Sunday ∗ 27 Nov 2011

bad vibes for NAIA 1 rehab

for a PNoy government that talks about the matuwid na daan, which is to say doing things correctly and properly and justly, they sure know how to reveal themselves to be on some dirt road.

so yes, NAIA 1 is the worst airport in the world, i know that, and i will not pretend otherwise. but of course it will take international disgust over the airport for some change to happen, and in October a world-renowned team composed of Cobonpue-Layug-Pineda unveils a plan, one that’s aesthetic yes, but also real and concrete, i couldn’t even imagine that they thought this up and ignored completely the structural and electricomechanical (!) needs of the renovation.

but this is what the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) Secretary Mar Roxas wants us to believe, as he defends the decision to go with an architectural team from the Leandro V. Locsin and Associates (LVLA) for the NAIA 1 renovation, unceremoniously dropping the Cobonpue team. Roxas says:

“They <the LVLA> are in possession of the ‘as designed’ and ‘as built’ plans and blueprints of the airport. LVL’s firm has insights that will be of valuable help in minimizing disruption to operations, as well as shorten the time the rehabilitation will take,” Roxas explained in a text message.

In particular, Roxas said LVL knows the exact location of the duct works, risers, pipes, water drainages and other electro-mechanical configurations of the facility.

according to the DOTC (it’s unclear if Roxas himself said this), the LVLA also “had a distinct advantage over any other architectural or engineering firm in the country because its founder, the late Locsin, was Terminal 1’s original designer.”

so hold on. LVLA had the advantage because its founder, National Artist for Architecture Leandro V. Locsin, dead since 1994, designed the original NAIA 1? the LVLA is being unilaterally chosen — with no plan revealed to the public as of yet — because they have the blueprints of the airport and therefore know where the pipes are? because they know where the pipes are? 

por dios y por santo.

where has common sense gone? the current LVLA, as with any other architectural and design team, would only be looking at NAIA 1’s blueprints, yes? and let’s say members of the Locsin team that put together the NAIA 1 in 1973-1974 were still alive (of course in their 80s now), even they would only be looking at blueprints and old plans, too, yes? pray tell, how would LVLA be any different from other design teams wanting to renovate the NAIA 1?

there’s obviously so much more to the DOTC’s decision to let go of the Cobonpue-Layug-Pineda team, and it reeks of kamag-anak / kaibigan / ka-barilan possibilities if you ask me. lucky for the DOTC, the LVLA website’s down and there’s no existing list online of who its architects are. it would’ve made for a fascinating task of connecting the dots straight to Malacanang Roxas office (i hear the connection between him and the Locsins are legendary).

but also there’s this. for a PNoy government that demands our support and understanding, they sure know how to put an end to any form of volunteerism from willing citizens. Cobonpue-Layug-Pineda had been working on the NAIA 1 rehabilitation and renovation plan for the past eight (8!) months. and they find out they’re not part of the project only upon the the announcement that the LVLA was the DOTC’s chosen firm.

and as if that isn’t bad enough, the Cobonpue-Layug-Pineda team are made to suffer soundbites from Roxas, who says that function was higher in their list of priorities than having the airport look nice; and from MIAA General Manager Jose Angel Hornedo who says they didn’t sign a contract with the Cobonpue team.

aba mga ser. the Cobonpue-Layug-Pineda team put together that plan because they were asked by the members of PNoy’s Cabinet. puro katrabaho ninyo ang mga ito diba? Trade Secretary Gregory Domingo, Budget and Management Secretary Butch Abad, former Tourism Secretary Alberto Lim, Finance Secretary Cesar Purisima and Communications Secretary Ricky Carandang? these four requested that the Cobonpue-Layug-Pineda team work on the NAIA 1 redesign. the government asked them to work on that redesign. and this team agreed to work on it, for free.

kaya po walang kontrata mga ser.

and just because something looks nice doesn’t mean it isn’t functional. why do you even look down on the Cobonpue-Layug-Pineda team in this way, Sec. Roxas?

in the end this also reeks of an utter lack of professionalism in the halls of Malacanang. it also reveals how little this PNoy government values creativity and hard work, how little it values the time and energy spent by its own citizens wanting to help out for free. that they can even do this to the Cobonpues and Layugs and Pinedas of this country, few as they are na nga, is beyond me.

by the way, this team was also working within a P1B-peso budget for the complete interior and exterior renovation of the NAIA 1 — way cheaper than the government plan that would cost P1.6B P1.16B (!!) pesos to renovate only the airport’s interiors.

PNoy invokes matuwid na daan. let’s begin with admitting the real reasons behind the decision to go with the LVLA, shall we? otherwise, Roxas the DOTC and Malacanang just prove they’re on a dark dreary road, that’s as dirty as we can imagine.

Posted in: bayan, gobyerno, komentaryo, lugar, pulitika

Tagged: , , , ,

61 Comments/Pingbacks

    • ina
      November 27, 2011 at 3:10 pm

      ay Jeb! thank you for that tip. let me connect those dots! :) PS: parang may haciendero connection din ano? exciting!

    • ina
      November 27, 2011 at 3:51 pm

      hmmmm. parang somekinda malayo pa rin ang konek. other than Teddy Boy Locsin endorsing Mar during the campaign, and the Roxases and Locsins sharing Negros as common ground? *buckles down to do more research*

  1. Architecto
    November 28, 2011 at 9:42 am

    Mar Roxas makes sense. Any other Licensed Architect will have to base existing structure and engineering systems by guesswork, and even NAIA admits they don’t have the critical as-built plans.

    Locsin architectural team can do it by referring to their old staff, if not their records.

    Architect Pineda still has to clear existing cases with Board of Architecture.

    • Arc2007
      November 28, 2011 at 10:37 am

      It would’ve been much better to bid it out to the top 20 firms in the country so that the airport can fulfill its true potential and the public can see more than one potential design for the airport. They practically handed it to LVLA on a silver platter

      • Pao
        November 28, 2011 at 11:08 am

        If you remember the CCP Design Competition way back 2006, the winners do not actually have a feasible design solution. They didn’t even consider the land being reclaimed.

        It is just practical to let the original designers work on it unless they decline.

    • juan dela cruz
      November 28, 2011 at 10:54 am


      • juana dela cruz
        December 1, 2011 at 10:17 pm

        kung wala kang macomment na maganda wag ka na magsalita. designer ka ba? magcomment ka kung may alam ka.

    • Jeb Maglasang
      November 28, 2011 at 11:15 am

      In case you dont know, Architecto, Andy Locsin has the same cases at the Board of Architecture. Crab pinoys like you pull our country down.

      • Pao
        November 28, 2011 at 11:43 am

        So does Ed Calma. Probable difference is, they (Locsin & Calma) have better credentials.

      • A2Z Architects & Engineers
        January 4, 2015 at 12:04 am

        Royal Pineda a Philippine licensed Architect is partnering with a QUACK Interior designer. Budji Layug is nothing but an Architecture drop-out who claims to be an interior designer when the truth is, he’s just a gay fashion designer. Under professional regulatory laws, firms like Layug & Pineda are illegaly practicing Architecture in the country and the government is not supposed to transact with this group. Pineda as a licensed professional should have been aware of this set-up and should have distanced himself a long time ago from that faggot Quack ID.

  2. acid
    November 28, 2011 at 9:58 am

    check the araneta side of the family. you’ll find some links there.

  3. Plutocrat
    November 28, 2011 at 10:15 am

    And we’re also kind of missing the point that the people who produced the original design, apparently _didn’t do a good job!_ So why invite them back for a second try.

    • Mig V
      November 29, 2011 at 3:03 pm

      Are you aware that the NAIA 1 was built 1974 and was considered then as a premier airport. It won awards back then. Now, 38 years later, you are condemning the original designer for having not foreseen the demands of a 21st century airport? We should respect the late National Artist’s work for chrissakes. As the record will show, Arch Locsin did his job with flying colors. It was just unfortunate that a building of that nature needs to get overhauled from the demands of time. The problem is our government didn’t act swiftly on this matter and let time run its course.

  4. ferrinakabongga
    November 28, 2011 at 10:16 am

    Arch. Pineda should know that he must ask the Arch. Locsin permission to re-do, re-image, re-design his work. It’s one of the Arch’l practice ethics that an architect must abide by. The Cobonpue team had the best intentions im sure, but there are guidelines we must follow.

  5. juan dela cruz
    November 28, 2011 at 10:52 am

    “HIDDEN AGENDA” madaling pag-isipan ng masama ang mga taong gumagawa ng bagay na ikakaganda ng bayan kaysa tanggapin na nagmamalasakit lamang sila sa bayan? May mga Doctor nga na nanggagamot ng libre para sa mga Pilipino – kailangan pa rin ba na pag-isipan sila ng masama? – ETO ANG HALIMBAWA NG ISIP TALANGKA! mas madaling tanggapin ang MASAMANG KAISIPAN kaysa sa ISANG BAGAY NA TAMA!

  6. Pao
    November 28, 2011 at 10:53 am

    Buhay pa si Ledesma. Last I heard, fully functional pa rin ang arki mind nya. partner pa rin si Orly Mercado at si Raul Locsin din.

    Some bloggers wouldn’t really know this I guess.

    • Pao
      November 28, 2011 at 8:09 pm

      Orly Mateo*

  7. juan dela cruz
    November 28, 2011 at 10:54 am


    • Sphynx
      November 28, 2011 at 8:47 pm

      I think what you are saying is besides the point.

      If PRBOA did in fact took a blind eye in cases of illegal practice of architecture of unregistered persons then it is also a violation of their mandate and illegal.

      I am not saying though that the course with NAIA 1 was illegal in the sense that Mr. Cobonpue and Mr. Layug did the interiors while Ar. Pineda did the architectural part in this regard.

      But calling out PRBOA for merely doing their mandate is wrong when illegal practice of architecture is in fact illegal.

      Also, even if an architecture work is in fact pro-bono does not exclude it from the fact that it would be illegal if it is done by an unregistered person.


  8. IhateMar
    November 28, 2011 at 11:22 am

    Mar Roxas is completely stupid! So what kung sila gumawa non, kaya nga professionals Budji Layug-Royal Pineda and Kenneth Cobonpue, because they know what they are doing! And besides, look at NAIA 1, maganda ba? NO!!! Worst airport nga eh, you’d be spending 1Billion pesos for nothing. Sure fine functional. PERIOD yun lang. Ano ba alam ni Mar sa design eh, squater naman yan. Walang taste! AND BESIDES LEANDRO LOCSIN IS DEAD FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!

  9. Ramm
    November 28, 2011 at 11:25 am

    I worked for Layug and Pineda last summer, been working in NAIA 1 too. Hindi lang maganda bagong design, functional din. I’ve seen them work on it. Magaling talaga,m hindi naman sila makikilala worldwide kung hindi db? Mar Roxas, you SUCK!

  10. Concerned Citizen
    November 28, 2011 at 11:48 am

    Dear Blogger,

    Have you checked with Professional Regulation Commission(PRC) if those three designers(Cobonpue, Layug, Pineda) are licensed Architect/s? Because If I’m not mistaken, Mr. Cobonpue is not an Architect. I don’t know with Mr Layug, but if my memory serves me right, he was actually questioned before by the Board of Architecture for practicing Architecture without a license. That was eons ago and I don’t know if Mr. Layug got himself a license now. As for Mr. Pineda, I believe he has some things to clear with the Board of Architecture to date. Please do correct me If I’m wrong on this. Now, to judge the situation based on the merits above, I think we should all be prudent or NOT point a finger without even knowing the full story behind. Yes, Mr. Layug and Cobonpue are well know furniture designers and Interior designer/s but they should also know that there’s more to architecture than furniture and interior designing. Of course I don’t want to knock on the Interior Designers nor the Furniture Designers in the country but Architecture is entirely different matter. You have to study the general structure of the building inside out in relation to its aesthetics and functionality. Arch. Pineda should know this and as such should not be indignant when the project was not awarded to them. Having international awards, being a successful furniture designer and taking this project as a pro bono is not an assurance that you will get the project as it is. It is a public structure, thus it needs a public bidding or have a closed/open design competition amongst prestigious architectural firms. LV Locsin and Partners have the edge in getting this project because they have designed the old structure and they possess the original as-built plans and methodology of the structure. I hope the Cobonpues, Pinedas and Layugs recognize the track record of the LV Locsin & Partners (even after the founder died in 1994) before they spew their fire in public. LV Locsin and Partners have designed numerous huge projects even bigger than the NAIA I since 1994. What if say the founder of Sycip, Gorres & Velayo & Co. (SGV) Mr. Washington Sycip dies (knock on wood), do you think SGV will become inept or less capable of handling accounting works? It goes to show you that even if Arch. Locsin passed away years ago, his legacy still remains and still continues up to this day. I’m not an LV Locsin employee nor am connected to them or the Roxas’. I’m just a concerned citizen just like you do who happens to practice architecture as a living.

    I hope the trio and LV Locsin work hand in hand in making our airport a better and fresher look since 74.


    Mike DC

    • GabbyD
      November 28, 2011 at 2:32 pm

      “It is a public structure, thus it needs a public bidding or have a closed/open design competition amongst prestigious architectural firms.”

      was there?

      • Concerned Citizen
        November 29, 2011 at 8:02 am

        Hi Gab.

        I don’t know if there was such but given the fact that LV Locsin and Partners were the previous designers of the building, maybe the Government probably entered into a contracted bid or turn key/lumpsum project bid. I really don’t have any idea. But if I were the Government, I would probably hold an open design competition so that we will have more designs to choose from.

    • Ticcia
      November 29, 2011 at 2:03 am

      I beg to disagree they are not INTERIOR DESIGNERS as well. Interior Design and Architecture are Regulated PHILIPPINE professions.

  11. Jeb Maglasang
    November 28, 2011 at 2:32 pm

    Mike DC,

    People like you see the worth of individuals through diplomas, licenses, degrees and honors. That would disqualify the Steve Jobs and Philip Starcks of this world from ever achieving anything because to you, they dont have the training.

    You said: LV Locsin and Partners have the edge in getting this project because they have designed the old structure and they possess the original as-built plans and methodology of the structure. Thats hogwash. Since Mr. Locsin is dead since 1994, any design team would have to look at the same plans that are now in the possession of the airport authorities. READ the article above before spewing your dirt all over cyberspace.

    And because you said it, Andy Locsin btw also doesnt have a license and has cases before the Board of Architecture. Does that disqualify him also from designing the airport?

    • Pao
      November 28, 2011 at 8:09 pm

      They do have the edge. They (the firm) know the background of the project. Architect Leandro Locsin wasn’t the only architect present during the design process of NAIA 1. Most of his Partners are still with the firm.

      • Chris
        November 29, 2011 at 4:23 am

        But are they “world-renowned” like Kenneth? I don’t think so.

      • Concerned Citizen
        November 29, 2011 at 7:18 am

        Pao, I believe some guys here doesn’t know how a partnership works. I have already mentioned SGV & Co. They also don’t know how an Architectural firm works. There are tons of documents that are not really in the possession of the concerned officials. If I list them one by one, they would probably get an idea how an architectural firm works and how the law requires individuals to have a professional license to practice such profession. Would we want quack doctors practice medicine? I’m not saying the Cobunpues-Pinedas-Layugs are not professionals in their own respect nor they’re not capable individuals. In fact, I believe they are capable doing it.

    • Concerned Citizen
      November 29, 2011 at 7:10 am

      Hi Jeb. Sorry if I have offended you in anyway or the team of Cobonpue-Pineda_layug. I was just pointing out some facts. I’m not in a position to judge them nor say I’m right. Sorry but you are mistaken. We are not talking about personalities here. I don’t even judge people by their diplomas, license or awards. I just feel (they) are exceptional in their field of expertise, but to practice a profession where a license is required should be adhered by all the parties involved. I’m not saying they are not qualified, In fact, I said “correct me if I’m wrong”.

      FYI, Mr. Starck is a practicing Interior Designer and Product Designer.

      I never said LV Locsin and Partners are more capable than Cobonpue-Pineda-Layug. What I said was they have the edge in getting the project because they designed the structure before. If you know how Architecture works, perhaps you would know what I’m saying with regards to having the possession of the original working drawings, as-built plans etc. If you are the Architect of the structure. There are other documents that are not ALL in the possession of the Airport Officials nor Paranaque Building Officials. I have read the article and I’m not spewing my dirt.

      If you know how a corporate setup works, you would know what I mean. Andy Locsin is not a sole proprietor of LV Locsin and Partners as you very well know it’s a company. He is just one of the Associate Principal Architects of the firm. The company that will design the NAIA I is not Andy Locsin and Partners, right?

  12. Jeb Maglasang
    November 28, 2011 at 2:47 pm

    Mike DC,

    Hello by the way. We meet again. You under a different name for this blog (you have now 20 names in different blogs and news websites) and me still under the same. Your writing has always been the same… how great the LVL firm is and how capable they are. And if its not that, its the need for a design competition of some sort.
    Get off cyberspace or start making sense instead of spewing the same bullshit!

    • Concerned Citizen
      November 29, 2011 at 7:29 am

      Mr. Maglasang,

      We are educated individuals. Please refrain from usurping such non-sense. Why would I hide behind a name when I already posted I am Mike DC. Secondly, If the Blogger would try to check my email, he can very well verify my true identity. I don’t need to hide behind someones back or pretend I’m someone who is not. I am what I am. The question is..are you?

      Why are you so butt hurt when someone express his own opinion? Are you a relative of the concerned individuals or are you one of them? I think neither, for I know they are professionals in their field who respect the opinion of others.

      Let’s respect each other and agree to disagree.

      I remain,

      Mike DC

  13. whiskers
    November 28, 2011 at 4:05 pm

    can anyone make a like page for this? to spread the news all over facebook.

    • Pao
      November 28, 2011 at 8:11 pm

      And spread ignorance all over the internet?

      Wait, that’s already happening so go ahead. :x

  14. archistudent
    November 28, 2011 at 4:35 pm

    “i dont need another chair”! i need a man that knows excellence and love in making a chair,…

    you politicians! what do you know about love! what do you know about excellence!? kung alam nyu yan matagal nyu nang inayos yan… matagal nyu nang ginawan ng solusyon yan..

    bakit ngayon lang kayo nagkakagulo sa airport, mga pulitiko ilang beses kayo lumalabas ng bansa…. ngayon nyu lang ba nakita yung airport…mga bulag kasi kayo… nakita nyu yung airport, nung may iba na naginitiate para iaayos,.. kasi mahal nila pilipinas,… ang nakita nyo baka mawalan kayo ng hanapbuhay o ng negosyo… wala kayong malasakit,… kayo ang walng naiintindihan… im only a student, pero ang malaking pinagkaiba natin,… mahal ko ang pilipinas,..

  15. Sphynx
    November 28, 2011 at 8:27 pm

    I do agree that there may be some question that needs to be cleared up as to how it was awarded to LVL. As in what method? Through bidding or just to them.

    But it can also be noted that awarding them the renovation is not completely wrong but of course, not the only option/course of action.

    Anyway, what I can’t understand is this. Isn’t any work to be done to NAIA 1 a simple band-aid solution? We still have issues of having a short runway, only 1 runway, limited capacity in overall air/passenger traffic etc.

    It is true that NAIA 1 is a bad gateway at its current state but again, why do we need to focus on it when we have NAIA 3. So NAIA 3 supposedly has problems ranging from minor to major. Then why not spend the 1b php there to fix it and transfer NAIA 1 capacity & staff there so operations would not be halted.

    If runway length and quantity (more than 1), can not be feasibly done to the airport, I have trouble seeing how we can really even continuously want to consider a “Band-aid” solution when the target for tourism should be allocation for continuous increasing passenger/airplane capacity.

    Master Planners should really be taken into account for the whole picture. Explore alternative like linking DMIA to NAIA area through rail access, consider possibility of expanding outside the current boundaries of manila like what they did for japan (if a major concern is distance of the main airport to Manila city center), or purchasing surrounding properties around NAIA and expand and continuously develop it.

    I do not know which is the best or what the other options are, but I definitely think just focusing on NAIA 1 is short sighted for the government and a more proper long term solution with short term consequences is the best solution.

    Kudos again to Mr. Cobonpue et al for their design proposal but since we haven’t seen what the design proposal of LVL is then I also don’t think it is fair for us to immediately judge them as the architect/architectural firm chosen for the project.

    Since there is a contract, there should be a termination clause between LVL and the government. So I think we can patiently wait for that initial design to come out before we comment about LVL.

    Requesting for transparency so that people can also see LVL’s concepts or design is out is plausible. I think requesting it from the government shouldn’t be a problem. But if you are looking at it, keep an open mind and consider what is being shown and don’t immediately think of it negatively. I think we should at least give them that.

    • Concerned Citizen
      November 29, 2011 at 7:44 am

      You have good points. Personally, I believe this is just another “band-aid” solution by the Government. We have Terminal 3, why not operate it as our main gateway, instead of spending P1B for the refurbishing of NAIA 1. Why not put the money to a more suitable solution for the problem like acquiring other suitable locations near the Metropolis or perhaps a Mass Railway to and from the new airport just like in other countries. After the refurbishing, can the present runway accommodate the ever growing demand of an international airport? Does the government has the political will to do it?

      It remains to be seen…

      Mike Dc

      • GabbyD
        November 29, 2011 at 7:57 am

        the plan is to connect all these terminals via a rail system. they all use the same system of landing strips and hangars. indeed, its silly this hasnt been done yet as its more efficient to transport people around this way, than have three smaller, independent, terminals.

        • Concerned Citizen
          November 29, 2011 at 8:06 am

          I concur, Gab.

          I believe what we really need is not a new refurbished airport but a leadership that will have the political will to do so.

          Mike Dc

  16. Ticcia
    November 29, 2011 at 1:57 am

    Letr respect our Laws!

    RA 9266 – Architecture Act of 2004
    RA 8534 – Interior Design Act of 1998

    Industrial Design is not Interior Design nor Architecture.

  17. liquidandliquid
    November 29, 2011 at 2:47 am

    The heart of the problem is the problem of the heart.

  18. Chris
    November 29, 2011 at 4:21 am

    Sec. Mar Roxas is pathetic, if not crazy. No wonder he lost the vice presidency.

  19. Sphynx
    November 29, 2011 at 8:49 am

    I believe the public should settle down first and foremost. This is almost like you are already passing judgement before anything has been laid out.

    Granted there is a few question as to why the government awarded it immediately to LVL and not hold any bidding or competition but that may have also already been answered. What if the “design” contract of LVL is majority engineering works? This simply needs clarification.

    Given the fact that the building has been standing for well over 30 years, it is in fact in a state where major engineering works are needed for it continue to operate properly. As such, not needing a design competition as the engineers/or simply the firm is still existing.

    Second, some are questioning why pro-bono work was not chosen as opposed to a paid professional. Well, just because the work was pro-bono does not make it legal or the immediate choice nor does it mean services can not be terminated.

    Third, I do not know how the arrangement ended up being the way it is between Cobonpue et al and the govenment but apparently they do not have any documentation to support the fact they were commissioned for the project (Even if it was pro-bono and verbally confirmed by NCC) NCC also didn’t say they have documentation but just confirmed they approached them for the task.

    Fourth, I do not know how you want something that is not entirely formal to proceed formally but here’s my take on the termination of Cobonpue et al. Since there was no legally binding contract that it is their design (approved or otherwise by the government or the public) will be used, then there should be no irregularities in sight for this course of action. I do however think that if they were not verbally informed that the government has chosen to go with a different route and firm is somewhat rude (but not illegal to say the least)

    Fifth, once LVL’s actual scope of work is clear, we may get a better understanding after the preliminary/schematic designs come out. They outlined things the budget of 1b php would be allocated for, but that does not mean immediately that it part of the totality of the scope of work by LVL. Again, we have do not know the contract and therefore can not just make comments from the vagueness of articles.

    Sixth, just because there is a supposed link between the Roxases and Locsin does not immediately mean there were irregularities. Just ask for transparency and not scream a “supposed” fact from wikipedia or youtube. It may or may not have merit, but do so by asking properly and immediately crying foul.

    Seventh, if LVL is also commissioned really to propose a design for interior/exterior/site development & planning etc, then once the initial designs are out, you can say whether you think it is ok, or not, or simply give your inputs. But to say that they are incompetent or not on par with the design concept by Cobonpue et al is of higher caliber is wrong. Case in point, give a batch of architects (1000 professionals) a design problem and you will get 1000 design solutions. Each with its own merits and reasoning behind the design. So when the public does see LVL’s design, I do request and plead that they remove all negativity this “publicity” has immediately caused them in comparison to Cobonpue et al and take a neutral stance when it is out there. Thus, you can make a rational review of the matter at hand.

    Lastly, I still do not think (regardless of who does it) will be the best course of action. It, for me, is still a band-aid solution (read my comment also on this page). What are the courses of action to be taken? There are a lot and it is not limited to just my opinion.

  20. Sphynx
    November 29, 2011 at 9:20 am

    I forgot to mention, with those asking why was LVL commissioned before a design was out here are some facts.

    An architect/firm should be commissioned first (with downpayment) even before initial studies are done. This is a fact but I know most Filipinos are unaware of this and expect a design first before any contract is confirmed or before even commissioning.

    For an analogy, do you expect the lawyer to initially defend you before you even pay him/confirm that he is your lawyer? Do you expect a doctor to perform initial treatment and diagnosis before any confirmation? It may be a crude analogy but I hope the picture is at least clear that this is the actual case with regards to client-architect relationships.

    So LVL has been commissioned then you have to wait a few days/weeks before their initial designs/concepts come out. You can’t really expect them to come out with a design on day 1 or 2 after commissioning.


    For those that may perceive my comments incorrectly, here are some facts:
    I applaud the group of Ar. Pineda (architecture), Mr. Layug (interior design) and Mr. Cobonpue (furniture) for their willingness to the design pro-bono in their respective fields.
    I am not in favor of what I view as a “band-aid”/short-term approach or the focus on NAIA 1 only when the totality needs a larger scale approach that concerns the whole of NAIA area (NAIA 1, Centennial, NAIA 3, Cargo Terminal, traffic link-ups and the runway/taxiway themselves). Remember, long term gains/benefits with short term consequences are much better than short term benefits with long term consequences (making the whole cost of investment add more and more with continuous band-aid solution costs which is not ideal)

    I think the best approach is with a Master Planner/Environmental Planner, Traffic/Transporation Planner, Architect, Engineers and specialty trades (like the Changi Airport consultants). The mere fact that Changi Airport consultants are going to give feedback should be viewed in a positive light. They will give the Philippines their concerns, solutions or ways to address problems. They can also give us ideas as to how they do it (but not necessarily how we should do it). And the minutes of the meeting(s) should be made available to all the professional who will undertake the monumental task of solving our airport woes as reference.


  21. Sheryl C
    November 29, 2011 at 9:39 am

    World-renowned or not is beside the issue. Sec. Mar Roxas explained that Cobonpue et al’s P1B plan focused more on aesthetics which is unfortunately not the priority given an airport that needs a lot of backend work. The nuts and bolts should be fixed first before the coat of paint is applied. Sec. Roxas has also brought in international experts much more qualified in airport development and operation than Cobonpue’s group and all of them working ‘pro bono’ too.

  22. Sphynx
    November 29, 2011 at 1:58 pm

    For those wondering of the response of the PRBoA regarding the matter of NAIA 1, see link below:

    Hope it clears up the stance of PRBoA

  23. ina
    November 29, 2011 at 2:10 pm

    and the PRBoA stand reeks of double standard. if it was wrong because the process of “hiring” / “volunteering” was not transparent for Cobonpue-Layug-Pineda, why is the choice of the LVLP being left WITHOUT QUESTION?! and i quote:

    “The PRBoA is not presently concerned with the recent announcement of the commissioning of LV Locsin and Partners (LVLP), a local architectural institution, by virtue of the potentially justifiable urgency of undertaking the identified Project components (using the original documents of the Project controlled by LVLP).”

    • Mig V
      November 29, 2011 at 2:36 pm

      It’s pretty clear… The answer lies in

      “a local architectural institution, by virtue of the potentially justifiable urgency of undertaking the identified Project components (using the original documents of the Project controlled by LVLP”

      Please refer to RA 545.

    • GabbyD
      November 29, 2011 at 2:37 pm

      i agree ina. the phrase “(using the original documents of the Project controlled by LVLP).” bothers me.

      if orig docs means blueprints, then thats a big problem. that means that this group has a complete monopoly on NAIA. thats insane.

      the govt should own the blueprints and all plans. not the original designers.

      • Mig V
        November 29, 2011 at 2:41 pm

        RA 545. There is a copyright for the said drawings. No one can use the said documents without a written permission of the original Designer. I don’t know why you are bothered by it when in fact you should be bothered by individuals practicing a said profession without a license.

        • Mig V
          November 29, 2011 at 2:50 pm

          “Drawings and specifications duly signed, stamped or sealed, as instruments of service, are the property and documents of the architect, whether the object for which they are made is executed or not. It shall be unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the architect or author of said documents, to duplicate or to make copies of said documents for use in the repetition of and for other projects or buildings, whether executed partly or in whole.”

        • GabbyD
          November 30, 2011 at 12:04 am

          Thanks mig. that is very interesting.

          There are several counterarguments however —

          its true that plans are copyrighted. its intellectual property, and they should. however, this isnt a problem because the renovation, by definition, changes the design, and DOESNT COPY IT. hence copyright doesnt apply.

          at least, in principle it doesnt. now, the copyright holder has the right to at least challenge it in court. but even THAT is suspect…

          why? because from everything i’ve seen/read, access to the plans (necessary to make NEW plans) were freely given to the new group. thats how they were able to MAKE the new plans in the first place.

          but i think copyright has something to do with the problem. i think they let them see it, but changed their minds later on when actual money is on the line.

          they can challenge but i think that they won’t prosper. but it would make a difficult issue more difficult.

      • Sphynx
        November 29, 2011 at 5:26 pm

        Intellectual property of the said drawings/documents lie with LVLA, that is an indisputable fact as it is their design.

        The design does not change ownership as it is with the architect. Kind of like an iphone, you buy it, but that doesn’t mean the design is yours to do with whatever you wish. Agree sir?

        Consent must also be requested from LVLA with regards to their plans as it is theirs to begin with.

    • Sphynx
      November 29, 2011 at 5:21 pm

      Ms. Ina,

      When you do extract excerpts from the whole, keep in mind that there are other statements as well that already answer your query with regards to the stand of PRBoA regarding the commissioning of LVLA as well. And I quote:

      “2) the PRBoA, which periodically keeps watch over public procurement activities for architectural consulting services for public infrastructure projects is presently unaware if the mandated procurement procedure for architectural consulting services has been faithfully complied with by the agency or agencies concerned with the NAIA 1 Terminal (and Grounds) Rehabilitation Project; the PRBoA specifically refers to the National Competitiveness Council of the Philippines (NCCP) which has apparently withheld information on the involvement of its architectural consultants (for the NAIA Terminal Project from the public) over the period March/ April 2011 through late October 2011; ”

      This statement alone shows you that they are unaware of how the procurement of the services of LVLA was done.

      However, there is another statement on page 3 of the PRBoA documents that states:

      “The PRBoA is not presently concerned with the recent announcement of the commissioning of LV Locsin and Partners (LVLP), a local architectural institution, by virtue of the potentially justifiable urgency of undertaking the identified Project components (using the original documents of the Project controlled by LVLP). ”

      As I would like to emphasize, the PRBoA states POTENTIALLY JUSTIFIABLE BECAUSE OF URGENCY. Taking the word potentially means it is not completely illegal but you have to revert back to RA 9184 (The 2003 Government Procurement Reform Act/ GPRA) if in fact urgency justifies said procurement of services without bidding.

      It is not a double standard as you would like to suggest but rather you only saw what you wanted to see. Read the whole statement and it is clearly shown that there is no bias and that the PRBoA is clearly within its mandate to execute RA 9266 – Architecture Act of 2004.

      Please do not feed into this media trial by publicity of comparing pro bono work with a paid commissioned work just because the other is simply free.

  24. Sphynx
    November 29, 2011 at 8:39 pm

    For those who have not read yet, please see


    “We recognize the services made by Pineda et al. We did not denigrate their services, we did not denigrate their contribution. We appreciate their contribution… The priority right now is the structural, the electro-mechanical, the functionality. After that, we move on the aesthetics, yung primary presentation ng tatlo. There was no disrespect given to the three very good people who presented their plans,” Lacierda said.

    So can we gather from this statement that it is mostly an engineering endeavor at present which did stress urgency so that the next phase of redesign can be done?

    I don’t know exactly.

    Some I know will argue why not do both side by side/simultaneously? Again, I do not know. But at least little by little, light is slowly being shed on the topic.

    So keep level headed guys. We are slowly getting some form of transparency. I say, if you really want transparency, then FOI bill is the way to go then. Support that bill as another way to prevent the type of corruption we all detest and abhor.

    And keep the statement of what they said that there will be a bidding when that time comes. At least a formal statement about it has also been released. You can always back track to this article now can’t you?

  25. Sphynx
    November 30, 2011 at 7:40 pm

    For the bloggers readers, please refer to philstar article published november 30, 2011 entitled ‘Local, international firms to assist DOTC on NAIA rehab’ by Rainier Ronda on page 15.
    Paragraph 3 states ‘ LVLA has agreed to come in as the lead design group to plan and execute the upgrade on a probono basis or for free’
    Paragraph 4 continues ‘ DOTC consultant Jose Aliling will also join he rehab team that will undertake the makeover for free.’
    (needed to paraphrase as hard to type.)
    If this is true then the design professionals commissioned are technically free to undertake the majority engineering rehab effort as indicated by mar roxas.

    For everyone’s info. Cheers!

  26. katrina
    December 3, 2011 at 11:16 pm

    for those who decided to use the PRBoA statement to pounce on the credibility of Cobonpue-Layug-Pineda. they’ve issued a disclaimer and take the statement back.

    • Sphynx
      December 4, 2011 at 10:06 am

      Ms Katrina,

      I think the PRBoA statement was not against Cobonpue, but rather clarifying their mandate or stance.

      However, there were a lot of people who took it as a for and against stance when the PRBoA’s purpose is arbitrary and simply to execute what is written in law.

  27. jann
    June 22, 2013 at 7:01 pm

    It’s unfair to say that we have the worst airport because most of the improvements are taking place in the airport to give better convenience to the passengers.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

© Katrina Stuart Santiago  ·  Contact Me
Wordpress theme and web development by @joelsantiago