Heritage in the time of earthquakes

A news item about the Gotiaoco Building, a commercial structure supposedly built in 1914 that Cebu City Hall building officials are recommending for demolition because of damages caused by the earthquake, made me think about Republic Act No. 10066, our almost two-year old National Cultural Heritage Act, and how it is being implemented (or not being implemented).

The building is located across City Hall and before it was vacated, was used by the city’s market authority personnel. From pictures I saw in the Internet, the building’s architecture looked similar to that of the City Hall and hinted of a Cebu City from a more gracious and less crowded era.

The article quoted Engineer Ariel dela Cruz, the city’s structural consultant, as saying that cracks had appeared in the concrete walls and columns of the Gotiaoco Building, and that the structure had showed signs of disintegration. He believed that it could collapse during an earthquake stronger than the one last February 6. He also reportedly said that it would be best to demolish the structure rather than to proceed with major retrofitting works which would be more expensive than building a new one.

In contrast to the news of the planned demolition of the Gotiaoco Building, another article stated that Cebu provincial officials and church officials were slated to meet to discuss the retrofitting of several bell towers of churches in southern Cebu that were damaged by the 6.9-magnitude earthquake. Among those that incurred damage were the churches of Dumanjug, Badian and Boljoon towns and Carcar City. Governor Gwendolyn Garcia was quoted as saying that the province needs to protect these structures as these form part of Cebu’s heritage.

Under Section 5 of the National Cultural Heritage Act, structures that are at least fifty (50) years old are presumed to be important cultural property for the purpose of protecting them against exportation, modification, or demolition. This means that unless the presumption is removed by the appropriate cultural agency after the property owner files a petition, a person who demolishes a building that is at least fifty years old may be held criminally liable. The penalty is a fine of not less than Two Hundred Thousand Pesos or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten (10) years or both at the discretion of the court.  If the Gotiaco Building was built in 1914, it would appear that it is included among the structures that are presumed to be important cultural property.

A strict interpretation of the heritage law would require the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the purported owner of the building, to first ask the National Historical Commission of the Philippines to remove the presumption that the building is important cultural property before it asks for the demolition of the building.

On the other hand, Section 16 of the Local Government Code gives the Cebu City government the duty to promote health and safety in its territorial jurisdiction. It is but proper that its building officials are inspecting buildings and giving recommendations as to whether or not these can still be safely occupied. I understand that the area has been cordoned off and people prevented from entering in case the building collapses.

I just wish that local building officials would be more conscious of our heritage law and be more appreciative of our cultural heritage. The cost of retrofitting a building should not be the only consideration in deciding whether or not a building should be fixed or demolished. The heritage law already has a standard: a 50-year-old structure is presumed to be important cultural property. A structure does not need to be a church built during the Spanish colonial period to be cultural heritage worth saving.

* * *

Email: [email protected].