Justices of the Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the counsel of the Knights of Rizal (KoR) why the group went directly to the high tribunal and bypassed the lower courts.
They also chastised the lawyer for presuming that the high tribunal could declare the Rizal monument 鈥渢he soul of the nation.鈥�
The lawyer, William Jasarino, was unable several times to respond to questions of law during oral arguments held Tuesday on the group鈥檚 petition to have Torre de Manila demolished.
At one point, Justice Marvic Leonen chastised Jasarino for failing to answer a question and instead asking the court stenographer to repeat his earlier reply.
Before banging the gavel, Justice Antonio Carpio directed Jasarino to promptly address unanswered questions in his memorandum, telling him: 鈥淲e can remand it or dismiss it. You better address this issue in your memorandum.鈥�
The central issue that surfaced during the two-and-a-half-hour oral arguments was the question of jurisdiction: Why did the KoR decide to seek redress directly in the Supreme Court instead of going to the lower courts?
Carpio pointed out that the high court had to convert the KoR鈥檚 original petition for injunction鈥攐ne ordinarily for the lower courts鈥攊nto a mandamus so it could be accommodated.
Nuisance
鈥淲e already converted your petition from injunction to mandamus, from nuisance per se to accidens (by accident). Now you ask us to try the facts?鈥� said Carpio, who is acting Chief Justice in place of Maria Lourdes Sereno who is on a two-week wellness leave.
In legal parlance, a nuisance per se is something that is unlawful or unauthorized, while a nuisance per accidens is one that becomes a nuisance by circumstance of surroundings.
Carpio noted how Jasarino changed his tune, from saying that Torre de Manila was a nuisance per se to one per accidens.
鈥淲e are not a trier of facts. This requires a trial and for us to review it. You are reversing the process. That鈥檚 a big problem,鈥� he said.
Justice Francis Jardeleza was the first to raise the issue of jurisdiction, eliciting this answer from Jasarino: 鈥淭his early, your honor, I will apologize for the answer I will give. It鈥檚 public knowledge that by now it would not have been resolved. The Torre would have already been up.鈥�
TOWERING CONTROVERSIES As if its construction鈥攄erided by heritage advocates and history lovers鈥攚as not controversial enough, the 49-story Torre de Manila made the news again when a lawyer arguing for its demolition was cited for 鈥渃ontemptuous behavior鈥� yesterday by the Supreme Court for going straight to the high court instead of bringing his case first to the lower court. The new building has already been tagged a 鈥淣ational Photobomber鈥� for ruining a perfect, unobstructed view of the Rizal Monument in Luneta. Torre de Manila was issued a restraining order in June this year. ARNOLD ALMACEN
Leonen felt it was unfair of Jasarino to assume that the lower courts were 鈥渆xcruciatingly slow and inadequate,鈥� saying: 鈥淒on鈥檛 you think this is unfair, asking the court to bypass all the lower courts?鈥�
鈥淲ouldn鈥檛 it have been a matter of better prudence to first go to a lower court as a trier of facts, before we intervene?鈥� Leonen said. Jasarino responded in the affirmative.
The magistrate likened the high court鈥檚 accommodation of the Knights鈥� plea to giving 鈥渟pecial treatment.鈥� This time Jasarino did not agree.
Under Jardeleza鈥檚 questioning, Jasarino conceded that at least two documents that the KoR invoked in its petition against the Torre had in fact no legal effect鈥攏ot the National Historical Commission of the Philippines guidelines on monuments or the Venice Charter on the safeguarding of historical buildings, to which the Philippines is not a signatory.
Soul of the nation?
The 49-story condominium being built by DMCI Project Developers Inc. has been rising on Taft Avenue, 789 meters behind the Rizal monument. The Knights want it torn down for marring the sight line behind the monument.
Leonen also jettisoned the KoR鈥檚 claim that the Rizal monument was 鈥渢he soul of the nation,鈥� saying that it was not up to the court to commit this to jurisprudence.
鈥淚s the monument the only sign of Rizal? It is not the monument that is the be-all of the narrative of Rizal,鈥� Leonen said.
He said the monument was 鈥渁n important reminder, but it is not the only reminder.鈥�
鈥淲e do not forget Rizal because of the view, we remember Rizal regardless of where the monument is,鈥� Leonen said.
鈥淔or you to tell us the Rizal monument is the soul of the nation and that we should put that in jurisprudence, we cannot do that. It is tyrannical of the court to establish the narrative of the nation,鈥� he said.
Leonen asked Jasarino if he could name a law that allows 鈥渆asement of view,鈥� to which Jasarino replied: 鈥淣one that I remember at the moment.鈥�
The magistrate said the high court did not have the power 鈥渢o create a special easement of light and view鈥� for the monument.
He also noted that it was within DMCI鈥檚 right as a private enterprise to pursue housing projects on private property.
鈥淥n the other hand, we are protecting a monument from a photobomb,鈥� he said.
Apart from Sereno, also absent from the proceedings were Justice Bienvenido Reyes, who is on leave, and Justice Jose Perez, who recused himself on a conflict of interest, his son being a unit owner at Torre de Manila.
Originally posted:聽 09:28 PM July 21st, 2015
RELATED STORIES
Torre de Manila case requires lower court trial 鈥� Justice Carpio
SC Justice inhibits from Torre de Manila case