PRBoA

IAPOA

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)
 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)
 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?
1. 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under RA 545 of 1950 and RA 1581 of 1956 (that have not been amended nor repealed);
2. The PRC Modernization Act (RA8981) & other PRC Issuances (resolutions, circulars, etc.);
3. Other Professional Laws (particularly RA1582/ RA544, RA 8534, PD1308);
2. The New Civil Code of 1954 (particularly Article 1723);
3. The LG/ Internal Revenue/ Revised Penal/ Corporate Codes and Other Codes & IRR;
4. 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;
5. PD 957, BP 220; environmental laws and their respective IRRs;
6. General Agreement on Trade and Services (GATS); reference APEC Architects Registry;
7. RA 9285 (ADR Law of 2004) and EO 1008 (Construction Arbitration Law);
8. Constructors’ License Law of 1965 (RA 4566) and its IRR;
9. LGU ordinances (particularly the Zoning Ordinance); and
10. 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
 PRBoA
IAPOA

3. What was done to the National Building

Code of the Phils (NBCP)? Is it still “the Law”?
1. 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;
2. 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;
IAPOA
3. 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;
4. 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.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_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)
 IAPOA

4. What are Secs.302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised

1)
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;
2) 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;
3) 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
 PRBoA
IAPOA
5. What is happening/ going to happen to the practice of
architecture in the Philippines?
Three (3.0) years after RA 9266’s 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)
 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?
1. 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;
2. 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
 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?
1. 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;
2. 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);
3. An RTC judgment favorable to the CEs (and not contested by
Architects) may be confirmed by the SC in its decision;
4. 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)
 PRBoA
IAPOA

8. Who is the Prime Professional for Buildings?

1. The Architect is the “Prime Professional” for a building or site
development project; the word Architect comes the Greek word
meaning “master builder”;
2. 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;
3. 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;
4. 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)
 PRBoA
IAPOA
9. Where are the Architects in Public Sector Projects?
1. 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);
2. 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;
3. RA 9184 somehow mandates a warranty for cost estimates prepared by the
Architect and requires bond posting to cover excess in costs;
4. 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)
 PRBoA
IAPOA

10. What still needs to be done for RA 9266?

Three (3) years after RA 9266’s 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
_The First branches
3.0 Years of RA 9266of(The
architecture
Architecture Act ofthrough
2004, its IRRthe PTC,Regulations)
& Derivative PFPA, PAPRB
by Archt. and the N.
Armando PRC itself.
ALLI, fuap, aaif, fspac
Chairman, Professional Regulatory Board of Architecture (PRBoA)
 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 Owner’s Representative who
shall always protect the Owner’s 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 Constructor’s 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)
 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;
3. 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 9266’s 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)
 PRBoA
IAPOA

13. What must we all do as UAP Members?

1. 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;
2. exert all efforts to galvanize the executive branch of government into action
to expedite the implementation and enforcement of RA 9266;
3. 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;
4. 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)
 PRBoA
IAPOA

Thank You
and
a Pleasant Evening
to You All!

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_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)