Residents, heritage advocates decry Suntrust condominium project in Sta. Ana, Manila heritage area

Heritage advocates, along with some resident of Brgy. 885, Zone 97 of Manila on May 26, Friday, denounced Suntrust Ascentia’s construction project of three 36-story condominiums to be built at a 5000-square-meter vacant lot within the 200-meter buffer zone of the National Shrine of Our Lady of the Abandoned, commonly known as the Santa Ana Church.

In a press conference held at the University of Santo Tomas (UST) Buenaventura Garcia Paredes, O.P. Bldg. (BGPOP), Sta. Ana Heritage Tourism Association (SAHTA) president Sylvia Lichauco de Leon implored the local government to preserve and protect one of Manila's cultural heritages and to prevent the construction of the Ascentia project, which is around 170 meters from the Santa Ana Church.

"Buffer zones are defined by thorough study, common consent and rule of law to act as a shield to protect an important, [...] shall we keep the sky, the rainbow, the moon, and the stars? Or shall we be enveloped by towering concrete?" de Leon said.

De Leon quoted Architect and former International Council On Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) Philippines president Dominic Galicia, “It is the affirmation by the state that it means what it says when it declares a zone a heritage zone. The government's commitment to the rule of law and the common good is being tested today.”

The Sta. Ana Heritage Zone is under protection of the Republic Act No. 11066, also known as the The National Cultural Heritage Act (NCHA) of 2009, which seeks to safeguard the nation's historical sites, artifacts, and local communities' unique ethnic backgrounds.

The advocates asserted that the local government offices purportedly failed to uphold the NCHA, which stipulates that any construction work within the heritage zone and its adjacent buffer zone requires NHCP authorization.

They also condemned the actions of Suntrust, which also happened to be owned by Megaworld Corporation, for allegedly forging original copies of the resolution passed by the barangay council approving the company's application for a barangay permission to proceed to the construction of the condominium.

In March 2019, the advocates received original copies of a barangay certification saying that they post no objections and allow Suntrust Inc. to proceed with the condominium project, when in fact they asserted that they have no recollection of consenting the commencement of the project.

In turn, SAHTA issued an Affidavit of Counterfeit to debunk the said certification initially issued by Suntrust.

“We were not aware during the whole COVID time because it was quiet, and they said they had documents so they presented them on Monday, November 7 which are all fraudulent. Meaning, the signatures there were not actual,” de Leon explained.

De Leon said Suntrust's architect Manolito Ellman, on Nov. 7, met with the Barangay 885 Council to provide a barangay construction clearance, a certificate of no objection, and a barangay resolution.

“In the certificate of no objection, the neighbors had objected from the start [...] and those whose signatures are there made an affidavit notarized that they did not sign that [...] I don't think these people would lie and would be liable to perjury,” she added.

De Leon told Six Stars Capitol that the issue at hand is currently in litigation at the Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 41. SAHTA has already undergone three court hearings about this matter.

As of writing, the Manila local government unit (LGU) and Suntrust Ascentia have yet to respond to Six Stars Capitol’s requests for comment, despite multiple efforts to do so.

by: Rose Eunice Gacutan, Jose Gabriel Ignacio