What are the laws that protect the heritage of Intramuros?
Renacimiento Manila
06 Sep 2020
Government issuances regulating the architecture of Intramuros have spanned decades since the US colonial era until the present. The laws and regulations directly affecting Intramuros over the decades may be summarized as follows:
CA 171 (12-Nov-36)
Adopting Spanish Colonial type of Architecture on all buildings to be constructed, altered or repaired in Intramuros.
RA 597 (01-Mar-51)
An Act To Declare Fort Santiago A National Shrine And To Provide For The Preservation Of Historical Monuments In The Walled City Of Manila.
RA 1569 (16-Jun-56)
An Act to Amend Section One of Republic Act Numbered Five Hundred Ninety-Seven, Entitled “An Act to Declare Fort Santiago a National Shrine and to Provide for the Preservation of Historical Monuments in the Walled City of Manila.” and to Authorize the Sale of the Former Site of the Ayuntamiento to the Central Bank of the Philippines.
RA 1607 (23-Aug-57)
An Act Declaring Intramuros A Commercial, Residential And Educational District, Repealing For That Purpose Commonwealth Act Numbered One Hundred Seventy-One And Republic Act Numbered Five Hundred Ninety-Seven.
RA 3532 (20-Jun-63)
An Act Appropriating One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos For The Construction Of A Monument At Fort Santiago, To Honor The Memory Of The Unknown Soldiers.
EO 18 (24-Mar-66)
Creating The Intramuros Restoration Committee.
PD 1277 (04-Jan-77)
Providing For The Preservation Of The Walls Of Intramuros And The Restoration Of Its Original Moat And Esplanade.
PD 1537 (11-Jun-78)
Amending Presidential Decree No. 1277 Dated January 4, 1978 Entitled “Providing For The Preservation Of The Walls Of Intramuros And The Restoration Of Its Original Moat And Esplanade” By Including Preservation And Restoration Of The Walled City.
LOI 733 (28-Aug-78)
Directing The Restoration Of Certain Areas In Intramuros.
LOI 812 (14-Feb-79)
Directing The Restoration Of The Intendecia Building
PD 1616 (10-Apr-79)
Creating The “Intramuros Administration” For Purposes Of Restoring And Administering The Development Of Intramuros.
LOI 843 (10-Apr-79)
Directing The Organization And Operationalization Of The Intramuros Administration.
LOI 109 (18-Dec-79)
Approving And Adopting The Development Plan For Intramuros And Directing The Formulation Of The Rules, Regulations And Guidelines For Its Implementation.
PD 1748 (10-Dec-80)
Amending The Charter Of The Intramuros Administration.
RA 9593 (12-May-09)
Tourism Act of 2009
RA 10066 (26-Mar-10)
Cultural Heritage Act
Commonwealth Act No. 171
The importance of Intramuros’ Spanish-Era architectural and urban character was first recognized by the State as early as the Commonwealth period during the US occupation. The first state policy regulating and promoting the historic architectural and urban character of Intramuros was enacted and implemented in 1936, by virtue of Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 171. This Act by the Commonwealth Congress under the US-colonial regime declared that the buildings in Intramuros present a “type of architecture façadeh constitute the only vestige of a historic past of that city, the capital of the nation,” and that the preservation of said type of architecture is of “public interest.” It therefore mandated the adoption of “Spanish Colonial type of architecture” on “all buildings to be constructed, altered or repaired in Intramuros.” The mandate of implementing this issuance fell on the lap of the City Engineer of Manila. However, the effectiveness of the implementation of this law is questionable, given that several structures post-1936, many of which still extant today, reflected architectural types never before built in the district, such as the buildings of the Colegio de San Juan de Letran (1937), the Shipping Center Building (1940), and the YMCA Building (1930s).
Republic Act no. 597
CA 171 was subsequently superseded by Republic Act (RA) no. 597 in 1951, which declared Intramuros a “National Historical Monument.” This declaration was a significant milestone in architectural regulation in Intramuros as it ensured continuity of policy from the US colonial period to the Post-WWII newly independent Philippine Republic. As with CA 171, RA 597 mandated that buildings in Intramuros “shall conform strictly to the Spanish type of architecture of the proper period.”
It further stated that no building in Intramuros shall be constructed without the approval of the National Planning Commission, which, in effect, stripped the City Engineer of Manila supervisory powers over Intramuros. Moreover, like CA 171, the effectiveness of the implementation of RA597 is also questionable, given that extant buildings post-1951, such as the Schurdut Building, among many others, reflected modern architecture unsympathetic with the colonial styles being promoted.
Republic Act no. 1569 and 1607
Modernism made a strategic advance in 1956 when Republic Act 1569 was enacted which allowed for the construction of a “modern building” on the site of the Ayuntamiento de Manila in avour of the Central Bank of the Philippines. Another major step in this direction was advanced in the same year when RA 1607 was enacted which repealed CA 171 and RA 597. With this, RA 1607 effectively stripped Intramuros of all its existing architectural regulations, regardless of effectivity. It can be argued, however, that even without the repeal of the provisions of RA 1607, modern constructions in Intramuros had already organically gained momentum since the 1950s. A repeal of Intramuros’ legal protects was in reality a mere recognition of the realities of the 1950s and 1960s.
Presidential Decree no. 1537
This momentum started seeing a reverse in 1978 when Presidential Decree No. 1537 was issued by President Marcos, which reinstated as enforceable the colonial architectural narrative in Intramuros. Under Section 8, it provided that “the character of all buildings to be constructed within the Walled City shall conform substantially to the Spanish-Filipino colonial architecture of the proper period.” Unlike CA 171 and RA 597 which were totally devoid of any qualifications, schematics, or measurements on what constitutes period architecture. PD 1537 provided for the first time, height regulations (Section 10).
Presidential Decree No. 1616
Development planning in Intramuros reached its climax in 1979 when Presidential Decree No. 1616 was issued, which led to the creation of the Intramuros Administration (IA). Citing Intramuros as a “priceless heritage” and a “major historical landmark of the Philippines,” PD 1616 declared the district as a “Monument to the Hispanic period of Philippine history,” and that the “National consciousness program” “demands” its restoration, development, and maintenance. As such, under these pretexts, the Intramuros Administration was given the mandate to guide the restoration and orderly development of Intramuros following the lines of “Philippine-Spanish architecture of the Sixteenth to the Nineteenth Century.” Moving further than previous attempts toward architectural regulation, its Implementing Rules and Regulations—arguably the first true architectural guidelines so far—provided specific premises for height, massing, and use of materials for the construction of buildings.
Intramuros: A Heritage of Regulations
Regulating Intramuros has in itself become a unique tradition. In terms of architectural aesthetics suiting a specific historical period, Intramuros is the most regulated locality in the Philippines. In fact, Intramuros is the only locality in the Philippines where, for cultural reasons, the use, height, scale, and aesthetics of all new constructions and development are pre-determined and strictly regulated under the force of a national law. The history of its laws, issuances, and regulations relevant to the standardization of architectural character have spanned decades starting with the US Colonial era Commonwealth government to the present times.
But is the partiality toward Intramuros justifiable? In many respects it is.
Intramuros is one of the very few sites in the country where significance can be considered as being truly global. Its notability in world heritage rests on three unique fronts: firstly, it is one of the earliest established European colonial capitals in the Far East; secondly, at a time when China and Japan have officially adopted policies of isolation it functioned, via the Galleon trade, as a backdoor in connecting these celestial empires with the Americas, and by extension with Europe; and thirdly and most important in terms of urban planning, it is one of the finest examples of a fortified town in a grid street pattern completely surrounded by a wall system.
Intramuros is at the pinnacle of the Philippines’ pantheon of national patrimony, and since its significance and relevance transcends both the historical and the cultural, a discussion of its nature cannot be completed without superlatives. Among all heritage sites in the Philippines, Intramuros is by far the most ennobled and decorated, a position cemented by no less than the State through the following:
1. Intramuros as a National Historical Monument by virtue of an Act of Congress, R.A. No. 597 (1951);
2. Intramuros as a Monument to the Spanish period of Philippine History by virtue of a Presidential Decree, PD 1616 (1979);
3. Intramuros as a buffer zone to the Outstanding Universal Value of the San Agustin Church by virtue of a recognition by the World Heritage Committee, Decision 37 COM 8B.48 (2013).
Accessory to these decorations at large are the following titles attached to its individual components:
1. The site of the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila as a National Park by virtue of RA 597 (1951);
2. The Fort Santiago as a National Cultural Treasure by virtue of a declaration from the National Museum of the Philippines, and as a National Shrine twice over by virtue of RA 597 (1951) and RA 1607 (1956);
3. The San Agustin Church as a National Cultural Treasure by virtue of PD 260 (1973), and as a World Heritage Site by virtue of a recognition by the World Heritage Committee (1993);
4. The monuments to Simon de Ande, Isabel II, Legazpi-Urdaneta, and Carlos IV as National Cultural Treasures by virtue of a declaration by the National Museum of the Philippines (2016);
5. The Manila Cathedral as an Important Cultural Property by virtue of a recognition by the National Museum of the Philippines (2018);
6. The Intendencia or Aduana as an Important Cultural Property by a virtue of a recognition by the National Museum of the Philippines (2018).
So going back to the question: is the State’s partiality over Intramuros justifiable? Yes, it is justifiable in every way possible. PD 1616 poetically summarizes this when it referred to Intramuros as a “Monument to the Hispanic period of Philippine history.”
References
Arcilla, R. (2016). Registry of Intramuros Cultural and Historical Properties. Intramuros Administration.
Renacimiento Manila 
Leave a comment