Civil Engineers to Practice Architecture

First topic message reminder :

http://www.architectureboard.ph/news.php?id=139#main

any thoughts?

nako, malaking gulo nga, sir bizkong, pag naipasa yan...
dito palang nagkakagulo na eh... [wala pang naipapasa]

ano po kayang magandang gawin kung gusto natin mag protesta sir?
tigil-construction or tigil rendering kaya - tulad kay mamang tsuper?

*ayan, di na ko masyado ot...

opinion lang po.

kahit ciguro payagang pumirma o gumawa ng plano ang mga CE eh magkakaroon parin ng trabaho ang mga Arki. Ilan ba sa mga CE ang kaya at gustong gumawa ng Architectural Plans o Design. At the end ibibigay pa rin nila ung work sa mga Arki tapos pipirma nalang sila. Dahil ang mga Engineer iba ung interest nila-yun ay engineering.

malawak na pananaw.
Kahit naman nangyayari na may CE na gumagawa ng work ng Arki sa ngayon, eh di pa rin nawawalan ng trabaho ang mga Arki. Kase maraming Job/career opportunity na pwedeng gawin ng mga Arki. (di katulad kung ibang course ang tinapos)

Arki, CE at ID magkakapatid po yan sa industriya (ang mga magkakapatid nagbibigayan).

Sa akin lang naman po iyon.

mokong wrote:

LOOKER wrote:Ang mga Architects ay may minimum na plumbing fixture units, Electrical load at Two storey level structure na pwedeng hinde na isanguni sa respective professions.... Kung natotolerate ng ibang discipline yun bakit hnde natin ma-tolerate ang 50sqm na bahay diba??? huwag maging greedy hehehehe

So you mean, pipirma din kayo ng electrical, sanitary at structural? malabo yata yan dude.. sabi nga ang juan ay kay juan dba? saan ko ba yan mababasa sa area of practice niyo.. minsan mahirap yung maniwala tayo sa sabi-sabi ng iba..

sir mokong;
kung nagbabasa kayo ng nbc (national building code), sa rule1 ng bldng permit applications,,, makikita mo dun

structural: design analysis shall be required for all buildings except 20sqm/ traditional indigenous dwelling
sanitary: for new sanitary installation with more than 20 units of plumbing installation,,,blah blah blah applications shall be accompanied with a sign and sealed by a duly licensed sanitary engineer
electrical: for new elec installation with more than 20 outlets/ 4kw voltage blahblahblah signed and sealed elec engineer
mech: >50hp blahblahblah signed and sealed mech engr.

pwede sign yan basta nsa min. req. as stated,,,, hindi sabi sabi yan, nasa nbc yan hehehehe

Oo tama ka meron yan doon sa nbc pero mali yata pagka intindi mo dude.. less than 20 sq. indigenious dwelling are houses made of nipa, coconut lumber, etc. Or we can say bahay kubo.. yan ang ibig sabihin nyan ng 20.sq. m... Na mis interpret mo yata dude.. sa probinsiya namin we only require sketch lang no need to be signed and sealed by arch. Or CE.. the only profession na magpirma is PPE dahil required ng local electric cooperative to safeguard the electrical connection other than that wala... The OBO is flexible in this situation just to be sure that na hindi abusuhin ng mga skilled electrician at kaya sketch lang dahil kawawa yung mga tao na maliit lang ang bahay tapos full pa pa require sila ng complete set of plans.. kahit man nkalagay doon na hindi na puwede ang design analysis sa structural it doesnt mean puwede pumirma ang arch. Design analysis is different from structural plan.. design analysis are computations of loadings, determination of the sizes of structural elements, etc.. kelangan pa rin ng structural plan minimum requirements as stated sa building code will do pero ini ignore ito kasi ng OBO kasi nga indegenous lang at kawawa yung may ari ng bahay... Ito mismo nangyayri sa atin.. kadalasan sinasabi ng mga tao bakit pa kelangan ko pa ng building permit eh maliit naman itong bahay ko made of nipa lang, as far as OBO is concern kaya sketch na lang..

mokong wrote:

LOOKER wrote:Ang mga Architects ay may minimum na plumbing fixture units, Electrical load at Two storey level structure na pwedeng hinde na isanguni sa respective professions.... Kung natotolerate ng ibang discipline yun bakit hnde natin ma-tolerate ang 50sqm na bahay diba??? huwag maging greedy hehehehe

So you mean, pipirma din kayo ng electrical, sanitary at structural? malabo yata yan dude.. sabi nga ang juan ay kay juan dba? saan ko ba yan mababasa sa area of practice niyo.. minsan mahirap yung maniwala tayo sa sabi-sabi ng iba..

ang ibig sabihin ni sir Looker is, pwede kaming mga architects mag design ng simple plumbing & simple electrical layouts, pero hindi namin pipirmahin yung mga plans, pina pa pirma din namin sa elec. eng at sanitary eng, ngayon kung complicated na, pina padesign na namin sa kanila,

hay naku matakaw sila , sila nag bubuild ng walang passion and soul basta kumita ayos na dapat umaksyon ang UAP dito and i think may ginagwa na sila.

3STAN wrote:hay naku matakaw sila , sila nag bubuild ng walang passion and soul basta kumita ayos na dapat umaksyon ang UAP dito and i think may ginagwa na sila.

bro, sabi nga ni sir Kurdaps, no hitting below the belt,

whey09 wrote:

3STAN wrote:hay naku matakaw sila , sila nag bubuild ng walang passion and soul basta kumita ayos na dapat umaksyon ang UAP dito and i think may ginagwa na sila.

bro, sabi nga ni sir Kurdaps, no hitting below the belt,

Tama...usapan lang tayo dito ng maayos.

Basta ako, ok lang kahit CE pa magdesign dyan, as long as ipa-check at ipapirma sa architect yan, tapos hatian nalang sa bayad. Kaya sana hindi matuloy ang bill na ito, or baguhin nila, delegating kung sino ang pipirma sa bawat section ng complete set of plans.

whey09 wrote:

mokong wrote:

LOOKER wrote:Ang mga Architects ay may minimum na plumbing fixture units, Electrical load at Two storey level structure na pwedeng hinde na isanguni sa respective professions.... Kung natotolerate ng ibang discipline yun bakit hnde natin ma-tolerate ang 50sqm na bahay diba??? huwag maging greedy hehehehe

So you mean, pipirma din kayo ng electrical, sanitary at structural? malabo yata yan dude.. sabi nga ang juan ay kay juan dba? saan ko ba yan mababasa sa area of practice niyo.. minsan mahirap yung maniwala tayo sa sabi-sabi ng iba..

ang ibig sabihin ni sir Looker is, pwede kaming mga architects mag design ng simple plumbing & simple electrical layouts, pero hindi namin pipirmahin yung mga plans, pina pa pirma din namin sa elec. eng at sanitary eng, ngayon kung complicated na, pina padesign na namin sa kanila,

eh ano sabi niya diba ito "pwede sign yan basta nsa min. req. as stated,,,, hindi sabi sabi yan, nasa nbc yan hehehehe" iyan yung nakalagay sa kung basahin mo sa itaas.. wala namang problema kung sino gumawa ng plano as long na yung pumirma is the right professional..

meron nga draftsman lang yung gumagawa tapos pinapapirma nila sa atin, pero yung project sa kanya.. hehehe kawawa tayo pro yan ang nangyayari ngayon..

arkiedmund wrote:

whey09 wrote:

3STAN wrote:hay naku matakaw sila , sila nag bubuild ng walang passion and soul basta kumita ayos na dapat umaksyon ang UAP dito and i think may ginagwa na sila.

bro, sabi nga ni sir Kurdaps, no hitting below the belt,

Tama...usapan lang tayo dito ng maayos.

Basta ako, ok lang kahit CE pa magdesign dyan, as long as ipa-check at ipapirma sa architect yan, tapos hatian nalang sa bayad. Kaya sana hindi matuloy ang bill na ito, or baguhin nila, delegating kung sino ang pipirma sa bawat section ng complete set of plans.

tama ka sir akiemund.. kung CE magde design ipa check at papirmahan sa arkie yung arch'l plan.. kung arkie namanan gagawa ng structural plan ipa check at pirmahan ng CE.. ganun lng man kadali dba.. tapos na..

mokong wrote:
tama ka sir akiemund.. kung CE magde design ipa check at papirmahan sa arkie yung arch'l plan.. kung arkie namanan gagawa ng structural plan ipa check at pirmahan ng CE.. ganun lng man kadali dba.. tapos na..

Ang ganda nga naman sana pag ganyan, kaso hinde e, ang batas na ito kung maipasa, kung ang CE magdedesign, sila na rin pipirma lahat ng Arch'al plans and related docs, pwedeng magsolo, samantalang pag Architect magdedesign, ipapaprima pa rin yung structural sa CE, hindi pwedeng magsolo. Malinaw talaga na na ang nilalaman nito, ang dapat kay Juan, pwede kay Pedro, samantalang ang kay Pedro, di pwede kay Juan. Kawawa naman si Juan. Ikaw sir mokong, pabor ka ba sa Bill na ito? Tanong lang sir. Salamat.

ARIST wrote:

mokong wrote:
tama ka sir akiemund.. kung CE magde design ipa check at papirmahan sa arkie yung arch'l plan.. kung arkie namanan gagawa ng structural plan ipa check at pirmahan ng CE.. ganun lng man kadali dba.. tapos na..

Ang ganda nga naman sana pag ganyan, kaso hinde e, ang batas na ito kung maipasa, kung ang CE magdedesign, sila na rin pipirma lahat ng Arch'al plans and related docs, pwedeng magsolo, samantalang pag Architect magdedesign, ipapaprima pa rin yung structural sa CE, hindi pwedeng magsolo. Malinaw talaga na na ang nilalaman nito, ang dapat kay Juan, pwede kay Pedro, samantalang ang kay Pedro, di pwede kay Juan. Kawawa naman si Juan. Ikaw sir mokong, pabor ka ba sa Bill na ito? Tanong lang sir. Salamat.

Hindi.. right from the start of this thread sinabi ko na dapat na ibigay yan dahil nararapat sa inyo.. kaya nga ginawan ng Revised IRR ang PD 1096 to fully specify the division of works between our co-professionals.. which in fact it is the right time dahil marami ng architects ngayon.. kasi dati ilan lang kinakapaos tayo sa architects.. kaya lang naman ako nagcocoment dito dahil maling paratang ng iba na kukunin namin ang ibang profession, masakit din sa amin mga CE minsan yung mga nag cocoment dito sumusobra na.. may isa naman mali pagka interpret ng NBC, gusto pumirma sa ibang prof.,which I clarify para hindi ma mis informed yung iba.. I myself, pinu protekahan ko lang ang mga kapwa ko CE dito.. It has something to do with the UAP officials lang talaga to push our goverment to full implementation of law...

mokong wrote:

ARIST wrote:

mokong wrote:
tama ka sir akiemund.. kung CE magde design ipa check at papirmahan sa arkie yung arch'l plan.. kung arkie namanan gagawa ng structural plan ipa check at pirmahan ng CE.. ganun lng man kadali dba.. tapos na..

Ang ganda nga naman sana pag ganyan, kaso hinde e, ang batas na ito kung maipasa, kung ang CE magdedesign, sila na rin pipirma lahat ng Arch'al plans and related docs, pwedeng magsolo, samantalang pag Architect magdedesign, ipapaprima pa rin yung structural sa CE, hindi pwedeng magsolo. Malinaw talaga na na ang nilalaman nito, ang dapat kay Juan, pwede kay Pedro, samantalang ang kay Pedro, di pwede kay Juan. Kawawa naman si Juan. Ikaw sir mokong, pabor ka ba sa Bill na ito? Tanong lang sir. Salamat.

Hindi.. right from the start of this thread sinabi ko na dapat na ibigay yan dahil nararapat sa inyo.. kaya nga ginawan ng Revised IRR ang PD 1096 to fully specify the division of works between our co-professionals.. which in fact it is the right time dahil marami ng architects ngayon.. kasi dati ilan lang kinakapaos tayo sa architects.. kaya lang naman ako nagcocoment dito dahil maling paratang ng iba na kukunin namin ang ibang profession, masakit din sa amin mga CE minsan yung mga nag cocoment dito sumusobra na.. may isa naman mali pagka interpret ng NBC, gusto pumirma sa ibang prof.,which I clarify para hindi ma mis informed yung iba.. I myself, pinu protekahan ko lang ang mga kapwa ko CE dito.. It has something to do with the UAP officials lang talaga to push our goverment to full implementation of law...

Ah ok, salamat sa iyong ma-laman na sagot sir. You got it right and clear!

UAP Official Position on this CE Bill

UAP : Official Position on CE Bills


The United Architects of the Philippines through its National President, Arch. Ramon S. Mendoza, fuap submitted to the Senate Committee on Civil Service and Government Reorganization on its position on Senate Bill No. 2270 which seeks to amend the Civil Engineering Law.

"The United Architects of the Philippines (UAP), the Integrated and Accredited Professional Organization of Architects (IAPOA) which is composed of more than 28,000 registered and licensed architects, hereby submits our position on the Senate Bill (SB) No, 2770 which is a resurrection of the Civil Engineering Law that has been decided and resolved on January 2005 at the House of Representatives (13th Congress). The new bill declares the scope of practice of Civil Engineers (CE) with vague and general words/terminologies such as PLANS and BUILDINGS which are already well articulated on different Professional Regulatory Laws (PRLs). The use of such general words/terminologies may result to confusion and cross-boarding of Civil Engineers to the practice of other building professionals already protected by law to perform respective functions pertaining to planning and design of buildings", according to the position paper.

While UAP recognizes the laudable intention behind Senate Bill No. 2270, UAP has serious concerns that this Bill, as presently worded, may cloud the delineation between the practice of architecture and the practice of civil engineering, because the said Bill does not expressly exclude architectural documents and plans from those which could be prepared and signed by civil engineers. As will be discussed below, Congress itself has created a clear distinction between the architecture and civil engineering professions, when it enacted Republic Act No. 9266 or the “Architecture Act of 2004.” The said law sets forth the scope of the practice of architecture, and the activities that can only be performed by licensed architects, including the preparation and signing of architectural documents and plans. It will be unfortunate if this clear distinction would be eroded, for this would undo or defeat the very intent and purpose of the Architecture Act of 2004."



The Position Paper

August 9, 2011

The Honorable
SENATOR ANTONIO TRILLANES IV
Chairman
Committee on Civil Service and Government Reorganization
Senate of the Philippines
Pasay City
Thru: Felipe T. Yadao, Jr., CESE
Director II / Legislative Committee Secretary
Dear Senator Trillanes:

Good day and our warmest greetings to the Committee on Civil Service and Government Reorganization.

This pertains to your letter dated 03 August 2011 re: The Conduct of Public Hearing on SBN 2109 entitled “An Act Further Amending R.A. No. 544 as amended or the Civil Engineering Law” (introduced by Senator Escudero) and SBN 2770 entitled “An Act Professionalizing the Practice of Civil Engineering in the Philippines, Repealing for this Purpose R.A. No. 544 as amended, and for Other Purposes” (introduced by Senator Lacson).

The United Architects of the Philippines (UAP), the Integrated and Accredited Professional Organization of Architects (IAPOA) which is composed of more than 28,000 registered and licensed architects, hereby submits our position on the Senate Bill (SB) No, 2770 which is a resurrection of the Civil Engineering Law that has been decided and resolved on January 2005 at the House of Representatives (13th Congress). The new bill declares the scope of practice of Civil Engineers (CE) with vague and general words/terminologies such as PLANS and BUILDINGS which are already well articulated on different Professional Regulatory Laws (PRLs). The use of such general words/terminologies may result to confusion and cross-boarding of Civil Engineers to the practice of other building professionals already protected by law to perform respective functions pertaining to planning and design of buildings.

While it is imperative for each profession to face new challenges dealing with socio-economic and environmental issues, this should not be a ground for encroaching on the practice of other professionals that have already been well established in their respective PRLs.

As the new bills greatly affect the practice of different allied professions and more particularly the practice of Architecture, the UAP would like to participate officially in future committee hearings and Tehnical Working Group (TWG) meetings on SB Nos. 2770 and 2109.

In view hereof, we hereby submit our position on SBN 2770, particularly with respect to the followingprovisions:


1.0 On Article 1 Section 2 (d):


(d) Scope of the practice of civil engineering encompasses the provision of professional services in connection with services of civil engineering structures and facilities and may include, but are not limited to;


(1) Technical, economic and financial feasibility studies, project promotional services, planning and designing;


(2) Pre-design services such as, but not limited to, consultation, consultancy, giving written advice and directions, evaluations, surveys, investigations, quantity surveys, appraisals and adjustments, environmental impact assessment and studies, schematic design, and design development;


(3) Preparation, signing, sealing of plans, specifications, calculations, bill of materials, cost estimates, tender documents, invitation for bids/proposals, instructions to bidders/offerers, general conditions, special conditions, and contract documents;


(4) Construction and project management, giving general management, administration, supervision, coordination and responsible direction of the planning, designing, construction, reconstruction,erection,alteration, conversion, enlargement or demolition, renovation of civil engineering structures and facilities, including all their components, sites and environs, intended for private or public use;


(5) Planning, lay-outing and utilization of spaces within and surrounding such civil engineering structures and facilities including their sites,interiors,spaces,utilities systems, equipment, and fixtures;


(6) Programming, administration, construction arbitration, conservation and restoration;


(7) All works which relate to the scientific and orderly coordination of all works and branches of the work, systems and processes necessary for the production of complete civil engineering structures and facilities, whether for public or private use, in order to enhance and safeguard life,health and property and the promotion and enrichment of the quality of life; and


(8) All other works, projects and activities which require the professional competence of a civil engineer, including teaching of professional civil engineering subjects and civil engineering computer-aided design and computer-aided mapping.

The above provisions may be construed as inclusive of the scope of work of other professions such as Mechanical, Electrical, and Sanitary Engineering, and in particular, the Architecture profession. Relative to this, the position of the UAP is that the provisions of the law should be confined within the limits of the scope of work of Civil and Structural Engineering , i.e.:

(1) Technical, economic and financial feasibility studies, CIVIL and STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING project promotional services, planning and designing;


(2) CIVIL and STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING Pre-design services such as, but not limited to, consultation, consultancy, giving written advice and directions, evaluations, surveys, investigations, quantity surveys, appraisals and adjustments, environmental impact assessment and studies, schematic design, and design development;


(3) Preparation, signing, sealing of CIVIL and STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING plans, specifications, calculations, bill of materials, cost estimates, tender documents, invitation for bids/proposals, instructions to bidders/offerers, general conditions, special conditions, and contract documents;


(4) Construction and project management, giving general management, administration, supervision, coordination and responsible direction of the CIVIL and STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING planning, designing, construction, reconstruction,erection,alteration, conversion, enlargement or demolition, renovation of civil engineering structures and facilities, including all their components, sites and environs, intended for private or public use;


(5) Planning, lay-outing and utilization of spaces within and surrounding such civil engineering structures and facilities including their sites,interiors,spaces,utilities systems, equipment, and fixtures;


6) CIVIL and STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING Programming, administration, construction arbitration, conservation and restoration;


(7) All CIVIL and STRUCTURAL ENGINEERINGworks which relate to the scientific and orderly coordination of all works and branches of the work, systems and processes necessary for the production of complete civil engineering structures and facilities, whether for public or private use, in order to enhance and safeguard life,health and property and the promotion and enrichment of the quality of life; and


(8) All other CIVIL and STRUCTURAL ENGINEERINGworks, projects and activities which require the professional competence of a civil engineer, including teaching of professional civil engineering subjects and civil engineering computer-aided design and computer-aided mapping.



2.0 Insertion after Article 1 Section 2 (g) :


The term CIVIL and STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING is used in this Act as a qualifier to mean acts, services, scopes of work, drawings, documents, practices and the like that do not form part of Architecture and other state-regulated allied professions as defined by law.


The UAP recommends the insertion of the above provision as Article 1 Section 2 (h).


3.0 On Article 1 Section 2 (l):


(1) "Civil Engineer Prime Professional" is the Civil Engineer registered under this Act, and qualified under the implementing rules and regulations hereof, who is responsible for the overall integration, coordination, and successful conduct of all of the processes who is engaged in the project from inception to completion.

The Architect is the Lead Professional in any building design and construction project, from inception, conceptualization, site selection and analysis, architectural design development, up to construction supervision and turn-over of the project. The significant role of the Civil and Structural Engineers, and other engineers for that matter, commences at a stage after the architectural development phase; and therefore the Civil and Structural Engineers cannot qualify as prime professional.


The UAP therefore recommends that Article 1 Section 2 (l) be deleted.

We pray that our position be given the favorable consideration it deserves. Thank you for the invitation and for giving us the opportunity to share our views regarding this matter.

Very truly yours,

Ar. RAMON S. MENDOZA, fuap
National President
United Architects of the Philippines



SUPPLEMENTAL POSITION PAPER


Senate Bill No. 2270


x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x



The United Architects of the Philippines (UAP) wishes to thank the Senate Committee on Civil Service and Government Reorganization for this opportunity to submit its position on Senate Bill No. 2270 which seeks to amend the Civil Engineering Law.

While UAP recognizes the laudable intention behind Senate Bill No. 2270, UAP has serious concerns that this Bill, as presently worded, may cloud the delineation between the practice of architecture and the practice of civil engineering, because the said Bill does not expressly exclude architectural documents and plans from those which could be prepared and signed by civil engineers. As will be discussed below, Congress itself has created a clear distinction between the architecture and civil engineering professions, when it enacted Republic Act No. 9266 or the “Architecture Act of 2004.” The said law sets forth the scope of the practice of architecture, and the activities that can only be performed by licensed architects, including the preparation and signing of architectural documents and plans. It will be unfortunate if this clear distinction would be eroded, for this would undo or defeat the very intent and purpose of the Architecture Act of 2004.

The Architecture Act of 2004 defines the practice of architecture as follows:

“SECTION 3. Definition of Terms. - As used in this Act, the following terms shall be defined as follows:

(1) ‘Architecture’ is the art, science or profession of planning, designing and constructing buildings in their totality taking into account their environment, in accordance with the principles of utility, strength and beauty;

(2) ‘Architect’ means a person professionally and academically qualified, registered and licensed under this Act with a Certificate of Registration and Professional Identification Card issued by the Professional Regulatory Board of Architecture and the Professional Regulation Commission, and who is responsible for advocating the fair and sustainable development, welfare and cultural expression of society's habitat in terms of space, forms and historical context;

x x x

(3) ‘General Practice of Architecture’ means the act of planning and architectural designing, structural conceptualization, specifying, supervising and giving general administration and responsible direction to the erection, enlargement or alterations of buildings and building environments and architectural design in engineering structures or any part thereof; the scientific, aesthetic and orderly coordination of all the processes which enter into the production of a complete building or structure performed through the medium of unbiased preliminary studies of plans, consultations, specifications, conferences, evaluations, investigations, contract documents and oral advice and directions regardless of whether the persons engaged in such practice are residents of the Philippines or have their principal office or place of business in this country or another territory, and regardless of whether such persons are performing one or all these duties, or whether such duties are performed in person or as the directing head of an office or organization performing them;

(4) ‘Scope of the Practice of Architecture’ encompasses the provision of professional services in connection with site, physical and planning and the design, construction, enlargement, conservation, renovation, remodeling, restoration or alteration of a building or group of buildings. Services may include, but are not limited to:

(a) planning, architectural designing and structural conceptualization;

(b) consultation, consultancy, giving oral or written advice and directions, conferences, evaluations, investigations, quality surveys, appraisals and adjustments, architectural and operational planning, site analysis and other pre-design services;

(c) schematic design, design development, contract documents and construction phases including professional consultancies;

(d) preparation of preliminary, technical, economic and financial feasibility studies of plans, models and project promotional services;

(e) preparation of architectural plans, specifications, bill of materials, cost estimates, general conditions and bidding documents;

(f) construction and project management, giving general management, administration, supervision, coordination and responsible direction or the planning, architectural designing, construction, reconstruction, erection, enlargement or demolition, renovation, repair, orderly removal, remodeling, alteration, preservation or restoration of buildings or structures or complex buildings, including all their components, sites and environs, intended for private or public use;

(g) the planning, architectural lay-outing and utilization of spaces within and surrounding such buildings or structures, housing design and community architecture, architectural interiors and space planning, architectural detailing, architectural lighting, acoustics, architectural lay-outing of mechanical, electrical, electronic, sanitary, plumbing, communications and other utility systems, equipment and fixtures;

(h) building programming, building adminis­tration, construction arbitration and architectural conservation and restoration;

(i) all works which relate to the scientific, aesthetic and orderly coordination of all works and branches of the work, systems and process necessary for the production of a complete building or structure, whether for public or private use, in order to enhance and safeguard life, health and property and the promotion and enrichment of the quality of life, the architectural design of engineering structures or any part thereof; and

(j) all other works, projects and activities which require the professional competence of an architect, including teaching of architectural subjects and architectural computer-aided design;”

The Architecture Act of 2004 also provides that only architects can prepare and sign architectural documents:

“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 title ‘Architect’ on all architectural plans, drawings, specifications and all other contract documents prepared by or under his/her direct supervision.

x x x

(2) No officer or employee of this Republic, chartered cities, provinces and municipalities, now or hereafter charged with the enforcement of law, 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 such officer for any work, the plans and specifications for which have not been so prepared and signed and sealed by the author.

x x x

(5) All architectural plans, designs, specifications, 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 card number and the date of its expiration.” (emphasis supplied.)

The Architecture Act of 2004 was purposely enacted to, among others, curtail the practice of civil engineers drafting and signing architectural documents, which are not within their area of competence or expertise. Thus, in the Explanatory Note of House Bill No. 334, filed by Rep. Neptali M. Gonzales II during the Twelfth Congress, the following appears:

“Republic Act No. 545, the law which governs the practice of architecture in the Philippines was enacted more than four decades ago. Many events and developments have occurred since then that now render said law obsolete. The agencies, for example, mentioned in the law have been replaced by other agencies.

Said statute also creates confusion as to the delineation of the profession of Civil Engineering with Architecture. Enacted in June 1950 when there were only 350 architects in the country, R.A. 545 allowed civil engineers to participate in the preparation of plans and specifications of buildings, which is the primary function of an architect. Now that the devastation brought about by the Second World War has been properly addressed, it is but necessary to give unto the architects the performance of a function for which they were specifically trained.” (emphasis supplied.)

House Bill No. 334 was thereafter substituted by House Bill No. 5389 by the House Committee on Civil Service and Professional Regulation.[1] The “Fact Sheet” of said House Bill No. 5389 confirmed that one of the purposes of said proposed legislation was to provide “for a clearer and broader definition of the scope of the practice of Architecture to delineate the profession from civil engineering and other related professions.”

House Bill No. 5389 was eventually passed by the House of Representatives on 28 January 2004, and, along with Senate Bill No. 2710, itself passed by the Senate on 29 January 2004, was signed into law as Republic Act No. 9266 on 17 March 2004.

An examination of House Bill Nos. 334 and 5389 vis-à-vis the Architectural Act of 2004 shows that the provisions in the said House Bills on the following remained unchanged:

(a) the definition and scope of the practice of architecture; and

(b) the exclusive grant to licensed architects of the authority to prepare and sign architectural documents (for purposes of, among others, securing governmental permits and approvals).

Similarly, in the Senate, the Explanatory Notes to the Senate Bills 1290 and 2081 (later to be consolidated into Senate Bill No. 2710, which was passed into law as R.A. No. 9266) show the legislative intent to provide a “clearer definition of terms used in the Act, which includes a more specific definition of the term ‘practice of architecture’” and to “fully recognize that an architect is the master builder and the person professionally responsible for proposed structures intended for human habitation and related activities x x x.” In the sponsorship speech of Sen. Aquilino Pimentel on Senate Bill 2710, it was expressly stated that the amendatory law was intended to protect the architectural profession from practice by other parties and professions:

“Eroding Architects Standing

Developments in recent years witness how the practice of architecture has been appropriated by many entities who are not academically trained or professionally qualified to engage in the practice of the profession. These include other professionals, project managers, contractors/subcontractors, developers, capitalists, investors, foreign practitioners, and local and foreign corporations/firms directly or indirectly involved in land and property development work.

This situation had eroded the local and international professional standing of the Filipino architect and has resulted in the planning, design and construction of buildings by unqualified entities who have no professional responsibility nor civil liability for the erected structures. This has placed the public at great risk considering graphic tragedies resulting from faulty planning or design such as the Cherry Hills Subdivision tragedy sometime ago.

Qualified Architects

It is high time that the Filipino public be assured that only individuals who have been properly educated, qualified and trained will undertake the planning and design of buildings and be held responsible for such acts.

At the time of the enactment of the organic law 53 years ago, there were only about 350 architects in the Philippines. Today, there are about 17,000 registered and licensed architects, representing a 487% increase spread out over a half century.

The urgent need to pass this bill is, therefore, clearly indicated.” (emphasis supplied.)

That the Architecture Act of 2004 restricted to architects the authority to prepare, sign and seal architectural documents and plans is not without basis. Indeed, civil engineers are not academically competent to practice architecture, nor to prepare and certify architectural documents. A typical civil engineering course does not include a single unit of architectural design, planning or drafting. On the other hand, a typical architecture course has ten semesters of mainstream architecture (design, planning, graphics, visual techniques, etc.), and units in building technology and engineering sciences similar to civil engineering. Moreover, in order to qualify for the architectural licensing exam, an architectural degree holder must act as apprentice under a practicing architect for two (2) years.[2] No similar apprenticeship is required of civil engineers.[3]

The Architecture Act of 2004 became the impetus for the issuance of the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of the National Building Code (Presidential Decree No. 1096). In particular, Sections 302[3] and [4] of the Revised IRR require that architectural documents submitted in applications for building permits must be prepared, signed and sealed by architects. The validity of these provisions of the Revised IRR was upheld by the Regional Trial Court of Manila in a Decision dated 29 January 2008, in which it found that the officially published text of the National Building Code did not grant civil engineers the right to prepare, sign and seal architectural documents. Moreover, the RTC-Manila found that the assailed provisions of the Revised IRR are consistent with the Architecture Act of 2004, which provides that only duly licensed architects are allowed to practice architecture and to sign, prepare and seal architectural documents, and that any right which civil engineers may have had to sign architectural documents was impliedly repealed by the said law, which was intended to delineate the practice of architecture and the practice of civil engineering. The said Decision of RTC-Manila is now on appeal with the Court of Appeals.

As may be seen from the foregoing, there is a distinction or delineation between the practice of architecture and the practice of civil engineering. No less than Congress has mandated this distinction when it enacted the Architecture Act of 2004. UAP hopes that this distinction will be preserved and that the present Bill be modified for this purpose, to make it clear that architectural documents and plans are excluded from the plans and documents which civil engineers may sign.

x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x



[1] Committee Report No. 922 of the House Committee on Civil Service and Professional Regulation, substituting House Bill No. 5389 for House Bill No. 334.

[2] Section 13(c), Architecture Act of 2004; Section 18(d), R.A. No. 545.

[3] Section 12, R.A. No. 544.

link:

http://www.united-architects.org/index.php/news-and-events/177-uap-official-position-on-ce-bills.html

ok ... what can you say if you design for a ce... and claiming his own credit.. yeah... the architectural sign..... sila rin..

this is not for everyone out there in my own experience for example....

ang tanong : sa pd 1096 di ba malinaw sa amenyendong ito na my seperation ang field sa bawat scope ng work...
so lets binasa ito ng c.e ...

the meron silang sinasabing city engineer ... diba sapat na meron city architect????

city architect ok.... ano ang scope??

for me huh.. correct me if i was wrong .. bakit siya kukunin
-- environemntal architect
--implementation ng green architecture yung terms mismo
"green architecture
-- concept and tropical etc na pagdating sa ganito

ganyan na bata talaga ang duality pagdating sa project.
....
sa mga prboe na c.e or diko alam anong B.o nila ... napaka one sided naman nito... di patas

baligtarin ang tatsulok

@Jay2x
sabi ni alapaap, mahigit limang beses siya nagbabasa ng comments niya at ng iba...
ganun din ako pero minsan feeling ko talaga barado yung ugat-ugat ng utak ko [errr]
at daming bagay di ko maintindihan, isa na po dun lahat ng na sa comment nyo...

lalong lalo na po ito, sir...

Jay2x wrote:...napaka one sided naman nito... di patas baligtarin ang tatsulok

may kinalaman po ba yan sa kanta ni Bamboo?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_hokTBziJ4


....Totoy alam mo ba kung ano ang puno't dulo
Ng di matapos-tapos na kaguluhang ito

Refrain :
Hindi pula't dilaw tunay na magkalaban
Ang kulay at tatak ay di syang dahilan
Hangga't marami ang lugmok sa kahirapan
At ang hustisya ay para lang sa mayaman

Chorus :
Habang may tatsulok at sila ang nasa tuktok
Di matatapos itong gulo

Iligtas ang hininga ng kay raming mga tao
At ang dating munting bukid, ngayo'y sementeryo
Totoy kumilos ka, baliktarin ang tatsulok
Tulad ng dukha, nailagay mo sa tuktok
repeat Refrain and Chorus

sana maliwnagan ako... [sana di rin ako OT uli hehe]

@M_Shadows: makiki-off topic din ako. Baka ibig mo pong sabihin ay yung kinanta ni bamboo. Yung awiting tatsulok ay sinulat nila Noel Cabangon at Rom Dongeto nung nasa grupong buklod pa sila. Nirecord nga nila ito at napasama sa isang album na ang title ay tatsulok (kung di ako nagkakamali).

Sila din po yung may akda nung kantang Kanlungan na sumikat lamang nung nilabas sa isang mc donalds commercial nung 2004, pero sikat na yung awiting kanlungan sa defunct na NU107 noong 1998 pa.

Ok, balik sa paksa:

Based sa mga nabasa ko, meron na palang aksyon na ginawa ang UAP tungkol sa isyung ito. Sana ay bigyan ng pansin ito ng ating mambabatas, ng saganun ay maisa-tuwid na ang lahat.

@ Arkie Edmund...Civil or Structural engineer lang ba nag dedesign ng tulay?di ba kaya ng Architects?

simplykate wrote:@ Arkie Edmund...Civil or Structural engineer lang ba nag dedesign ng tulay?di ba kaya ng Architects?

Well, civil structure yun, and ang mga nagtapos ng civil engineering ang may proper training dun, as it involves numerous tedious structural computations na covered sa C.E. course.

Backread lang po, specifically the post of sir Ar_Can_EVSU, and you will see the proper definition of architecture right there.

simplykate wrote:@ Arkie Edmund...Civil or Structural engineer lang ba nag dedesign ng tulay?di ba kaya ng Architects?

Pinaka magandang tulay sa buong mundo gawa ng mga Arkitekto (architectural design)...

Let us all kindly stay on topic. Pag may off-topic comment kayo, try to post something relevant to the thread after you post an off-topic remark.

Healthy discussion lang po.

scorpion21 wrote:

simplykate wrote:@ Arkie Edmund...Civil or Structural engineer lang ba nag dedesign ng tulay?di ba kaya ng Architects?

Pinaka magandang tulay sa buong mundo gawa ng mga Arkitekto (architectural design)...

Hi Simplykate!...Halos lahat kayang i design ng Architect of course with the help of other consultants (structural,electrical,mechanical,etc.)....alam muba yung Millau Viaduct?,...yan gawa ng Architect yan with the help of Bridge Engineer...another is the controversial Millenium Bridge also designed by an Architect (same architect who designed the Millau Viaduct)...structural design by ARUP...closed for 2 years due to structural problem!

paalala lang po ulit, hindi po ito arki vs. ce, at hindi rin po ito thread para malaman kung sino mas magaling mag design, this thread po is about a bill about CE to practice architecture,

zdesign wrote:ako lang yata ang civil engineer dito...nasaktan din ako sa mga sinasabi nyo...

Count me in zdesign.. im civil engineer too. i dont have grudge sa mga architects or anything... bahala na lang mga higher officials mgdecide ano ba dapat .. peace

ONCIRE wrote:

zdesign wrote:ako lang yata ang civil engineer dito...nasaktan din ako sa mga sinasabi nyo...

Count me in zdesign.. im civil engineer too. i dont have grudge sa mga architects or anything... bahala na lang mga higher officials mgdecide ano ba dapat .. peace

Include mo rin ako sir, I'm a civil engineer also, correct sir dapat nalang natin ipaubaya sa mga nakakatataas kung ano ang nararapat at kahit mag bangayan tayo rito wala rin tayo magagawa, masisira lang ang magandang pagsasamahan natin. kaya please naman po mga sir be professional sa mga comments na binibitawan natin. yong una kasing tinatamaan ng mga comments nayan ay kami dito, kay sir z at sir mokong, keep posting po. marami po akong natutunan sa post nyo. and that's my reason to join this group, para matuto.

@arkiedmund
OT: nadali mo sir! kaya pala napaka-lalim nung kanta... kay Cabangon pala.
actually wala ko alam kay Cabangon pero naalalako ginamit ko na yung Kanlungan
sa isang college proj - "Bible of My Life" [my life's milestones] naka-relate siguro yung prof
isa ako sa mga binigyan ng 100 na grado dahil siguro dun...
[salamat sa background info - check ko yan]

sa madali't salita wala po ako kinalaman sa usapang ito, sa totoo lang
gusto ko lang po mag pasalamat sa lahat ng nagmulat ng ating mga mata
sa bagay-bagay... nakikiisa po ako sa istilo ng pagpapahayag ni ramon mendoza
[na btw ubod ng layong kamaganak ng dad ko... hehehe - ubod yun ah - sa name]
kaya sa mga sumusunod na kapatid, comment nyo po ang napili kong champ.

- celes
- arkiedmund
- alapaap

hindi po kasi nakakatension at nakakadilim ng paningin basahin
at dahil po dun - mas naintindihan ko ang one-liner ni sir whey09
na para sakin ang essence naman talaga ng usapan na ito...

nagbago na isip ko - ayoko na pala ng tigil-construction or tigil-rendering
bilang protesta sa mga balubaluktot na gustong pairalin ng bill na yun...
healing mass nalang kaya [tulad kay ate glo] para sa CE na nasaktan?
or concert for a cause - total marami naman ata music lover sa philippines...
may line-up na ko naisip... iba pang bagets, iba pang thunders... makarelate lahat hehehe

opening = para sa mga arki na naninindigan...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5-yKhDd64s&ob=av2e

No more drama from now on, I promise
to focus solely on handlin my responsibilities as a father
So I solemnly swear to always treat this roof, like my daughters
and raise it, you couldn't lift a single shingle on it!
Cause the way I feel, I'm strong enough to go to the club
or the corner pub, and lift the whole liquor counter up
Cause I'm raising the bar
I'd shoot for the moon but I'm too busy gazin at stars
I feel amazing and I'm [chorus]

para sa naman sa pagkaka-jumble ng mga terms and clauses...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miZWYmxr8XE

para sa finale - group hug [ahaha]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdYLpm7kdIY&feature=related

salamat uli - at maging malawak pa po sana ang ating pananaw
pero wag sanang sobrang lawak na OT na lang ang comment... thanks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc8aOzIEZBk