** NEWS RELEASE *** NEWS RELEASE *** NEWS RELEASE **
Urban Poor Asks Supreme Court to Convene Advisory Committee on Manila Bay Clean Up
08 October 2009. Eight months after the creation of the advisory committee that will oversee the Manila Bay clean up, the Urban Poor Associates (UPA) filed before the Supreme Court today a motion to convene the advisory committee and to submit report if no laws are violated or will be violated as well as other human and shelter rights by the concerned government agencies implementing the court’s decision to clean up Manila Bay.
The creation of the advisory committee came following the filing of a motion for clarification by the said group and the informal settlers who cried foul over the demolition of their houses without prior notice by the personnel of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA), supposedly in line with the ruling of the court issued on December 18, 2008 concerning the Manila Bay cleanup.
In a nine-page motion, the urban poor group through their lawyer, Ritche Esponilla, stressed that the urgency in convening the advisory committee is to come out with its official report. The report is to concern whether or not the various implementing government agencies follow the relevant laws or not particularly R.A 7279 or the Act providing for the Comprehensive and Continuing Urban Development and Housing Program.
UPA said 70,000 urban poor families surrounding Manila Bay are in danger of being demolished without due relocation. Earlier this year, it was also reported that unannounced and illegal demolitions were carried out along waterways and esteros surrounding the area of Manila Bay.
“There is an urgent need to convene the advisory committee as different government agencies are hastily implementing the clean up as a result of tropical storm Ondoy,” Atty. Esponilla said.
Atty. Esponilla said while the clean up is valuable and must be duly supported by all sectors it must not come at the expense of displacing thousands of urban poor families already marginalized by society.
“Let us be clear about two things here. One, the poor are not the major cause of the floodings. Second, the urban poor communities are not against any move to clean up Manila bay in order to restore its former splendor,” Atty. Esponilla stressed.
UPA said there are other explanation for floodings such as urban planning defects and environmental degradation as a result of illegal logging and quarrying activities in the mountains around Metro Manila. The group also said that the urban poor dwellers along esteros, waterways and other so-called danger areas not as a “matter of choice” but because they must in order to survive.
“As such, we believe in the effort to clean up Manila Bay, a comprehensive and decent relocation program and immediate economic relief must come with the initiative,” Atty. Esponilla said.
Atty. Esponilla also said the public must not be made to choose between the interest of the environment and the rights and welfare of the poor.
“They are not mutually exclusive of one another. Both are important. Surely, the rehabilitation of Manila Bay without resolving the urban poor question would be another tragedy. We would get rid off the pollution at the expense of the people. As such, we urge the government to convene the advisory committee to prevent or avert any violation of laws particularly the shelter rights of the poor living in the surrounding area of Manila Bay,” Atty. Esponilla concluded.
Other movants of the said motion include Community Organizers Multiversity (COM), Community Organization of the Philippine Enterprise (COPE), Kabalikat sa Pagpapaunlad ng Baseco (KABALIKAT), Ugnayang Lakas ng mga Apektadong Pamilya sa Baybaying Ilog Pasig (ULAP) and residents along Radial 10 (R-10) Boulevard in Tondo, Manila. -30-
Showing posts with label ruling in cleaning up Manila Bay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ruling in cleaning up Manila Bay. Show all posts
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Monday, March 09, 2009
Amputations and evictions
Commentary : Amputations and evictions
By Denis Murphy
Philippine Daily Inquirer
Posted date: March 09, 2009
METRO Manila is going to see more and more evictions in the future as two powerful forces collide over land. On one side are urban poor families seeking a place to live. On the other side are groups demanding infrastructure, business centers, luxury housing, beautification, a clean environment, parks, recreation centers and malls. Between 1996 and 2008, some 85,000 families were evicted in Metro Manila. The numbers will increase.
Evictions are like physical amputation; they are traumatic events that tear apart a person’s world. There are no good amputations, and there are no good evictions. The most people can hope for in the case of amputation is good medical care and a helpful prosthetic. The hope in evictions is for the humane and just care promised by the Constitution (Article XIII, Section 28) and a decent relocation. They never make up for the lost limb or home.
As a way of making evictions palatable, the Charter of the Urban Poor asks that before infrastructure is approved for funding it must be studied in a public transparent fashion to make sure it truly serves the common good and not the narrow interests of a few powerful persons, and that the housing rights of the poor are ensured.
Is, for example, the extension of the C-5 from Old Balara to the North Luzon Expressway so intrinsic to the common good that 30,000 families have to be evicted? Are there no alternate ways to speed up traffic? If it is necessary, can the number of families evicted be limited by passing the road through the Capitol Hills Golf Course and not through the densely crowded urban poor areas of the University of the Philippines? Are there plans for quality relocation? Does the government have the P4.5 billion cost of relocating 30,000 families (NHA allots P150,000 for every relocated family)?
If the answer to any of the questions is negative, the infrastructure should be rejected or at least reworked.
The clean-up of Manila Bay and the river systems feeding into it, which was ordered by the Supreme Court recently, is another example. As soon as the decision was made public, some government agencies targeted the 70,000 families living along the banks of the waterways as the culprits and planned their eviction.
A public examination of the project would reveal that the main causes of pollution in the waters are the industries along the banks and the human waste of a million toilets flowing into the rivers and esteros. The major polluters are not the urban poor who cause only a small fraction of pollution, which can be controlled as Amelita Ramos showed in her Clean and Green Program. Those who want to clean up the waterways should begin with human waste treatment plants and disciplinary measures for industry. To do that, very few poor families have to be moved. Relocation of the 70,000 families will cost up to P10.5 billion. If there is no funding for relocation which is a basic human right, there should be no evictions.
The NorthRail-SouthRail project is the champion example for the need to examine proposed infrastructure publicly and intensely before committing funds. The project is now six years old. Billions of pesos have been spent. Some 49,000 families (as of October 2008) were evicted and relocated. In return for all this there is a 125-kilometer gray scar of crushed concrete running from Clark Field to Calamba, Laguna. Maybe, like the Great Wall of China, it is visible from space. In the North not a shovelful of earth has been moved. In the South some old tracks have been replaced with new ones, but there is no sign they are for the modern high speed trains that were once envisioned, which required a 30-meter wide right of way. The government has refused to put new money into the NorthRail (Business World, February 23).
It’s not just errors in implementation. Some planners say the NorthRail should have gone East of Mt. Arayat into Nueva Ecija and the provinces there where a train would have made great sense in carrying farm produce to market and opening up areas for development. On the West side of Arayat the train wasn’t really needed. The West Side is already developed. The choice of going West of Arayat only served to enhance the value of properties of some powerful persons, the planner said.
Finally, is there any need to evict poor people for the Metro Gwapo Program? It doesn’t attract investment: among all the reasons given by investors for the lack of investment in the Philippines, beautification is never mentioned. Far ahead in investor’s concerns are corruption, inadequate infrastructure, high costs of electric power and similar reasons. Investors don’t care if there are poor people living under bridges.
If the urban poor community, the Church and other civil society leaders see the government is doing its best to limit evictions and spend government money wisely for its infrastructure, there will be more willingness to accept some evictions. Otherwise it will be confrontation pure and simple.
Denis Murphy works with the Urban Poor Associates. His email address is upa@pldtdsl.net.
©Copyright 2001-2009 INQUIRER.net, An Inquirer Company
By Denis Murphy
Philippine Daily Inquirer
Posted date: March 09, 2009
METRO Manila is going to see more and more evictions in the future as two powerful forces collide over land. On one side are urban poor families seeking a place to live. On the other side are groups demanding infrastructure, business centers, luxury housing, beautification, a clean environment, parks, recreation centers and malls. Between 1996 and 2008, some 85,000 families were evicted in Metro Manila. The numbers will increase.
Evictions are like physical amputation; they are traumatic events that tear apart a person’s world. There are no good amputations, and there are no good evictions. The most people can hope for in the case of amputation is good medical care and a helpful prosthetic. The hope in evictions is for the humane and just care promised by the Constitution (Article XIII, Section 28) and a decent relocation. They never make up for the lost limb or home.
As a way of making evictions palatable, the Charter of the Urban Poor asks that before infrastructure is approved for funding it must be studied in a public transparent fashion to make sure it truly serves the common good and not the narrow interests of a few powerful persons, and that the housing rights of the poor are ensured.
Is, for example, the extension of the C-5 from Old Balara to the North Luzon Expressway so intrinsic to the common good that 30,000 families have to be evicted? Are there no alternate ways to speed up traffic? If it is necessary, can the number of families evicted be limited by passing the road through the Capitol Hills Golf Course and not through the densely crowded urban poor areas of the University of the Philippines? Are there plans for quality relocation? Does the government have the P4.5 billion cost of relocating 30,000 families (NHA allots P150,000 for every relocated family)?
If the answer to any of the questions is negative, the infrastructure should be rejected or at least reworked.
The clean-up of Manila Bay and the river systems feeding into it, which was ordered by the Supreme Court recently, is another example. As soon as the decision was made public, some government agencies targeted the 70,000 families living along the banks of the waterways as the culprits and planned their eviction.
A public examination of the project would reveal that the main causes of pollution in the waters are the industries along the banks and the human waste of a million toilets flowing into the rivers and esteros. The major polluters are not the urban poor who cause only a small fraction of pollution, which can be controlled as Amelita Ramos showed in her Clean and Green Program. Those who want to clean up the waterways should begin with human waste treatment plants and disciplinary measures for industry. To do that, very few poor families have to be moved. Relocation of the 70,000 families will cost up to P10.5 billion. If there is no funding for relocation which is a basic human right, there should be no evictions.
The NorthRail-SouthRail project is the champion example for the need to examine proposed infrastructure publicly and intensely before committing funds. The project is now six years old. Billions of pesos have been spent. Some 49,000 families (as of October 2008) were evicted and relocated. In return for all this there is a 125-kilometer gray scar of crushed concrete running from Clark Field to Calamba, Laguna. Maybe, like the Great Wall of China, it is visible from space. In the North not a shovelful of earth has been moved. In the South some old tracks have been replaced with new ones, but there is no sign they are for the modern high speed trains that were once envisioned, which required a 30-meter wide right of way. The government has refused to put new money into the NorthRail (Business World, February 23).
It’s not just errors in implementation. Some planners say the NorthRail should have gone East of Mt. Arayat into Nueva Ecija and the provinces there where a train would have made great sense in carrying farm produce to market and opening up areas for development. On the West side of Arayat the train wasn’t really needed. The West Side is already developed. The choice of going West of Arayat only served to enhance the value of properties of some powerful persons, the planner said.
Finally, is there any need to evict poor people for the Metro Gwapo Program? It doesn’t attract investment: among all the reasons given by investors for the lack of investment in the Philippines, beautification is never mentioned. Far ahead in investor’s concerns are corruption, inadequate infrastructure, high costs of electric power and similar reasons. Investors don’t care if there are poor people living under bridges.
If the urban poor community, the Church and other civil society leaders see the government is doing its best to limit evictions and spend government money wisely for its infrastructure, there will be more willingness to accept some evictions. Otherwise it will be confrontation pure and simple.
Denis Murphy works with the Urban Poor Associates. His email address is upa@pldtdsl.net.
©Copyright 2001-2009 INQUIRER.net, An Inquirer Company
Monday, February 16, 2009
Urban Poor Group Seeks Clarification of Supreme Court Ruling
** NEWS RELEASE *** NEWS RELEASE *** NEWS RELEASE **
Urban Poor Group Seeks Clarification of Supreme Court Ruling
16 February 2009. Several urban poor communities have decided to seek clarification from the Supreme Court regarding its ruling in cleaning up Manila Bay that seems to give license to government agencies, particularly the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA), to demolish their dwellings found along the banks of Pasig River and its tributaries.
The communities have sought the assistance of St. Thomas More Law Center of the Urban Poor Associates (UPA) and the Sentro ng Alternatibong Lingap Panligal (Saligan) to act as their counsel in a motion for clarification before the Supreme Court which will be filed Monday (February 16) morning.
In its decision on MMDA vs. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, et. al (SC GR. Nos. 171947-48), the Court mandates and authorizes the demolition of structures, houses of the urban poor included, as an integral process of cleaning the Manila Bay, without mentioning the obligation of the implementing agencies to observe the need for consultation and relocation in a humane manner as required by law.
Under Republic Act 7279 also known as the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 (more popularly known as the Lina Law), families who live in the so called danger zones may be relocated and their homes may be demolished provided that they are given adequate relocation after a process of consultation and dialogue.
This clarification from the court is urgently needed because the usual practice of MMDA is to demolish dwellings without giving notice and doing away with consultation, and without providing adequate relocation.
In fact, MMDA practices summary demolition based on the Building Code and the provision on summary demolition under the Civil Code.
MMDA has rendered thousands of urban poor families homeless, some of whom are now literally living in the streets with their children and elderly, exposed to the elements.
The number of families estimated to be directly affected by this court ruling is about 70,000.
While the communities have no legal standing to question the decision as they are not a party to the case, they have sought a prior leave of court to be allowed to seek clarification on the manner of executing and implementing the decision.
They will be directly affected if the government agencies, particularly the MMDA should interpret the decision as an order to demolish and destroy their dwellings without observing the people’s right to notice, consultation and relocation, among others.
Aside from UPA, other movants are housing rights NGOs such as the Community Organizers Multiversity (COM), Community Organization of the Philippine Enterprise (COPE), Kabalikat sa Pagpapaunlad ng Baseco (Kabalikat), Ugnayang Lakas ng mga Apektadong Pamilya sa Baybaying Ilog Pasig (ULAP) and residents along Radial 10 (R-10) Boulevard in Tondo, Manila. -30-
Urban Poor Group Seeks Clarification of Supreme Court Ruling
16 February 2009. Several urban poor communities have decided to seek clarification from the Supreme Court regarding its ruling in cleaning up Manila Bay that seems to give license to government agencies, particularly the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA), to demolish their dwellings found along the banks of Pasig River and its tributaries.
The communities have sought the assistance of St. Thomas More Law Center of the Urban Poor Associates (UPA) and the Sentro ng Alternatibong Lingap Panligal (Saligan) to act as their counsel in a motion for clarification before the Supreme Court which will be filed Monday (February 16) morning.
In its decision on MMDA vs. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, et. al (SC GR. Nos. 171947-48), the Court mandates and authorizes the demolition of structures, houses of the urban poor included, as an integral process of cleaning the Manila Bay, without mentioning the obligation of the implementing agencies to observe the need for consultation and relocation in a humane manner as required by law.
Under Republic Act 7279 also known as the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 (more popularly known as the Lina Law), families who live in the so called danger zones may be relocated and their homes may be demolished provided that they are given adequate relocation after a process of consultation and dialogue.
This clarification from the court is urgently needed because the usual practice of MMDA is to demolish dwellings without giving notice and doing away with consultation, and without providing adequate relocation.
In fact, MMDA practices summary demolition based on the Building Code and the provision on summary demolition under the Civil Code.
MMDA has rendered thousands of urban poor families homeless, some of whom are now literally living in the streets with their children and elderly, exposed to the elements.
The number of families estimated to be directly affected by this court ruling is about 70,000.
While the communities have no legal standing to question the decision as they are not a party to the case, they have sought a prior leave of court to be allowed to seek clarification on the manner of executing and implementing the decision.
They will be directly affected if the government agencies, particularly the MMDA should interpret the decision as an order to demolish and destroy their dwellings without observing the people’s right to notice, consultation and relocation, among others.
Aside from UPA, other movants are housing rights NGOs such as the Community Organizers Multiversity (COM), Community Organization of the Philippine Enterprise (COPE), Kabalikat sa Pagpapaunlad ng Baseco (Kabalikat), Ugnayang Lakas ng mga Apektadong Pamilya sa Baybaying Ilog Pasig (ULAP) and residents along Radial 10 (R-10) Boulevard in Tondo, Manila. -30-
Saturday, February 14, 2009
MEDIA ADVISORY: Urban Poor Group Seeks Clarification of Supreme Court Ruling in Cleaning Up Manila Bay
Attention: News Editor, News Desk, Reporters and Photojournalists
MEDIA ADVISORY
Urban Poor Group Seeks Clarification of Supreme Court Ruling in Cleaning Up Manila Bay
Due to the threats of demolitions and forced evictions, several urban poor community leaders are set to take up a legal battle on Monday (February 16) as they seek clarification from the Supreme Court with its ruling in cleaning up Manila Bay.
Several urban poor communities in Metro Manila have sought the assistance of St. Thomas More Law Center of the Urban Poor Associates (UPA) and the Sentro ng Alternatibong Lingap Panligal (Saligan) to act as their counsel in a motion for clarification before the Supreme Court.
The urban poor movants in this motion for clarification will accompany the lawyers to the Supreme Court on Monday at 10:00 AM. After the filing they will give a press con outside the court.
The Supreme Court ruling seems to give license to government agencies, particularly the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA), to demolish their dwellings found along the banks of Pasig River and its tributaries.
In its decision on MMDA vs. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, et. al (SC GR. Nos. 171947-48), the Court mandates and authorizes the demolition of structures, houses of the urban poor included, as an integral process of cleaning the Manila Bay, without mentioning the obligation of the implementing agencies to observe the need for consultation and relocation in a humane manner as required by law.
This clarification from the court is urgently needed because the usual practice of MMDA is to demolish dwellings without giving notice and doing away with consultation, and without providing adequate relocation.
According to UPA, the number of families estimated to be directly affected by this court ruling is about 70,000.
Date: February 16, 2009 (Monday) / 10:00 AM
Venue: Supreme Court
Download: MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT
MOTION FOR PRIOR LEAVE
LEAVE OF COURT TO ADMIT THE ATTACHED MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF PRONOUNCEMENTS
News Release - Urban Poor Group Seeks Clarification of Supreme Court Ruling
Media Advisory - Urban Poor Group Seeks Clarification of Supreme Court Ruling in Cleaning Up Manila Bay
MEDIA ADVISORY
Urban Poor Group Seeks Clarification of Supreme Court Ruling in Cleaning Up Manila Bay
Due to the threats of demolitions and forced evictions, several urban poor community leaders are set to take up a legal battle on Monday (February 16) as they seek clarification from the Supreme Court with its ruling in cleaning up Manila Bay.
Several urban poor communities in Metro Manila have sought the assistance of St. Thomas More Law Center of the Urban Poor Associates (UPA) and the Sentro ng Alternatibong Lingap Panligal (Saligan) to act as their counsel in a motion for clarification before the Supreme Court.
The urban poor movants in this motion for clarification will accompany the lawyers to the Supreme Court on Monday at 10:00 AM. After the filing they will give a press con outside the court.
The Supreme Court ruling seems to give license to government agencies, particularly the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA), to demolish their dwellings found along the banks of Pasig River and its tributaries.
In its decision on MMDA vs. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, et. al (SC GR. Nos. 171947-48), the Court mandates and authorizes the demolition of structures, houses of the urban poor included, as an integral process of cleaning the Manila Bay, without mentioning the obligation of the implementing agencies to observe the need for consultation and relocation in a humane manner as required by law.
This clarification from the court is urgently needed because the usual practice of MMDA is to demolish dwellings without giving notice and doing away with consultation, and without providing adequate relocation.
According to UPA, the number of families estimated to be directly affected by this court ruling is about 70,000.
Date: February 16, 2009 (Monday) / 10:00 AM
Venue: Supreme Court
Download: MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT
MOTION FOR PRIOR LEAVE
LEAVE OF COURT TO ADMIT THE ATTACHED MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF PRONOUNCEMENTS
News Release - Urban Poor Group Seeks Clarification of Supreme Court Ruling
Media Advisory - Urban Poor Group Seeks Clarification of Supreme Court Ruling in Cleaning Up Manila Bay
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
All Comments