Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
IAPOA
RA 9266
(Resource Person)
PRBoA
IAPOA
PRBoA
IAPOA
PRBoA
IAPOA
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;
IAPOA
PRBoA
IAPOA
3)
4)
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
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
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);
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).
many non-architects/ non-professionals still openly practice or offer architectural services
without fear of severe penal sanctions;
many provisions of RA 9266 are still in need of more detailed implementing rules and are
therefore cannot yet be fully implemented;
architects continue to violate their own law;
architects are unable to participate in public sector projects (even for ODA-assisted projs);
the Local Government Code provisions favoring CEs have not yet been corrected;
developers and contractors already offer and practice architecture; and
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
PRBoA
IAPOA
PRBoA
IAPOA
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
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
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;
_The First
PRBoA
IAPOA
Being part of the IRR of the old laws (RA 1581/ RA 545), the UAP Documents must now:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_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
PRBoA
IAPOA
2.
3.
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
4.
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)
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)