Drawing the Line: Ar. Armando Allí on the Supreme Court Ruling on Architectural Drawings

Welcome to Kanto, Mr. Alli! Thank you for your time. The Supreme Court (SC) has decided in favor of the architectural community with the ruling that only registered and licensed architects may sign architectural drawings. What are your thoughts on the matter?

Armando Allí, consulting architect, environmental planner, and former PRBoA chair: First, let me provide the historical, professional, and academic contexts from the last 100 years:

• The first Philippine registered architect was listed in the early 1920s. What followed thereafter was a list that included Americans and Europeans.
• At the close of WW2, the devastation in the Philippines (PH), particularly in and around Manila was widespread, and since there was a ratio of 1 architect to 6 civil engineers (CEs), the CEs were somehow allowed to do the work of architects to help fast-track reconstruction and recovery.
• In 1950, the CE law (Republic Act/R.A. No. 544) and the organic Architect’s law (R.A. No. 545) were passed, with the clear legal intent of segregating the 2 professions.
• In 1956, the 2 laws were amended to further distinguish the 2 professions, i.e., R.A. No. 1581 for the architects and R.A. No. 1582 for the CEs. The 2 professions worked in relative harmony for a quarter century thereafter, with architects wanting to be CEs (and vice versa) required to undergo the requisite academic training and pass the pertinent licensure examination.
• In August 1972 (just before martial law was declared), the PH Congress passed R.A. No. 6541, the organic National Building Code of the PH (NBCP).
• In early 1977, President Ferdinand Marcos promulgated Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1096, the new NBCP, which substantially contained the text of R.A. No. 6541. The new law did not state who shall be the state-regulated professional (SRP) who shall prepare, sign and dry seal architectural documents, as such were entirely left to the pertinent professional regulatory law (PRL, i.e., R.A. No. 545, as amended by R.A. No. 1581).
• Later that same year, the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) were promulgated by the then DPWTC (the present-day equivalent of DPWH), but it contained 1 specific provision that stated the CEs can already prepare, sign and dry-seal architectural documents, something that did not have any basis in law. With that intercalated/inserted 1977 NBCP IRR provision, the CEs stopped studying architecture and stopped taking the architecture licensure examination, thinking that the invalid IRR already allowed them to practice the separate profession of architecture. That was possibly what started the conflict between the 2 SRPs, i.e., a deliberate misinterpretation of law that has now taken nearly 50 years to rectify, allowing non-qualified SRPs to practice architecture nationwide.
• By 2002, the DPWH was ready to revise the NBCP IRR and formed a 40-man team composed of public servants and private practitioners, including a large number of CEs and other engineers (called its Board of Consultants/BoC).
• The architects through sheer diligence and patiently working with Congress, finally managed to modernize their law, with the passage of R.A. No. 9266, the Architecture Act of 2004, a law in which the CEs were active participants during its crafting by Congress. Later that same year, the DPWH promulgated the NBCP Revised IRR (RIRR). The architects in the BOC capitalized on the effectivity of R.A. No. 9266 to reinforce the NBCP RIRR Sections 302.3 & 4, which covered architectural documents.
• The DPWH published the 2004 NBCP RIRR thrice nationally, taking effect in early May 2005. A few weeks later, the CEs filed a civil suit questioning the aforestated NBCP RIRR Sections 302.3 & 4. The architects won at the RTC level but lost at the Court of Appeals (CA) in 2012, setting the stage for the Supreme Court review, culminating in its landmark March 2023 decision (made public on 9 November 2023) reversing the CA decision while upholding the RTC decision (favoring the architects).
• From late 2006 through late 2012, the reconstituted Professional Regulatory Board of Architecture (PRBoA) waged a sustained campaign against non-architect SRPs, illegal practitioners and on many instances the government itself in order to uphold the primacy of R.A, No. 9266 insofar as the preparation, signing and dry-sealing of architectural documents are concerned. It is worth noting that during the pendency of the civil case filed by the CEs over the last 18.5 years, R.A. No. 9266 has remained valid and subsisting (full effectivity), with none of its provisions amended or expressly repealed by any other law.
• At present, there may be approx. 55,000 registered PH architects ranged against approx. 275,000 registered PH CEs (an approx. 1:5 ratio). As had been the case since the 1960s, to become a PH architect nowadays still requires 5 years of study, 10 semesters of building architectural planning and design, and laboring over design plates overnight (plus a substantial investment in architectural productivity instruments/materials), 2 years of mandatory sub-professional training/mentorship, and finally passing the ALE, making the architects the well-rounded building design professionals they first sought out to be. In stark contrast, it only takes 4 years of study, perhaps a semester of building/dwelling planning and design, no mandatory sub-professional training/mentorship, and passing the CE licensure examination to become a registered CE at the present day.
• With their academic backgrounds and developed skillsets, it is often said that the architects are better trained for office work (i.e., building planning/design, project management, and administration) while the CEs are better trained for field work (i.e., construction management, building construction, operation, and maintenance).    

Over the last 1.5 decades, some have openly opined that the 2005 civil case was filed as a potentially roundabout way of attacking R.A. No. 9266, but the RTC probably saw through this ploy, and decided in favor of the architects quite possibly mainly on the merits of the NBCP provisions.

Our faith in the Philippine justice system considerably wavered after the 2012 CA reversal of the RTC decision that originally upheld the architects’ position. With the SC decision, our faith in the exceptional men and women of the judicial branch of government (who are dedicated public servants), and men and women with the highest levels of integrity and a clear sense of what is right, true, and fair, has been fully restored.

What do you think would be the immediate effects of such a ruling on the practice?

Armando Allí: If imbued with finality by the SC, its ruling shall effectively rectify almost a half-century of injustice foisted on Filipino architects. The next steps after the finality of the decision could be sets of immediately executory executive issuances to undo 50 years of potentially wrong acts that allowed CEs to practice architecture on Philippine soil. Then comes the phase of compliance and holding accountable those who will still choose to dishonor or disobey the SC decision. Additionally, there may be efforts to subvert the SC will through legislation but hopefully the legislative branch of government will not entertain such ploys.

The ruling emphasizes the exclusive role of architects in signing architectural drawings. How might this affect the collaborative dynamics between architects and other building professionals, like civil engineers and interior designers, in the Philippine architectural landscape?

Armando Allí: The net effect could be the full restoration of the balance and harmony among the state-regulated professions (SRP) to pre-1977 levels, when SRPs fully respected practice boundaries, i.e., the architects reassume their roles as the lead professionals in conceptualizing spatial solutions that can effectively balance the basic considerations of function, form, cost, operations, sustainability and compliance with the rule of law, among others.

Will the decision have an impact on the financial aspects of hiring an architect for both small-scale projects like houses and large-scale ones?

Armando Allí: Perhaps, inasmuch as the correct architectural and spatial solutions do come at a certain cost, but that such may eventually be recovered when the benefits of such solutions are reaped by the end-users and the investors alike.

Are there any other avenues for respondents of the court case, like a motion for reconsideration (MR), for the Supreme Court (SC) to reconsider its decision?

Armando Allí: Most certainly. There are already statements to the effect that a motion for reconsideration (MR) shall indeed be filed by the losing party but it is hoped that the SC will be steadfast in its ruling.

Do you think the ruling could lead to the re-evaluation of current educational and professional tracks for architects and building-related professions in the Philippines?

Armando Allí: Most definitely. The architectural academic programs could further evolve into many areas of architectural specializations, e.g., Two decades ago in the UK, it was touted that as many as 150 different specialized practices could be engaged in by an architecture graduate. In the case of future CE students, perhaps it is time that they focus on what they should really be specializing in, as there are so many fields to choose from, and architectural planning and designing is not one of those.

Perhaps, CEs who are desirous of engaging in architectural practice can enroll in architecture programs if they have both the aptitude and the attitude for it. •

Armando N. Allí, an experienced Architect and Environmental Planner (Arch./EnP) with over 40 years in the field, specializes in planning and designing public-private infrastructure and land developments. He has contributed to local and international consulting offices, working for both national and local governments. Mr. Allí played a key role in shaping the 2004 Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of the National Building Code of the Philippines during his tenure with the DPWH Board of Consultants (2002-2016). As the Acting Chair of the Professional Regulatory Board of Architecture (2006-2012), he upheld relevant regulatory laws. With over two decades of experience as a construction arbitrator and mediator, Mr. Allí has expanded into “Dispute Board Process” to resolve disputes at the project level and prevent costly arbitration.

Header image: FOTO:FORTEPAN / Kurutz Márton, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons. Full text of GR Nos. 200015 and 205846 here.