC ID cards and the list of /- 7,000
architects who hold IAPOA certificates and 7)
prompt resolution of the claims of CEs and other
technological professionals that they too can
practice branches of architecture through the
PTC, PFPA, PAPRB and the PRC itself.

• __________________________________________________
  __________________________________________________
  ________________________________The First 3.0
  Years of RA 9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004,
  its IRR Derivative Regulations) by Archt.
  Armando N. ALLI, fuap, aaif, fspac
• Chairman, Professional Regulatory Board of
  Architecture (PRBoA)

12

PRBoA

IAPOA 11. What should be
reflected in the UAP Documents?
Being part of the IRR of the old laws (RA 1581/
RA 545), the UAP Documents must now 1)
institutionalize the roles of the Architect as an
important Owners Representative who shall
always protect the Owners interests at all times
even at his/ her own expense but never above
higher public interests 2) recognize that RA
9266 speaks of different specialized roles for
architects in a project i.e. as Consulting
Architect, as Architect-of-record and as
Architect-in-charge of construction there is
therefore always the possibility that 3 or more
architects (individuals or firms) can work on the
same project by undertaking different phases of
the required service the architects must
specialize and not be generalist practitioners
which may not be a resource-efficient practice
3) recognize the many different, new and
emerging support architectural services that are
performed by both architects and non-architects
4) segregate engineering services and fees
from architectural and allied services and
institutionalize fees for coordinative services
and for architectural consultations 5)
maintain that architects under a Design-Build
Contract cannot be Constructors unless they
possess a valid DTI-CIAP-PCAB Constructors
License 6) institute safeguards to allow
greater participation by architects in public
sector projects (as a professional or as a BAC
Observer) 7) institutionalize regulations
for architects in group practice and 8)
institutionalize the areas of specialization for
architects to guide the IAPOA in planning
authentic and usable CPE courses on best
architectural practices.

• __________________________________________________
  __________________________________________________
  ________________________________The First 3.0
  Years of RA 9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004,
  its IRR Derivative Regulations) by Archt.
  Armando N. ALLI, fuap, aaif, fspac
• Chairman, Professional Regulatory Board of
  Architecture (PRBoA)

13

PRBoA

IAPOA 12. What must we all do now as
Architects?

• 1. Be ever vigilant of the concerted moves of
  other entities in the construction and
  development industries e.g. fellow architects,
  fellow technological professionals particularly
  CEs, contractors, developers, real estate
  professionals, etc., which will tend to undermine
  the gains under RA 9266
• 2. Lobby hard and make representations with
  government officials against other professional,
  construction or development bills, IRRs and the
  like that will allow other unqualified entities
  to practice architecture or any of its recognized
  branches or lines of practice
• Instill in Your consciousness the desire and need
  to constantly advocate the practice and protect
  the profession. Be ready and willing to fight for
  the profession You chose i.e. RA 9266 may be
  there to protect us but we must also protect RA
  9266s integrity.
• The potency of RA 9266 must not be diluted
  by other existing, proposed or emerging
  professional laws or other laws.

• __________________________________________________
  __________________________________________________
  ________________________________The First 3.0
  Years of RA 9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004,
  its IRR Derivative Regulations) by Archt.
  Armando N. ALLI, fuap, aaif, fspac
• Chairman, Professional Regulatory Board of
  Architecture (PRBoA)

14

PRBoA

IAPOA 13. What must we all do
as UAP Members?

• Press for the early resolution of the UAP Motion
  (as Intervenor) to lift the WPI (injunction)
  filed Dec 2005 (15 months ago) and likewise press
  for the early promulgation of the case decision
  due March 2006 (13 months ago) the CEs have
  continued to sign and seal architectural
  documents for 3.0 full years that RA 9266 (a
  statute and a special law) has been in effect by
  invoking mere executive issuances that have no
  power to amend PD 1096 as promulgated in 1977
• exert all efforts to galvanize the executive
  branch of government into action to expedite the
  implementation and enforcement of RA 9266
• Pool all our collective resources to file a solid
  case against a Building Official (specifically a
  CE in an official or acting capacity and not just
  a CE) and/ or the LGU supporters of such CEs for
  their culpable violation of the specific
  provisions of RA 9266, notwithstanding the status
  of an injunction on mere executive issuances i.e.
  Secs. 302.3 4 of the 2004 R-IRR of the 1977
  NBCP, that only list down documents to be
  submitted together with a building permit
  application the injunction is not an injunction
  on the practice of architecture it is merely an
  injunction on the list of requirements for a
  building permit application
• Instill in all UAP Members the urgency to fight
  for their chosen profession our capability to
  fight for our community standing as architects is
  deeply rooted in/ largely determined by our
  understanding of the issues that need to be
  resolved.

• __________________________________________________
  __________________________________________________
  ________________________________The First 3.0
  Years of RA 9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004,
  its IRR Derivative Regulations) by Archt.
  Armando N. ALLI, fuap, aaif, fspac
• Chairman, Professional Regulatory Board of
  Architecture (PRBoA)

15
Thank You and a Pleasant Evening to
You All!
IAPOA
PRBoA

• __________________________________________________
  __________________________________________________
  ________________________________The First 3.0
  Years of RA 9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004,
  its IRR Derivative Regulations) by Archt.
  Armando N. ALLI, fuap, aaif, fspac
• Chairman, Professional Regulatory Board of
  Architecture (PRBoA)