Position Paper Outline

1. A Word of Appreciation to Atty. Enrile, Family and Nagaland Development Corp.
2. Parameters and Guidance on the Nueva Caceres (Naga) Heritage Ruins
3. Some Initial Observations on the Nagaland Plan Prepared by Ar. Rico
4. PLAN B: Ruins Restored as Ruins
5. Collaborating in the Best Interest of Naga City Historical-Cultural Heritage

A Word of Appreciation to Atty. William T. Enrile, his Family and Nagaland Development Corporation

At the outset, we express our sincere appreciation to private land owner Atty. William T. Enrile, his family and Nagaland Development Corporation for their recently submitted 71-page Conservation Management Plan: Old Spanish Barracks and Storehouse: Naga City, Camarines Sur (hereinafter “Nagaland Plan”) prepared by Conservation Architect Joel Vivero Rico, FPIA, UAP with his cover letter to the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) dated February 25, 2025.

The said Nagaland Plan proposes and envisions what it calls the Paseo de Nueva Caceres Heritage Complex on what is referred to as the “Nagaland Heritage Property” (p. 13) – a 4,810 square meters lot bounded by Peñafrancia Ave. on its front and by Arejola St. on its left side in Barangay San Francisco, Naga City that presently contains two Spanish-era building ruins of an Old Barracks (Cuartel) and an old Storehouse (Almacen)  that the City Government of Naga (CGN) had declared as Important Cultural Properties (ICPs) and recognized as such by the NHCP.

We particularly appreciate that, instead of the possible demolition of the two old structures in the site, “Atty. Enrile and his family expressed their intention of developing the complex amplifying the importance and historical value of those structures in the heritage of Naga” (Nagaland Plan, p. 19) and that this “are being pursued and initiated by Nagaland Development led by Atty. William Enrile and his family as their legacy to the noble city of Naga” (cover letter, last paragraph). Indeed, may the Enrile family’s established Naga commercial and business property legacy be now enhanced by a new historical and cultural heritage legacy.   

We also particularly appreciate that the Nagaland Plan gives some credit to the “concern [of] both local heritage advocates and Naga City administration” (p. 3), that “in 2022, several heritage advocates in Naga City showed concern to the possible demolition of the two old structures in the site and was supported by the Naga City Local Government and the National Historical Commission of the Philippines…” (p. 19). This is a recognition that there are these other stakeholders of “the two ruined heritage structures within the property of Nagaland Development.”    

We appreciate that the Enrile family and Nagaland have invested significantly in engaging a recognized Conservation Architect in Ar. Rico to prepare a conservation and architectural plan. The Nagaland Plan of Ar. Rico importantly includes damage assessment and restoration methodology of each of the two ruined heritage structures, as well as common or general preventive maintenance and preservation guidelines. For the Paseo de Nueva Caceres Heritage Complex development, “the structural retrofitting, restoration and adaptive reuse of these valued structures are at the core of its development” (p. 53). However, “another [major] part of the development is the construction of Spanish Era-inspired commercial strip” (p. 53) to be called Paseo de Nueva Caceres in the frontage of the heritage lot along Peñafrancia Ave. that would block the street-view of the two ruined heritage structures. (More specific initial observations on the Nagaland Plan Prepared by Ar. Rico are presented two sections further below.)

The Enrile family appears ready and willing to further invest significantly more in their envisioned Paseo de Nueva Caceres Heritage Complex. This represents a significant and substantial necessary funding resource for what we might generically call the “Nueva Caceres (Naga) Ruins Heritage Site” conservation and development in whatever all-stakeholders-acceptable final form this may take after proper public consultation. Surely, any considerable funding resource, whether private or public, should be put to its best possible use in the best interest of Naga City’s historical and cultural heritage.    

As it is, the Nagaland Plan, by its reference to “Adaptive Reuse Suggestions” (p. 49) and to “Recommendations,” including “That the two heritage structures should be restored to their former glory with the guidance of the NHCP” (p. 63), indicate that the said Plan is not final but recommendatory, subject to approval by the NHCP and, we believe, also by the CGN. This Unified Position Paper of the stakeholder Naga City historical and cultural heritage advocates proposes the consideration by all concerned of certain parameters and guidance, as well as options or variations, for and in the best interest of the conservation and development of the Nueva Caceres (Naga) Ruins Heritage Site in building on and improving on the Nagaland Plan of Ar. Rico.  

Parameters and Guidance on the Nueva Caceres (Naga) Heritage Ruins

1. The Nueva Caceres (Naga) Ruins Heritage Site is not simply and purely private property, as indicated by the term “Nagaland Heritage Property.”  “[T]he two ruined heritage structures within the property of Nagaland Development [Corporation of the Enrile Family]” have been declared Important Cultural Properties (ICPs), notably by Naga City Sangguniang Panlungsod Resolution No. 2024-264 – which makes express reference (in its page 2) to being “based on legal grounds, such as RA 7160 or the Local Government Code of the Philippines; RA 10066 or the National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009; Naga City Ordinance No. 2003-003; Naga City Resolution No. 2014-038;  and DILG Circular No. 2017-133, among others.”
2. Under the National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009, RA 10066, as amended by 11961, Section 7, Important Cultural Property (ICPs) shall be entitled to certain privileges such as “(a) Priority government funding for protection, conservation and restoration; (b) Incentive for private support of conservation and restoration…; (c) An official heritage marker…;  (d) Priority government protection… in times of armed conflict, natural disasters, and other exceptional events that endanger the cultural heritage of the country; and (e) Priority protection from modification or demolition resulting from all government projects… Government projects that may potentially affect the integrity of any Grade I or Grade II Level cultural property must consult with the Commission [the NHCP] at the planning stages.”   We submit that the spirit, if not the letter, of this provision applies just as well to private development projects.      
3. Furthermore, under the 1987 Constitution, Article XII (National Economy and Patrimony), Section 6, “The use of property bears a social function, and all economic agents shall contribute to the common good. Individuals and private groups, including corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective organizations, shall have the right to own, establish and operate economic enterprises, subject to the duty of the State to promote distributive justice and to intervene when the common good so demands.”  The protection, conservation and restoration of the Nueva Caceres (Naga) Ruins is for the common good of the people of Naga City, if not of the whole Philippines, in terms of the social function that is historical and cultural heritage. 
4. Important cultural property (Grade II Level) and national cultural treasures (Grade I Level), under RA 11961, Sec. 4, may also be likened to the “national patrimony” that “We, the sovereign Filipino people,” per our Constitution’s Preamble, undertake to “conserve and develop our patrimony.” National patrimony refers to the wealth and heritage of a nation, encompassing both tangible and intangible assets. It includes natural resources, cultural heritage, and historical artifacts, all of which are considered vital to a country’s identity and well-being. The concept is often enshrined in constitutional provisions to ensure the protection and sustainable management of these assets for present and future generations. 
5. Verily, the two ruined heritage structures, declared as ICPs, within the property of Nagaland, are more valuable than the land or lot on which they stand. The two ruined heritage structures practically define that currently private lot, so much so that Nagaland refers to it as the “Nagaland Heritage Property.”  More than ten years ago, Sangguniang Panlungsod Resolution No. 2014-038 had already “declare[d] the old ruins at Barangay San Francisco as heritage structures and the parcel of land wherein these structures are erected as heritage site.” It also happens to be in the heart of “Naga City’s Soul: the Ciudad de Nueva Caceres Heritage District” through its updated Comprehensive Use Plan (CLUP) and new Zoning Ordinance.
6. Then there is the most recent guidance from the new City Mayor Leni G. Robredo in her Inaugural Speech last June 30:
   • “We will preserve our history, language and cultural heritage alongside our efforts to make Naga a more conducive and welcoming space for creative workers and artists.”
   • “In our pivot towards stronger environmental stewardship, we strive to create open spaces, with thriving trees and gardens becoming part of our collective lives.”
7. Finally, there is no monopoly of wisdom in conservation architecture. Naga City actually has its own human resources of conservation architects and urban environmental planners. They have a Naga perspective that Manila architects do not have. A Naga perspective should have added value in the conservation management planning for the Nueva Caceres (Naga) Ruins Heritage. One best evidence of this is the excellent architectural expert report publication CORREO: Conveying a Relic into the Future by U.P. architects Casey Niña Y. Abalayan and Markel Cesar A. Luna (University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City, 2023), based on field work at the two buildings ruins in 2020 [this publication is referred to in Sangguniang Panlungsod Resolution No. 2024-264, copies were provided to the then SP and can be provided to all interested]. Our Naga architects of the United Architects of the Philippines (UAP)-Camarines Sur Chapter can also work well in collaboration with their fellow UAP member Manila architects, as they have been doing so with their own Manila conservation architect contacts of reputable stature on other conservation architecture projects, studies and activities in Naga and beyond elsewhere in the Philippines.  

Some Initial Observations on the Nagaland Plan Prepared by Ar. Rico

With due respect to Ar. Joel Vivero Rico on his prepared 71-page Conservation Management Plan: Old Spanish Barracks and Storehouse: Naga City, Camarines Sur “in behalf of Nagaland Development Corporation,” it behooves us to make some initial observations on this Nagaland Plan, otherwise we would be remiss in our civic duty as Naga City historical and cultural heritage advocates, who also have a constitutional right “to effective and reasonable participation at all levels of social, political, and economic decision-making” such as through “adequate consultation mechanisms” (Art. XIII, Sec. 16).

1. As already mentioned above: “The Nagaland Plan of Ar. Rico importantly includes damage assessment and restoration methodology of each of the two ruined heritage structures, as well as common or general preventive maintenance and preservation guidelines. For the Paseo de Nueva Caceres Heritage Complex development, “the structural retrofitting, restoration and adaptive reuse of these valued structures are at the core of its development” (p. 53). However, “another [major] part of the development is the construction of Spanish Era-inspired commercial strip” (p. 53) to be called Paseo de Nueva Caceres in the frontage of the heritage lot along Peñafrancia Ave. that would block the street-view of the two ruined heritage structures.” This blocked street-view would appear to gravely undermine these two ruined heritage structures which “are at the core of its [the Paseo de Nueva Caceres Heritage Complex] development.” The focus is improperly shifted from the two ruined heritage structures to the upfront Paseo de Nueva Caceres commercial strip. The Nagaland Plan for this furthermore includes parking spaces in front of this commercial building along normally busy and traffic-prone Peñafrancia Ave.   
2. While there is conservation architecture merit in the adaptive reuse of the two ruined heritage structures, the Nagaland Plan for their adaptive reuse presents what looks like a rather too manicured look or perspective. Not much is left or seen any more of the historical ambience of the two ruined heritage structures.  Surely, there can be alternative adaptive reuse designs of these structures that may better retain or preserve their historical ambience. 
3. While the Nagaland Plan “will also feature landscape gardens, Alfresco terraces, fountain areas all to provide the experiential Spanish-Bicolano atmosphere” (p. 53), the overall layout of its proposed Paseo de Nueva Caceres Heritage Complex appears as a mainly concrete complex of buildings and pavements, including parking spaces. There is no sufficiently open green space of cooling trees, grass and flowering plants in the nature of a walking park surrounding the two ruined heritage structures. Open space green parks around those two structures can also well “provide the experiential Spanish-Bicolano atmosphere.”
4. While billed as a “Heritage Complex,” the Nagaland Plan for this appears to be strongly commercial in motivation or inspiration.  The Plan states quite candidly “After its restoration, the conversion of those structures should be economical and practical from its old purposes to its renewed and profit-driven functions are highly suggested.”  (p. 49) Aside from the upfront Paseo de Nueva Caceres commercial strip, the Plan envisions “Some spaces can be of coffee shops, retail stores, convenience outlet, restaurants and bars all within the development sensitive to its rich history and culture” (p. 53).  The Plan proposes adaptive reuse of “the old Barracks or Cuartel…[as] suitable for gym, restaurant or RTW stores. While the old Storehouse can be converted into a coffee shop or bakery/ pastry store.” (p. 49) We all know the problem with eating places when it comes to messy and smelly food waste garbage that attracts rodents, cockroaches and other pests.  Mention is made of “a multi-purpose museum and events place” (p. 52) but nothing about use for arts and culture.
5. Of course, we can understand the commercial motivation of the local big business Enrile family, but the fact is that their proposed Paseo de Nueva Caceres commercial strip is already surrounded by “coffee shops, retail stores, convenience outlet, restaurants and bars… gym, restaurant or RTW stores… bakery/ pastry store” and more in their other nearby old and new Nagaland commercial and business building complexes just across Peñafrancia Ave. and Elias Angeles St., namely E-mall (the former Alatco bus terminal compound), Starmark Café & Hotel building, Downtown District mall (including the former Peña de Francia school site), and Nagaland Hotel building (a former old GSIS Bldg.), among others. Naga does not really need more of the same kind of rapid and high-rise urban development (that has contributed much to our current flooding problems). Neither it seems does the Enrile family, with its established Naga commercial and business property legacy. It can enhance its Naga legacy by now more significantly investing and contributing in a purposive and best way to Naga’s historical and cultural heritage.   
6. In that regard, important note must be taken of the Nagaland Plan’s Recommendation no. 2: “If possible, that the owner is willing to donate the two (2) buildings to the LGU for possible relocation for tourism-potential development initiated by the city.”  (p. 63) This strangely goes against the grain of the Nagaland Plan for a “Heritage Complex.” Why “for possible relocation” of the two building ruins from their original historical location? It seems Nagaland may be more interested in clearing its “Heritage Property” of the ruins so that it can go full blast with the commercial development of the whole 4,810 square meters lot. Aside from losing all-important historical location, relocation would be quite risky for the physical integrity of the ruins. It would also likely be controversial like the relocation of far-flung ancestral heritage houses to the Las Casas Filipinas de Azucar in Bataan which was among Ar. Rico’s “notable projects” (p. 70). Why not simply “donate the two (2) buildings” in situ to the LGU?  As for the lot which is considered a heritage site in the LGU’s Heritage District, why not also donate this to cement the Enrile family’s Naga heritage legacy, or if not the preferred donation, swap this with other much available land of the LGU?  
7. After all, the Naga LGU is the prime stakeholder of Naga’s historical and cultural legacy, and it must give its due stake in this. The point is that Public-Private Partnership (PPP), a development concept favored by new Mayor Robredo in her Inaugural Speech, can tap the best of both public and private worlds, not just for resources but also for talents and ideas that would be needed to conserve and develop the Nueva Caceres (Naga) Ruins Heritage Site. And the private sector is not limited to the business sector, there is also civil society that includes the arts and culture sector, the heritage advocates and the architecture-urban environmental planning-civil engineering professionals. It is this kind of “People Empowerment” that has made Naga tick.  

Nota Bene      

Just as there is no monopoly of wisdom in conservation architecture, so is there no monopoly of wisdom in adaptive reuse designing, especially where the orientation is more for historical and cultural heritage conservation than for commercial profit. The UAP Camarines Sur Chapter, through its several leading conservation architects, has in fact developed heritage conservation-oriented adaptive reuse designs for the two Spanish-era building ruins. We understand that they will make their own submission of such designs as well as value additions for a Conservation Management Plan (CMP) to supplement that in the Nagaland Plan which we may call “PLAN A.”

These expected UAP-Camarines Sur alternative adaptive reuse designs, as well as an alternative non-adaptive reuse concept of “Ruins Restored as Ruins” presented as “PLAN B” in the next section, are not necessarily in full contra-position to the Nagaland Plan A.  The point is to present various components and options among these several, and if there are any other, plans from which to choose the best combination of features for the conservation and development of the Nueva Caceres (Naga) Ruins Heritage Site. 

PLAN B: Ruins Restored as Ruins

This PLAN B (to the Nagaland Plan A) has these alternative features:  

• focus on or centrality of the two ruined heritage structures
• open street view thereof with no building in their frontage
• open space green park in the frontage and around the heritage structures
• heritage, museum, and arts and culture over commercial orientation
• public-private partnership in its fullest and best sense

The ruins might be better restored as ruins. One notable model for this is “The Ruins” in Talisay, Negros Occidental of a big ancestral mansion from the American colonial period, now a major tourist site there. The Enrile family is well familiar with this because of its relations with the Javellana family owners of the Talisay Ruins. There are also the examples of the LGU-owned ruins of Spanish colonial era building ruins maintained as ruins just across the picturesque Catholic Church in Barcelona, Sorsogon, as are the Monreal Ruins beside the municipal library in Gubat, Sorsogon. This mode would retain the irreplaceable historical ambiance of those Spanish–era buildings that would otherwise be irretrievably lost by the proposed adaptive reuse with a manicured look. Restoring the ruins also has a unique educational value, as explained by Archdiocesan archivist-historian Fr. Francis A. Tordilla in his “Summary of Manuscripts found in the Archivo Historico Nacional de Madrid” submitted previously to the Sangguniang Panlungsod in support of the declaration of the Naga Ruins as ICPs:

Historicity is not limited to a single event like what most claimed that Elias Angeles and Felix Plazo were imprisoned in these calabozos. A building or a house may be historically valuable if it can be an example of a style of architecture or an industrial process that’s no longer used, or simply for its age. The whole neighborhood could also be declared historical because of its architecture, or because it still presents a picture of a previous era.

These remnants of colonial buildings are the new historical texts that compensate for the lack of archival materials in the city or the region. It’s time scholars and enthusiasts of Bikol history should go beyond the archives and secondary sources. Validate what local historians say. Make the site a modern classroom where students can touch with their hands the vestiges of a colonial past. Encouraging historical thinking using buildings offers the opportunity to model historical expertise that grounds historical inquiry in places and media that are accessible and meaningful to students at every level of historical interest, ability, and understanding.

Additionally, the cost of restoration as ruins would be considerably less than adaptive reuse restoration of the two building ruins. On the other hand, the  conservation-restored ruins can bring in its own returns or dividends in terms of historical-cultural and educational tourism site that benefits the local community.

While mainly restoring the two building ruins as ruins, their frontage should be an open space park with trees, grass and flowering plants, and so with and for the rear portions of the two building ruins. There is a current lack of open green parks in the too highly urbanized city of Naga. Its three central plazas – Plaza Quince Martires with its Naga-iconic monument, Plaza Quezon, and Plaza Rizal (known as the Jardin in older times) – are not open space green parks, they all do not have grass but are mostly concrete. A model layout of an open green park fronting historical buildings is that of Fort Santiago in Intramuros, Manila.

AND on the right side of the frontage, not blocking the main street view of the two building ruins, is available ideal space for a new appropriately designed Museo kan Naga two-story building that can be maximized to also serve as Naga’s arts and culture center. Naga has long lacked having its own museum, something any city, or even town, worth its name should have, as have for example Legazpi City; Guinobatan, Albay; and Gubat, Sorsogon. The two building ruins must be treated, presented and seen as an extension of the Museo, and vice versa, reinforcing each other.

To give due credit, gratitude and legacy to the investment and/or donation generosity of Nagaland principal Atty. William T. Enrile and his/its aspiration for a “Heritage Complex,” the alternative open space green park might be named “William T. Enrile Park” and the alternative Museo de Naga building named as “William T. Enrile Building,” if desired.

Tri-Partite Collaboration in the Best Interest of Naga City’s Historical and Cultural Heritage

In ending this position paper for now, we reiterate our sincere appreciation to private land owner Atty. William T. Enrile, his family and Nagaland Development Corporation for the significant qualitative step forward that they have taken with the planning assistance of conservation architect Joel Vivero Rico, FPIA, UAP, for the conservation, instead of demolition, of the two Naga Spanish-era building ruins that are declared Important Cultural Properties.

In the best interest of Naga City’s historical and cultural heritage, the best way forward for the conservation and development plan for the Nueva Caceres (Naga) Ruins Heritage Site, in the afore-mentioned concept and spirit of public-private partnership in its fullest and best sense, is a private owner-LGU-heritage advocates tri-partite collaboration and harnessing of talents, ideas and resources. This tri-partite collaboration can best be anchored by and through the SP Committee on Culture and the Arts, to ensure the best possible planning, including through the invitation of heritage conservation experts and other resource persons.  Of course, all this tri-partite collaboration must be with the guidance and whatever necessary technical and other assistance of the National Historical Commission of the Philippines. A recent Naga good example of successful LGU-heritage advocates-architecture professionals collaboration was the redesign planning for the ongoing reconstruction of Plaza Quezon. Dios mabalos.  

Signed on 25 July 2025, Naga City, “The Heart of Bikol,” Philippines.

Naga City Arts and Culture Coalition
Represented by:
Judge Soliman M. Santos, Jr. (Retd.)
By authority of NCACC Officer-in-Charge Dennis B. Gonzaga                                        

Saysay Bikol
Represented by:
Fr. Francis A. Tordilla
President