LEFT: Securities and Ex-
change Commission (SEC)
sent to PRC the First En-
dorsement for comments and
Recommendations, April 27,
2016.
RIGHT: Professional Regula-
tion Commission (PRC) Chair-
man Teofilo S. Pilando, Jr., issued
the Certificate of No Objection to
the amended Articles of Incorpo-
ration and Bylaws, being the Sec-
ond Endorsement, June 30, 2016.
NEVP Message… Continued from Page 4
Formoso. We witness the demise of Ar. Manuel Mañosa and
Ar. Norberto Nuke. We can’t have 38,000 as the number of
licensed Architects. Ar. Mario Yao need not renew his license as
he is already a partner at SLCE Architects, a big firm in New
York. He is a Filipino and a graduate of UST. You can Google
SLCE and see their portfolio and the list of Partners. Why do I
know? Because my classmate and group mate in UST who
joined an International Competition, is a Project Manager at
SLCE Architects and his husband a junior partner already. I
visited them in their office in NY. So, the 38,000 cannot renew
license anymore, some are dead, some are housewives, some are suppliers, some
went to construction or into business and many whom I know are doing good in
other countries. So let us not find that 24,000 because architects will come if they
want to, just like in NATCON 43 this April 2017, we had an overflow of regis-
trants. We need not look for them; they registered because they want to earn
points.
The letter of Past NP Sonny Rosal to SEC indicated that the 2016 Bylaws was
not approved based on Section 48 the Corporation Code of the Philippines, and to
quote again, “It must be emphasized that UAP has 38,000 members on record, but
only 2,000 members attended the 42nd UAP National Convention – of which the
New Bylaws were presented for approval – held last April 22, 2016, or 5% of the
total membership of UAP.”
As to Amendments, we do not follow the Corporation Code of the Philippines
because our UAP 2009 Bylaws contain ARTICLE XV for Amendments. There
are only 3 items in the Section for Procedures for Amendments: A. Proposed
Amendments must first be submitted to the Committee on Bylaws for study and
evaluate at least 90 days before the Chapter Presidents’ Assembly. That is why
Ar. Norberto Nuke and the Bylaws Committee went around and conducted Chap-
ter Consultation meetings. B. The Committee shall refer the proposals, as studied
and evaluated to the Commission on Internal Affairs, which shall then endorse the
same to the Secretary General for dissemination to the Chapter Presidents, through
Vice Presidents forty five (45) days before the National Convention and Annual
Business Meeting. C. Each Chapter President shall call for a General Chapter
Membership Meeting to discuss the proposals. The results shall be presented to the
Chapter Presidents’ Assembly. Its consensus shall then be endorsed to the National
Board of Directors for its approval. This is the last. You can see that the Board
signed every page of the Approval of the Bylaws and it was presented to the Gen-
eral Assembly in the Annual Business Meeting during NATCON 42. The at-
tached Chart presented at the Chapter President’s Assembly bears the Statistics of
those who accepted and the red indicates the Chapters who Rejected based on the
Areas. This indicates that the previous administration followed the Procedure on
Amendment.
AAIF also opposes the 2016 Bylaws, in its letter to SEC dated May 12, 2016 to
quote, “…in so far as the same shall affect the very professional and personal lives
of the approx. thirty eight thousand (38,000) registered Architects (RAs) in the
Philippines, twenty four thousand (24,000) of which have been denied their privi-
lege to practice due to policies espoused by UAP over the recent years.” signed by
Greg R. Timbol, Anna May S. Timbol, Carlos Romulo N. Cruz, Ar. Celso C.
LEFT: Total number of Architects in
Good Standing (in comparison, per dates
indicated), UAP-registered Architects
and total number of Architects (PRC
registered). BELOW: Statistics of Chap-
ters in four Areas which Submitted, and
Against the Proposed 2016 Amend-
ments to UAP By-Laws, including the
total number of Chapters participated.
Nieves and Ar. Armando N. Alli.
And there is another Opposition Letter from a certain Marc Terry C. Perez
Attorney-at-Law dated July 6, 2016, stating, “…UAP as (IAPOA) is now the
subject matter of a petition for declaratory relief pending before Branch 7 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, filed against BOA and PRC, where Ar. J.
Paul Octaviano of PIA alleged that Resolution NO.03, series of 2004 and Resolu-
tion No. 2, series of 2005 and Resolution No 5, series of 2015, all passed, promul-
gated and approved by the respondent Board of Architecture (BOA) and Profes-
sional Regulations Commission (PRC) are invalid and unenforceable.
We are not part of the accused; UAP is just an Intervenor in the case, because
we will be affected. This case was DISMISSED on August 4, 2016. The same
was filed at the Court of Appeals in January 2017. According to Atty. Cabrera,
our Legal Counsel, this is not an Intra Corporate Dispute.
As of now, the submitted 2016 UAP Bylaws is still in SEC.
There are a few gaps in our 2009 Bylaws as we have experienced in the past
national Elections. Having the new Bylaws approved will answer these matters in
question.
UNITED ARCHITECTS OF THE PHILIPPINES
The Integrated and Accredited Professional Organization of Architects
5