Showing posts with label RIGHT TO ADEQUATE HOUSING. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RIGHT TO ADEQUATE HOUSING. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Demolition in Baclaran turns bloody
12 hurt in Baclaran demolition
11/19/2009 | 12:38 AM
Tension mars demolition of shanties in Pasay City
11/18/2009 | 10:48 AM
12 hurt in demolition in Pasay City
11/18/2009 | 12:49 PM
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Urban Poor Mother, Son Killed
** NEWS RELEASE *** NEWS RELEASE *** NEWS RELEASE **
Urban Poor Mother, Son Killed
Quezon City, 13 October 2009. Maria Myrna Porcare, a vocal leader of Samahan ng Magkakapitbahay sa Pechayan (SAMASAPE), and his son Jimyr Porcare were shot dead by the land owner-hired security guards on October 9, 2009, Friday afternoon over a disputed piece of property in Pechayan, Brgy. North Fairview, a community near Tullahan River.
According to witnesses, the victim was just trying to stop the guards from fencing the area because they were already going beyond what was stated in the court order. The 2.4 hectare Pechayan is home for more than 1,000 informal settler families for about 20 years. The revival of eviction case against a certain Domingo couple at the Metropolitam Trial Court Branch 38 of Quezon City sustained Melecio Lavares’ claim over a portion of land. The land owner was able to secure a writ of execution against Domingo.
However, the guards adamantly continued fencing the entire 2.4 hectares of land which was beyond the court’s order. Thus, settlers resisted. Porcare was killed by a shotgun blast in the stomach. Her son came to rescue his mother but he was also shot dead in the thorax. Carrying shotguns, some 15 security guards are present at the crime scene.
Suspects were charged two counts of homicide with the help of Urban Poor Associates (UPA), a housing rights NGO. The suspects were detained at the Crime Investigation Detection Unit of Camp Karingal on Oct. 9.
Lawyer Ritche Esponilla, UPA legal counsel, said, “We will never tire ourselves prosecuting the two suspects to make sure that justice will be served to the mother and son who were unlawfully killed for fighting over their shelter rights.”
“We are likewise weighing all legal possibilities if we can file charges against the land claimant, the security agency and even against the sheriff for failing to properly supervise the execution of the issued writ which led to this very unfortunate incident,” he added.
Father Robert Reyes, also known as the running priest, in a mass this morning emphasized the greatness of the mother and son who died protecting their rights as a citizen of this country. “The mother died protecting her family’s right to housing and as a consequence her son also died protecting his mother’s right to live. They are heroes of urban poor,” he told residents during the homily.
“The rights of the poor diminished all of a sudden because of the government’s negligence to its duty to serve and protect. But we should not lose hope and instead justice should be served to Myrna and Jimyr’s death by continuing our fight for decent housing,” the Catholic priest added
Task Force Anti-Eviction composed of various people’s organizations and NGOs such as UPA, Community Organizers Multiversity (COM) and Community Organization of the Philippine Enterprise (COPE) Foundation condemn the killing.
The group urges the government to act “with expediency to resolve this crime and to investigate the conduct of demolitions and evictions, may it involve government or private land.” -30-
Maria Myrna Porcare - 42-year-old
Jimyr Porcare - 18-year-old
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Speech delivered by Atty Leila de Lima, CHR Chairperson, on the Forum on Right to Adequate Housing (March 10, 2009)
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Speech on the occasion of the Shadow Report on the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Quezon City, Philippines
10 March 2009
delivered by
LEILA M. DE LIMA
Chairperson, Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines
Good morning.
The opportunity for the Commission on Human Rights to appear before the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights November of last year is what we hope to look back upon as the seminal moment in our common quest to promote and protect housing rights in the context of the State's international obligations under the UNCESR. There had never been another National Human Rights Commission invited to speak before the Committee. To be the first, I had been told, places the efforts of the Philippine human rights community on the struggle to uphold housing-related rights within the consciousness of the members of the Committee.
To be invited bears two contrasting distinctions. First, our country as one among many with severely impaired housing rights. To be invited lends to the idea that we share in the ignominious reputation of being a country that struggles to deliver to our people the right to adequate housing and security of tenure. Yet, the second distinction reveals that the Committee has recognized and taken up a fascination with the efforts of the CHR and the local human rights community in the field of housing-related rights. Their interest in the progress of the promotion and protection of these rights is a prelude that no other country investigated by the Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing ever had – an initial audience with the Committee. It seems that we have gained not only a notoriety for our government’s inadequacies in promoting these rights on one hand, but a reputation as well of having strong civic consciousness in overcoming these inadequacies on the other hand.
OMNIBUS RESOLUTION
During our audience with the Committee, we had had the opportunity to report on the major advances made over the recent months since the start of the Fourth Commission. The CHR November 6, 2008 Omnibus Resolution calling for a moratorium on forced evictions and demolitions was presented to the Committee remains our hopeful first step in the field of adequate housing. The report on the Resolution elicited much praise from some members of the Committee and stood as an assurance that the human rights community of the Philippines has not wilted by the wayside despite the weaknesses of our institutions.
Perhaps to our international partners, the Omnibus Resolution in itself would have been monumental in itself, considering that in the context of developed nations, such an issuance would have the coercive force necessary to secure the right to adequate housing. The strength of government institutions, however, is the normal pre-requisite to the effectiveness of such an issuance. Before all of us present here today, there is no illusion however. The call for a moratorium is only a spectre, until the local governments draft guidelines governing the conduct of forced evictions and demolitions. Such guidelines must be within the parameters set by statute, particularly the Urban Housing and Development Act (UDHA). Without the appropriate, corresponding action from the local governments, we will continue to object to future forced evictions or illegal demolitions, just as we always have.
Yet, continually objecting to forced evictions and demolitions is not the progress we seek. We have been moored to this for several years now. A careful reading of the Omnibus Resolution reveals that the goal is not to secure a blanket moratorium. Preventing demolitions is not the end-goal of protecting and promoting the right to housing. To stop at a moratorium is to settle for the less-than-dignified conditions that many of the poor live in. The moratorium itself is only an intermediate step. What remains significantly more important is to secure the commitment of both local governments and the national government to abide by the pre-requisites to valid evictions – namely, the duty to conduct a census of all beneficiaries of a low-cost housing program, to allocate land for the purpose of relocation, to devise affordable means for the poor to obtain security over the land allotted to them, and to provide the necessary infrastructure to relocation sites making them habitable, among other duties.
The recent efforts of certain local governments to abide by the Omnibus Resolution by way of local ordinances reveals the shortfall of our institutions. To enforce the moratorium without defining a concrete timetable for the local governments to fulfill their subsequent duties on housing defeats the purpose of the law and the Omnibus Resolution. We must now center our efforts on this shortfall. We cannot accept a moratorium that only perpetuates the decrepit conditions of urban poor settlements. It must be a moratorium with the end goal of decent and habitable housing in mind.
INVITATION OF THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR
One of the next logical steps to be taken in relation to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is the invitation of National Government to the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Adequate Housing. We had seen the effect of the issuance of the Report of the Special Rapporteur on Arbitrary and Summary Killings and Executions. The stinging report of Professor Philip Alston had led to the mobilization of all concerned components of the Government bureaucracy and has made a heavy impact on the threat of Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances. The success, however, of this mobilization is the subject of another lengthy reflection, which I will not discuss here today.
Needless to say, to continue to engage the international community on the issue of adequate housing is one of the surest methods by which we can force government compliance. The monstrous task of relocating millions of urban poor in Metro Manila alone requires more than just a hopeful prayer that the State will come around and make housing and the security of tenure a priority. We must continue to generate enormous pressure on government that is equal to the enormity of the housing challenges we face. One of our strongest allies in human rights protection is the international community.
At the moment, the visit by the Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing cannot materialize without the action of the President and the Department of Foreign Affairs. This is where we must now place another set of cross-hairs. All our efforts to generate support from the local governments and Congress will be served by the force-multiplier that the international community can bring to the table. We have the attention of the Committee. Now is the time for the Committee to have the attention of our National Government.
MMIAC
The creation of the MMIAC by executive order is a shocking development. Not that our goals for adequate housing will be undone by the MMIAC, but that it is extraordinarily belated in its creation, as if to imply that since the passage of the UDHA, or even the creation of the PCUP, the idea that a massive, complex coordination of various agencies and stakeholders had only occurred to us only now. We had always known this. The previous inter-agency collaboration had always been at the heels of evictions and demolitions. However, the critical issue of relocation had always been an afterthought to actual demolitions.
There are, as many of you are well-aware of, grave errors in the formulation of the MMIAC, especially with the primary agency responsible for demolitions sitting as the chair. This is to insinuate that the primary function of the MMIAC is eviction and demolition and not housing. That is why in a letter to the Office of the President, dated 22 December 2008, the CHR expressed objection to the choice of MMDA as the Council’s Chair.
It cannot be underscored enough - adequate allocation of housing is the mandatory pre-requisite of eviction. Adequate housing must supersede eviction. Adequate housing must be the end goal of a temporary moratorium on evictions. While moratorium on demolitions without efforts to provide housing is an empty exercise, demolition without provisions for housing is a blatant violation of law.
This echoes the concern of the Committee that more families are evicted than families who are granted relocation. It has become apparent that our capacity to evict has surpassed our capacity to provide housing. What then should be the primary task of the MMIAC? It is to equitably balance the duty to evict with the duty to provide housing.
The restlessness within the MMIAC should not dissuade us from our participation. We need the cooperation of everyone in this complex task of providing adequte housing for everyone.
PROPOSED CHR CHARTER
The concern of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on the vague status of enforceability of housing-related rights will be met by the pending draft bill on the CHR Charter. I invite all of you to share in the excitement we, at the CHR, feel with the looming passage of the charter.
Among the crucial provisions embodied by the proposed charter is the expanded power of the CHR to investigate possible violations of economic, social and cultural rights. Now, by itself, this does not add anything to the scope of investigations covered by the CHR, as we already investigate evictions and forced demolitions. But certainly it adds statutory basis for our investigations.
More importantly, however, is the repercussions that it may have on the justiciability of rights embodied in the UNCESCR. In addition to the expanded power of the CHR to investigate violations of these kinds of rights, Congress is currently ironing out provisions that will give more teeth to the CHR through the grant of certain quasi-judicial powers in aid of the Commission’s investigative mandate. Express and well-defined powers, such as issuance of cease and desist orders and mandatory powers will come a long way in affording concrete remedies to ESCR violations as forced evictions or illegal demolitions. If all goes well, and the possible conflicts with existing laws and jurisdictions resolved, then the justiciability of the Covenant will be without question.
The slow progress or development of jurisprudence on these rights has placed a long shadow over efforts on protection and enforceability of housing-related rights. With an express grant to CHR of expanded powers to investigative not only violations of civil and political rights but ESCR violations, with concomitant auxiliary powers to effectively discharge such mandate, the tipping point is nearing, and a drastic change is coming. The significance of this development, I can barely convey in words.
POSTSCRIPT
No one will disagree that the situation of the urban poor has barely moved forward over the years since the implementation of the UDHA. However, while compliance with statute and the Covenant has been intermittent at best, there is good reason to believe that all our efforts, especially the efforts of civil society involved in the upliftment of informal settlers, are paying off. We have set the stage for our success. While it remains a daunting task to compel the government to consistently implement housing policy, the tools available are known to us.
Against the backdrop of the coming 2010 elections, we can further create an impetus for prospective elective officials to seriously undertake the promise of the UDHA and the UNCESCR. By far, the largest voting bloc in urban areas are the very people who have the largest stake in adequate housing. It is up to all of us to ensure that part of the campaign to push housing reforms includes informing the stakeholders, the communities of informal settlers, that moratorium on evictions is not enough. We must educate communities – to teach them about their right not just to the shanty-dwellings they occupy, but their right to decent, hygienic, habitable, structurally-sound homes. We must teach our clientele that there is no long-term protection in voting for officials who promise not to evict, but impliedly never promise to provide decent shelter either. There is no security in having no title. There is no opportunity to access to substantial wealth without collateral. There is no place to raise a family without a home.
Indeed there is so much to be done – by those present here today, the organizations we represent, by the government and the agencies concerned, and most importantly, much can still be done by the informal settlers themselves to further our cause. Let us not waver now because as many of you have suspected, we are making our mark and we are making progress. Foreign partners have noticed. Media has noticed. The public at large is aware. All it takes is our patient resolve.
Thank you.
Speech on the occasion of the Shadow Report on the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Quezon City, Philippines
10 March 2009
delivered by
LEILA M. DE LIMA
Chairperson, Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines
Good morning.
The opportunity for the Commission on Human Rights to appear before the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights November of last year is what we hope to look back upon as the seminal moment in our common quest to promote and protect housing rights in the context of the State's international obligations under the UNCESR. There had never been another National Human Rights Commission invited to speak before the Committee. To be the first, I had been told, places the efforts of the Philippine human rights community on the struggle to uphold housing-related rights within the consciousness of the members of the Committee.
To be invited bears two contrasting distinctions. First, our country as one among many with severely impaired housing rights. To be invited lends to the idea that we share in the ignominious reputation of being a country that struggles to deliver to our people the right to adequate housing and security of tenure. Yet, the second distinction reveals that the Committee has recognized and taken up a fascination with the efforts of the CHR and the local human rights community in the field of housing-related rights. Their interest in the progress of the promotion and protection of these rights is a prelude that no other country investigated by the Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing ever had – an initial audience with the Committee. It seems that we have gained not only a notoriety for our government’s inadequacies in promoting these rights on one hand, but a reputation as well of having strong civic consciousness in overcoming these inadequacies on the other hand.
OMNIBUS RESOLUTION
During our audience with the Committee, we had had the opportunity to report on the major advances made over the recent months since the start of the Fourth Commission. The CHR November 6, 2008 Omnibus Resolution calling for a moratorium on forced evictions and demolitions was presented to the Committee remains our hopeful first step in the field of adequate housing. The report on the Resolution elicited much praise from some members of the Committee and stood as an assurance that the human rights community of the Philippines has not wilted by the wayside despite the weaknesses of our institutions.
Perhaps to our international partners, the Omnibus Resolution in itself would have been monumental in itself, considering that in the context of developed nations, such an issuance would have the coercive force necessary to secure the right to adequate housing. The strength of government institutions, however, is the normal pre-requisite to the effectiveness of such an issuance. Before all of us present here today, there is no illusion however. The call for a moratorium is only a spectre, until the local governments draft guidelines governing the conduct of forced evictions and demolitions. Such guidelines must be within the parameters set by statute, particularly the Urban Housing and Development Act (UDHA). Without the appropriate, corresponding action from the local governments, we will continue to object to future forced evictions or illegal demolitions, just as we always have.
Yet, continually objecting to forced evictions and demolitions is not the progress we seek. We have been moored to this for several years now. A careful reading of the Omnibus Resolution reveals that the goal is not to secure a blanket moratorium. Preventing demolitions is not the end-goal of protecting and promoting the right to housing. To stop at a moratorium is to settle for the less-than-dignified conditions that many of the poor live in. The moratorium itself is only an intermediate step. What remains significantly more important is to secure the commitment of both local governments and the national government to abide by the pre-requisites to valid evictions – namely, the duty to conduct a census of all beneficiaries of a low-cost housing program, to allocate land for the purpose of relocation, to devise affordable means for the poor to obtain security over the land allotted to them, and to provide the necessary infrastructure to relocation sites making them habitable, among other duties.
The recent efforts of certain local governments to abide by the Omnibus Resolution by way of local ordinances reveals the shortfall of our institutions. To enforce the moratorium without defining a concrete timetable for the local governments to fulfill their subsequent duties on housing defeats the purpose of the law and the Omnibus Resolution. We must now center our efforts on this shortfall. We cannot accept a moratorium that only perpetuates the decrepit conditions of urban poor settlements. It must be a moratorium with the end goal of decent and habitable housing in mind.
INVITATION OF THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR
One of the next logical steps to be taken in relation to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is the invitation of National Government to the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Adequate Housing. We had seen the effect of the issuance of the Report of the Special Rapporteur on Arbitrary and Summary Killings and Executions. The stinging report of Professor Philip Alston had led to the mobilization of all concerned components of the Government bureaucracy and has made a heavy impact on the threat of Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances. The success, however, of this mobilization is the subject of another lengthy reflection, which I will not discuss here today.
Needless to say, to continue to engage the international community on the issue of adequate housing is one of the surest methods by which we can force government compliance. The monstrous task of relocating millions of urban poor in Metro Manila alone requires more than just a hopeful prayer that the State will come around and make housing and the security of tenure a priority. We must continue to generate enormous pressure on government that is equal to the enormity of the housing challenges we face. One of our strongest allies in human rights protection is the international community.
At the moment, the visit by the Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing cannot materialize without the action of the President and the Department of Foreign Affairs. This is where we must now place another set of cross-hairs. All our efforts to generate support from the local governments and Congress will be served by the force-multiplier that the international community can bring to the table. We have the attention of the Committee. Now is the time for the Committee to have the attention of our National Government.
MMIAC
The creation of the MMIAC by executive order is a shocking development. Not that our goals for adequate housing will be undone by the MMIAC, but that it is extraordinarily belated in its creation, as if to imply that since the passage of the UDHA, or even the creation of the PCUP, the idea that a massive, complex coordination of various agencies and stakeholders had only occurred to us only now. We had always known this. The previous inter-agency collaboration had always been at the heels of evictions and demolitions. However, the critical issue of relocation had always been an afterthought to actual demolitions.
There are, as many of you are well-aware of, grave errors in the formulation of the MMIAC, especially with the primary agency responsible for demolitions sitting as the chair. This is to insinuate that the primary function of the MMIAC is eviction and demolition and not housing. That is why in a letter to the Office of the President, dated 22 December 2008, the CHR expressed objection to the choice of MMDA as the Council’s Chair.
It cannot be underscored enough - adequate allocation of housing is the mandatory pre-requisite of eviction. Adequate housing must supersede eviction. Adequate housing must be the end goal of a temporary moratorium on evictions. While moratorium on demolitions without efforts to provide housing is an empty exercise, demolition without provisions for housing is a blatant violation of law.
This echoes the concern of the Committee that more families are evicted than families who are granted relocation. It has become apparent that our capacity to evict has surpassed our capacity to provide housing. What then should be the primary task of the MMIAC? It is to equitably balance the duty to evict with the duty to provide housing.
The restlessness within the MMIAC should not dissuade us from our participation. We need the cooperation of everyone in this complex task of providing adequte housing for everyone.
PROPOSED CHR CHARTER
The concern of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on the vague status of enforceability of housing-related rights will be met by the pending draft bill on the CHR Charter. I invite all of you to share in the excitement we, at the CHR, feel with the looming passage of the charter.
Among the crucial provisions embodied by the proposed charter is the expanded power of the CHR to investigate possible violations of economic, social and cultural rights. Now, by itself, this does not add anything to the scope of investigations covered by the CHR, as we already investigate evictions and forced demolitions. But certainly it adds statutory basis for our investigations.
More importantly, however, is the repercussions that it may have on the justiciability of rights embodied in the UNCESCR. In addition to the expanded power of the CHR to investigate violations of these kinds of rights, Congress is currently ironing out provisions that will give more teeth to the CHR through the grant of certain quasi-judicial powers in aid of the Commission’s investigative mandate. Express and well-defined powers, such as issuance of cease and desist orders and mandatory powers will come a long way in affording concrete remedies to ESCR violations as forced evictions or illegal demolitions. If all goes well, and the possible conflicts with existing laws and jurisdictions resolved, then the justiciability of the Covenant will be without question.
The slow progress or development of jurisprudence on these rights has placed a long shadow over efforts on protection and enforceability of housing-related rights. With an express grant to CHR of expanded powers to investigative not only violations of civil and political rights but ESCR violations, with concomitant auxiliary powers to effectively discharge such mandate, the tipping point is nearing, and a drastic change is coming. The significance of this development, I can barely convey in words.
POSTSCRIPT
No one will disagree that the situation of the urban poor has barely moved forward over the years since the implementation of the UDHA. However, while compliance with statute and the Covenant has been intermittent at best, there is good reason to believe that all our efforts, especially the efforts of civil society involved in the upliftment of informal settlers, are paying off. We have set the stage for our success. While it remains a daunting task to compel the government to consistently implement housing policy, the tools available are known to us.
Against the backdrop of the coming 2010 elections, we can further create an impetus for prospective elective officials to seriously undertake the promise of the UDHA and the UNCESCR. By far, the largest voting bloc in urban areas are the very people who have the largest stake in adequate housing. It is up to all of us to ensure that part of the campaign to push housing reforms includes informing the stakeholders, the communities of informal settlers, that moratorium on evictions is not enough. We must educate communities – to teach them about their right not just to the shanty-dwellings they occupy, but their right to decent, hygienic, habitable, structurally-sound homes. We must teach our clientele that there is no long-term protection in voting for officials who promise not to evict, but impliedly never promise to provide decent shelter either. There is no security in having no title. There is no opportunity to access to substantial wealth without collateral. There is no place to raise a family without a home.
Indeed there is so much to be done – by those present here today, the organizations we represent, by the government and the agencies concerned, and most importantly, much can still be done by the informal settlers themselves to further our cause. Let us not waver now because as many of you have suspected, we are making our mark and we are making progress. Foreign partners have noticed. Media has noticed. The public at large is aware. All it takes is our patient resolve.
Thank you.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Monday, March 09, 2009
MEDIA ADVISORY: Forum on Right to Adequate Housing
Attention: News Editor, News Desk, Reporters and Photojournalists
MEDIA ADVISORY
Forum on Right to Adequate Housing
It is our distinct honor to invite you to attend a forum on the Shadow Report on Housing Rights sent to the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (UNCESCR) and the Concluding Observations of the Committee on the compliance of the Philippine government on the right to adequate housing.
Commission on Human Rights Chairperson Atty. Leila de Lima will be one of the main speakers. During the morning session, Chairperson de Lima will share her reflections on the Shadow Report process and the UN’s remarks.
Other resource persons are coming from NGOs such as Sentro ng Alternatibong Lingap Panligal (SALIGAN), John J. Carroll Institute on Church and Social Issues (JJCICSI), Foundation for the Development of the Urban Poor (FDUP) and Urban Poor Associates (UPA).
The speakers will share their thoughts on the Shadow Report; Legal Issues; Overview of the Housing Situation; Housing Finance and the Community Mortgage Program; Evictions; Relocation and Proclamations; and the Concluding Remarks made by the UNCESCR.
The forum will be held tomorrow, March 10 (Tuesday), at the Audio Visual Room of the Social Development Complex, Ateneo de Manila University. It will begin at 9:00 AM and end at 3:30 PM. A modest lunch will be served.
Various government agencies, people’s organizations and civil society groups are invited to attend the forum. We hope to see you there.
Date: March 10, 2008 (Tuesday) / 9:00 AM - 3:30 PM
Venue: Audio Visual Room, Social Development Complex, Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights, Quezon City
MEDIA ADVISORY
Forum on Right to Adequate Housing
It is our distinct honor to invite you to attend a forum on the Shadow Report on Housing Rights sent to the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (UNCESCR) and the Concluding Observations of the Committee on the compliance of the Philippine government on the right to adequate housing.
Commission on Human Rights Chairperson Atty. Leila de Lima will be one of the main speakers. During the morning session, Chairperson de Lima will share her reflections on the Shadow Report process and the UN’s remarks.
Other resource persons are coming from NGOs such as Sentro ng Alternatibong Lingap Panligal (SALIGAN), John J. Carroll Institute on Church and Social Issues (JJCICSI), Foundation for the Development of the Urban Poor (FDUP) and Urban Poor Associates (UPA).
The speakers will share their thoughts on the Shadow Report; Legal Issues; Overview of the Housing Situation; Housing Finance and the Community Mortgage Program; Evictions; Relocation and Proclamations; and the Concluding Remarks made by the UNCESCR.
The forum will be held tomorrow, March 10 (Tuesday), at the Audio Visual Room of the Social Development Complex, Ateneo de Manila University. It will begin at 9:00 AM and end at 3:30 PM. A modest lunch will be served.
Various government agencies, people’s organizations and civil society groups are invited to attend the forum. We hope to see you there.
Date: March 10, 2008 (Tuesday) / 9:00 AM - 3:30 PM
Venue: Audio Visual Room, Social Development Complex, Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights, Quezon City
Friday, August 29, 2008
THE RIGHT TO ADEQUATE HOUSING: THE LEGAL FIELD
Prepared by Atty. Michael Vincent S. Gaddi, Sentro ng Alternatibong Lingap Panligal (Saligan)
GENERAL STATE POLICIES
•Article 25 (1) UN Declaration of Human Rights:
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
•Article 11 (1) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR):
The states parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to continuous improvement of living conditions. The States parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international cooperation based on free consent.
•Section 9, Article XIII 1987 Philippine Constitution:
The State shall by law, and for the common good undertake, in cooperation of the private sector, a continuing program for urban land reform and housing which will make available at affordable cost, decent housing and basic services to the underprivileged and homeless citizens in urban centers and resettlement areas. It shall also promote adequate employment opportunities to such citizens. In the implementation of such programs, the State shall respect the rights of small property owners.
•Section 10, Article XIII 1987 Philippine Constitution:
Urban and rural poor dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwellings demolished, except in accordance with law and in a just and humane manner. No resettlement of urban or rural dwellers shall be undertaken without adequate consultation with them and the communities where they are to be located.
THE RIGHT AGAINST FORCED EVICTIONS AND DEMOLITIONS
•Section 28, Urban Development Housing Act (UDHA):
Section 28 of the UDHA lays down the mandatory requirements for a just and humane eviction and demolition. Non compliance with any of the following requirements renders the eviction or demolition unlawful:
•Notice upon the affected persons or entities at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of eviction or demolition;
•Adequate consultations on the matter of settlement with the duly designated representatives of the families to be resettled and the affected communities in the areas where they are to be relocated;
•Presence of local government officials or their representatives during eviction or demolition;
•Proper identification of all persons taking part in the demolition;
•Execution of eviction or demolition only during regular office hours from Mondays to Fridays and during good weather, unless the affected families consent otherwise;
•No use of heavy equipment for demolition except for structures that are permanent and of concrete materials;
•Proper uniforms for members of the Philippine National Police who shall occupy the first line of law enforcement and observe proper disturbance control procedures; and
•Adequate relocation, whether temporary or permanent: Provided, however, That in cases of eviction and demolition pursuant to a court order involving underprivileged and homeless citizens, relocation shall be undertaken by the local government unit concerned and the National Housing Authority with the assistance of other government agencies within forty-five (45) days from service of notice of final judgment by the court, after which period the said order hall be executed: Provided, further, That should relocation not be possible within the said period, financial assistance in the amount equivalent to the prevailing minimum daily age multiplied by sixty (60) days shall be extended to the affected families by the local government unit concerned
•Executive Order No. 152 (2002) & Executive Order No. 708 (2008):
•To implement Section 28 of the UDHA, Executive Order No. 152 was passed in 2002 designating the Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor (PCUP) as the monitoring agency and sole clearing house for the conduct of demolition and eviction activities involving the homeless and underprivileged citizens
•Under the Executive Order, government agencies proposing to undertake demolition and eviction activities are required to secure first from either the PCUP Central Office (in case of national projects) or from the PCUP Regional Office (in case of regional or local projects) the checklist, guidelines, and compliance certificates on demolition and eviction prior to the actual implementation thereof and thereafter, submit to the PCUP the completed checklist, attested to under oath by the proponent.
•Executive Order No. 152 (2002) & Executive Order No. 708 (2008):
•However, due to the passage of Executive Order No. 708 (series of 2008), such clearing house task of the PCUP has now been devolved to the city or municipality having territorial jurisdiction over the demolition and eviction.
•EO 708 cites the established policy of local autonomy and decentralization as basis for such devolution. But before each city and municipality can take on the task as a clearing house, the executive order mandates that each city and municipality must first create, via an ordinance, its own local housing board (or any similar body) which will carry out the clearing house function of PCUP within its territorial jurisdiction.
•Repeal and Attempted Revival of the Anti-Squatting Law: House Bill No. 1087
•A proviso in HB 1087 states:
–Provided, that any person or group of persons who with the use of force, intimidation or threat, or taking advantage of the absence or tolerance of the landowner, succeeds in occupying or possessing the property of the latter against his will, and having received a written demand to either vacate or pay rent from said landowner, shall refuse to do so within a period of ninety (90) days, shall be considered a professional squatter within the purview of Republic Act No. 7279.
•Repeal and Attempted Revival of the Anti-Squatting Law: House Bill No. 1087
•Section 1 of PD 772 states:
–Any person who, with the use of force, intimidation or threat, or taking advantage of the absence or tolerance of the landowner, succeeds in occupying or possessing the property of the latter against his will for residential commercial or any other purposes, shall be punished by an imprisonment ranging from six months to one year or a fine of not less than one thousand nor more than five thousand pesos at the discretion of the court, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
•Repeal and Attempted Revival of the Anti-Squatting Law: House Bill No. 1087
•Recent Favorable Developments on HB 1087:
–Inputs of Technical Working Group (TWG) composed of various NGOs & NGAs were considered by the author and resulted in a Substitute Bill entitled “An Act to Institute Reforms in the Anti-Professional Squatters/Squatting Syndicates Drive of the Government, Strengthening the Mechanisms therfor, and for Other Purposes”
–
–This drastic change in the bill’s tenor proved to be a very fortunate turn of events for the urban poor sector for the attempt at reviving PD 772 had been thwarted.
•Blatant Violations by the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) – Examining the Legality of MMDA Resolution No. 03-96 and MMDA Resolution No. 02-28
•MMDA Resolution No. 03-96:
–adopts a uniform easement provision along the Pasig River system including its tributaries, maintaining a linear park or service road at the minimum setback of ten meters (10 m.) from the existing shoreline, banks, or streams
–and three meters (3 m.) from the existing esteros and canals, without prejudice to the LGUs' prerogative to impose more stringent easement provisions."
•Blatant Violations by the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) – Examining the Legality of MMDA Resolution No. 03-96 and MMDA Resolution No. 02-28
•MMDA Resolution No. 02-28
–seeks to clear the sidewalks, streets, avenues, alleys, bridges, parks and other public places in Metro Manila of all illegal structures and obstructions
–allowing the MMDA to clear and confiscate whatever effects as garbage
•Blatant Violations by the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) – Examining the Legality of MMDA Resolution No. 03-96 and MMDA Resolution No. 02-28
•MMDA Resolutions No. 03-96 and 02-28 are invalid under the following arguments:
–The MMDA is a mere coordinating body NOT bestowed with any law making powers.
–The MMDA is NOT a local government unit possessing the delegated power to legislate in exercise of its police power. Its main task is just to lend a helping hand to cities and municipalities in the delivery of basic services.
–The resolutions violate the constitution, national laws (Civil Code, Water Code & UDHA), as well as international covenants (ICESCR)
LAWS & ISSUANCES AFFECTING HOUSING
•Presidential Proclamations: Executive Order No. 131 (s. 2002) and Memorandum Order No. 74 (s. 2002)
•Besides protecting the right against forced evictions and demolitions, the UDHA also upholds the right to adequate and affordable housing. As to what kind of lands can be subject to socialized housing, Section 4 of the UDHA states:
–SECTION 4. Coverage. — The Program shall cover all lands in urban and urbanizable areas, including existing areas for priority development sites, and in other areas that may be identified by the local government units as suitable for socialized housing
•Presidential Proclamations: Executive Order No. 131 (s. 2002) and Memorandum Order No. 74 (s. 2002)
•In relation to this, Section 5 states:
SECTION 5. Exemptions. — The following lands shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act:
(a) Those included in the coverage of Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law;
(b) Those actually used for national defense and security of the State;
(c) Those used, reserved or otherwise set aside for government offices, facilities and other installations, whether owned by the National Government, its agencies and instrumentalities, including government-owned or-controlled corporations, or by the local government units: Provided, however, That the lands herein mentioned, or portions thereof, which have not been used for the purpose for which they have been reserved or set aside for the past ten (10) years from the effectivity of this Act, shall be covered by this Act;
(d) Those used or set aside for parks, reserves for flora and fauna, forests and watersheds, and other areas necessary to maintain ecological balance or environmental protection, as determined and certified to by the proper government agency; and
(e) Those actually and primarily used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes, cultural and historical sites, hospitals and health centers, and cemeteries or memorial parks.
The exemptions herein provided shall not apply when the use or purpose of the abovementioned lands has ceased to exist
•Presidential Proclamations: Executive Order No. 131 (s. 2002) and Memorandum Order No. 74 (s. 2002)
•The exemption in Section 5 refers to idle government lands, the purpose of which have been rendered nugatory owing to non-use for ten (10) years from the effectivity of the UDHA. Said government lands can be the subject of socialized housing and thus be distributed for such purpose. To distribute such lands for socialized housing, a presidential proclamation must first be issued by the President of the Philippines.
•To fully implement such UDHA mandate, two presidential issuances have been enacted -- Executive Order No. 131 (s. 2002) [EO 131] and Memorandum Order No. 74 (s. 2002) [MO 74]. In presidential proclamations for socialized housing, the basic idea is that if there are government lands which have become idle, based on the legal definition crafted in Section 5 of the UDHA, said lands may be identified, proclaimed, and thereafter distributed for socialized housing purposes to qualified beneficiaries.
•Aptly entitled “DECLARING OPEN TO DISPOSITION FOR SOCIALIZED HOUSING PURPOSES CERTAIN GOVERNMENT-OWNED LANDS DEFINED UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7279, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING ACT OD 1992, AND PROVIDING FOR DISPOSITION THEREOF”, the third whereas clause of EO 131 encapsulates its main objective:
•“WHEREAS, mass housing may be effected, among others, through the regularization of land tenure of informal settlers on government-owned lands which have not been used for the purposes for which they have been reserved or set-aside for the past ten (10) years from the effectivity of the UDHA including government-owned idle lands and alienable lands of the public domain and are suitable for socialized housing;”
• Thus, EO 131 provides a veritable opportunity for informal settlers living on government-owned lands to gain security of tenure over the land on which their houses are built. However, EO 131 merely deals with what is called a “pre-proclamation phase” meaning that its main aim only covers the identification and preparation of the subject government lands, and not the actual distribution and disposition of the same. To address this issue of distribution and disposition of proclaimed lands, MO 74 was likewise issued to compliment EO 131.
•MO 74 appoints the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC) as the lead government agency to realize the distribution and disposition of proclaimed government lands. Such task is of course in coordination with other relevant government agencies as well as the local government units where the subject land is located. As clearly stated in Section 1 of MO 74:
•“SECTION 1. The Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC) shall confer with the Local Government Unit (LGU), within fifteen (15) days from the issuance of the Presidential Proclamation, for the purpose of facilitating and expediting the conduct of post-proclamation activities necessary to dispose of the proclaimed site to their actual bona fide occupants, to the end that these informal settlers are finally granted the titles to the lands they are occupying at the earliest possible time and in order that these lands are developed as a viable community through participatory planning and utilization of appropriate development schemes.”
•Executive Order No. 272 (s. 2004)
•It cannot be gainsaid how the government’s Community Mortgage Program (CMP) has immensely assisted numerous urban poor home owner associations (HOAs) in obtaining security of tenure over the land on which they were once considered as “squatters”. Originally implemented by the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC), the program works to ease the HOAs’ burdens in paying for their purchased land with friendly terms and conditions.
•With Executive Order No. 272 (EO 272), the NHMFC has been mandated to create a subsidiary corporation which will focus exclusively on implementing the government’s Community Mortgage Program, because pursuant to its charter, the NHMFC is not the one officially tasked to implement the Community Mortgage Program. Thus, the Social Housing Finance Corporation (SHFC) was created via EO 272 to be the exclusive implementor of the government’s Community Mortgage Program.
•Proposed Legislation Relevant to Land Use and Land Distribution: the National Land Use Act (NLUA) and the Local Housing Board Law (LHB) [NOTE: both proposed measures are still pending in either the Senate or House]
•The National Land Use Act (NLUA) envisages a method by which land use may be planned at the national level. However, it is pertinent to consider the reasons why there should be land planning at any level. Indeed, while many Local Government Units (LGUs) have produced comprehensive land use plans, these are not a requirement. Under Article 13, section 1 of the Constitution, the state reserves the rights to regulate and to dispose of land. Similarly, under Article 12, section 6 of the Constitution, it is recognized that the state can interfere with private ownership for the common good. These provisions acknowledge that private interests over land can never be absolute and conversely that land has an existence independent of its private owners. One main reason for this is that the use of land affects not only its present users but also the land surrounding it and land’s future users.
•Proposed Legislation Relevant to Land Use and Land Distribution: the National Land Use Act (NLUA) and the Local Housing Board Law (LHB) [NOTE: both proposed measures are still pending in either the Senate or House]
•Local housing boards are local special bodies tasked to formulate, develop, implement, and monitor policies on the provision for housing and resettlement areas, and on the observance of the right of the underprivileged and homeless to a just and humane eviction and demolition.
•Local housing boards bring together two salient mandates in the Article on Social Justice and Human Rights, to wit: the undertaking to establish a continuing program of urban land reform and housing and to respect the right of urban or rural poor dwellers to be evicted in a just and humane manner, and the observance of the right of the people and their organizations to effective and reasonable participation at all levels of social, political, and economic decision-making.
GENERAL STATE POLICIES
•Article 25 (1) UN Declaration of Human Rights:
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
•Article 11 (1) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR):
The states parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to continuous improvement of living conditions. The States parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international cooperation based on free consent.
•Section 9, Article XIII 1987 Philippine Constitution:
The State shall by law, and for the common good undertake, in cooperation of the private sector, a continuing program for urban land reform and housing which will make available at affordable cost, decent housing and basic services to the underprivileged and homeless citizens in urban centers and resettlement areas. It shall also promote adequate employment opportunities to such citizens. In the implementation of such programs, the State shall respect the rights of small property owners.
•Section 10, Article XIII 1987 Philippine Constitution:
Urban and rural poor dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwellings demolished, except in accordance with law and in a just and humane manner. No resettlement of urban or rural dwellers shall be undertaken without adequate consultation with them and the communities where they are to be located.
THE RIGHT AGAINST FORCED EVICTIONS AND DEMOLITIONS
•Section 28, Urban Development Housing Act (UDHA):
Section 28 of the UDHA lays down the mandatory requirements for a just and humane eviction and demolition. Non compliance with any of the following requirements renders the eviction or demolition unlawful:
•Notice upon the affected persons or entities at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of eviction or demolition;
•Adequate consultations on the matter of settlement with the duly designated representatives of the families to be resettled and the affected communities in the areas where they are to be relocated;
•Presence of local government officials or their representatives during eviction or demolition;
•Proper identification of all persons taking part in the demolition;
•Execution of eviction or demolition only during regular office hours from Mondays to Fridays and during good weather, unless the affected families consent otherwise;
•No use of heavy equipment for demolition except for structures that are permanent and of concrete materials;
•Proper uniforms for members of the Philippine National Police who shall occupy the first line of law enforcement and observe proper disturbance control procedures; and
•Adequate relocation, whether temporary or permanent: Provided, however, That in cases of eviction and demolition pursuant to a court order involving underprivileged and homeless citizens, relocation shall be undertaken by the local government unit concerned and the National Housing Authority with the assistance of other government agencies within forty-five (45) days from service of notice of final judgment by the court, after which period the said order hall be executed: Provided, further, That should relocation not be possible within the said period, financial assistance in the amount equivalent to the prevailing minimum daily age multiplied by sixty (60) days shall be extended to the affected families by the local government unit concerned
•Executive Order No. 152 (2002) & Executive Order No. 708 (2008):
•To implement Section 28 of the UDHA, Executive Order No. 152 was passed in 2002 designating the Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor (PCUP) as the monitoring agency and sole clearing house for the conduct of demolition and eviction activities involving the homeless and underprivileged citizens
•Under the Executive Order, government agencies proposing to undertake demolition and eviction activities are required to secure first from either the PCUP Central Office (in case of national projects) or from the PCUP Regional Office (in case of regional or local projects) the checklist, guidelines, and compliance certificates on demolition and eviction prior to the actual implementation thereof and thereafter, submit to the PCUP the completed checklist, attested to under oath by the proponent.
•Executive Order No. 152 (2002) & Executive Order No. 708 (2008):
•However, due to the passage of Executive Order No. 708 (series of 2008), such clearing house task of the PCUP has now been devolved to the city or municipality having territorial jurisdiction over the demolition and eviction.
•EO 708 cites the established policy of local autonomy and decentralization as basis for such devolution. But before each city and municipality can take on the task as a clearing house, the executive order mandates that each city and municipality must first create, via an ordinance, its own local housing board (or any similar body) which will carry out the clearing house function of PCUP within its territorial jurisdiction.
•Repeal and Attempted Revival of the Anti-Squatting Law: House Bill No. 1087
•A proviso in HB 1087 states:
–Provided, that any person or group of persons who with the use of force, intimidation or threat, or taking advantage of the absence or tolerance of the landowner, succeeds in occupying or possessing the property of the latter against his will, and having received a written demand to either vacate or pay rent from said landowner, shall refuse to do so within a period of ninety (90) days, shall be considered a professional squatter within the purview of Republic Act No. 7279.
•Repeal and Attempted Revival of the Anti-Squatting Law: House Bill No. 1087
•Section 1 of PD 772 states:
–Any person who, with the use of force, intimidation or threat, or taking advantage of the absence or tolerance of the landowner, succeeds in occupying or possessing the property of the latter against his will for residential commercial or any other purposes, shall be punished by an imprisonment ranging from six months to one year or a fine of not less than one thousand nor more than five thousand pesos at the discretion of the court, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
•Repeal and Attempted Revival of the Anti-Squatting Law: House Bill No. 1087
•Recent Favorable Developments on HB 1087:
–Inputs of Technical Working Group (TWG) composed of various NGOs & NGAs were considered by the author and resulted in a Substitute Bill entitled “An Act to Institute Reforms in the Anti-Professional Squatters/Squatting Syndicates Drive of the Government, Strengthening the Mechanisms therfor, and for Other Purposes”
–
–This drastic change in the bill’s tenor proved to be a very fortunate turn of events for the urban poor sector for the attempt at reviving PD 772 had been thwarted.
•Blatant Violations by the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) – Examining the Legality of MMDA Resolution No. 03-96 and MMDA Resolution No. 02-28
•MMDA Resolution No. 03-96:
–adopts a uniform easement provision along the Pasig River system including its tributaries, maintaining a linear park or service road at the minimum setback of ten meters (10 m.) from the existing shoreline, banks, or streams
–and three meters (3 m.) from the existing esteros and canals, without prejudice to the LGUs' prerogative to impose more stringent easement provisions."
•Blatant Violations by the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) – Examining the Legality of MMDA Resolution No. 03-96 and MMDA Resolution No. 02-28
•MMDA Resolution No. 02-28
–seeks to clear the sidewalks, streets, avenues, alleys, bridges, parks and other public places in Metro Manila of all illegal structures and obstructions
–allowing the MMDA to clear and confiscate whatever effects as garbage
•Blatant Violations by the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) – Examining the Legality of MMDA Resolution No. 03-96 and MMDA Resolution No. 02-28
•MMDA Resolutions No. 03-96 and 02-28 are invalid under the following arguments:
–The MMDA is a mere coordinating body NOT bestowed with any law making powers.
–The MMDA is NOT a local government unit possessing the delegated power to legislate in exercise of its police power. Its main task is just to lend a helping hand to cities and municipalities in the delivery of basic services.
–The resolutions violate the constitution, national laws (Civil Code, Water Code & UDHA), as well as international covenants (ICESCR)
LAWS & ISSUANCES AFFECTING HOUSING
•Presidential Proclamations: Executive Order No. 131 (s. 2002) and Memorandum Order No. 74 (s. 2002)
•Besides protecting the right against forced evictions and demolitions, the UDHA also upholds the right to adequate and affordable housing. As to what kind of lands can be subject to socialized housing, Section 4 of the UDHA states:
–SECTION 4. Coverage. — The Program shall cover all lands in urban and urbanizable areas, including existing areas for priority development sites, and in other areas that may be identified by the local government units as suitable for socialized housing
•Presidential Proclamations: Executive Order No. 131 (s. 2002) and Memorandum Order No. 74 (s. 2002)
•In relation to this, Section 5 states:
SECTION 5. Exemptions. — The following lands shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act:
(a) Those included in the coverage of Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law;
(b) Those actually used for national defense and security of the State;
(c) Those used, reserved or otherwise set aside for government offices, facilities and other installations, whether owned by the National Government, its agencies and instrumentalities, including government-owned or-controlled corporations, or by the local government units: Provided, however, That the lands herein mentioned, or portions thereof, which have not been used for the purpose for which they have been reserved or set aside for the past ten (10) years from the effectivity of this Act, shall be covered by this Act;
(d) Those used or set aside for parks, reserves for flora and fauna, forests and watersheds, and other areas necessary to maintain ecological balance or environmental protection, as determined and certified to by the proper government agency; and
(e) Those actually and primarily used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes, cultural and historical sites, hospitals and health centers, and cemeteries or memorial parks.
The exemptions herein provided shall not apply when the use or purpose of the abovementioned lands has ceased to exist
•Presidential Proclamations: Executive Order No. 131 (s. 2002) and Memorandum Order No. 74 (s. 2002)
•The exemption in Section 5 refers to idle government lands, the purpose of which have been rendered nugatory owing to non-use for ten (10) years from the effectivity of the UDHA. Said government lands can be the subject of socialized housing and thus be distributed for such purpose. To distribute such lands for socialized housing, a presidential proclamation must first be issued by the President of the Philippines.
•To fully implement such UDHA mandate, two presidential issuances have been enacted -- Executive Order No. 131 (s. 2002) [EO 131] and Memorandum Order No. 74 (s. 2002) [MO 74]. In presidential proclamations for socialized housing, the basic idea is that if there are government lands which have become idle, based on the legal definition crafted in Section 5 of the UDHA, said lands may be identified, proclaimed, and thereafter distributed for socialized housing purposes to qualified beneficiaries.
•Aptly entitled “DECLARING OPEN TO DISPOSITION FOR SOCIALIZED HOUSING PURPOSES CERTAIN GOVERNMENT-OWNED LANDS DEFINED UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7279, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING ACT OD 1992, AND PROVIDING FOR DISPOSITION THEREOF”, the third whereas clause of EO 131 encapsulates its main objective:
•“WHEREAS, mass housing may be effected, among others, through the regularization of land tenure of informal settlers on government-owned lands which have not been used for the purposes for which they have been reserved or set-aside for the past ten (10) years from the effectivity of the UDHA including government-owned idle lands and alienable lands of the public domain and are suitable for socialized housing;”
• Thus, EO 131 provides a veritable opportunity for informal settlers living on government-owned lands to gain security of tenure over the land on which their houses are built. However, EO 131 merely deals with what is called a “pre-proclamation phase” meaning that its main aim only covers the identification and preparation of the subject government lands, and not the actual distribution and disposition of the same. To address this issue of distribution and disposition of proclaimed lands, MO 74 was likewise issued to compliment EO 131.
•MO 74 appoints the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC) as the lead government agency to realize the distribution and disposition of proclaimed government lands. Such task is of course in coordination with other relevant government agencies as well as the local government units where the subject land is located. As clearly stated in Section 1 of MO 74:
•“SECTION 1. The Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC) shall confer with the Local Government Unit (LGU), within fifteen (15) days from the issuance of the Presidential Proclamation, for the purpose of facilitating and expediting the conduct of post-proclamation activities necessary to dispose of the proclaimed site to their actual bona fide occupants, to the end that these informal settlers are finally granted the titles to the lands they are occupying at the earliest possible time and in order that these lands are developed as a viable community through participatory planning and utilization of appropriate development schemes.”
•Executive Order No. 272 (s. 2004)
•It cannot be gainsaid how the government’s Community Mortgage Program (CMP) has immensely assisted numerous urban poor home owner associations (HOAs) in obtaining security of tenure over the land on which they were once considered as “squatters”. Originally implemented by the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC), the program works to ease the HOAs’ burdens in paying for their purchased land with friendly terms and conditions.
•With Executive Order No. 272 (EO 272), the NHMFC has been mandated to create a subsidiary corporation which will focus exclusively on implementing the government’s Community Mortgage Program, because pursuant to its charter, the NHMFC is not the one officially tasked to implement the Community Mortgage Program. Thus, the Social Housing Finance Corporation (SHFC) was created via EO 272 to be the exclusive implementor of the government’s Community Mortgage Program.
•Proposed Legislation Relevant to Land Use and Land Distribution: the National Land Use Act (NLUA) and the Local Housing Board Law (LHB) [NOTE: both proposed measures are still pending in either the Senate or House]
•The National Land Use Act (NLUA) envisages a method by which land use may be planned at the national level. However, it is pertinent to consider the reasons why there should be land planning at any level. Indeed, while many Local Government Units (LGUs) have produced comprehensive land use plans, these are not a requirement. Under Article 13, section 1 of the Constitution, the state reserves the rights to regulate and to dispose of land. Similarly, under Article 12, section 6 of the Constitution, it is recognized that the state can interfere with private ownership for the common good. These provisions acknowledge that private interests over land can never be absolute and conversely that land has an existence independent of its private owners. One main reason for this is that the use of land affects not only its present users but also the land surrounding it and land’s future users.
•Proposed Legislation Relevant to Land Use and Land Distribution: the National Land Use Act (NLUA) and the Local Housing Board Law (LHB) [NOTE: both proposed measures are still pending in either the Senate or House]
•Local housing boards are local special bodies tasked to formulate, develop, implement, and monitor policies on the provision for housing and resettlement areas, and on the observance of the right of the underprivileged and homeless to a just and humane eviction and demolition.
•Local housing boards bring together two salient mandates in the Article on Social Justice and Human Rights, to wit: the undertaking to establish a continuing program of urban land reform and housing and to respect the right of urban or rural poor dwellers to be evicted in a just and humane manner, and the observance of the right of the people and their organizations to effective and reasonable participation at all levels of social, political, and economic decision-making.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
All Comments