Republika ng Pilipinas KAGAWARAN NG KATARUNGAN Department of Justice Manila
January 9, 2004 Hon. FIorante Soriquez Acting Secretary Department of Public Works and Highways Bonifacio Drive, Port Area, Manila
Sir;
This has reference to your request for opinion concerning the interpretation of the pertinent provisions of the Civil Engineering Law (R.A. No. 544) and the Architects Law (R.A. No. 545), both as amended, in order to determine the realm of practice of both professions and, at the same time, avoid the alleged conflict in the enforcement of the National Building Code of the Philippines (P.D. No. 1096) and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). The request, we assume, is made in connection with the promulgation and issuance of the revised/updated IRR of the National Building Code, the approval of final draft of which, you say, has been deferred pending resolution of the claimed conflicting provisions of R.A. No. 544 and R.A. No. 545 relating to the practice of structural and architectural designing of buildings, including the signing and sealing of architectural plans and specifications needed in securingbuilding permits.
It appears that civil engineers, relying on the provisions of Sections 2 and 23 of R.A. No. 544, believe that it is their inherent right to sign and seal building structural and architectural plans, while architects, quoting the provisions of Section 14 of R.A. No. 545, complain that civil engineers are "unlawfully practicing architecture" when they sign and seal architectural plans and specifications of residential buildings from singledetached dwellings to multi-story condominiums, office buildings, commercial and industrial buildings and other buildings since the act of planning and architectural and structural designing, among others, are included in the "practice of architecture."
It also appears that under the final draft of the revised/updated IRR, it is proposed that only architects can sign architectural plans/documents and only civil engineers can sign structural plans/documents; and that the Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers (PICE), however, opposed the proposal. Hence, the request.
Although, in line with settled policy and precedents, the Secretary of Justice does not pass upon issues which, as in this case, involve the substantive rights of private parties, i.e., the PICE and its members, upon whom the opinion of this Department has no binding effect and which might, in all probability, take the matter to courts when they find the opinion adverse to their interest, 1 we would like to state some relevant observation for your enlightenment.
1 Secretary of Justice Op. Nos. 33 and 35, s. 2000, citing opinions;