Professional Regulatory Board of Architecture (PRBoA)

November 2009 Annotations on the Powerpoint Presentation Featured

in a Civil Engineer (CE) website

Revised IRR of National Building Code –

Why is an Injunction* Necessary?**
(Official Position of the
Philippine Civil Engineers)
**Note: The inaccurate and potentially misleading statements
found in a Philippine civil engineer (CE) website are in gray
Tahoma font text.
The updated November 2009 PRBoA Annotations are
in underscored white bold Courier New (italic)
font text.
*The May 2005 Injunction secured by the PICE Against Secs. 302.3
& 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 (the 1977 National
Building Code of the Philippines/ NBCP) has been LIFTED/
DISSOLVED in a Court Decision promulgated in January 2008.
 Short History
• The National Building Code, Presidential Decree 1096, was approved in the
1970’s
• PD 1096 calls for the issuance by the Secretary of the DPWH of
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)
• The current IRR is composed of various DPWH Orders* and policies issued
through the years
• For the past few years, the DPWH has been preparing* a consolidated
revised IRR

PRBoA Annotation. The 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096,

published thrice nationally in April 2005 by the DPWH and
effective 01 May 2005 is a consolidation of all the
pertinent dated, updated and new data processed by the
DPWH Board of Consultants (BoC, comprised of public and
private professionals) over the period 2002-2004, duly
endorsed by the DPWH National Building Code Review
Committee (NBCRC) and approved/ promulgated in October
2004 by the then DPWH Secretary Florante Soriquez.
Short History
• The DPWH formed a committee composed
of various stakeholders who were
consulted regarding the Revised IRR
• The Committee included representatives
from Accredited Professional
Organizations, including PICE
• The final version of the Revised IRR was
prepared by a Committee within the
DPWH
Short History
• The final version of the Revised IRR was
published in the Manila Standard three
times (April 1, 8 and 15, 2005)
• The Revised IRR would have been
implementable on April 30, 2005, 15 days
after the third publication
• The Revised IRR contains the procedure
for the application for and issuance of
building permits, among other provisions
 Why is an Injunction Necessary?
• The Revised IRR will prevent licensed and registered Civil Engineers from practicing
Civil Engineering
• Therefore, the Revised IRR violates Republic Act No. 544 (The Civil Engineering Law)
• Specifically, the Revised IRR violates Sections 2 and 23 of Republic Act 544
PRBoA Annotation. Since nothing is mentioned as to who shall “sign and
seal ARCHITECTURAL documents” under the authentic Sec. 302 of P.D. No.
1096 (the 1977 National Building Code of the Philippines/ NBCP), duly
certified by the Malacanang Records Office and by the National Printing
Office in 2005 and 2009, and since R.A. 9266 (The Architecture Act of
2004) was already in effect in mid-2004, Secs. 302.3 and 302.4 of the
2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 were actually harmonized by the DPWH
National Building Code Review Committee (NBCRC) and the DPWH Board of
Consultants (BoC) with R.A. No. 9266 [over protests made by the then
civil engineer (CE) representative/s to the DPWH BoC, prompting the DPWH
to seek the issuance of the January 2004 Department of Justice (DoJ)
Legal Opinion, which did NOT support the CE position that they can sign
and seal ARCHITECTURAL documents].
Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 (subject of the May 2005
injunction obtained by the CEs, already LIFTED/ DISSOLVED in January 2008) was
supposed to help prevent CEs from ILLEGALLY practicing the separate profession of
architecture in full compliance with R.A. No. 9266 i.e. the ONLY Philippine law that
governs the “preparation, signing and sealing of ARCHITECTURAL plans and documents”.
There is ABSOLUTLY NOTHING in the CE law i.e. R.A. No. 544 of 1950 (as amended by
R.A. No. 1582 of 1956) which states that CEs can “prepare, sign or seal
ARCHITECTURAL documents” (not limited to architectural plans, specifications,
estimates & contract documents).
 How Does the Revised IRR prevent Civil Engineers from
Practicing Civil Engineering?
• Section 302 of P.D. 1096 and Section 3.2 of Ministry Order 57 (Old IRR) requires the submittal to
the Building Official of five (5) sets of plans and specifications prepared, signed and sealed by a
duly licensed architect or civil engineer, in case of architectural and structural plans.
• Section 302.3 of Revised IRR requires the submittal to the Building Official of five (5) sets of
plans, specifications and documents prepared, signed and sealed over the printed name of the
duly licensed and registered professionals:
– Architect, in case of architectural documents; in case of architectural interior/interior
design documents, either an architect or interior designer may sign;
– Civil Engineer, in case of civil/structural documents;

PRBoA Annotation. There is absolutely NOTHING mentioned under the

actual/signed/AUTHENTIC/ and duly-certified Sec. 302 of P.D. No.
1096 (the 1977 National Building Code of the Philippines/ NBCP)
as to who shall “sign and seal ARCHITECTURAL documents”. The
foregoing is a potentially deliberate misrepresentation of fact
and law. Since there is NOTHING in both P.D. No. 1096 and R.A.
No. 544 (as amended by R.A. No. 1582) specifically stating that
civil engineers (CEs) can “sign and seal ARCHITECTURAL
documents”, we have to abide by R.A. No.9266, which is the
governing law insofar as ARCHITECTURAL plans and documents are
concerned.
Important Note: The DPWH DOES NOT regulate the practice of
ARCHITECTURE in the Philippines. That is the function of the
PRBoA and the PRC.
What Constitutes Architectural Documents in
the Revised IRR (Section 302.4)?
• Architectural Plans/Drawings
– Vicinity Map/Location Plan
– Site Development Plan
– Perspective
– Floor Plans
– Elevations
– Sections
– Reflected Ceiling Plan
– Details, in the form of plans, elevations/sections
– Schedule of Doors and Windows
– Schedule of Finishes
– Details of other major architectural elements
• Architectural Interiors/Interior Design
• Plans and Specific Locations of Accessibility Facilities
• Fire Safety Documents
• Other Related Documents
 What Constitutes Civil
Engineering/Structural Documents
in the Revised IRR (Section 302.5)?

• Site Development Plan

• Structural Plans
• Structural Analysis and Design
• Boring and Load Tests
• Seismic Analysis
• Other related documents
 Revised IRR will Prevent Civil Engineers from Preparing, Signing and Sealing Building
Designs, Plans and Specifications
• Revised IRR is correct in identifying the documents listed in Section 302.4 of the
Revised IRR as “architectural documents”
• Revised IRR violates RA 544 in limiting “civil engineering documents” to the
documents listed in Section 302.5.
• The complete list of “civil engineering documents include the documents listed in
both Sections 302.4 and 302.5.

PRBoA Annotation. The 2004 Revised IRR of the 1977 NBCP does NOT
violate R.A. No. 544 (as amended by R.A. No. 1582) but is fully
consistent with both R.A. No. 544 (as amended by R.A. No. 1582)
and R.A. No. 9266. The statement that there is a violation of
R.A. No. 1582 (544) has NO basis in law and preempted the January
2008 Decision of Manila RTC Branch 22 in Civil Case No. 05-
1122502 (PICE vs. DPWH Secretary Ebdane, with the UAP-IAPoA as
Intervenor).
The other statement that civil engineering (CE) documents encompass
ARCHITECTURAL documents also have NO basis in law and similarly preempted
the January 2008 Decision of Manila RTC Branch 22 in the same civil case,
which supported the position of the Architects. Those responsible for
such statements could also be charged with indirect contempt (and
possibly even with fraud), for making it appear that CEs are legally able
and capable of doing the work of registered and licensed architects
(RLAs), the only entities authorized to practice architecture under
Philippine law, specifically under R.A. No. 9266.
 Revised IRR will Prevent Civil Engineers from Preparing,
Signing and Sealing Building Designs, Plans and
Specifications
• Revised IRR will give the exclusive right to Architects to prepare, sign and seal
designs, plans and specifications enumerated in Section 302.4 as Architectural
Documents
• Revised IRR will limit Civil Engineers to preparing, signing and sealing designs, plans
and specifications enumerated in Section 302.5 as Civil Engineering/ Structural
Documents
• Revised IRR will make it impossible to obtain Building Permits for buildings whose
designs, plans and specifications are prepared, signed and sealed by Civil Engineers

PRBoA Annotation. The term “plans” as used in the

above-cited section of R.A. No. 544 (as amended
by R.A. No. 1582) specifically refer to civil/
structural engineering plans and documents for an
engineering structure or building i.e. a
horizontal project, and do NOT at all refer to
ARCHITECTURAL plans nor documents i.e. architectural
plans, designs, specifications, estimates and contract
documents for buildings per se i.e. vertical projects
planned/ designed by Architects.
 Understanding RA 544
• Sections 2 and 23 of Republic Act No. 544 (The Civil Engineering Law) clearly include
the preparation, signing and sealing of designs, plans and specifications of buildings
in the scope of practice of Civil Engineering
PRBoA Annotation. The term “PLANS” refer to civil/ structural engineering
plans and documents for buildings and do NOT refer to ARCHITECTURAL plans
and documents for buildings i.e. architectural plans and designs (which
make up the Architectural or “A” sheets of building plans), ARCHITECTURAL
specifications, estimates and contract documents and the like.
Otherwise, why were there very specific delineations in the practices of
Architects and civil engineers (CEs) under Sec. 24 of the CE law itself
i.e. R.A. No. 1582 of 1956 (which amended R.A. No. 544 of 1950). The use
of the term “buildings” is again apparently being misappropriated by the
CEs who may perhaps be thoroughly unfamiliar with the very complex and
difficult processes that go into building PLAN preparation (including the
requisite ARCHITECTURAL researches, programming and space planning),
activities that take place long before building DESIGN preparation,
engineering coordination and detailing could commence.
The CEs do NOT satisfy the MINIMUM requisites for ARCHITECTURAL practice in the
Philippines i.e. a B.S. Architecture degree (with over 100 academic units of
mainstream architecture subjects), a two (2)-year apprenticeship under an Architect-
Mentor (equivalent to 3,840 hours of diversified training in the planning and design
of buildings/ environs) and an ARCHITECT’s registration and license which only come
after passing the Architecture Licensure Examination (ALE) which is 100.0% about the
planning and design of buildings and their environs. Internationally, the word
“building” is universally associated with Architects and NOT with CEs.
 Section 2 of RA 544 Includes Preparation of Building Designs, Plans and Specifications in
Scope of Practice of Civil Engineering
• Section 2, RA 544 – “The practice of civil engineering within the meaning and intent of this Act
shall embrace services in the form of consultation, design, preparation of plans,
specifications, estimates, erection, installation and supervision of construction of streets,
bridges, highways, railroads, airports and hangars, portworks, canals, river and shore
improvements, lighthouses, and dry docks; buildings, fixed structures for irrigation, flood
protection, drainage, water supply and sewerage works, demolition of permanent structures, and
tunnels.”

PRBoA Annotation. The terms “plans” and “specifications”

refer to civil/ structural engineering plans,
specifications and documents and do NOT refer to
ARCHITECTURAL plans, designs, specifications, and related
contract documents. The use of the term “buildings” is
again apparently being misappropriated by the Civil
Engineers (CEs) who may perhaps be thoroughly unfamiliar
with the very complex and difficult processes that go into
building PLAN preparation (including ARCHITECTURAL
researches, programming and space planning), activities
that take place long before building DESIGN and detailing
could commence.
A wrong ARCHITECTURAL plan and design begets many problems in
project implementation and construction. It is crystal clear from
the foregoing list of structures that the nature of the work of
the CE is the horizontal rather than the vertical.
Section 2 of RA 544 Includes Preparation of Building Designs, Plans
and Specifications in Scope of Practice of Civil Engineering
• Civil Engineering Services • Civil Eng’g. Structures
– Consultation – Streets
– Design – Bridges
– Preparation of – Highways
Plans – Railroads
– Airports and Hangars
– Preparation of – Portworks
Specifications – Canals
– Preparation of Estimates – River and Shore
– Erection Improvements
– Installation – Lighthouses
– Supervision of Construction – Drydocks
– Demolition of Permanent – Buildings
Structures
– Fixed Structures for
• Irrigation
PRBoA Annotation. Same • Flood Protection
• Drainage
comments as in the • Water Supply
previous slides. • Sewerage Works
– Tunnels
 Section 23 of RA 544 Allows Civil Engineersto Prepare, Sign and Seal Building Designs,
Plans and Specifications
• Section 23, RA 544 – “It shall be unlawful for any person to order or otherwise cause the
construction, reconstruction, or alteration of any building or structure intended for public
gathering or assembly such as theaters, cinematographs, stadia, churches or structures of like
nature, and any other engineering structures mentioned in section two of this Act unless the
designs, plans and specifications of the same have been prepared under the responsible
charge of, and signed and sealed by a registered civil engineer, and unless the
construction, reconstruction and/or alteration thereof are executed under the responsible charge
and direct supervision of a Civil Engineer.”
PRBoA Annotation. Architects are academically and sub-
professionally trained to WORK WITH civil/ structural engineers
and other types of professional engineers as well as with other
regulated professionals such as environmental planners, interior
designers and landscape architects, to prepare them well for
their roles as building or site planners/ designers. This
apparently has NO equivalent in the preparation of the CEs for
the assumption of their later professional role.
More importantly, CEs do NOT have a single unit of architecture (nor
ARCHITECTURAL training in the preparation of building plans and designs),
as a credited architecture academic unit compared to about 120 units for
a B.S. Architecture major. The provision cited above is clear in that the
CEs shall ALSO play a major role for structurally-challenged buildings,
which architects do NOT contest. This does NOT mean however that the CEs
can prepare, sign or seal the ARCHITECTURAL documents for such projects
i.e. their academic training and state licensure examination DO NOT touch
on the ARCHITECTURAL plan and design preparation for buildings.
 Revised IRR Confers Position of Prime Professional to Architect
• The Revised IRR confers position of Prime Professional in building projects exclusively to
Architects
• The procedure for application of building permit (see next slide) clearly puts all other professions
under the Architect
• No Building Permit can be issued without the participation of an Architect
• The Revised IRR prevents other professionals from assuming the role of Prime Professional in
building projects
• This has no basis in any of the professional laws, including RA 9266
PRBoA Annotation. The registered and licensed Architect (RLA) is
indeed the Prime Professional for the planning and design of
buildings as is internationally practiced. After all, everything
emanates and evolves from the ARCHITECTURAL plan, which PRECEDES
all other building plans (including the structural and civil
works plans and designs prepared by civil engineers).
Being the KEY building plan that addresses the FUNCTION of the
structure/ building, the ARCHITECTURAL plans are therefore the
SOLE if not the PRIMARY basis for the subsequent engineering
plans, including the structural and civil works plans prepared by
civil engineers (CEs).
The CEs apparently want to wear the hat of the architect even when they
may NOT fully understand the intricacies of ARCHITECTURAL planning and
design. With their acquired skills and knowledge in construction, maybe
the CEs should just fully focus on project implementation (including
management and construction of building projects) and leave ARCHITECTURAL
work to RLAs.
 ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT

PAYMENT OF FEES

VERIFICATION OR LAND USE

LAND USE ZONING ZONING
& OTHER
CLEARANCES
CIVIL/
STRUCTURAL

CITY/MUNICIPAL
TREASURY ELECTRICAL
(CASHIER)

BUILDING
PERMIT MECHANICAL
ISSUED/
RELEASED
RELOCATION SURVEY
RECEIVING/ PLAN & REPORT ARCHITECTURAL/ FINAL EVALUATION
RECORDING AND SANITARY & BUILDING
& LINE AND GRADE ACCESSIBILITY OFFICIAL
RELEASING (GEODETIC) RECOMMENDATION

BUILDING
PLUMBING
PERMIT
APPLICATION

ELECTRONICS

INTERIOR
DESIGN

GEODETIC

OTHERS
(SPECIFY)

ENDORSEMENT TO PROPER AUTHORITIES

PROCESSING OF APPLICATION OF BUILDING PERMIT FLOW CHART
PRBoA Annotation. The review and approval of ARCHITECTURAL plans and documents are tasks ONLY
for registered and licensed architects (RLAs), NOT for civil engineers (CEs).
 Injunction is Needed
• P.D. 1096 provides that Implementing Rules and Regulations shall be
formulated by the DPWH Secretary
• Then DPWH Secretary Soriquez has signed the revised IRR
• P.D. 1096 provides that the IRR shall take effect after their publication once
a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation
• IRR has been published in the Manila Standard on April 1, 8 and 15
• Without an injunction*, the IRR will now be in effect
PRBoA Annotation. The May 2005 injunction agsinst Secs.
302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096,
obtained by the CEs primarily based on their citing of an
apparently intercalated (or wrongfully worded) version of
Sec. 302 of P.D. No. 1096 (the 1977 National Building Code
of the Philippines/ NBCP), which alleges that CEs can sign
and seal ARCHITECTURAL plans/ documents has already been
LIFTED/ DISSOLVED by the Court in January 2008.
The PRBoA has SUED former Sec. Ebdane, 2 incumbent DPWH
Undersecretaries, the PICE and the publisher of the
intercalated text of Sec. 302 of P.D. No. 1096 before the
Office of the Ombudsman. ALL LGUs and their Building
officials NATIONWIDE must NOW only accept/ process
architectural documents prepared, signed and sealed by
registered and licensed architects (RLAs).
 Overlap Among Professions
• Doctors, Midwives, Nurses, Dentists, Nutritionists and Dietitians, Optometrists
• Lawyers, Accountants, Criminologists, Customs Brokers
• Mechanical Engineers, Electrical Engineers, Electronics and Communications Engineers
• Architects, Interior Designers, Landscape Architects
• Civil Engineers, Architects, Sanitary Engineers, Geodetic Engineers, Master Plumbers, Agricultural
Engineers, Environmental Planners
• Many Others

PRBoA Annotation. There is NO such overlap between architects and

civil engineers (CEs). Otherwise, why would separate Philippine
laws for Architects and CEs become necessary in 1950 (and near
simultaneous amendments passed in 1956)? The CEs only insist
that there is such an overlap because they apparently want to
practice two (2) professions with their CE registration and
license, which do NOT qualify them to practice Architecture.
Architects only want to practice one profession – theirs.
It is also important to remember that the CEs participated in the
crafting of R.A. No. 9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004) from
2002 through 2004 and that the Architects gave up structural
design in exchange for the CE support for the said law. Now the
CEs are making it appear that there is NO such deal and that the
Architects are fools for readily giving up structural design to
the CEs in exchange for the CE promise of support for the
Architect’s law.
 Overlap Among Professions
(Some Examples)
• The act of delivering a baby could
constitute the practice of medicine,
midwifery or nursing, depending on which
professional carries out the delivery
• The act of preparing an opinion on a
question of tax law could constitute the
practice of law or accounting, depending
on which professional is the author of the
opinion or document

PRBoA Annotation. See annotation on Slide 18.

 Overlap Among Professions
(Some Examples)
• The act of preparing designs, plans and specifications for the interior of a building
could constitute the practice of architecture or interior design, depending on which
professional prepared the documents
• The act of preparing designs, plans and specifications for a building could constitute
the practice of architecture or civil engineering, depending on which professional
prepared the documents
PRBoA Annotations. The preparation of documents pertaining
to architectural interiors (AI) is the work of registered
and licensed architects (RLAs), not of interior designers
(IDs). AI is part of the scope of professional practice of
RLAs, NOT of IDs (reference R.A. No. 9266 and R.A. No.
8534).

The preparation of ARCHITECTURAL plans and documents

pertaining to ANY and ALL BUILDINGS on Philippine soil is
the work of registered and licensed architects (RLAs), not
of civil engineers (CEs). ARCHITECTURAL plans and
documents are part of the scope of professional practice
and the EXCLUSIVE PROFESSIONAL DOMAIN of RLAs, NOT of CEs
(reference R.A. No. 9266 and R.A. No. 544, as amended by
R.A. No. 1582).
Revisiting the Revised IRR
• Section 302.4 - Architectural Plans/Drawings
– Vicinity Map/Location Plan
– Site Development Plan
– Perspective
– Floor Plans
– Elevations
– Sections
– Reflected Ceiling Plan
– Details, in the form of plans, elevations/sections
– Schedule of Doors and Windows
– Schedule of Finishes
– Details of other major architectural elements
• Architectural Interiors/Interior Design
• Plans and Specific Locations of Accessibility Facilities
• Fire Safety Documents
• Other Related Documents
 Revisiting the Revised IRR
• Section 302.5 – Civil Engineering Documents
– Site Development Plan
– Structural Plans
– Structural Analysis and Design
– Boring and Load Tests
– Seismic Analysis
– Other related documents
PRBoA Annotation. The foregoing are merely
reflective of the academic preparation and
professional licensure status of civil engineers
(CEs). The CEs NEVER studied the ARCHITECTURAL
plan and design preparation of buildings NOR were
they EVER TESTED in the CE licensure examination
for the ARCHITECTURAL plan and design preparation
of buildings and the site development planning of
the building sites/ environs.
 Correct List of Civil Engineering Documents
• Section 302.5 – Civil Engineering Documents
– Vicinity Map/Location Plan
– Building Plans
• Perspective
• Floor Plans
• Elevations
• Sections
• Reflected Ceiling Plan
• Details, in the form of plans, elevations/sections
• Schedule of Doors and Windows
• Schedule of Finishes
• Structural Plans
– Site Development Plan
– Structural Analysis and Design
– Boring and Load Tests
– Seismic Analysis
– Other related documents
PRBoA Annotation. The items labeled as “building plans” are clearly
ARCHITECTURAL documents that make up the Architectural or “A” sheets of
building plans. This appears to be a clear and deliberate attempt by
Civil Engineers (CEs) to portray or pass themselves off as legally
capable and able to do a registered and licensed architect (RLA)’s work.
The CEs do NOT have the academic preparation, nor the sub-professional
training, nor the registration/ license and the professional training to
do the work of architects. For instance, were the CEs ever trained in
the preparation of ARCHITECTURAL plans, designs and even perspectives for
that matter? The CEs do NOT have a single academic unit of architecture
to their credit. The foregoing statements also preempted the January 2008
Decision of the Court and the responsible CEs can later be similarly
charged with indirect contempt.
 Revised IRR is in Error
• Revised IRR is in error by limiting “civil engineering documents” to those enumerated in Section
302.5.
• Revised IRR is in error by not including the documents enumerated in Section 302.4 in the list of
“civil engineering documents” in Section 302.5.
• The documents enumerated in Section 302.4 are not generically “architectural documents”.
• The documents enumerated in Section 302.4 are “Architectural Documents” only if prepared,
signed and sealed by an Architect
• The documents enumerated in Section 302.4 are “Civil Engineering Documents” if they are
prepared, signed and sealed by a Civil Engineer

PRBoA Annotation. The 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 (1977
NBCP) is fully compliant with prevailing Philippine laws. The
documents listed under Sec. 302.4 are ALL ARCHITECTURAL plans and
documents requiring the involvement of a registered and licensed
architect (RLA) and NO other regulated professional to prepare,
sign and seal the same. These documents are clearly defined under
the 2004 Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No.
9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004).
The civil engineers (CEs) apparently do NOT have a codified IRR
for their law i.e. R.A. No. 544 (as amended by R.A. No. 1582) and
are therefore unable to offer a definition for “civil engineering
plan” or “building plan” for that matter. The foregoing
statements by the CE/s responsible, as disseminated by the
through a CE website, preempted the Court’s January 2008 Decision
and should also make them liable for charges of indirect
contempt.
 Revised IRR is in Error
• Civil Engineers have been preparing, signing and sealing building designs, plans and
specifications not only for the past 50 years (life of RA 544) but even before the
professions or Architecture and Civil Engineering were regulated
• The preparation, signing and sealing of building designs, plans and specifications is
part of the practice of Civil Engineering by law, history and tradition
• This right of Civil Engineers to prepare, sign and seal building designs, plans and
specifications has never been legally challenged, up to the present
• There has never been any case filed or legal judgment rendered that this practice of
Civil Engineers has had any adverse effect to any person or has been harmful to
public welfare
PRBoA Annotation. Even if the Civil Engineers (CEs) were
supposedly able to do what architects did before R.A. Nos. 545 of
1950, before R.A. No. 1581 of 1956 and before R.A. No. 9266 of
2004 came into being, the fact that these laws existed or are
presently valid and subsisting, does NOT excuse the CEs who
violate/d these laws and who may be held criminally liable for
their ILLEGAL practice of architecture.
The CEs are now being legally challenged in court by registered
and licensed architects (RLAs) based on the cases the CEs filed
themselves or case/s filed (to be filed) by the PRBoA. The RLAs
are now in a position to tell the Court/ Government about the
disadvantages/ impropriety/ mistake/ evils of allowing the CEs to
ILLEGALLY practice the separate State-regulated profession of
architecture.
 Revised IRR is in Error
• The only parties affected by this practice are Architects who are forced to compete with Civil
Engineers in the open market
• The purpose of regulatory laws is to protect the public and not any particular profession
• RA 9266 is irrelevant to this issue which is concerned only with the practice of Civil Engineering
• RA 9266 affects only the profession of Architecture and not Civil Engineering (Section 43)
• RA 9266 has not repealed RA 544 (Section 47)
• RA 9266 has not removed the preparation, signing and sealing of building designs, plans and
specifications from the practice of Civil Engineering
PRBoA Annotation. Architects do NOT compete with the Civil
Engineers (CEs) for the plain and simple reason that architects
were trained to “work with” the CEs and that the Architects are
secure in their knowledge that they are the SOLE professionals
who can prepare the proper ARCHITECTURAL plans and designs for
ANY building. Not content with designing the structural/civil works and
with managing and actually constructing a project (which are all major
efforts in a construction and development project), it is the CEs who
insist that they can do away with Architects and that they can do the job
of the Architects despite their obvious and undeniable lack of academic
and sub-professional preparation as well as their testing and licensure
by the State, which DO NOT encompass the practice of the separate
profession of ARCHITECTURE.
R.A. No. 9266 is very specific in its MULTIPLE provisions stating that
only registered and licensed architects (RLAs) shall prepare, sign and
seal ARCHITECTURAL plans and documents i.e. the Architectural or “A”
sheets of the building plans, architectural specifications, estimates &
contract documents & the like.
 Revised IRR is Biased in Favor of Architects
• Revised IRR confers the position of Prime Professional to Architects, without any legal
basis
• Revised IRR conveniently invokes the Principle of Overlap of Architecture with the
profession of Interior Design with regards to preparation, signing and sealing of
designs, plans and specifications for building interiors
• Revised IRR totally disregards the Principle of Overlap of Architecture with the
profession of Civil Engineering with regards to preparation, signing and sealing of
designs, plans and specifications for Buildings
PRBoA Annotation. The Architects have been the Prime Professional
for buildings and structures for human habitation for eons. The
term
P architect means “master builder” and architects have been
involved with all phases of building planning and implementation,
even its occupancy and usage. The word “buildings” is UNIVERSALLY
associated with architects and NOT with civil engineers (CEs).
The 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 (the 1977 NBCP) did NOT confer anything on
architects. The role of the Architects in buildings is an undeniable fact that only
the leaders of the Philippine civil engineers (CEs) refuse to recognize. Architects
and interior designers only appear to share the practice of planning and designing
ARCHITECTURAL interiors (AI), which the CEs are even more unqualified to offer or
render. In truth however, only Architects can practice AI (reference both
R.A. No. 9266 and R.A. No. 8534).
With the removal of structural design from the scope of architectural practice under
R.A. No. 9266 (with the concurrence and active support of the CEs), there is now NO
overlap between the practices of architects and CEs . Architectural plans and
documents i.e. the Architectural or “A” sheets of building plans, are
clearly only for architects to prepare, sign and seal.
 Guidelines in Preparing Building Designs, Plans and
Specifications by Civil Engineers
• While the Old IRR allows Civil Engineers to sign and seal Architectural plans and
documents, this is not advisable to avoid possible conflict with RA 9266
• Label all plans, specifications and other documents “Civil Engineering” before signing
and sealing them (Do not sign and seal any plan or document labeled “Architectural”,
or any other profession)
• Place the title “Civil Engineer” under your name and signature when signing plans,
specifications and other documents (Do not sign in any space that contains the title
“Architect”, or any other profession, whether in the plans, documents, application for
permit, or the permit itself)
• If a Civil Engineer signs a plan labeled “Architectural Plans”, or signs in a space
containing the title “Architect”, he could be charged with practicing Architecture and
with violating RA 9266.
PRBoA Annotation. Glaring mistakes under the Old IRR of
P.D. No. 1096 (1977 NBCP) were corrected under the 2004
Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096. Civil Engineers (CEs) must
always remember that when they INSIST on preparing signing
and sealing ARCHITECTURAL plans, designs, specifications
and documents, even if these are labeled as “civil
engineering” documents, they may then become criminally
liable for the ILLEGAL practice of architecture under R.A.
No. 9266.
 PICE has obtained Preliminary Injunction from Manila RTC
• PICE obtained 72 hour Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against implementation of Revised
IRR first week of May, 2005
• PICE obtained 20-day TRO second week of May, 2005
• PICE obtained Preliminary Injunction on May 24, 2005
• Preliminary Injunction has no expiry date and means that implementation of the Revised IRR is
stopped until the issues raised by PICE are resolved
PRBoA Annotation. The May 2005 Injunction
secured by the CEs against Secs. 302.3 & 4 of
the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 (the 1977
National Building Code of the Philippines/ NBCP)
has already been LIFTED/ DISSOLVED by the Court
in January 2008.

The disrupted 2005 implementation of the said sections

have already RESUMED and all LGUs and Building Officials
nationwide must now only accept and process Architectural
plans and documents (the “A” sheets) prepared, signed and
sealed ONLY by registered and licensed Architects (RLAs).
The PRBoA has sued former DPWH Secretary Ebdane and the
PICE before the Ombudsman in relation to documented
violations of both R.A. No. 9266 and P.D. No. 1096.
Preliminary Injunction Recognizes Issue Raised by PICE
• Dispositive paragraph of Preliminary Injunction states:
“Both the petitioner and respondent are one that one cannot be deprived of the right to work
and the right to make a living because these rights are property rights. It is not disputed that
prior to the issuance of the questioned IRR, petitioners, as civil engineers, were exercising
the subject rights pursuant to R.A. 544 and P.D. 1096 as well as Ministry Order 57 which the
subject IRR would now remove from them. It is a legal truism that ‘the spring cannot rise
higher than its source’. At this stage of the proceedings, it would appear that the new IRR
goes beyond the laws it seeks to implement.”

PRBoA Annotation. The May 2005 Writ of Preliminary Injunction on

Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 (already
LIFTED/ DISSOLVED by the Court in its Decision promulgated
January 2008), was based on apparently inaccurate and potentially
misleading claims made by the CEs. The CEs’ heavy reliance on
the apparently altered/ intercalated version of Sec. 302 of P.D.
No. 1096 (the 1977 National Building Code of the Philippines/
NBCP) is a potentially material misrepresentation of fact and law
and the CEs, whether wittingly or unwittingly using the said
altered version to secure the 2005 injunction, must be held
accountable for their actions, which have severely prejudiced
Philippine architects.
That the LIFTED/ DISSOLVED injunction (already LIFTED/ DISSOLVED by the
Court) is still being actively used by the CEs to frustrate the legal and
rightful implementation of R.A. No. 9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004)
even if the said injunction does NOT apply to R.A. No. 9266, is an
altogether separate matter that the same entities have to account for.
 DPWH Answer to Preliminary Injunction
• DPWH, through Solicitor General, submitted their answer on June 17, 2005
• Sections 2 and 23 of RA 544 does not state in clear and unequivocal terms that civil engineers
can prepare, sign and seal architectural documents
• Only under Section 302 of PD 1096 and Section 3.2 of Ministry Order 57 that the right of civil
engineers to prepare, sign and seal architectural plans was recognized and expressly granted.

PRBoA Annotation. As separately certified in 2005

and 2009 by the Malacanang Records Office and by
the National Printing Office, there is absolutely
NOTHING mentioned under the actual/ signed/
AUTHENTIC Sec. 302 of P.D. No. 1096 (the 1977
National Building Code of the Philippines/ NBCP)
as to who shall sign and seal ARCHITECTURAL plans
and documents.
Ministry Order No. 57, a mere executive issuance that does
NOT have the power to change the law, and which also
appear NOT to mention signatories to ARCHITECTURAL
documents, does NOT have the power to amend or differently
interpret the original intent of Sec. 302 of P.D. No. 1096
(the 1977 National Building Code of the Philippines/
NBCP).
 DPWH Answer to Preliminary Injunction
• Section 302 of PD 1096 and Section 3.2 of Ministry Order 57 have
been repealed by Sections 20, 25 and 29 of RA 9266, the
“Architecture Act of 2004”
• Assuming arguendo that Sections 2 and 23 of RA 544 include the
preparation of architectural documents, said provision has likewise
been repealed by RA 9266

PRBoA Annotation. R.A. No. 9266 contains

both express and implied repeal
provisions. R.A. No. 9266 is also a
special and later law that repeals and
supersedes all previous laws that are
inconsistent with its valid and
subsisting provisions.
 DPWH Answer to Preliminary Injunction
• RA 9266 was approved on March 17, 2004 while RA 544, PD 1096
and Ministry Order 57 were approved in 1950, 1977 and 1978,
respectively.
• In case of irreconcilable conflict between two laws, the later
enactment must prevail.
• That RA 9266 has repealed the other laws is evident from Section
46 of RA 9266.

PRBoA Annotation. R.A. No. 9266 contains

both express and implied repeal
provisions. R.A. No. 9266 is also a
special and later law that repeals and
supersedes all previous laws that are
inconsistent with its valid and
subsisting provisions.
 DPWH Answer to Preliminary Injunction
• PD 1096 is a general law as it deals with the practice of various
professions, while RA 9266 is a special law because it deals
exclusively with the practice of architecture.
• It is a finely-imbedded principle that a special provision of law
prevails over a general one.

PRBoA Annotation. R.A. No. 9266 contains

both express and implied repeal
provisions. R.A. No. 9266 is also a
special and later law that repeals and
supersedes all previous laws that are
inconsistent with its valid and subsisting
provisions.
 DPWH Answer to Preliminary Injunction
• The Revised IRR did not amend nor supplant the laws promulgated
by the legislature.
• The Revised IRR is consistent and in harmony with the pertinent
provisions of RA 9266.

PRBoA Annotation. R.A. No. 9266

contains both express and implied
repeal provisions. R.A. No. 9266 is
also a special and later law that
repeals and supersedes all previous
laws that are inconsistent with its
valid and subsisting provisions.
 DPWH Answer to Preliminary Injunction
• It is erroneous to claim that the Revised IRR is null and void because it
gives architects the exclusive right to prepare, sign and seal architectural
documents.
• It is the legislature by virtue of RA 9266 which gives duly licensed architects
the exclusive right to prepare, sign and seal architectural documents.

PRBoA Annotation. R.A. No. 9266 contains

both express and implied repeal
provisions. R.A. No. 9266 is also a
special and later law that repeals and
supersedes all previous laws that are
inconsistent with its valid and subsisting
provisions.
Understanding RA 9266

• Section 20. Seal, Issuance and Use of Seal. – A

duly licensed architect shall affix the seal
prescribed by the Board bearing the registrant’s
name, registration number and the title
“Architect” on all architectural plans,
drawings, specifications and all other
contract documents prepared by or under his/her
direct supervision.
Understanding RA 9266
• Section 20(2) – No officer or employee of this
Republic, chartered cities, provinces and
municipalities, now or hereafter charged with the
enforcement of laws, ordinances or regulations
relating to the construction or alteration of
buildings, shall accept or approve any architectural
plans or specifications which have not been
prepared and submitted in full accord with all the
provisions of this Act; nor shall any payments be
approved by any officer for any work, the plans
and specifications for which have not been so
prepared and signed and sealed by the author.
Understanding RA 9266

• Section 20(5) – All architectural plans,

designs, drawings and architectural
documents relative to the construction of a
building shall bear the seal and signature only
of an architect registered and licensed
under this Act together with his/her professional
identification number and the date of its
expiration.
Understanding RA 9266
• Section 25 – “No person shall practice
architecture in this country, or engage in
preparing architectural plans, specifications
or preliminary data for the erection or
alteration of any building located within the
boundaries of this country, or use the title
“Architect”, or display the word “Architect”
together with another word, or use any title,
sign, card, advertisement, or other devise to
indicate such person practices or offers to
practice architecture, or is an architect,
unless such person shall have received from the
Board a Certificate of Registration and be issued a
Professional Identification Card.”
Understanding RA 9266

• Section 29 – Prohibition in the Practice of

Architecture and Penal Clause. – Any person
who shall practice or offer to practice
architecture in the Philippines without being
registered/licensed and who are not holders of
temporary or special permits in accordance with
the provisions of this Act … shall be guilty of
misdemeanor and charged in court by the
Commission…
Exclusive to Architects
• Practice architecture in the Philippines
• Engage in preparing architectural plans,
specifications or preliminary data for the
erection or alteration of any building
located within the boundaries of the
Philippines
• Use the title “Architect”
• Display the word “Architect” together with another word
• Display or use any title, sign, card, advertisement, or
other device to indicate such person practices or offers
to practice architecture, or is an architect
 Revisiting PD 1096 and Ministry Order No. 57
• Section 302 of P.D. 1096 and Section 3.2 of Ministry Order No. 57 (Old IRR) requires
the submittal to the Building Official of five (5) sets of plans and specifications
prepared, signed and sealed by a duly licensed architect or civil engineer, in
case of architectural and structural plans.

PRBoA Annotation. The foregoing statement may be

construed as a potentially deliberate misrepresentation of
fact and law. As duly certified in 2005 and 2009 by the
Malacanang Records Office and by the National printing
Office, there is absolutely NOTHING mentioned under the
actual/ signed/ AUTHENTIC Sec. 302 of P.D. No. 1096 (the
1977 National Building Code of the Philippines/ NBCP) as
to who shall sign and seal ARCHITECTURAL plans and
documents.
Since there is NOTHING in both P.D. 1096 and in the CE law i.e.
R.A. No. 544 (as amended by R.A. No. 1582), specifically stating
that civil engineers (CEs) can sign and seal ARCHITECTURAL plans
and documents, we have to abide by R.A. No. 9266, which is the
governing law insofar as ARCHITECTURAL plans and documents are
concerned. Ministry Order No. 57 does NOT have the power to
change what is explicitly stated under Sec. 302 of the 1977 NBCP
(P.D. No. 1096) is only a mere executive issuance that appears
NOT to mention the signatory to ARCHITECTURAL documents.
 Revisiting Section 2 of RA 544
• Section 2, RA 544 – “The practice of civil engineering within the meaning
and intent of this Act shall embrace services in the form of consultation,
design, preparation of plans, specifications, estimates, erection,
installation and supervision of construction of streets, bridges, highways,
railroads, airports and hangars, portworks, canals, river and shore
improvements, lighthouses, and dry docks; buildings, fixed structures for
irrigation, flood protection, drainage, water supply and sewerage works,
demolition of permanent structures, and tunnels.”

PRBoA Annotation. Note that the word

“buildings” is followed by a comma, NOT
by a semi-colon, indicating a continuous
clause mentioning purely engineering
structures. As can be clearly seen from the
foregoing provision, the word “buildings” as
contextualized, refer solely to buildings of an
engineering or HORIZONTAL nature. It does NOT
refer to buildings of an architectural or
VERTICAL nature.
 Revisiting Section 23 of RA 544
• Section 23, RA 544 – “It shall be unlawful for any person to order or otherwise cause
the construction, reconstruction, or alteration of any building or structure intended
for public gathering or assembly such as theaters, cinematographs, stadia, churches
or structures of like nature, and any other engineering structures mentioned in
section two of this Act unless the designs, plans and specifications of the same
have been prepared under the responsible charge of, and signed and sealed by a
registered civil engineer, and unless the construction, reconstruction and/or
alteration thereof are executed under the responsible charge and direct supervision
of a Civil Engineer.”

PRBoA Annotation. Note that the word “building”

as used in this provision specifically refers to
a structure with a large structural span,
specifically requiring the structural design
prepared by a civil engineer (CE). As can be
clearly seen from the foregoing provision, the
words “designs, plans and specifications” do NOT
refer to ARCHITECTURAL plans, designs and
specifications, covered under R.A. No. 545
(predecessor law of R.A. No. 9266).
 Why DPWH Answer is Wrong
• The DPWH answer presumes that the PICE case is that civil engineers can
prepare, sign and seal “architectural plans and documents”.
• The PICE case is: Civil Engineers should not be prevented from
practicing civil engineering which includes preparing, signing and
sealing building plans and documents.

PRBoA Annotation. The Civil Engineers (CEs) and

their leaders must be knowledgeable enough to
understand the difference between “BUILDING
plans” (which is a GENERIC term) and
“ARCHITECTURAL” plans (which is a very, very
SPECIFIC term). ARCHITECTURAL plans and designs
make up the Architectural or “A” sheets of
BUILDING plans. R.A. No. 9266 (The Architecture
Act of 2004) is a SPECIAL and LATER law that
prevails over the provisions of either R.A. No.
544 (as amended by R.A. No. 1582) and P.D. No.
1096, whenever these refer to the GENERIC terms
“building” or “building plans”.
 Why DPWH Answer is Wrong
• It is immaterial whether PD 1096 and Ministry Order NO. 57 has been repealed by RA
9266 because it is RA 544 (not PD 1096) that gives civil engineers the right to
prepare, sign and seal building plans
• RA 9266 has not repealed Sections 2 and 23 of RA 544 because these sections are
not inconsistent with RA 9266 as they do not state that civil engineers can prepare,
sign and seal “architectural plans or documents” (There is nothing to repeal).
PRBoA Annotation. The DPWH was NEVER WRONG in
its statements that R.A. No. 9266 repealed the
inconsistent provisions of other laws, as the
DPWH was only dutifully complying with the full
intent of the law i.e. the practices of
Architecture and civil engineering are distinct
and separate and the civil engineers (CEs) are
NOT allowed under Philippine law to practice 2
professions.
The term “building plans” is a generic term and that the
term “architectural plans and documents” are very
specific terms. CEs are NOT permitte under Philippine law
to prepare, sign noe seal ARCHITECTURAL plans and
documents.
 Why DPWH Answer is Wrong
• Sections 2 and 23 of RA 544 clearly states that the preparation, signing and sealing of “building
plans” are within the scope of practice of civil engineering.
• Therefore, the PICE case hinges on the proper interpretation of the term “building plans”.
• The PICE position is that the term “building plans” include all plans of buildings.

PRBoA Annotation. The foregoing may be typical of the conceit

exhibited by SOME Philippine Civil Engineers (CEs) and/ or their
leaders. While architects are only saying that architecture is
their domain, the CEs are now effectively saying that they can
prepare, sign and seal “ALL” BUILDING plans which would
necessarily include ARCHITECTURAL, civil works, structural,
electrical, mechanical, electronics and communications (ECE) including
information and communications technology (ICT) components, sanitary,
master plumbing, interior design, environmental planning, landscape
architectural documents (and possibly even furniture designs, graphic
designs and the like). Yet the CEs would NOT venture publicly
stating that they could also prepare, sign and seal OTHER
ENGINEERING plans. The CEs want to be seen as “super professionals”
and yet they could NOT muster enough courage to take a 5-year
architecture course plus 2 years of diversified training on the
ARCHITECTURAL planning and design of buildings plus solving the building
planning/ design problem in the Architecture Licensure Examination (ALE)
to qualify for the legal practice of architecture. The CEs of the 1940s
and the 1950s were much better as they recognized that to practice
architecture lawfully and correctly, they must first train/ qualify to be
Architects.
 Why DPWH Answer is Wrong
• Architects claim that the term “building plans” in RA 544 means “structural building
plans”
• If this is the case, why is that not what is stated?
• If this is the case, why is it that civil engineers have been preparing, signing and
sealing complete “building plans” for thousands of years, without any legal challenge?
PRBoA Anotation. The Architects make NO such claims. What the Architects are saying is that the
term “Building Plans” is a general term encompassing ALL types of plans prepared by ALL
registered and licensed professionals (RLPs) concerned with the planning and design of buildings
i.e. architectural, engineering and allied plans and designs (interiors and landscape included).
“Building Plans” are therefore NOT the same as “Architectural Plans and Documents”, which are
covered by SPECIAL laws i.e. R.A. Nos. 545 (of year 1950), 1581 (of year 1956) and 9266 (of year
2004). R.A. No. 9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004), which was incidentally co-crafted by the
CEs, expressly LIMITS to registered and licensed architects (RLAs) the SOLE professional
PRIVILEGE of preparing, signing and sealing Architectural Plans and Documents, is BOTH a SPECIAL
and LATER law that carries implied and express REPEAL provisions that address ALL inconsistent
laws, regulations and executive issuances such as the CE laws i.e. R.A. Nos. 544 (of year 1950)
and 1582 (of year 1956).
If it is the CE position that Architectural Plans and Documents are Building Plans and that the
CEs can sign and seal Architectural Plans and Documents, then why are the CEs NOT signing and
sealing the OTHER engineering and allied plans i.e. electrical, mechanical, sanitary,
electronics, interior, landscape architectural, etc. Why are the CEs claiming knowledge of
architecture when it is highly possible they DO NOT have an iota of architectural training in
college NOR do they have ANY subject on architectural plan/design preparation in their licensure
examination?
The CE profession, is a young profession (less than 400 years old) as compared to the
architectural profession (about 6,000 years old), so it would be physically improbable/
impossible for CEs to be preparing “complete building plans” for thousands of years.
Over the last 3-4 years, Philippine architects have already challenged CEs in Court as evidenced
by the number of test cases in different venues. The CEs have also LOST in many of these cases.
 Why DPWH Answer is Wrong
• The DPWH answer is totally dependent on the premise that RA 9266 is
relevant to this case.
• This will only be true if the case is about the practice of architecture.
• The PICE case is not about the practice of architecture but about the
practice of civil engineering.
• Therefore, RA 9266 is irrelevant, and the applicable law is RA 544.

PRBoA Annotation. The DPWH is CORRECT. R.A. No.

9266 is relevant to the 2005 petition filed by
the PICE against the DPWH Secretary (already
decided in favor of the Architects by the Court
in its Decision promulgated in January 2008).

The PICE case is about the practice of the

separate State-regulated profession of
Architecture by unregistered persons (under R.A.
No. 9266) such as the civil engineers (CEs) who
insist on preparing, signing and sealing
ARCHITECTURAL plans and documents.
 RA 9266 Cannot Justify the Revised IRR
• Section 43, RA 9266 – “This Act shall not be construed to affect or prevent the practice of any other
legally recognized profession.”
– RA 9266 does not affect the scope of practice of Civil Engineering
• Section 46 of RA 9266 - “Republic Act No. 545, as amended by Republic Act No. 1581, is hereby
repealed and all other laws, orders and regulations or resolutions or part/s thereof inconsistent with
the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly” does not repeal or modify RA
544 for the following reasons:
– No provision of RA 544 is inconsistent with RA 9266, because RA 544 does not authorize civil
engineers to prepare, sign and seal architectural plans and documents

PRBoA Annotation. R.A. No. 9266 (The Architecture

Act of 2004) is the ONLY Philippine SPECIAL law
that concerns the practice of the State-regulated
profession of Architecture. P.D. No. 1096 (the
1977 National Building Code of the Philippines/
NBCP) is only a GENERAL law about buildings and
their environs. The authentic Sec. 302 of P.D. No.
1096 does NOT mention the signatory to Architectural
documents. The 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 can
therefore only FOLLOW what is stated in the SPECIAL law
(R.A. No. 9266) that specifically addresses ARCHITECTURAL
plans and documents.
 DPWH Answer to Preliminary Injunction
• DPWH answer acknowledges that the direct consequence of the revised IRR is to
deprive more than a hundred thousand civil engineers of their right to earn a living
which has been vested upon them for more than fifty years now.
• DPWH answer cites the principle of “dura lex sed lex (The law is harsh but the law is
still the law).
PRBoA Annotation. The Civil Engineer (CE)’s right to earn
a living does NOT include practicing a SEPARATELY
regulated profession for which the CEs have NO training,
appreciation nor aptitude. Architects do NOT practice
civil engineering so why should CEs practice architecture?
If CEs want to practice architecture, then they should
become registered and licensed architects (RLAs) first and
comply with the requisites for admission into the
practice, just as the older CEs have successfully and
honorably done in the past.
The CE registration and license are NOT documents that allow CEs
to practice two (2) professions. When CEs prepare sign and seal
ARCHITECTURAL plans, designs, specifications and documents, even
if these are improperly labeled as “civil engineering” documents,
they may become liable for the ILLEGAL practice of architecture
under R.A. No. 9266 i.e. a CRIMINAL violation.
 Why DPWH Answer is Wrong
• The PICE position is that all existing laws must be enforced,
including RA 9266, PD 1096 and RA 544.
• The DPWH position is correct only if RA 9266 is the applicable law
to this case.
• If RA 544 is the applicable law, then the revised IRR deprives civil
engineers of a right vested upon them by law.
• Since the PICE case is about the practice of civil engineering and
not the practice of architecture, the relevant law is RA 544.
PRBoA Annotation. P.D. No. 1096, the 1977 National
Building Code of the Philippines/ NBCP) is all about
buildings and their sites. Its architectural sections
under the 2004 Revised IRR have been written in the
language of the architects and approved for official use
by the right-thinking civil engineers (CEs) in the DPWH.
Secs. 302.3 and 302.4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No.
1096/ NBCP are about ARCHITECTURAL documents. The case
against the DPWH Secretary is about CEs wanting to
continue to practice the SEPARATE regulated profession of
architecture long after R.A. No. 9266 (which the CEs
helped craft) was approved into law.
 DPWH Answer to Preliminary Injunction
• DPWH answer states that laws are adopted to make sure that the plans specifications
and other documents to be submitted for the issuance of a building permit are
prepared, signed and sealed by competent professionals who possess the required
skills, knowledge and expertise on the matter to safeguard life, health, property and
public welfare.

PRBoA Annotation. Civil Engineers (CEs) who are

not registered and licensed architects (RLAs) are
NOT competent to undertake the preparation,
signing and sealing of ARCHITECTURAL plans,
designs and documents i.e. the “A” sheets of
building plans and designs.
Such CEs do NOT have the academic preparation,
the sub-professional training (2-year
apprenticeship work under a Mentor-Architect),
the professional registration and license nor the
professional training (CPE/ CPD programs)
required to lawfully undertake professional
ARCHITECTURAL work and services.
 Why DPWH Answer is Wrong
• Civil Engineers have prepared, signed and sealed building plans for thousands of years, with distinction
• There has never been a legal challenge, much less a decision, questioning this right of civil engineers
• There has never been a single case, much less a decision, that civil engineers are a threat to life,
health, property or public welfare
• It is an insult to the civil engineering profession to question the competence of civil engineers to
prepare, sign and seal building plans
• It is an insult to the civil engineering profession to accuse civil engineers of being threats to life, health,
property or public welfare

PRBoA Annotation. The term civil engineer (CE) probably came into
use only in the last 150 - 170 years. Before this, there was only
military engineering which largely dealt with fortifications and
defenses. The entities who used to plan, design and supervise the
erection of large buildings and structures were actually
architects (as the master builders, the literal translation of
the word “architect”). The planning of roads and cities were also done
by architects or architect-planners and for a time in the late 1800s and
early twentieth century by landscape architects. It is probable that the
precursors of the civil engineers were there but they were probably not
performing a senior role in project planning and implementation. There
are presently several cases in the Philippines wherein the alleged right
of CEs to prepare, sign and seal ARCHITECTURAL plans and documents are
being directly challenged by registered and licensed architects (RLAs).
It is INSULTING for Architects to hear CEs claiming knowledge of
Architecture when they clearly do NOT possess such knowledge.
 Conclusion
• Civil Engineers cannot practice architecture
• Architects cannot practice civil engineering
• When a Civil Engineer prepares, signs and seals building plans, he is practicing Civil Engineering,
not Architecture
• The only law applicable relevant to Civil Engineers is RA 544.
• RA 9266 is irrelevant because it affects only the practice of Architecture, not Civil Engineering
• The Revised IRR prevents Civil Engineers from practicing Civil Engineering

PRBoA Anotation. When a Civil Engineer (CE) prepares,

signs and seals ARCHITECTURAL plans and designs i.e. the
“A” sheets of the “building plans”, architectural
specifications, estimates and contract documents, the CE
is ILLEGALLY practicing the SEPARATE regulated profession
of architecture and may therefore become CRIMINALLY liable
for such ILLEGAL practice of architecture under R.A. No.
9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004).
The 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 (the 1977 National
Building Code of the Philippines/ NBCP) prevents CEs from
practicing Architecture because that is what Philippine
law provides. The 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 (the
1977 National Building Code of the Philippines/ NBCP) is
FULLY consistent with Philippine law. end.