Global Practice
& ASEAN Integration
UAP is transforming from a national
group into a global entity that bridges cultures and
geographies. A global UAP will serve as a bridge
to provide knowledge and understanding of the
global practice of architecture, and will build a
professional level of standards through its
governance, corporate and social responsibilities,
and continuing education requirements. As more
and more global members become involved, it will
raise the practice and business standards of its
members, thus creating a more level and open
process for professional practice.
According to Professional Regulatory
Board of Architecture Member, Hon. Robert M.
Mirafuente, "We just need to prepare
professionally and be globally competitive by
consistently educating ourselves".
Architect Mirafuente urged all Filipino
architects to apply for the accreditation (ASEAN
Architect) since they are hoping to have
“borderless practice” of architects within ASEAN
by 2020.
ASEAN architect urges Filipino
colleagues to be 'globally
competitive'
ASEAN-accredited architect and Frima Global
Home Corporation President Robert Mirafuente
called on his Filipino colleagues to keep pace with
the ongoing Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN) integration.
"We just need to prepare professionally
and be globally competitive by consistently
educating ourselves. Attending forums like this is
a positive action to transform better," Mirafuente
said at the 13th Green Forum organized by the
Green Architecture Advocacy Philippines (Green
AP) on Friday, July 15.
Mirafuente said that most architects in the
Philippines have only completed their
undergraduate degrees while their counterparts in
other ASEAN countries have masteral and
doctorate degrees.
Mirafuente pointed out that only 52 out of the
39,000 registered architects in the Philippines,
including the 2016 board passers, are accredited to
practice in other ASEAN countries.
“Unfortunately for Filipino architects, we are only
at level 6. But many of our counterparts in the
ASEAN region are at level 7 and level 8," said
Mirafuente, referring to the Philippine
Qualifications Framework (PQF), which indicates
how architects are rated in terms of educational
attainment.
According to the PQF, architects with
undergraduate degrees fall under the 6th level
while those who have obtained masteral and
doctorate degrees are on the 7th and 8th levels,
respectively.
Indonesia has 90 ASEAN architects and Singapore
has 78. Meanwhile, Malaysia only has 35 ASEAN
architects while both Cambodia and Brunei have
none.
Mirafuente urged all Filipino architects to apply
for the accreditation since they are hoping to have
“borderless practice” of architects within ASEAN
by 2020.

GREEN ARCHITECTURE. Architect Robert Mirafuente (middle)
with agripreneur Arsenio Barcelona (left), and Engineer Arnel
Alvarez (right) during the open forum at the 13th Green Forum
organized by the Green Architecture Advocacy Philippines (Green
AP), July 15. Picture by Tessa Barre/Rappler
Improving the quality of
Filipino Architects
The current level of Filipino architects is
a "reason to emphasize" the importance of the
continuing professional development (CPD)
program, according Mirafuente.
The Architecture Act of 2004 or RA 9266, already
promotes the CPD, seeking to improve the quality
of architects, enhance their competence, and
ensure that they keep up with new technologies
and practices.
CPD, according to RA 9266, refers to a
“sustaining and progressive learning process that
maintains, enhances, or increases the knowledge
and continuing ability of architects.”
However, under the law, professional
development is only “voluntary” for architects.
A proposed CPD measure, which was approved by
the Senate in August 2015, makes the continuous
learning process a requirement.
“We are just waiting for the signature of President
Duterte," said Mirafuente.
Once passed into law, at least 30 units of
CPD are required for the renewal of professional
license for architects, Mirafuente said.
But in the end, there are "no professional secrets"
that make Filipino architects stand out in the
global practice of the profession.
"We just have good Filipino traits like being
warm-hearted and hardworking. We are resilient,"
stressed Mirafuente.
The experience of the Philippines as a developing
country that is vulnerable to disasters also puts
local architects in a good position to become
experts in sustainable global design, according to
Mirafuente.
"We can become experts in disaster-
resilient design or we can become
green architecture specialists or
consultants to the other countries
which are increasingly affected by
climate change."
Architecture as a global practice
The rise, the tensions, and the future of Philippine
architecture as a globally-competitive practice
“We are starting the ascent to going global,” said
Cathy Saldaña, Managing Director of ARCO
Group, in a discourse on architecture as a global
practice. Saldaña was joined in the round table
discussion by Denise de Castro, Principal of DDC
Architectural Studio; and Raymond Hoe, Director
of Scott Brownrigg’s Singapore office. The
Shelter Dialogue, moderated by urban
planner Julia Nebrija, was part of the three-
day Anthology Festival 2018 held in Fort
Santiago, Manila.
Within the ruins of Rajah Sulayman Theater, the
rise and the tensions of practice that goes beyond
the borders of the archipelago were deliberated.
The three architects agreed that architects,
especially the students, only need to take
advantage of what has been started while
maintaining their local identity to deliver design
that is competitive worldwide.

Raymond Hoe, Cathy Saldaña, Denise de Castro, and Julia
Nebrija during the second day of Anthology Festival 2018
On internationalization and local identity
As proponents of going global in the field of
architecture, the panelists talked about how they
took their designs into the international scene, and
how other architects and designers can do it too.
“We are doing work in the United States right now
and our clients there are mostly in hospitality; and
we work in the Philippines for foreign clients as
well,” shared de Castro. “I think it works both
ways as we work abroad and we work in the
Philippines . . . And so it’s always working at
giving design quality that they (foreign clients) are
expecting, usually this goes beyond Philippine
standards.”
Saldaña also mentioned projects here and abroad
(China, Myanmar, and Vietnam to name a few
countries) that put their company not only in the
directories of developers in the country but also
internationally. “If we really know how to
embrace ‘internationalization,’ the globalization
that is happening in the Philippines, then every
Filipino architect can be a global architect,”
Saldaña pointed out.
While advocating to welcome influences from
different countries, new methods, and
technologies, the panelists still push for
maintaining identity. Hoe emphasized that
maintaining identity is what’s going to give you an
edge in the practice.
On the tensions of practicing in a global
approach
Hoe said that “people are the most complicated
beings,” so resistance and disagreements in terms
of design and implementation are expected. This
human complexity creates tensions in the practice.
However, he said that through healthy dialogues
and periodic reviews, this challenge can be
resolved.
De Castro also mentioned problems arising from
the very local levels of the government in terms of
urban planning, zoning, and tourism, as well as the
Building Code. Saldaña agreed that there have
been problems in the Building Code that must be
addressed. For instance, the gap between the civil
engineers and the architects, those who sign the
codes, contractors, and lobbyists.
Raymond Hoe, Cathy Saldaña, Denise de Castro, and Julia
Nebrija
On the future of Philippine Architecture
Technology plays a huge part in the future of
Philippine architecture. “It must be taken
advantage of,” De Castro encouraged. Architects
and designers alike must use technology as a
competitive tool and bridge the gaps by
connecting through it. Nebrija also stressed the
significance of a paradigm shift for the
collaboration of designers and engineers.
Also, according to Hoe, Architecture is a
product of science, engineering, and art. Thus, like
a scientific method, Saldaña pressed that one must:
1) understand technology (BIM),
2) understand the materials (particularly
sustainable materials),
3) understand the methodology, and 4) know how
to translate it graphically.
“That’s why I emphasized earlier on
understanding style [and] documentation in order
for you to meet global standards,” Saldaña added.
“That’s how you can be global either here in the
Philippines or when you go outside the country.
And hopefully, just like Denise, come back.”
Hoe further said that “constantly asking ourselves
where we want to be next,” makes practicing
globally less intimidating. He encouraged the
young architects in the audience to have a
“mindset to embrace the forthcoming future.”
IN FOCUS: Benchmarking
Philippine Architecture
The first year of the new millennium was
a year of trauma, reflection and re-orientation for
the Philippines and Philippine architecture. Little
came by way of actual buildings completed, and
those in progress were still mostly foreign-
designed or influenced, contributing little to the
development of Filipino architecture. In fact, the
biggest news in the architectural world was the
demolition of landmark buildings and damage
caused to heritage structures and sites. Much like
the political and social structure of our country, the
integrity of our built heritage and emerging
architecture was and is being shaken to its very
foundations.
Philippine architecture, both product and
profession, faces the danger of deterioration of
quality and depth wrought by the economic events
of the last two years and the continuing lack of
intellectual discourse related to pedagogy and
practice. The effects of the Asian financial crisis
have taken its toll on the country and consequently
on the business of real estate development, the
fountainhead of architectural production in the
boom years of the mid-1990s. What little activity
apparent in the skyline of our cities are the tail-
ends of those few projects that have found enough
capital for completion.
Towers of Power
Most of these building projects, of larger
scale and scope, are products of foreign
architectural firms with the token creative
participation of local “architects-of-record.”
Construction billboards, up and down Ayala
Avenue and other business and commercial
districts in Metro Manila (and even other urban
centers like Cebu City), proudly proclaim the
names of overseas architectural “design
consultants.” A listing of these forms a veritable
“who’s who” in the universe of western design.
The likes of I. M. Pei, KPF (Kohn, Pendersen and
Fox), SOM (Skidmore Owings and Merill), HOK,
Gensler, Arquitectonica and even Michael Graves
have been used to “brand” local projects.
All this further commodifies architecture in the
Philippines as symbols of elitist power and
prestige or bottom-line profits driven by the local
market perception that “foreign is better.” These
structures are also signifiers of continuing cultural
hegemony by the West. Our building in this
framed aesthetic has the effect of further
orientalizing ourselves in occidental towers rising
physically and ideologically above the
surrounding unequal social landscape.
On the functional level clients or developers
justify the commissioning of outside consultants
by pointing out that skyscraper projects in the 30-
to 50-story range involves realms of expertise
unavailable locally. Many local professionals
would beg to differ, however, given that a good
number of Filipino architects, engineers and
project specialists have more than adequate
competence in high-rise glass, steel and cladding
construction.
This collective competence has been accumulated
from experience working abroad, a result of the
diaspora of Filipino professionals in the previous
two decades. The problem again seems to be that
of the lower regard by Filipino developers for
Filipino professionals. (In the current economic
setting, however, clients have reluctantly tuned
back to the more reasonably priced services of
locals.)
The new-modernist or retro-modernist towers that
have sprung up have mostly been permutations of
previous designs by these foreign architects. A
cursory review of any coffee table book on
contemporary architecture would prove this point.
Very few have taken any more effort, at contextual
or original design, than just going through the
motions of adapting elevator capacities, parking-
bay requirements or superficial adaptations to
climactic conditions.
The same may be said, however, for the few
towers designed by local architects. In the defense
of the local designers though, it must be stated that
little opportunity is given them to express any
more than compliance to utilitarian briefs for
maximum leasable space in a building. Pressure
from clients also force Filipino architects towards
copycat façadism; to adopting a “fashionable”
(foreign-looking) style to ensure marketability but
with less budget and consultantcy fees.
Noteworthy, too, in these new buildings of steel,
glass and aluminum is the lack of Filipino art. In
the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s, the art of Filipino
sculptors, painters, and craftsmen embellished the
spaces, walls and facades of our modern
architecture. A case in point is the original
Philamlife building on United Nations Avenue. Its
architect, Carlos Arguelles, made sure that the
building accommodated works by the likes of
Vicente Manansala and Galo Ocampo. The new
Philamlife building on Paseo de Roxas is devoid
of artwork. Other new towers prefer minimalist
interior treatments rather than any investment on
or celebration of Filipino borloloy that had been a
definition of both our vernacular and adapted
architecture.
Typologically, the tower or tower-on-a-podium is
the formula of choice in the speculative
commercial towers that make the bulk of current
work. Little contribution is made by these
examples of “plunkitecture” (buildings that may
just as well be from New York or London and
“plunked” in Makati or Ortigas) to the urban
design of city streets. This is because of their
predisposition to leasing out ground level space to
banks and similar institutions that produce little
visual or social interface with the pedestrian. The
rhythm of the street is also regularly disrupted by
driveways, ramps and palisades of utility poles in
older districts of Manila and poorly planned
centers like Cubao and Ortigas.
Hopefully some mixed-use redevelopment
projects, like those currently ongoing in
Ayala/Makati’s commercial center and Greenbelt
areas, will correct this and strive for more
pedestrian-friendly environments. The same
pedestrian-friendliness is promised in newer
districts like Fort Bonifacio, the Rockwell Urban
Center and even a new Ayala project in Cebu City,
though little of this is evident in the built-up
portions of these districts. Not surprisingly, almost
all of these projects were planned by foreign
consultants.
Aside from high-rise towers, the rest of
architectural (and related design) production this
year focused mainly on residential work,
renovations or interiors. Large residential
(bordering on the palatial) mansions made for a
niche market by a number of architects. But
despite this shift in source of projects, even the
larger or more successful of local design firms that
survived to the turn of the century cut back even
further in staff and operations. Managing to carry
on with work were the practices or offices of the
likes of Bobby Mañosa, Bong Recio and Meloy
Casas, Philip Recto, Jun Palafox, Coscolluela, Lor
and Ed Calma, and Andy Locsin.
Defending our Architectural Heritage
The little activity in current construction
was overshadowed by the more controversial
event this year—the demolition of the Jai Alai
building on Taft Avenue. The Jai Alai building
had been a landmark in the city since its
construction in 1940. Designed by the American
architect Welton Becket in the art deco variant of
the streamline-moderne, it was a symbol of the
optimistic Commonwealth period of our nation’s
history as well as of the vibrant social life of the
city in the post-war years.
Plans for the building’s demolition were made
known by Mayor Lito Atienza as early as 1999.
The city courts needed a new building to house the
overflowing salas of the judges. Concerned
citizens, led by the Heritage Conservation Society
(HCS), made representations with the mayor and
managed to get a promise from him to reconsider
these plans and to look instead at adaptive re-use.
All this came to naught as the city woke up one
morning in February to the sound of jackhammers
gnawing away at the 60-year old edifice.
The controversy made the front pages of the
national dailies. It was also picked up by
television. The HCS, desperate after finding no
response to normal channels of opposition,
mounted demonstrations and a vigil. An e-mail
barrage was also launched to try to get the mayor
to reverse his decision. Some members, led by
Architect Dom Galicia, took a more direct
approach by physically putting themselves
between the demolition machines and the
building.
The drama went on for over a month as the debate
continued in editorial pages and letters to the
editor. Schools of architecture and the two
architectural associations, the United Architects of
the Philippines (UAP) and the Philippine Institute
of Architects (PIA), sent letters of support and
expressed alarm. At this point the issue went
regional as both Asiaweek and Newsweek picked
up the story.
But despite the publicity, public pressure and the
valiant efforts of the HCS, the building came
down. Politics and government’s lack of
awareness of and concern for cultural heritage
won the day. Despite this, the cause of the HCS
and other groups from civil society was given a
boost. The sacrifice of the Jai Alai building helped
fuel efforts for conservation and gather support for
other endangered buildings and sites.
To date the rubble-filled site of the demolished Jai
Alai building stands empty. The construction of
the new courts building may have to wait for a new
local government or even a new national
dispensation to become a reality.
Parallel Controversies
Two other controversies in Manila ran parallel to
the Jai Alai issue. Nearby, the walls of Intramuros
were being desecrated while by the waterfront a
new complex started construction, endangering
the historic fabric of the Luneta.
Charges were filed against Intramuros
Administrator Dominador Ferrer for causing
“irreparable damage” to the Intramuros walls. The
HCS again led the struggle through the efforts of
its president, Bambi Harper, and its executive
director, Attorney Trixie Cruz-Angeles.
The desecration of the walls also started two years
ago when a license was given to a private company
to build restaurants on top. The restaurants turned
out to be cheap, inelegant lean-tos meant to serve
the large student population of Intramuros.
Guidelines set by the Intramuros Administration
(IA) for proper construction were violated. After
the media and the public were alerted, the IA
backed off only to resurrect the project in another
form.
A lease was granted to a private company to re-use
the Baluarte de San Angeles, Puerta Isabel II
Chambers, Sta. Lucia barracks, American barracks
and portions of the Asean Garden. The HCS
discovered that the establishments which
subleased these from the main company again did
not follow IA guidelines and did not have any
permits. The walls and interiors have been
damaged by the renovation work.
A related issue, raised by both Harper and Augusto
Villalon in their respective newspaper columns,
was the inappropriateness of locating music
lounges and restaurants within the walls
themselves when there were several other areas
within Intramuros that could be redeveloped for
these uses. All these issues highlighted the general
problem of finding a viable approach to managing
the conservation of the historic district and
highlighting its role in revitalizing central Manila,
including Binondo, across the river on the north,
Luneta on the south, and the waterfront on the
west.
On this waterfront rose another threat to the
historic fabric of the city and to the Luneta in
particular. The Philippine Tourism Authority,
under the leadership of Lito Banayo, launched its
“Waterfront Development Project.” This P400-
million “flagship” project proposes a new
structure to be built off the existing promenade
behind the Quirino grandstand. The structure,
designed by Architect Froilan Hong, is a
boardwalk elevated above the water and housing
restaurants and related facilities.
The project was started last year. The initial
designs were much criticized for the bulk of the
structure, its lack of contextual connection with
colonial buildings in the area, and the loss both of
physical access to the waterfront and the view of
Manila’s famed sunset. Again the HCS led efforts
to oppose any further building on the waterfront to
conserve this historical and natural resource. The
Philippine Association of Landscape Architects
also voiced its concern over the project’s
environmental impact.
The revised design, released earlier this year,
showed adjustments to these criticisms, including
a study of visual corridors to the bay. Assurances,
too, were given that the new promenade would be
freely accessible to the public and that
environmental concerns would be addressed.
However, public hearings, if any were called at all,
did not seem to have been given due publicity.
Endorsed by Mayor Atienza, the waterfront
project proceeded with initial piling works by the
middle of the year. Since then little progress has
been visible. There is a danger that, like the city
courts intended to be housed in the Jai Alai site,
this project might have to be sidelined in view of
the current political crisis and the May 2000
elections. Like the Jumbo Floating Restaurant at
the other end of the bay, this project might turn
into another half-submerged white elephant.
A similar controversy was brewing in Cebu City’s
waterfront area. Mayor Alvin Garcia unveiled
plans for Cebu’s own waterfront redevelopment
with a bypass road to be built under historic Plaza
Independencia. Concerned citizens and local
architects raised a howl as the construction
endangered centuries-old acacia trees and the
overall waterfront development plan had been set
with little consultation with stakeholder groups.
The common thread in all of these controversies is
the lack of transparency and public participation in
the process of deciding on the viability of the
project, its compatibility within heritage sites or its
relation to landmark structures. Of concern, too, is
the expenditure of hundreds of millions of pesos in
public funds (or projected loans to be paid
eventually by the public) to realize questionable
construction projects.
Disappearing Heritage
On other matters related to conservation,
we have seen or will see the demolition of several
more landmark buildings significant in Philippine
twentieth century architectural development.
In Makati, the Neimeyeresque Union Church by
Jose Zaragoza was demolished to make way for a
new church. A magnificent yucca tree (Yucca
elephantipes) perished in the process. The Insular
Life Building on Ayala Avenue, a landmark tower
by Cesar Concio, is slated for demolition soon.
(Napoleon Abueva’s masterful relief on the
building’s façade is being transferred to a new site
or saved for the new replacement building.)
Finally, there is confirmation that Leandro
Locsin’s Ayala Museum will be leveled and a new
museum built on a corner site nearby. The
demolition reportedly comes with Locsin’s
blessing (given before he passed away), and his
son Andy is supervising the design of the new
edifice.
In old Manila, the marvelous Marvel Building on
Calle Juan Luna disappeared overnight. Many
buildings in the Binondo and Escolta areas are
sporting demolition permits or, like the art deco
Meralco Headquarters on San Marcelino Street,
are boarded up, awaiting decisions for its sale or
demolition. While in New Manila, Quezon City,
as well as older residential districts of Sta. Ana,
Sampaloc and San Juan, we are losing heritage
houses almost every week, with many being
turned into standard, high-density, nondescript
townhouse developments.
Hope for Heritage
There have been a few bright spots in the
conservation scene. One is the conservation of St.
Cecilia’s Hall at the campus of St. Scholastica’s
College in Manila. The 1932 design of Andres
Luna de San Pedro (renovated in 1955 by Carlos
Arguelles) was used sensitively in reconfiguring
and improving the layout of the hall.
The hall has been improved with the addition of an
orchestra pit, air-conditioning, and improvements
in lighting and acoustics. The conservation and
renovation architects were the O.B. Mapua Group
led by O.B. Mapua and Joel Lopez. Theater design
was by Dennis Marasigan and Gerry Fernandez
with interiors by Joel Panlilio.
Another excellent example of conservation and
adaptive re-use that opened this year is the Museo
Ilocos Norte in Laoag. An old brick Tabacalera
warehouse was converted into a museum on
Ilocano life. Conservation architect Rene Luis
Mata resurrected the edifice with the help of
historian Regalado Trota Jose and Al Valenciano.
Mata’s approach to conservation was thorough yet
accommodating to modern functional
requirements of a museum.
The Malate Church Convent and Mission Center
was also inaugurated this year. The competition
for the project was won the other year by the firm
of P.Y. Lim and Partners. The new, four-story
building replaces the old convento built in 1948.
The new building fits in the context of the site and
reflects the architectural style of Malate Church in
details like the cornice treatment and fenestration.
Though not a strictly conservation project, the new
building shows how heritage sites can
accommodate expanded uses without
compromising historical integrity.
Other conservation efforts in places like Vigan,
Taal, Silay and the southern towns of Cebu, among
others, have thrived despite apathy from local
government authorities and lack of public
awareness. But on the main, most towns and cities
still neglect their heritage. Iloilo’s Fort San Pedro,
which houses a beer garden within its crumbling
walls, epitomizes this. Efforts by the local UAP
chapter and support from Sen. Franklin Drilon
have yet to see fruition.
The NCCA, the HCS and the UAP have pursued
programs for documentation of heritage sites and
buildings, organized talks and seminars on
adaptive re-use and heritage conservation. A
Heritage Bill is also being prepared in Congress
and the Senate to give more teeth to these
programs and to arrest the continuing depletion of
irreplaceable cultural resources of built heritage.
Architecture in Media
Architecture and design continued to
enjoy increasing space and exposure in national
dailies and magazines in the first year of the new
century. A number of books on Philippine
architecture or featuring Philippine projects were
launched this year. Our built heritage was also
given television coverage on cable channels such
as Lakbay TV and on regular television shows like
“Probe” (on specific issues like the Jai Alai and
Intramuros).
Philippine Star and Philippine Daily Inquirer led
most national dailies in the amount of space given.
Both have regular columns on architecture and
urban issues. The lifestyle and metro sections of
both newspapers regularly feature architecture and
design, a contrast to a number of years ago when
most articles on architecture were fairly limited to
the construction and real estate pages. Other
newspapers like Philippine Post, The Manila
Times, and The Chronicle, printed features on
architecture and interior design (mostly residential
work).
Design magazines have survived drastically cut
advertising budgets. The field is led by veteran
publication Design and Architecture and relative
newcomer Bluprint Magazine (now on its second
year). Other magazines like Arkikonst and Hinge
manage to hang on.
In December, the University of the Philippines’
College of Architecture launched a new journal.
Muhon is a semi-annual publication on
architecture, landscape architecture and
environmental design. The inaugural issue
contained papers ranging from practical issues in
“Parking Design in the Tropics” by Zenaida
Galingan to a postmodernist/poststructuralist look
at Filipino space in “‘Mala-Baklang Espasyo’ sa
Arkitekturang Filipino: Estetika, Morpolohiya,
Konteksto (Panimulang Pagtuklas At
Paggalugad).”
The title of the journal was originally used as a title
for a travelling exhibit on Filipino architecture
funded by the NCCA that started with a CCP
launch early in the year. Launched this year, too,
was an NCCA-sponsored publication on
vernacular building practices in the Philippines.
Appropriately titled Oro, Plata, Mata, the book is
the work of Ernesto Zarate, a practicing architect.
The book had its origin in a series of
advertisements for Amon Trading Corporation in
the ’60s that featured building practices similar to
Chinese geomancy.
Last June another practicing architect, Bnn C.
Bautista (with a collaborator, Franklin Primo
Libatique), launched Philippine Architecture
1948-1978 (Reyes Publishing, Quezon City). The
project had a tentative start in 1975 involving
interviews with the likes of Locsin, Nakpil,
Mendoza, Formoso, the Mañosa brothers. It took
another 25 years for the book to see print.
The book contains a selection of 11 buildings
which the authors felt had a strong impact on the
architectural profession, including Juan Nakpil’s
UP buildings, the Mañosa brothers’ Sulu
Restaurant, Locsin’s CCP, Angel Nakpil’s
National Press Club, and Felipe Mendoza’s
Batasang Pambansa Complex. The book is uneven
in graphic quality and loosely structured in its
writing. But it is a laudable effort, considering the
dearth of writing on contemporary Filipino
architecture, and the book was personally funded
by the authors.
Filipino architecture continued to slowly come to
the attention of regional and international readers.
Robert Powell’s new book, the fourth in his series
on residential design in Asia, entitled The New
Asian house (Select Publishing, Singapore),
features two Filipino architects. The Pablito
Calma House by Ed Calma and the Chan House by
Joey Yupangco are featured in a collection that
includes works of rising stars in Asian architecture
like Kamil Merican of Malaysia and Wong Mun
Sum of Singapore.
The same houses are also featured in another book,
Tropical Living: Contemporary Dream Houses in
the Philippines by Elizabeth Reyes, Fernando
Zialcita and Paulo Alcazaren with photography by
Chester Ong (Periplus Editions, Hong Kong). This
book follows in the steps of Filipino Style of two
years ago but with a more focused theme and
featuring more work by a new generation of
architects like Manny Minana, Bong Recio,
Conrad Onglao, Benny Velasco and Andy Locsin.
Discourse in Architecture
The year saw three major symposia
tackling urban planning, design, and architectural
issues. Two of these were hosted by academe and
the third by a forward-thinking developer.
Last April the first symposium was organized by
the College of Architecture and Fine Arts of the
University of Santo Tomas. “Cities 2000:
Sustainable and Humane” drew over 300
participants. Three days of talks covered over 70
case studies of architecture and planning
interventions to cope with problems of housing
and city planning. These produced much
interaction among architects, planners, and public
administrators from the regions and from the rest
of the world.
At times it seemed that more talks had been
scheduled than could be accommodated within the
tight schedule. But this might be attributed to both
the enthusiasm of the organizers and the
increasing acknowledgement of the importance of
professionally addressing the problems of cities in
general and the distinctive problems of Asian
megacities in particular.
Significantly, the convention led to the drafting of
the “Human Cities Agenda 2000,” a manifesto
highlighting the dire problems of urbanization and
proposing solutions and sustainable approaches to
development. The first meeting was organized
with the NCCA, the Philippine Institute of
Environmental Planners (PIEP), the Eastern
Regional Organization for Planning and Housing,
ARCASIA, and the UAP. At that meeting, it was
agreed that the convention would be held every
two years.
The second event was a seminar presented as part
of the Luis A. Yulo Memorial Series II and
sponsored by Teleray Investment and
Development Corp. The forum sought to
“examine the impacts of the paradigm choice (of
post-war models of real estate development) and
its direct relationship to the social fabric.”
“The Quest for Community: New Urbanism in
Asia” featured the New Urbanist couple Andres
Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk as main
speakers. Also featured were Yatin Pandya,
associate director of the Vastu Shilpa Foundation
for Studies and Research in Environmental
Design, Dr. Heng Chye Kiang of the National
University of Singapore, architect Jun Palafox,
and this writer. Co-sponsors were Palafox and
Associates and the local UAP chapter.
The third event was another conference on
megacities hosted by the Far Eastern University.
The “International Conference on Metro Manila
and Megacities Development” carried the official
theme of “Managing Megacities: 21st Century
Challenges and Opportunities.” The timing of the
conference in September was less than ideal, for
there was the peace and order problem in the South
and political turmoil was brewing in Manila.
Other venues for discourse were not lacking. The
UAP, the Philippine Institute of Architects, and
the PIEP held their respective annual national
conventions with the requisite seminars and talks.
The subjects of these talks have shifted noticeably
in the last two years from practical issues of
competitive global practice and building
technology to “softer,” more academic topics of
history and concerns for architectural
conservation.
The UAP, which celebrated its silver jubilee this
year, hosted talks that emphasized planning issues.
The topics: “Proposed Land Use Plan and Zoning
Ordinance in the City of Makati” by Prof.
Geronimo Manahan, “Moral Values in
Environmental Planning” by Sixto E. Tolentino,
and “The Quezon City Land Use and Zoning” by
architect Gerry Magat. The rest of the talks
featured academic discussions of conservation and
history: “Architectural Preservation of Historical
Philippine Churches” by Fr. Pedro G. Galende,
OSA, and “Arkitekturang Filipino: Spaces and
Places in History” by Felipe de Leon Jr., Regalado
T. Jose, and Augusto Villalon.
The UAP, which has a new national president in
architect Prosperidad C. Luis, has also co-
organized a travelling exhibition with the NCCA’s
Committee on Architecture and Monuments and
Sites. “Arkitekturang Filipino: Spaces and Places
in History” was curated by two UP-based
architects, Edson Cabalfin and Gerard Lico.
Lico and Cabalfin shaped the exhibit to bring out
the heterotopic quality of our architecture. They
framed it as a process developed “out of
contradiction, mediation, and transformation.”
The exhibit’s visuals accentuated the physical and
spatial texture of Filipino architecture, but the
curators also endeavored to make manifest
Filipino architecture’s cultural expression as
politics, ideology, and power.
That these two architects of the younger
generation have pursued scholarship in
architectural history, theory, and criticism is a
good sign for Philippine architecture. Even more
encouraging is that they and a few others have
taken to sharing their research and insights as
writers, given more space in print media and
supported by institutions like the NCCA and the
UAP.
Intellectual discourse is slowly spreading and
increasing in depth. There is still a restrained air in
these scholars’ critiques, but the untested,
seemingly shallow waters of public and
professional appreciation may lead to an
acceptance of architectural criticism as a valued
part of the process of evolving a Filipino
architecture.
This discourse is needed, too, in architectural
pedagogy. In 2000, the two leading schools, UST
and UP, have embarked on programs to refocus
their syllabi in response on current concerns for
“green” architecture and greater exposure to
aspects of heritage, and the urban context of
emerging Asian and Philippine architecture.
The UST under a new dean, architect Louis Ferrer,
is restructuring as a consequence of its separation
from the College of Fine Arts. The UP College of
Architecture, under its also relatively new dean,
architect Cristopher S.P. Espina, is encouraging
more research and its publication. Other schools
like the FEU are taking more pro-active stances.
The rest of the academe, however, is for the status
quo, producing architectural graduates to feed into
the global market for competent CADD operators
and backroom designers. The need is for more
architects of competence no doubt, but also needed
are professionals of calibers with ambition, self-
esteem and leadership.
This is what we have to do internally. Externally
we still need to project our architecture as our own
and not just as an adaptation or mere mutation of
foreign “styles.” One opportunity came our way
through a piece of Filipino architecture framed as
a national exposition pavilion at the Expo 2000 in
Hanover last year.
Exposing Filipino Architecture to the World
International expositions have always been an
opportunity to showcase our contemporary
architecture and benchmark ourselves against the
rest of the world. Notable in the Philippines’ past
participation in these events have been Otelio
Arellano’s salakot pavilion at the 1964 World’s
Fair and Leandro Locsin’s shell pavilion at the
Expo ’70 in Osaka.
After 30 years of absence, the Philippines
resurfaced at the Expo 2000 Hanover with a
pavilion that reflected the state of Philippine
architecture, just as the pavilions of ’64 and ’70
reflected its states in their respective times.
Participation was made possible by CITEM,
Department of Trade and Industry, NCCA and the
German government resulted in the
commissioning of architect Ed Calma’s pavilion’s
design. Given a tight budget and little time, Calma
produced a piece of work as distinctive in form as
the two previous Philippine pavilions.
While Arellano’s salakot was literal and Locsin’s
shell was expressionist, Calma’s sensual weave of
bamboo lines and planes was evocative. His
basket-like construction of bamboo-derived
elements created an environment, a deconstructed
architecture that sought more to frame its contents
than to contain them in a conventional envelope.
Calma’s piece differed situationally from the
previous two in that it was housed in a cavernous
interior space instead of in the open. There was no
need to aim for a distinctive silhouette or to bother
with climate control. Freed from these constraints,
Calma’s design focused on an almost totally
introverted delineation of space and the temporal
experience of moving through it as displacements
of interaction with the various artifacts and digital
images contained in the pavilion.
Calma’s design was augmented by Melissa LaO’s
installations. She used elements that unfolded
from the logic and structure of Calma’s
framework. These in turn contained the digitized
or printed images and served as plinths for
material that provided the layering in a texture that
was to blur both message and medium.
Unfortunately, the message or curatorial content
was, in the opinion of many, decidedly less
focused than the medium.
The trade fair was the biggest in the world this year
and ran from June to October. It was popular with
the expo’s visitors. There was a recurring theme of
the use of timber in many pavilions like Finland’s.
The Philippines’ contribution was in the use of an
indigenous material, bamboo, which is gaining
popularity now that appropriate downstream
processing technology has been developed.
Redefining the boundaries of Philippine
Architecture
The year 2000 was a benchmark year for
Philippine architecture. Heritage loss like the Jai
Alai and the impending loss of other landmarks,
such as the Insular Life Building by Concio and
Locsin’s Ayala Museum, have not been balanced
with any new work. This situation pervaded 2000
save for a few bursts of creative flair like Calma’s
pavilion and the continuing expression by a
younger architectural generation in residential
design. Major new work in progress like the Ninoy
Aquino International Airport III terminal building
and numerous towers in our city are foreign-
designed, relegating Filipino architects-of-record
to the role of glorified draftsmen, delineating our
future buildings and sites under the homogenizing
gaze of western culture.

The older generation of Filipino architects have,
like Felipe Mendoza, passed away or, like Concio,
retired into anonymity. Their work and
contributions are unappreciated and much worse,
mainly undocumented. A younger transitional
generation (back from stints abroad) is mainly
practicing based on sheer talent, rehashing styles
and forms absorbed from overseas as well as
driven by marketability and fashion. With few
exceptions, the goal of Filipino architecture has
been to produce goods for consumption rather than
to create environments that ennoble our culture
and to discover viable patterns of increasingly
dense urban life in the tropics.
Physical tragedies, like the Payatas and Cherry
Hills incidents, have caused the profession and
academe to reexamine their environmental and
social responsibilities. Our schools of architecture
and the various related professional organizations
have taken steps to acknowledge these
responsibilities and to benchmark progress along
more environmentally sustainable and culturally
sensitive lines.
Housing for the Filipino masses remains
an unattainable dream given the continuing tight
grip of the paradigm of sprawl and low-rise/high-
density formulas for residential typology.
Meanwhile, cultural and institutional architecture
is in the doldrums, creating quickly crumbling
symbols of political corruption rather than
monuments and sites of civic pride.
All crises and tragedies can be turned into
opportunities. Philippine architecture should
rebuild on the debris of a shattered economy and
shore up the foundations with a conserved heritage
and more substantial intellectual discourse.
Academe and professional associations must
endeavor to reorient the occidental inclinations of
Filipino clients and the public, along with
retrofitting the mindsets of Filipino architects
themselves.
The next year should bring a perceptible shift in
the way we view our architecture and the process
with which we produce our knowledge, our
practice and our experience of it. This shift must
occur, or the benchmark of 2000 may be lost in the
mire of social and cultural miasma, brewing in the
wake of neo-colonial, glossy, Mc-globalized,
throw-away architecture
APEC Architect
List of Filipino APEC Architects (as of July 1, 2017)

YOLANDA D. REYES PROSPERIDAD C. LUIS EUGENE G. GAN

EDILBERTO F. FLORENTINO FROILAN L. HONG PHILIP H. RECTO

EDRIC MARCO C. FLORENTINO ROMULO L. REYES MIGUEL C. GUERRERO III

ANA S. MANGALINO-LING JOSE SIAO LING MICHAEL T. ANG

CESAR V. CANCHELA MANUEL T. MAÑOSA, JR. ANGEL LAZARO, JR.

FRANCISCO T. MAÑOSA GEROMINO V. MANAHAN REMUS P. ANCHETA

JOSE MARI A. CAÑIZARES JONATHAN O. GAN DANIEL C. GO

NESTOR S. MANGIO ROLANDO D.L. MIRANDA WELLINGTON P. ONG

EDWARD C. TAN TEOFILO I. VASQUEZ ARMANDO N. ALLI

FELINO A. PALAFOX, JR. FLORDELIZA S. LAPERAL SEVERINO P. PEREZ

ANGELINE T. CHUA CHIACO NORBERTO M. NUKE ERNESTO ANTONINO D.

NASOL

GUILLERMO H. HISANCHA DANILO M. FUENTEBELLA ERIBERTO V. AGUIRRE

EDGAR S. CALMA KA KUEN T. CHUA CARLOS F. LACUNA

 ROMMEL A. AGULTO MA. NINA BAILON-ARCE MARIANO S. ARCE JR.

ROLANDO L. CORDERO MICHAEL G. DE CASTRO FILNA DAPHNE P. ESPINA

OMAR MAXWELL P. ESPINA JOSEPH MICHAEL P. ESPINA ANNETTE F. GADDI-

LIGANOR

ROBERT M. MIRAFUENTE MA. LOURDES M. ONOZAWA BENJAMIN K.

PANGANIBAN JR.

RUNDDY D. RAMILO JAIME G. SILVA ABELARDO M.

TOLENTINO JR.

What is APEC Architect? The Monitoring Committee Philippine Section is

The APEC Architect Project is intended to
facilitate the provision of architectural services
between participating economies around the
Pacific Rim. On this website you can find out how
this works and what is involved for senior
architects to participate.
The fundamental idea behind the project
is that using the APEC Architect Framework
participating economies are able to enter into
bilateral or multi-lateral arrangements which
allow senior architects in these economies to
access fast-track cross-border registration
procedures.
On January 28, 2004, the Professional Regulation
Commission (PRC), the Commission on Higher
Education (CHED) and the United Architects of
the Philippines (UAP), signed a Memorandum of
Agreement to bind themselves to work
harmoniously as the Monitoring Committee
Philippine Section of the APEC Architect Central
Council, towards the establishment of the APEC
Architect Register in the Philippines in accordance
with the guidelines adopted by the APEC
participating economies.
tasked to develop, maintain and implement the
APEC Architect Register in the Philippines in
accordance with the criteria agreed upon by the
APEC participating economies in the APEC
Architect Project.
Registration as an APEC
Architect
A candidate for registration as an APEC Architect
must be currently registered / licensed or
otherwise professionally recognised as an
architect in the economy that maintains the section
of the APEC Architect Register to which
application for admission is made. Architects must
demonstrate to the appropriate Monitoring
Committee that they have completed an accredited
/ recognised program of architectural education,
fulfilled pre-registration experience requirements,
have practised for at least seven years as registered
/ licensed architects and satisfied any additional
requirements, all in accordance with criteria
determined by the Central Council. Architects
may only be enrolled on the section of the APEC
Architect Register in their home economy, unless
otherwise provided by this Manual.
ASEAN Architect
List of Filipino ASEAN Architects (as of July 1, 2017)

YOLANDA D. REYES ROLANDO L. CORDERO FIDEL JOSE R. SIAPNO

ROZANNO CRUZ ROSAL EDRIC MARCO C. FLORENTINO MARIA BENITA O. REGALA

ANGELINE T. CHUA CHIACO CONSUELO C. BUENCAMINO ROMULO L. REYES

NORBERTO M. NUKE FRANCISCO T. MAÑOSA WILLIAM V.

(RETIRED) COSCOLLUELA

EDILBERTO FLORENDO ROGER VILLAROSA CARMELO T. CASAS

FLORENTINO

JOSE PEDRO C. RECIO CATHERINE BALCE ABELARDO M. TOLENTINO

CARUNUNGAN JR.

JOSE RAMON P. CARUNUNGAN ANA S. MANGALINO-LING PROSPERIDAD C. LUIS

CORAZON F. TANDOC MIGUEL C. GUERRERO JOSE SIAO LING

TEOFILO I. VASQUEZ (DECEASED) ROBERT MIRAFUENTE MARIA NINA BAILON-

ARCE

GUILLERMO H. HISANCHA MARIANO S. ARCE JR. PAMELA C. NANTES-

AMADOR

MARIA ELENA B. CARLOS MICHAEL T. ANG JOSE THOMAS D. BELDIA

CAYANAN
MELENCIO DAVID F. MANALO DOMINGO LLANTINO TABLIZO, BENJAMIN K.
JR. PANGANIBAN, JR.

JEMMA L. SAROL-SEMAÑA LORA B. RIVERA ERNESTO ANTONINO D.

NASOL

ANGEL L. LAZARO JR. ALFRED GEOFFREY C. MICHAEL G. DE CASTRO

(DECEASED) CARANDANG

DANIEL C. GO EDGAR SAMBILE CALMA NEPTHALY SALDANA DEL

ROSARIO

RANKE MANABAT LIM HERMINIO ROQUE PRUDENTE EDWARD CO TAN

DENNIS ACON VILLANUEVA RENATO A. HERAY RAMON S. MENDOZA

ALBERT S. YU ANNETTE F. GADDI-LIGANOR JOSE MARI A. CANIZARES

RAMON N. VIOS, JR. MA. CONCEPCION S. DY MARIE STEPHANIE

MAGDALENA N. GILLES

ROBERT S. SAC CECILIA R. CAYMAN-GAMANA GERALDINE S. UY

FRANCISCO C. NOEL DONATO B. MAGCALE RUNDDY D. RAMILO

LIYO C. CEFRE MARCO F. BILDAN ROMEO R. DATILES

ELIEZER B. VILLARUZ FRANCISCO V. ALICAN

About
The ASEAN Agreement on Mutual Recognition
Arrangement (MRA) on Architectural Services
was signed by the ASEAN Economic Ministers on
20 November 2007.
The Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA) on
Architectural Services will facilitate the mobility
of architectural professionals within ASEAN and
enhance information exchange in order to promote
adoption of best practices on standards of
architectural education, professional practices and
qualifications.
The main objective for the agreement is to
conform to the spirit of ASEAN co-operations
based on fair distribution of resources and benefits
through collaborative research and set standards
and commitment of technological transfer in
architecture among ASEAN Member Countries.
Objectives
 To exchange information in order to promote
adoption of best practices on standards of
architectural education, professional practice
and qualifications;
 To conform to the spirit of ASEAN co-
operations based on fair distribution of
resources and benefits through collaborative
researches; and
 To encourage, facilitate and establish mutual
recognition of Architects and set up standards
and commitment of technological transfer
among ASEAN Member Countries.
Recognition of Qualifications to Become
an ASEAN Architect (AA)
An Architect who has:
 Completed an accredited architectural degree
recognised by the professional architectural
accreditation body whether in the Country of
Origin or Host Country or assessed and
recognised as having the equivalent of such a
degree. The education for architects should be
no less than five (5) years duration delivered
on a full time basis in an accredited program
in an accredited/ validated university in the
Country of Origin while allowing flexibility
for equivalency.
 a current and valid professional registration
or licensing certificate to practise architecture
in the Country of Origin issued either by the
Professional Regulatory Authority (PRA) of
the ASEAN Member Countries and in
accordance with its policy on
registration/licensing/certification of the
practice of architecture or the Monitoring
Committee pursuant to Article 4.2.2 and item
1.2 of Appendix B of this Arrangement.
 acquired practical and diversified experience
of not less than ten (10) years of continuous
practice of architecture after graduation, of
which at least five (5) years shall be after
licensure/ registration and at least two (2)
years of which shall be in responsible charge
of significant architectural works as
stipulated in Appendix D - format 3;
 complied with the Continuing Professional
Development (CPO) policy of the country of
Origin at a satisfactory level;
 obtained certification from the Professional
Regulatory Authority (PRA) of the Country
of Origin with no record of serious violation
on technical, professional or ethical
standards, local and international, for the
practice of architecture; and
 complied with any other requirements agreed
upon by the ASEAN Architect Council
(AAC) is eligible to apply to the ASEAN
Architect Council (AAC) to be registered as
an ASEAN Architect (AA) under the ASEAN
Architect Register (AAR).
Mutual Recognition
Arrangements in Services
ASEAN Professionals on the Move
Mutual Recognition Arrangements (MRAs) in
the services sector are key elements of ASEAN
integration in trade in services. An MRA facilitates
trade in services by the recognition among the ASEAN
Member States (AMS) for professionals who are
authorised, licensed or certified by the respective
authorities within the framework of the MRAs. An
MRA enables the qualifications of services suppliers,
recognised by the authorities in their home country, to
be mutually recognised by other AMS who are
signatories to the MRAs. MRAs are not expected to
override local laws. Instead, the agreements are
applicable only in accordance with prevailing laws and
regulations of the host country.

The ASEAN Framework Agreement on

Services (AFAS), signed on 15 December 1995 in
Bangkok, Thailand, recognises the importance of
MRAs to facilitate deeper services trade integration in
ASEAN. And as a testament to the commitment to
deepen services trade integration, ASEAN Leaders
during the 7th Summit in November 2001 mandated the
start of negotiations on MRA to facilitate the flow of
professional services under AFAS. Since then, ASEAN
has concluded and signed MRAs in several
occupations:

MRA on Engineering Services (9 December 2005);

MRA on Nursing Services (8 December 2006);
MRA on Architectural Services and Framework
Arrangement for the Mutual Recognition of Surveying
Qualifications (19 November 2007);
MRA on Medical Practitioners and MRA on Dental
Practitioners (26 February 2009);
MRA Framework on Accountancy Services (26
February 2009) and subsequently as MRA on
Accountancy Services (13 November 2014); and
MRA on Tourism Professionals (9 November 2012).

Various committees have been established to

implement these MRAs and each of the MRA has its
own mechanism for recognition and facilitation of
qualified professionals in the region.