Property Final Paper

University of the Philippines College of Law Diliman, Quezon City

Evicted by Big Brother: UDHA and the Informal Settlers in the Philippines

Submitted by:

Ortua, Maria Christina C. Poblacion, Krizelle F. Rivera, Jan Michael A. Roque, Ra ym ond R.

21 October 2007

ABSTRACT

It has been 15 years since the Urban Development and Housing Act (UDHA), popularly known as the “Lina Law” was enacted. Since then, the law immediately became a constant target of criticisms. Many critics say that the law did more harm than good since it merely made the problem regarding mass housing more complicated. On the other hand, some say that the law is beneficial since it gave the so-called “informal settlers” the chance to start a better life by affording them the opportunity to obtain decent housing as well as by providing some procedural safeguards in properly effecting their resettlements. In this paper, the authors attempt to determine the effects of the law from the time it was enacted up to present by analyzing the existing jurisprudence related to it as well as by conducting interviews of individuals within the affected areas. By determining the effects, the authors want to know whether the declared policy objectives of the law were somehow met. The authors also formulated three basic assumptions which they will use to analyze the law itself and to find out why it has become a source of discontent to the affected as well as to some interested persons. In short, the authors would ascertain whether: 1) the law is defective in itself that it must be repealed at once; or 2) the law has only isolated flawed provisions that require some amendments so that the law will cater to its purpose; and finally, 3) the law is already adequately crafted and the problem only lies in its implementation. Towards the end of this paper, the authors would also present some policy recommendations based on their findings.

TA BLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract Chapter I: Introduction A Historical Perspective of Squatting……………………………………………1 The Economics of Squatting……………………………………………………...2 Squatting and its Political and Social Aspects…………………………...………4 The Need for the Law to Intervene……………………………………………...5 Chapter II: Legal Standards Affecting the Informal Settlers UDHA and Related Laws…………………………………………………………6 Jurisprudence……………………………………………………………………10 Chapter III: Parties at Play: The Informal Settlers and the State The Reality of Informal Settlers……………………………………..…………17 Government Intervention on the Proliferation of Informal Settlers..………..22 Chapter IV: Case Studies The Informal Settlers of Area 17- Bukid,………………………………………25 University of the Philippines Campus, Quezon City: An Interview with Alice Fernandez, Coordinator The Informal Settlers of Park Seven, Loyola Heights,…………………………26 Quezon City: An Interview with Lina Oliveros, President of Samahan ng mga Mamamayan sa Park Seven Chapter V: Analysis On Government Intervention on the Exercise of Property Rights…………..29 On Informal Networks to Enforce the Rights of Informal Settlers…………..31 On Urban vis-à-vis Rural Development……………………………………….32 Chapter VI: Policy Recommendations and Conclusions Government’s Point of View…………………………………………………..34 Informal Settler’s Point of View……………………………………………….38 Private Owner’s Point of View………………………………………………...39 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………39 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………….40

CHAPTE R I IN TRODUCTION

Squatting is the act of occupying an abandoned or unoccupied land by landless and homeless persons1. The words “squatters”, “slum dwellers”, “informal settlers” and “urban poor” are used interchangeably to signify this group of people who occupy public and private lands without any legal authority. In the Philippines, the high incidence of squatting has always been a major societal, economic and political issue especially given the rapid industrialization taking place in the country. In Metro Manila alone, studies have shown that housing is a common problem as almost 50% of the general population is considered “squatters”2.

A Historical Perspective of Squatting

Before the Second World War, squatting was not really considered a problem in the country. However, the devastation of Intramuros, the fortress core of the colonial city, was the impetus that encouraged sheltered people to move out and build their homes in the bombed-out areas. In addition, the Hukbalahap threat also drove out the persons living in the countryside in order to search for safer abode. An influx of people on large proportions coming into Manila soon ensued. The biggest concentration of all grew in Tondo, located at the north of Pasig River, because of the job opportunities for laborers in the North Harbor and in Divisoria3. In the 1960’s, Bulacan became the new haven for squatters but it was a result of a large scale eviction made by the Manila government pursuant to a court order 1

R. Stone. Philippine Urbanization: The Politics of Public and Private Property in Greater Manila. (1973) 2 Trade Union Congress of the Philippines. Found in 3 D. J. Dwyer. People and Housing in Third World Cities: Perspective on the Problems of Spontaneous Settlement (1975)

against the squatters in Intramuros.

However, the lack of adequate planning,

including the failure to actualize the ambitious agricultural projects in the relocated areas, caused more than half of the relocated families to go back to their original place in Manila.

The squatting soon spread to the nearby localities while those who

remained in Bulacan tried to eke out a miserable life4. Amidst the massive squatting, the government either responded with outright hostility or at best, mere indifference. On August 20, 1975, Presidential Decree 772 declared squatting a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment and a fine. Although there was a massive move to provide for homes for the poor through the National Housing Association, still, this was ineffective as the construction costs were far too high to meet the needs of the target groups 5. After the People’s Revolution, Executive Order (EO) 82 created the Presidential Committee for the Urban Poor (PCUP) to implement government policies and programs for the urban poor6. Under the said EO, PCUP had to approve all demolition orders issued by the government and private agencies. However, the urban poor soon became disillusioned when practice showed that EO 82 did not actually deter owners of land from unilaterally and violently clearing areas covered by squatters. In 1992, Republic Act (RA) 7279, otherwise known as the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992, was enacted primarily to uplift the living conditions of the underprivileged and homeless citizens in urban and resettlement areas by making available to them decent and affordable housing, basic services, and employment opportunities. The most criticized provision of the law, however, is the prohibition against demolition even of patently illegal structures before the state provides a relocation site for the squatters.

Ibid E. Berner. Defending a Place in the City: Localities and the Struggle for Urban Land in Metro Manila. (1997) 6 F. Schurman and T,V. Naerssen, Urban Social Movements in the Third World. (1989) 4 5

The Economics of Squatting

Different factors affect a person’s decision whether to squat on a land or not. In Eli Remolona’s A Simple

Model

of Squat ters 7 , an economic formulation

showed that household with incomes below a certain threshold level will most probably choose to squat on another person’s land. This income threshold is further determined by the rate of eviction and the income distribution within the region. Basically, the decision to squat depends on which action yields the higher expected utility. An increase in the rate of eviction will reduce the equilibrium number of squatters in the city. Also, the expectation of better income in the prospective squatting place will most likely make a person decide to squat. In Glenda M. Uy’s The Role of Internal Problem

in the Philippines

8

Migr ation on the Squatting

, internal migration has been identified as the

primary cause of the proliferation of squatters in the urban area. Factors that affect internal migration include distance, the difference in the state of economy in the former place and the prospective place, the presence of employment opportunities in the prospective place, education and presence of relatives in the prospective place. The author identified certain problems and issues pertaining to urban migration. For one, it could result in regional growth imbalance and spatially uneven allocation of income. Second, unregulated population growth in urban areas could result in unemployment, poverty, strained urban services, congestion, overcrowding, housing shortage and less satisfactory physical conditions. Concomitantly, there is the Harris -Todaro

Mode l which explains some

issues regarding rural-urban migration. According to this model, the decision whether to migrate or not is based on expected income differentials between rural and urban areas. The Harris-Todaro model migration is regarded as the adjustment 7 8

Discussion Paper 79-20, November 1979, University of the Philippines, School of Economics University of the Philippines, School of Economics, September 1988

mechanism by which workers allocate themselves between different labor markets, some of which are located in urban areas and some in rural areas, while attempting to maximize their expected incomes. Equilibrium (or the discontinuance of internal migration) is achieved when the expected wage in urban areas is equal to the expected wage in rural areas. As such, it has been hypothesized that the development of and investment in infrastructure in the rural areas would bring about a decline in urban migration. The problem of squatting arises not because of migration per se, but migration coupled with the lack of land to use or the lack of capability to use it. For instance, for the majority of the developing countries, the urban land market is not a free market as it is subject to various degrees of control over land use, regulations of transfer and others9. Also, the urban poor cannot gain access to the formal market of land and housing because they cannot afford to do so. Slums and squatter settlements contain the very poor, daily workers who can usually only afford to rent rooms and shacks.

Squatting and its Political and Social Aspects

The issue of land is largely a political and institutional one. Government’s control of the urban poor’s acquisition of land is primarily determined by political pressures exerted by various groups with differing interests upon the government10. A study of the urban poor and the slums revealed that the poor are denied the legitimate use of urban land because the rich use it for storing wealth, hedging against inflation and generating speculative profits. Government agencies failed to assist the urban poor and are usually found to further the control of the rich. Moreover, the

9

Angel, et al. Land for Housing the Poor. (1983) Ibid

10

corrupt practices continue to allow the use of public lands for private commercial development, while large tracts of private lands remain vacant and untouched11. In societies, squatters suffer the stigma of being considered as law breakers. Their areas are looked down as places where prostitution exists, where criminals hide from the law, and where there may be a high rate of juvenile crime. Consequently, societies isolate the squatters who are believed to be best left on their own.

The Need for the Law to Intervene The issue of squatting is a complicated matter because economic, social and political factors are intertwined with such issue. In addition, certain civil rights of informal settlers have to be taken into consideration in adopting policies dealing with the eviction and resettlement of the informal sectors. As such, there is a need for an effective law in order to harmonize the conflicting interests in connection with the matter of squatting. By analyzing the current law in force with regards to informal settlers, the related jurisprudence and the actual scenario of slum dwelling in the country, it is hoped that this study could be the means to improve and correct the conditions of informal settlers in the country.

11

M. Sarin. The Rich, The Poor and the Land Question in Land for Housing the Poor. (1983)

CHAPTE R II LEGA L STANDARDS

AFFECTING

THE INFORMA L SETTL ERS

A. UD HA and Related La ws The Urban Development and Housing Act (UDHA) originated as Senate Bill No. 234 authored by then Senator Jose Lina as well as House Bill No. 34310 12. The consolidated bill was passed by both upper and lower houses on 3 February 1992. Thereafter, the consolidated bill was signed into law by then President Corazon Aquino as RA 7279 on 24 March 1992 and published in the 4 May 1992 issue of the Official Gazette13. The 1987 Constitution, consistent with its social justice flavor, contains provisions regarding urban land reform and housing. These provisions have served as basis for the enactment of UDHA. Article 13 of the Constitution provides:

Sec tion 9. The State shall, by law, and for the common good, undertake, in cooperation with the private sector, a continuing program of urban land reform and housing which will make available at affordable cost, decent housing and basic services to 12 13

City of Mandaluyong v. Aguilar, G.R. No. 137152, January 29, 2001 Macasiano v. NHA, G.R. No. 107921, July 1, 1993

under-privileged and homeless citizens in urban centers and resettlement areas. It shall also promote adequate employment opportunities to such citizens. In the implementation of such program the State shall respect the rights of small property owners. Sec tion 10. Urban or rural poor dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwelling 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 relocated. In effect, RA 7279 became the enabling law of the abovementioned constitutional mandates. The avowed purpose of the Lina law was to undertake a comprehensive urban development and housing program aimed at uplifting the conditions of the underprivileged and homeless citizens in urban as well as resettlement areas by extending to them opportunities to obtain decent housing at affordable costs and also to provide for the rational use and development of urban lands.14 In line with these objectives, the law, among others, laid down the rules with regard to use, inventory, acquisition and disposition of lands for socialized housing. This includes the order of priorities in the acquisition of lands. The law mandates that government-owned lands should be top priority as sites for socialized housing while private lands should be the last, which means that private lands can only be acquired if the government is left with no other choice even if the taking is coupled with just compensation. UDHA is not the first law in the country enacted for the purpose of urban development. During the martial law era, then President Ferdinand Marcos had promulgated Presidential Decree (PD) 1517 or the Urban Land Reform Act of 1978 for the purpose of renewing blighted areas, improving the conditions of the urban 14

Rep. Act No. 7279 (1992) Sec. 2

poor and resolving and redressing legitimate grievances arising therefrom, while at the same time providing incentives to progressive landowners and developers who wish to develop their lands in accordance with government plans and programs responsive to community welfare15. One of the pertinent provisions of the Act is provided in Section 6 which states that legitimate tenants who have built their homes, are residing within those lands identified as “urban zones” for ten years or more, or have legally occupied the lands by contract continuously for the last ten years shall not be dispossessed and shall be allowed the right of first refusal to purchase the same within reasonable time and at reasonable price. However, the said provision seemed to have fallen on deaf ears and closed minds since after 8 years from its promulgation, the President has issued another presidential decree16 reiterating his previous order to the effect that occupants or tenants and their families in Urban Zones or Areas for Priority Development shall not be evicted from such lands. Strangely though, considering that the passage of the second decree was to reinforce the President’s previous command, nowhere in the subsequent Act can one find any penal provision that would somehow deter the violation of the said law. PD 1517 provided for a penal sanction for violation of any of its provision but apparently no one has ever been prosecuted under it. It seems to be a story of a toothless law issued to reinforce another powerless law. In one case17, the UDHA has essentially also become the governing law with respect to “squatting” ever since the notorious PD 772 or the Anti-Squatting Law of 1975 was expressly repealed by RA 8368.

However, RA 7279 does not punish

squatting per se, but the said law defined and penalized those who will be identified

Pres. Decree No. 1517 (1978) (7th Whereas Clause) Pres. Decree No. 2016, January 23, 1986 [PROHIBITING THE EVICTION OF OCCUPANT FAMILIES FROM LAND IDENTIFIED AND PROCLAIMED AS AREAS FOR PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT (APD) OR AS URBAN LAND REFORM ZONES AND EXEMPTING SUCH LAND FROM PAYMENT OF REAL PROPERTY TAXES] 17 De Castro Homesite Inc. v. Leachon, G.R. No. 124856, March 10, 2005 15

16

as “professional squatters” 18 or members of squatting syndicates19. On the other hand, the definition of a squatter under PD 772 was all-encompassing in the sense that once a person has been found to be occupying the land of another person against the latter’s will, that person will be punished under it. It is therefore clear to say that on this score, UDHA is more compassionate than PD 772. Even though the Lina Law has provided penalty for professional squatting, the enactment of the said law did not actually repeal, expressly or impliedly, of PD No. 772. If it were otherwise, the Congress would not have enacted another law expressly repealing the infamous presidential fiat. RA 7279 is only one of the several housing laws still in force nowadays. Examples of other statutes enacted in relation to the housing problem in the Philippines are RA 7835 and RA 6846.

RA 7835 or the Comprehensive and

Integrated Shelter Financing Act (CISFA) of 1994 was designed to strengthen, promote and support the component activities of housing production and finance. On the other hand, RA 6846 or the Social Housing Support Fund, popularly known as Abot-Kayang Pabahay Fund Act, intends to enhance the affordability of low-cost housing by low-income families, provides developmental financing for low-cost housing projects, and eliminates risks for the funding agencies involved in housing, namely: Social Security System (SSS), the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) and the Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF).

18

“Professional Squatters" refers to individuals or groups who occupy lands without the express consent of the landowner and who have sufficient income for legitimate housing. The term shall also apply to persons who have been previously awarded home lots or housing units by the Government but who sold, leased or transferred the same to settle illegally in the same place or in another urban area, and non-bona fide occupants and intruders or lands reserved for socialized housing period. The term shall not apply to individuals or groups who simply rent land and housing from professional squatters or squatting syndicates. [Sec. 13 (m), RA No. 7279] 19 “Squatting syndicates” refers to groups of persons engaged in the business of squatter housing for profit or gain. [Sec. 13 (s), R.A. No. 7279] Both professional squatters and members of squatting syndicates are punished with 6 years imprisonment and a fine of not less than 60,000 pesos but not more than 100,000 pesos or both, at the discretion of the court. [Sec. 27, R.A. No. 7279]

Despite the existence of these housing laws, legislators still found them insufficient to address the housing issues besetting the country. Proof of this fact was that in 1998, House Bill (HB) 4120 dubbed as the “National Housing Act” was introduced in the lower house by Congressman Prospero Pichay with the objective, among other things, of creating a “Department of Housing and Urban Development” which will unify all the existing key shelter agencies such as the NHA, HLURB, HUDCC etc. But the said bill was not passed. Then in 2002, another bill called the “Omnibus Housing and Urban Development Act”, with the same topic as HB 4120 was again introduced in the House of Representatives backed up by several congressmen. But just the same, the bill never became a law. Another important piece of legislation that is necessary to keep in mind in the analysis of RA 7279 is Civil Code provisions of nuisance. Reading these laws side by side is important especially when it comes to the subject of squatting. It is because squatting in public places such as public parks, highways, bridges, railroads as well as waterways are considered not only public nuisance but also nuisance per se. These kinds of nuisance can be summarily abated without need of judicial proceedings. It is well to remember that under RA 7279, squatting per se is not punishable but “professional squatters or members of squatting syndicates” are. Common squatters who really do not have financial capabilities to provide housing facilities for themselves are not penalized under the Lina law but are, in fact, considered as its beneficiaries. However, under the Civil Code provisions on nuisance, their shanties might be in danger of abatement once the same are found to be nuisance per se.

B. Jurisprudence The first case that was decided under RA 7279 was the case of Macasiano v.

National Housing Authority et. al.20 which was actually impugning the 20

G.R. No. 107921, 1 July 1993

constitutionality of some of its provisions. The case was filed by a retired police general who was allegedly suing in his capacity as a DPWH Consultant and as a taxpayer. He was particularly challenging Sections 2821 and 4422 of RA 7279 since according to him, the provisions “serve as drawback to his tasks and duties regarding demolition of illegal structures”, and that, as a taxpayer, he has a direct interest in seeing to it that public funds are properly and lawfully disbursed. But the challenge 21

SEC 28. Eviction and Demolition. – Eviction or demolition as a practice shall be discouraged. Eviction or demolition, however, may be allowed under the following situations: a. When persons or entities occupy danger areas such as esteros, railroad tracks, garbage dumps, riverbanks, shorelines, waterways, and other public places such as sidewalks, roads, parks, and playgrounds; b. When government infrastructure projects with available funding are about to be implemented; or c. When there is a court order for eviction and demolition. In the execution of eviction or demolition orders involving underprivileged and homeless citizens, the following shall be mandatory; 1. Notice upon the affected persons or entities at least thirty (*30) days prior to the date of eviction or demolition; 2. Adequate consultations on the matter of resettlement with the duly designated representatives of the families to be resettled and the affected communities in the areas where they are to be relocated; 3. Presence of Local government officials or their representatives during eviction or demolitions; 4. Proper identification of all persons taking part in the demolition; 5. Execution of eviction or demolition only during regular office hours from Mondays to Fridays and during good weather, unless the affected families consent otherwise; 6. No use of heavy equipment for demolition except for structures that are permanent and other of concrete materials; 7. Proper uniforms for members of the Philippines National Police who shall occupy the first line of law enforcement and observe proper disturbance control procedures; and 8. 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 judgement by the court, after which period the said order shall 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 wage multiplied by sixty (60) days shall be extended to the affected families by the local government unit concerned. The department of the Interior and Local Government and the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council shall jointly promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to carry out the above provision. 22 SEC. 44. Moratorium on Eviction and Demolition. – There shall be a moratorium on the eviction of all program beneficiaries and on the demolition of their houses or dwelling units for a period of three (3) years from the effectivity of this Act: Provided, That the moratorium shall not apply to those

was immediately denied on the ground of the petitioner’s lack of locus standi as well as the absence of an actual case or controversy. In the 1995 case of Galay v. Court of Appeals23, the Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Francisco, held that RA 7279 was “envisioned to be an antidote to the pernicious problem of squatting in the metropolis”. Three issues were essentially tackled in the said case, all of which concerning the application of Section 28 (c) of RA 7279 regarding the procedure to be followed in cases of demolition, eviction and relocation. The court declared that Section 28 (c) …is very explicit that the task of relocating the homeless and the underprivileged shall be the responsibility of the local government unit concerned and the National Housing Authority with the assistance of other government agencies. Although private individuals are not prohibited from taking part in the relocation, there is nothing in the law either that compels them to undertake such task on a mandatory basis, otherwise, such obligation should have been included in the provision, either expressly or impliedly. Thus, petitioners attempt to further burden private respondent with their relocation is unwarranted24. Meanwhile, in the case of Filstream International Inc. v. Court of Appeals25, RA 7279 was used to say that there was a violation of the due process rights of private individuals when government exercises unrestrainedly its power of eminent domain. The issue arose when petitioner Filstream filed an ejectment suit against some occupants of their property in Tondo, Manila.

Filstream won the case and the

decision eventually became final and executory. The petitioner company was then awarded a writ of execution and a notice to vacate on the part of the occupants. But then the City of Manila entered the picture by enacting two ordinances which persons who have constructed their structures after the effectivity of this Act and for cases enumerated in Section 28 hereof. 23 G.R. No. 120132 24 Galay v. CA, supra 25 G.R. No. 125218, 23 January 1998

authorized the City Mayor to acquire by any legal means the property in question owned by the petitioner and to expropriate the same and to be sold and distributed to the qualified tenants of the area pursuant to the “Land Use Development Program” of the city. The court, through Justice Francisco, ruled that though the City of Manila has an undeniable right to exercise its power of eminent domain within its jurisdiction, nevertheless, the same right is not absolute. The exercise of the power of eminent domain should not trample upon the constitutional rights of the private individuals such as the right to due process, just compensation, etc. At this juncture, the court identified RA 7279 as the governing law when it comes to “expropriation (of lands) for purposes of urban land reform and housing, specifically Section 926 and 1027 of the law.28” In interpreting the two provisions, the Court has this to say: 26

SEC. 9. Priorities in the Acquisition of Land – Lands for socialized housing shall be acquired in the following order: a. Those owned by the Government or any of its subdivision, instrumentalities, or agencies, including government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries; b. Alienable lands of the public domain; c. Unregistered or abandoned and idle lands; d. Those within the declared Areas for Priority Development, Zonal Improvement Program sites, and Slum Improvement and Resettlement Program sites which have not yet been acquired; e. Bagong Lipunan Improvement or Sites and Services or BLISS sites which have not yet been acquired; and f. Privately owned lands. Where on-site development is found more practicable and advantageous to the beneficiaries, the priorities mentioned in this section shall not apply. The local government units shall give budgetary priority to on-site development of government lands. 27 SEC. 10 Modes of Land Acquisition - The modes of acquiring lands for the purposes of this Act shall include, among others, community mortgage, land swapping , land assembly or consolidation , land banking donation to the Government, joint-venture agreement, negotiated purchase and expropriation: Provided, however, That expropriation shall be resorted to only when other modes of acquisition have been exhausted. Provided, further, That where expropriations are resorted to, parcels of land owned by small property owners shall be exempted for purpose of this Act: Provided , finally, That abandoned property , as herein defined , shall be reverted and escheated to the State in a proceeding analogous to the procedures laid downs in Rule 91 of the Rules of Court. For the purpose of socialized housing, government-owned and foreclosed properties shall be acquired by the local government units, or by the National Housing Authority primarily through negotiated purchase: Provided, That qualified beneficiaries who are actual occupants of the land shall be given the right of the first refusal. 28 Filstream International Inc. v. CA, supra

Private lands rank last in the order of priority for purposes of socialized housing. In the same vein, expropriation proceedings are to be resorted to only when the other modes of acquisition have been exhausted. Compliance with these conditions must be deemed mandatory because these are the only safeguards in securing the right of owners of private property to due process when their property is expropriated for public use.29

Hence, the Court declared that the City of Manila, indeed, has violated Filstream’s due process rights, to wit:

We have carefully scrutinized the records of this case and found nothing that would indicate that respondent City of Manila complied with Sec. 9 and Sec. 10 of R.A. 7279. Petitioner Filstream's properties were expropriated and ordered condemned in favor of the City of Manila sans any showing that resort to the acquisition of other lands listed under Sec. 9 of RA 7279 have proved futile. Evidently, there was a violation of petitioner Filstream's right to due process which must accordingly be rectified.30 Six years later, the Court was confronted with almost the same issue in the case of Lagcao et. al. v. Judge Labra31. This time it was the City of Cebu that was found guilty of violating the due process rights of the petitioners. Again, RA 7279 was used as basis for saying that there was a violation of due process as it was not shown that the City of Cebu complied with Secs. 9 and 10 of the said law. The Court thus declared that the ordinance, through which the city government has committed the violation, is unconstitutional. In describing the act of the city government, the Court, speaking through Justice Corona, said:

supra supra 31 G.R. No. 155746, 13 October 2004 29 30

It was trickery and bad faith, pure and simple. The unconscionable manner in which the questioned ordinance was passed clearly indicated that respondent City transgressed the Constitution, RA 7160 and RA 7279. 32 The doctrine laid down in the Filstream case was squarely applied in the 2004 case of Estate Heirs of Late Ex-Justice Jose B. L. Reyes and Edmundo Reyes v. Court

of Appeals (G.R. No. 132431 and 137146) due to the “substantial resemblance of facts and issues” in both cases. On the other hand, the unlawful detainer case of Serapion v. Court of

Appeals33 presented two novel issues, namely: (1) the applicability of RA 7279 in cases already submitted for resolution at the time the law was passed; and (2) the interpretation of the provision on moratorium on eviction under Sec. 44 of the law. As regards the first issue, the court held that the petitioners were not timebarred from raising the applicability of RA 7279 in the motion for reconsideration of the MeTC ruling/recall of the writs of execution and demolition since the trial of the case ended in 1986, the corresponding decision was handed down in 1990, and RA 7279 was enacted only on March 24, 1992. The enactment of the law constitutes a supervening cause which rendered the execution of ruling and the writs unjust and impossible. Nevertheless, as to the second issue, the Court held that the eviction would still proceed despite the applicability of RA 7279. This is due to the fact that the eviction is based on a valid legal ground, i.e., the petitioners failed to prove that they are covered by the provision on the moratorium on eviction. RA 7279 provides the following requirements for the applicability of the provision on moratorium on eviction: that the one invoking it must prove that he is a Filipino citizen; that he must be underprivileged and homeless as defined under the law; that he must not own real 32 33

Lagcao v. Judge Labra, supra G.R. No. 115039, 22 September 1998

property whether in rural or urban areas; and that he must not be a professional squatter or a member of squatting syndicates as also defined under RA 7279. The Court also stated that, even if the moratorium be considered as applicable, the same would not stop the eviction since the period provided therein has already lapsed. The case of City of Mandaluyong v. Aguilar et. al34. presented an issue under RA 7279 which involves the size of the property being appropriated. This involves an expropriation case filed by the city government against the Aguilars over the latter’s real property wherein the city government planned to build a medium-rise condominium. The main contention of the respondents was that they were exempted from expropriation due to the size of their property. They averred that assuming that their property was considered as an Area for Priority Development and not as a purely private land, they are still not subject to expropriation since under Sec. 10 of RA 7279, small property owners are exempted from expropriation. The Court in this case sided with the private respondents. It stated that Sec. 9 should not be read in isolation but in conjunction with the modes of acquisition of lands for purposes of socialized housing. The Court also expounded on the exemption of small property owners from expropriation as referred to under the 1987 Constitution and as defined under RA 7279. In some cases, even though RA 7279 was not directly invoked by the parties, the Court by way of obiter dicta has pronounced that RA 7279 was the existing law governing the squatting violations previously covered by the notorious PD 772 or the Anti-Squatting Law. RA 7279 clearly defines and criminalizes the socalled “professional squatters” and provides the corresponding penalties for such violations.35

City of Mandaluyong v Aguilar, supra. Tuates and De La Paz v. Judge Bersamin, G.R. No. 138962, 4 October 2002; De Castro Homesite Inc. v. Judge Leachon Jr., G. R. No. 124856, 10 March 2005 34 35

In 2007, the Court was tasked to decide on the issue of squatting on public lands36. The Court declared that RA 7279 does not automatically accord possession to squatters of public land. In the said case, the petitioners failed to show that they classify as “underprivileged and homeless citizens” to be accorded the benefits under the law. The Court dwelt on the fact that the photographs of the demolished structures revealed that the same were made of concrete and other strong materials. This fact gave support to the conclusion that the petitioners have the financial capacity to build their own housing facilities, thus taking them out of the ambit of RA 7279. The petitioners may even be criminally prosecuted as professional squatters under RA 7279 according to the Court. Based on the foregoing, jurisprudence on RA 7279 shows that the oftchallenged provisions of the law are Secs. 9 and 10 which deal with the priorities in acquisition of lands and modes of land acquisition, respectively. These two provisions should always be conjunctively read, interpreted and applied. Other controversial provisions of RA 7279 include Secs. 28 and 44 on eviction and demolition and moratorium on eviction, respectively. It is clear that eviction and demolition is not prohibited under RA 7279 as long as the procedure laid therein is strictly complied with and that the moratorium on eviction will only apply when invoked by qualified beneficiaries under the program.

36

Samahan ng Masang Pilipino sa Makati v. Bases Conversion Development Authority, G.R. No. 142255, 26 January 2007

CHAPTER III PARTIES AT PLAY: T HE INFOR MAL S ET TLERS AND THE STATE

A. The Rea lity of Informal

S ettlers

The law is nothing if not put into practice in the lives of those it affects. On this portion of the paper, a narrative of the actual experiences of informal settlers will be shown based on news articles primarily gathered from the World Wide Web. This social context, in turn, would be briefly related to the objectives and application of RA 7279. A major focus at the moment regarding informal settlers is the North RailSouth Rail Linkage Project. Due to the perception of rural Filipinos that Metro Manila is a place of greater opportunity in improving the quality of their lives, thousands moved to areas in Metro Manila to have a new start. Now, with the said project at hand, the plans of these urban poor Filipinos hoping for a better life are at risk of a major overhaul. According to a report37 of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ), “Little attention has been given to the fact that rebuilding and extending the 80-kilometer railway, a project intended to spur economic growth in Central and Northern Luzon, also means evicting more than 200,000 poor people who live alongside the railroad tracks” and at the same time, “the relocation of all these people — twice the population of San Juan, Metro Manila — is expected to cost at least P6.6 billion. But it is a hidden expense, as it was not added to the total project cost.” Relocation cannot be separated from the eviction of informal settlers. We cannot just expect these people to be able to live on their own, considering their lack 37

Pabico, Alecks P. and Rimban, Luz. Nightmare at North Rail: Cost of Resettling 40,000 Families Deliberately Hidden. Available 2005 [1-4]

of financial capability and lack of options. At the same time, however, the action of the government in evicting these informal settlers is not exactly arbitrary. This balancing of interests is a major concern faced by the UDHA. In a news channel report38, “(Mayor) Lim had ordered police to secure the cemeteries and make sure they are free of squatter families and of petty thieves and snatchers.” This is due to the advent of All Saint’s Day where Filipinos gather to the cemetery to honor the dead. It seems ironic that, at this time of the year, we put greater importance to the dead than to the living, without any disrespect to the memory of the dead. This also shows us that these informal settlers will live in almost any place, without fear that the dead might haunt them, just to be able to survive for one more day. Notable provisions of RA 7279 refer to the responsibility of the local government units to enforce and implement the law’s provisions on eviction and relocation of informal settlers. These provisions are Secs. 2739, Sec. 2940 and Sec. 3941. An article42 posted by the Quezon City local government in the internet reported the following:

As of the beginning of March 2006, the Quezon City government, through its own Housing and Urban Renewal Authority (HURA), has turned over to a total of 77 squatter families from Barangay Escopa III the keys to their own housing units. The units are in a 5-storey, 80-unit

38

GMA TV news. 30 cemetery dwellers rounded up in predawn saturation drive. Available

Octob er 19 , 2007 [7] 39 Action Against Professional Squatters and Squatting Syndicates 40 Resettlement 41 Role of Local Government Units 42 QC awards housing units to 77 squatter families. Available 2006 [1-2]

condominium built on a 1,000-square meter lot on P. Burgos Street corner Katipunan Avenue, about a block away from Aurora Boulevard and the MRT and LRT stations there.

Here, we see that proper steps may be taken in addressing the problem of squatting. However, the ideal character of relocation, as in this example, that some of these informal settlers hope to get from government relocation can hardly be practiced at all times and in different parts of Metro Manila. In Metro Manila, the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA), works in conjunction with the local government units of the different cities in Metro Manila in the eviction and relocation of informal settlers. The MMDA’s authority in coordinating with LGUs comes from Republic Act 7924, which states that the MMDA shall be concerned with “metro-wide services within Metro Manila without diminution of the autonomy of the local government units concerning purely local matters43” and defines metro-wide services as “those services which have metro-wide impact and transcend legal political boundaries or entail huge expenditures such that it would not be viable for said services to be provided by the individual local government units comprising Metropolitan Manila.44” In a statement by the MMDA45, as reported in the Manila Times, MMDA General Manager Nacianceno stated that: The problem of informal settlers living along the waterways in Metro Manila that contributes to the flood problem will be solved within five years… The clearing of various creeks, rivers and esteros in the metropolis is now being handled by a multiagency task force 43

Sec. 2, Rep. Act 7924 Sec. 3, Rep. Act 7924 45 Antiporda, Jefferson. ‘Estero’ squatter problem will be solved in 5 years, says MMDA. The Manila Times. August 14, 2007. Also available online at 44

formed by the government. This would be in charge of clearing and relocating informal settlers… to various relocation sites outside Metro Manila particularly in the southern part of Luzon like Laguna, Batangas, Quezon and Rizal. The relocation of creek dwellers is expected to be successful because other government agencies are involved in the program including the National Housing Authority, Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council and the Presidential Commission on Urban Poor… The relocations sites would be a self-supporting community where schools and job opportunities would be available to the residents. This belief that the greater the number of government agencies involved would result in a greater chance of success in relocating the informal settlers is dangerous. There are just so many factors which can affect the success or failure of the program used in addressing the problem of squatting. Among others, the extent of autonomy of the different agencies involved and the manner in which they interact with each other should be looked into, keeping in mind that the people involved in each government agency can have an effect on the agency’s efficiency in performing its function. In all cases where there exists an inter-agency relationship, especially in the government, redundancy is a possibility. This is a potential problem in such a setup. Center on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE), an international nongovernmental organization, even awarded the Philippines the “Housing Rights Violator Award” due to the forced evictions of thousands of informal settlers without regard to the inherent human rights of those forcibly evicted. In a report46, COHRE stated that: Lagman, John. Forced Evictions in the Philippines. Available March 9, 2007 [1-2] 46

Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) personnel and armed police forcibly evicted 141 families (about 700 people) living under the South Superhighway Bridge in Manila and the San Andres Bridge 1 on the Osmena Highway, Paco, in late February this year. According to local civil society organisations, a demolition crew comprising of 200 MMDA personnel and armed police entered the community on 27 February without prior notice and forcibly evicted 54 families living under the San Andres Bridge… Many people, mostly women and children, were injured during the demolitions. Five men, including a village official (Barangay Captain), were severely beaten with crowbars and sticks by MMDA personnel. There seems to be an international clamor for the recognition and respect for the rights of the informal settlers here in the Philippines, as well as in other countries where housing rights are often violated by the Government. Even granting that these people are unlawfully occupying the lands, their rights still cannot be disregarded. Based on all the foregoing events happening in the country, primarily in Metro Manila, we can now relate such social context to the applicable law, RA 7279. The government has, of course, taken action in addressing the problem of squatting. Aside from the previously cited report of the Quezon City local government, a 2001 ADB report47 stated that: The Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the Philippine government will sign an agreement for a US$1 million relocation project for Muntinlupa railroad squatters on Monday, 13 August (2001)… The ADB and Philippine Government to Sign Agreement for Relocation of Railroad Squatters. Available August 10, 2001 [3] 47

integrated urban development project will pilot-test a communitybased, self-help approach to resettle two urban poor communities composed of 567 families out of an estimated 9,000 households who live in hazardous conditions along the rights-of-way of the Philippine National Railway. The project, to be implemented by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), is designed to explore new approaches to squatter relocation in Metro Manila, and aims to establish a cooperative relationship among local government units, NGOs and people's organizations in both the sending and receiving municipalities to enable the community to avoid economic dislocation. From the foregoing, we could see that there is a need to clarify how the objectives and strategies of the law are applied. Sec. 2 of RA 7279 states the objectives of the law, however, these objectives seem too ideal to be properly implemented. At the same time, there is no certainty as to how informal settlers would react to a relocation no matter how proper and conducive it may seem to the government. As for the strategies involved, Art. IX covering Sections 34-38, of RA 7279 states some of the plans perceived by the law. We must take note that these strategies are not new. Some have long been used by the government even before the creation of RA 7279. How, then, are these strategies going to help in addressing the problems connected with informal settlers? The rights of the squatters, and the balancing of these rights, certainly give us an idea on the importance of the issues involved – legal, economic, political, and social. Also, the number of government agencies involved in housing issues should tell us something about the importance of settling some of the issues involving these informal settlers. In dealing with informal settlers, it is important to remember that they are people with inherent rights which the law protects. At the same time, the government has a duty to execute the mandate it was given by the people in a proper

way. Just because this “proper way” is hard to find does not mean that the government will just settle on a manner that only seems to comply with the mandate imposed by law.

B. G overnmen t Intervention on t

he P roli feration of Informal Set

tlers

There are primarily two parties involved in addressing the issue of informal settlers. The first is the government and the second are the families who have occupied land that they do not legally own. Of course, parties such as nongovernment organizations are also involved. However, for purposes of looking into the effect of the UDHA to the informal settlers, it suffices that the scope be limited to the government and the informal settlers themselves. There is no question that the government faces a big problem in addressing the delicate issues involved in dealing with informal settlers. The primary government agency involved in addressing this delicate issue is the National Housing Authority48 (NHA) under the administrative supervision of the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC). The objectives49 of the NHA are the following:

-

To provide and maintain adequate housing for the greatest possible number of people

-

To undertake housing development, resettlement or other activities that would enhance the provision of housing to every Filipino

-

To harness and promote private participation in housing ventures in terms of capital expenditures, land, expertise, financing, and other facilities for the sustained growth of the housing industry

48 49

Created by Presidential Decree No. 757 Sec. 3, Pres. Dec. No. 757

In line with these objectives, as well as the Mission50 and Vision51 of the NHA, the following programs are instituted by the NHA.

Resettlement

Program . This involves the acquisition and development of

large tracts of raw land to generate serviced lots or core housing units for families displacedfrom sites earmarked for government infrastructure projects and those occupying danger areas such as waterways, esteros, and railroad tracks. In line with this program, assistance shall be given to the procurement of housing materials to be used in the building of the houses to be given to the people to be relocated. Such program, following the mandate of RA7279, shall be implemented with the coordination of the local government units. In the process of implementing the resettlement program, slum upgrading will be done through the introduction of roads or alleys and basic services such as water and electricity.

Co mmunity-Base d Housing

Pr ograms . This includes both tenurial and

technical assistance to be afforded to the families in the relocation sites. Community resources are mobilized for the resolution of land tenure issues and/or site development through the Land Tenure Assistance Program (LTAP), the Community Mortgage Program (CMP), and the Community Land Acquisition Support Program (CLASP). Likewise, technical assistance shall be extended to the community association or cooperative or local government units in terms of community organization, negotiation with the land owner, preparation of required development plans, formulation of disposition and collection schemes, and coordinating with other national government agencies for the processing of required documents.

50

To provide responsive housing programs primarily to homeless low-income families with access to social services and economic opportunities with excellence while ensuring corporate viability. 51 To be a viable and self-sustaining corporate institution committed to provide homes to low-income and homeless Filipino families and contribute to the improvement of the quality of life of the beneficiaries.

Programs for Families Affec ted by Calamities . This addresses the need of families rendered homeless due to natural calamities or man-made disasters beyond the control of the informal settlers. This entails the provision of temporary shelter for immediate relief of the affected families, the provision of home materials assistance for housing reconstruction, and the development of new settlements.

Joint Venture

. A strategy based on a resource or expert-sharing scheme with

private land-owners, private developers, non-government organizations, and people’s organizations shall be used for the development of the programs involved.

CHAPTER IV CASE STUDIES

A.

The

Informal

Philippines

Settlers

of

Area

17-

Bukid,

Ca mpus, Quezo n City: An Interview

University

of

the

wi th Alice Fernandez,

Coordinator Area 17 - Bukid, as its name implies, is not like the typical urban squatter area where the place is filthy and smells foul but is more akin to the shanties in the countryside where the trees and grass are abundant, the breeze is cool, and the atmosphere is peaceful. It has a world of its own, secluded from the buzz and traffic along Katipunan Avenue which is only a kilometer away from Area 17 - Bukid.

Everything seems perfect except for the big signpost located ostensibly on one side of the land warning trespassers that the enclosed area is a private property of the University of the Philippines (UP). A typical shanty in Area 17 – Bukid generally covers less than twenty square meters. The shanties are in close proximity to each other in such a way that adjacent shanties share the same wood as their wall. The walls of the shanties are normally built from wood and heavy cardboard, although several houses have hollow blocks for walls. The roofs of the shanties, on the other hand, are made up of used GI sheets. According to Alice Fernandez who serves as coordinator of the residents with the barangay officials, there are around 300 families in Area 17 - Bukid. This estimate does not include yet those in nearby premises and those relocated from the White House creek. Fernandez shared that most of the residents in the area came from the provinces; Fernandez herself was originally from Marinduque. Moreover, some of the residents are UP employees but most residents work outside as construction workers, security guards and other blue collar jobs. Fernandez recounted that in 1992, when she first settled in Area 17, there were only few shanties in the area. Throughout the years, the population in the area increased mainly because the relatives of existing residents came and settled in the same place. The increase was also caused by the relocation of other informal settlers previously residing in other parts of the UP. The residents of Area 17 enjoy basic amenities such as water and electricity. The narrow pathways are also cemented due to the successful lobby made by the residents before the local government. Moreover, youths observe a curfew, while a group of residents patrol the area at night and ensure that unruly outsiders will not disturb its peace. The residents do not pay any rental fee for their occupation of the land. However, they have to secure a permit from the UP before any construction work can

be made on the existing shanties. The UP also imposes some limitations on the kind of materials that can be used in the construction. For instance, hollow blocks are not allowed to be used in the construction but, in cases where they are allowed, such materials can only be used up to a certain height. Anything beyond the limit would be demolished by the UP Task Force on squatting. The UP also prohibits construction of new shanties in the premises. The residents do not have any written agreement with the UP officials as regards their occupation of the land. The only arrangement though is that the UP would tolerate the residents’ unlawful occupation of the UP premises so long as the UP does not need the same. Hence, in case the UP would finally need the land, the residents should be ready to leave the premises. According to Fernandez, the residents are actually amenable to the above arrangement. Their only request though is that they be given notice and enough time to find another place in which to reside. As regards laws protecting the rights of informal settlers, Fernandez replied that they are not much familiar with them.

B. The Informal

Set tlers of Par k Seven, Loyola Hei gh ts, Quezon Ci ty:

An Interview

wi th

Lina

Mamamayan sa

Pa rk Seven

Oliveros,

Presid ent

of Sa mahan

ng mga

Who would have thought that a squatter’s area lies at the heart of the exclusive village of Varsity Hills in Loyola Heights? Park Seven which covers less than two hectares serves as home to about three hundred families.

Its small,

dilapidated shanties stand in contrast to the large and expensive houses inside Varsity Hills. Park Seven is a strip of land owned by the government.

The land was

supposed to be converted into a public park for the village, however such plan failed to materialize. Instead, it was transformed into a stockroom and barracks for the

kamineros. Since the wages of these government employees were not enough to pay for a lodging place near the area of work, the kamineros built shanties in the premises. Soon, the families of the kamineros moved in. Thereafter, relatives and other acquaintances from provinces as far as Cagayan, Bicol and the Visayas followed suit and resided in the area. The residents of Park Seven enjoy basic amenities such as water and electricity mainly due to the efforts of former Congressman Franz Pumaren some ten years ago. Moreover, a group of residents patrols the area to provide security at night. As with other squatter areas, the informal settlers in Park Seven decided to migrate in the cities to seek the proverbial greener pastures. Lack of employment opportunities and adequate income forced these people to leave their provinces and soon find themselves as informal settlers. They believe that earning money in the cities is easier than that in the provinces. To prove this point, Oliveros shared that in farming, one has to wait for several months so that rice can be harvested and thereafter sold. However, in the cities, one can easily earn even just three hundred pesos from washing the laundry of one’s neighbors. Oliveros believes that if the government would only build factories in the countryside, then she and the other informal settlers of Park Seven would not have migrated in the cities. After all, life in the squatters is far from a bed of roses since one has to bear with the noise and conflicts inevitably arise among residents due to the close proximity of their houses. Hence, given a choice, Oliveros would still want to return to the province and enjoy its comfortable life. In order to effectively voice out their demands to the government, the informal settlers of Park Seven organized the “Samahan ng mga Mamamayan ng Park Seven,” which is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The

association has no formal arrangement with the local government. The residents do not pay any rental fee or real property tax. However, they have to secure a permit

from the barangay to build new shanties or to repair existing ones. Oliveros disclosed that, more often than not, the applications for such permits are always approved because some of the barangay officials also come from Park Seven. Moreover, there is no move on the part of the local government to drive off the residents. As a whole, the local government is very tolerant of the residents’ unlawful occupation of the public lands. Oliveros disclosed that the pressures to evict them come mainly from people who would claim that they are the private owners of such lands. However, Oliveros is steadfast that such lands are government-owned as evidenced by the copy of land titles in the name of government that they have in their hands. There had been efforts on the part of the residents to have in their names the title to the lands, but these efforts prove futile as no councilor is willing to move for a resolution for the privatization of such lands. Various politicians have promised to move for such resolution, but such promises remain only as promises. Oliveros shared that the residents are open to the possibility that the government may, one day, decide to evict them. Their main condition though is that they be afforded their rights as provided for by law. Oliveros specifically pointed out that, in case of eviction, they should first be provided with a relocation site where there are basic amenities, nearby schools for their children and sufficient employment opportunities. Otherwise, the residents would refuse to be relocated or just go back to Park Seven even after relocation.

CHAPTER V

ANA LYSIS

A. On Govern ment Interven

tion on th e Exer cise of Pr operty Rights

As discussed in the previous part of this paper, under Section 9 of the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992, privately-owned lands stand as the least priority in terms of acquisition for purposes of socialized housing while governmentowned lands are the top priority. The rule makes sense because such scheme entails less need for the government to release money; whereas, if private property will be expropriated then it has to pay “just compensation” for it. The rule also serves as a guide on the part of the government on how to maximize land use which is really one of the objectives of the Act. Most importantly, the rule in Section 9 also lessen the chances that the government will exercise its eminent domain which means lesser chances that private property rights of landowners will be invaded. It is undeniable that once the State or any of its political subdivisions exercises its power of eminent domain, inevitably, private property rights will be infringed. Section 9 of UDHA, according to one case52 should not be read as a single provision but in conjunction with Section 10 of the law. Section 10 refers to modes of acquisition that the government, through its specialized agencies, should follow with the caveat that expropriation should only be resorted to after all other means have been fully exhausted. On this score, the law is adequate. In applying these provisions of the law on issues presented before them, the Supreme Court has provided decisions consistent with the mandate of the law. However, on the aspect of exemptions provided under UDHA, the authors believe that this provision could still be improved. Section 5 of R.A. No. 7279 provides those lands53 beyond the ambit of the Act. The authors of this paper do not totally object to 52 53

City of Mandaluyong v. Aguilar, supra Sec. 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 Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law;

the fact that these lands are taken outside the operation of the Lina Law considering that the reason for exempting them were understandable. But the problem with these exceptions is that almost all of them are worded in absolute terms without taking into account what is happening in reality. To explain this apprehension, the case of the University of the Philippines is an ideal case in point. It was mentioned in a news article54 in 2005 that the University of the Philippines, Diliman (UPD) property is exempted from the coverage of UDHA by reason that these lands are actually and primarily used for educational purpose. Because of the said findings, they asserted that UPD Administration could actually evict squatters within UPD property as soon as it wants to. But the problem with this is that vast tracts of UPD property remain idle for a very long time. Because of the mere fact that UPD is classified as an educational institution, its lands cannot be covered by the law. This is quite problematic in the sense that it somehow defeats one of the purposes of UDHA which is to optimize the use of land and urban resources. On this issue, the UPD Administration has stated that they have a “transgenerational responsibility” to preserve the integrity of the UPD property.55 But the fact is, vast tracts of land of UPD 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, hospital and health centers, and cemeteries and memorial parks. (Rep. Act No. 7279) 54 Ibay, Cecilia A. “UPD bares plan to address squatter problem.” Found at http://www.upd.edu.ph/~updinfo /archives/AugSept2005/articles/Squatter.htm. 2005 55 “RA 7972 not for UPD” Found at http://www.upd.edu.ph/~updinfo/archives/MayJun2005/articles/ra.htm

are still idle and unproductive and no one is sure for how long these properties will remain as such. It is not intended, by saying this, to propose the idea that the Government should take a totalitarian approach in implementing its urban development and housing agenda. What the government should actually strive at is to forge a strategic fit between the realization of the lofty goals of the law and what is happening in the real world.

B. O n Informal Networ

ks to Enfor ce th e R igh ts of Informal

Se ttlers

The Philippines is the only country in Southeast Asia where squatter communities are organized and the urban poor are able to make known their political demands 56. Statistics showed that out of the 600,000 informal settlers who were evicted from 1986 to 1992, most of those who were affected were small clusters of houses and sidewalk dwellings57.

On the other hand, established localities have remained

resilient in the face of eviction. The reason for this is that those who can put up effective resistance to demolition and those who can bargain for a moratorium are usually those communities where informal settlers are organized.

By forming

associations, slum dwellers are able to articulate their demands in common and can put up effective resistance against different interest groups such as the local government and private landowners. The above advantages of an organized group are clearly manifested in the cases of the informal settlers of Area 17 and Park Seven. In both cases, the informal settlers are represented by organizations which negotiate with the private/public owners to further the rights of the informal settlers.

In the Park Seven case, although the

informal settlers’ lobby for security of land tenure has fallen on deaf ears, the Samahan ng mga Mamamayan sa Park Seven (Samahan) was successful in bargaining with the local government for the provision of basic services such as cemented 56 57

F, Schuurman and T.V. Naerssen. Supra at 6 E. Berner. Supra at 5

pathways, potable water and electricity. The Samahan also served as an effective force against certain pressures of eviction and demolition coming from the private sector. The informal networks also provided group protection to the informal settlers, which the local government failed to provide to the residents. For instance, both the informal settlers of Area 17 and Park Seven have designated among themselves certain persons who would guard the premises against outsiders and troublemakers during the night time. These informal networks do not only serve a political purpose, but they also have a social function. Membership in the association becomes the means towards the formation of local identity and to engender among the informal settlers the feeling of being established - that the people belong to the place and the place belongs to the people58. These informal organizations serve as the informal settler’s support group. In sum, the rights of the informal settlers are better protected if they organize themselves. From all the case studies, the organizations (as compared to individual informal settlers) are more aware and better informed of the rights granted to informal settlers by laws, such as RA 7292.

C. On Urban vis-à

-vis Rura l Develop ment

As what has been shown in the initial part of paper, the main reason for the proliferation of informal settlers in the urban areas is the continuous internal migration from the countryside to the city. Internal migration is principally induced by the prospect of employment opportunities and easy money in the urban areas. The case studies conducted by the group on the informal settlers of both Area 17 and Park Seven revealed that majority of the residents are originally from the province who came to the metropolis to seek greener pastures. Most of the informal settlers, in fact, 58

Ibid

have easily found employment as construction workers, security guards, restaurant employees, laundress, househelpers and other blue-collar works. This phenomenon actually indicates the imbalance in the development of both urban and rural sector and the spatially uneven allocation of investments. The government has focused on injecting large amounts of investment and capital in industries, to the prejudice of the agricultural sector. This is manifested by the large buildings and structures found in the urban area, as opposed to the lack of the same in rural areas. Meanwhile, the return of investments in the agricultural sector is low due to the lack of adequate facilities and machineries for agriculture. Also, the government has failed to provide adequate support services for farmers and other small businesses in the province.

Without such government intervention, the

demand for workers in the rural areas would certainly be considerably low as compared to the urban areas. During the interview made by the group on the informal settlers of Park Seven, Lina Oliveros, herself admitted that life in the rural areas is far better as compared to rural areas and if she only have the means, she would return to the province and settle there permanently. Unfortunately, the result of this imbalance in urban and rural development is further unemployment in the urban areas. Soon, the supply of employment would not be able to meet the demand for employment of the increasing urban migrants. Also, the immense urban population would eventually lead to congestion in land use and overcrowding. This is in fact the reason for the proliferation of informal settlers in the metropolis.

CHAPTER VI POLICY RECOMMENDA

TIONS AND CON

CLUSION

1. Governmen t’s Point of View

Amendmen ts to the Law. In the previous chapter, it was pointed out that the exemptions provided by the law problematic. It is therefore recommended that this part of the law should be amended. In amending this particular provision, it is not proposed that the law should not provide for exemptions altogether. Exemptions are justified when the reason for providing them is valid and reasonable. But the same should be carefully worded and in tune with reality. Like in the UP case, it must not be exempted from the operation of the UDHA because it was classified as an educational institution. Since one of the purpose of the law is land and urban resource use optimization, these entities shall be given a reasonable period within which they would be exempted and also within which they could “actually” place their properties into productive use. But if after the lapse of the given period, the property holder could not still take advantage of the land, it is just fair to put them within the ambit of the law.

Sup portive Policies.

There are three broad groups of government policies

with respect to squatter settlements: laissez-faire policies; restrictive or preventive policies; and supportive policies.59

“Laissez-faire” is simply the descriptive term

applied to the practice of some governments of officially ignoring the existence of slum and squatter areas and allocating public resources to other development sectors. Governments ignore them in the belief, among others, that they are of temporary nature and may disappear with the economic development of the nation, that they are handicapped by their limited capacities to deal with the issues, or that they are confronted with more pressing development problems. Restrictive policies, on the other hand, seek to eliminate or reduce the size of low-income areas where squatter settlements are generally considered as “illegal.” Examples of restrictive policies are the exclusion of these areas from being provided with such urban services as public utilities, education facilities, and health and social services; removal of residents from their existing homes and their relocation in the rural areas or some urban periphery; and the eviction of these residents from their homes which are usually redeveloped for more profitable uses. In contrast with the laissez-faire and restrictive policies are the so-called supportive policies, which are founded in the belief that squatter settlements have an inherent potential for improvement. These policies seek the inclusion of squatter areas in the national development process and, ultimately, in the social and economic integration of the residents into the surrounding area.

Examples of supportive

policies include providing basic amenities, building low-income public housing projects and granting technical and administrative aid for self-help housing. Thus, the policy offers to rehabilitate and upgrade these squatters’ areas. In the Philippines where squatters continue to be the face of poverty, the government cannot have a laissez-faire stance and hope that the problem will just go 59

Upgrading of Urban Slums and Squatter Areas. United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat). 34th Sess., (A/34/8) (1981)

away on its own. That the government does not intend to keep its hands off the housing situation in the country can be inferred from the creation of the HUDCC and its attached agencies and the enactment of various statutes empowering informal settlers. On the other hand, the use of restrictive policies such as the demolition jobs done by our task enforcers does not show to be a viable policy alternative. Demolition of these squatter areas only resulted in deeper entrenchments into existing footholds and violent resistance to displacements. The supportive policies seem to be the most appropriate government policy to be adopted. The advantages of these rehabilitation and upgrading offers are readily apparent60. The needed public funds are considerably less than those for public housing and relocation. The squatters are given security of tenure and the people’s participation in terms of savings and labor can be mobilized and directed to upgrading activities. Moreover, relocation generally removes people from employment sources and reduces their capacity for economic survival. Relocation and public housing destroys the social fabric of poor urban settlements. The adoption of supportive policies is not to say that the government is perpetuating the illegal act done by the squatters. It is more of recognizing the moral right of the squatters based on possession. It is a concession given by the government for its inability to provide adequate housing to the people. It is a realization that the squatters had been forced by the circumstances and had they been given a choice, they would not have flouted the law. Hence, although squatting is illegal, a strictly legalistic attitude toward the settlers will not generally resolve the squatting problem61. It is also important to emphasize that supportive policies are to be applied only in public lands. Private lands should be governed by a different policy as will be 60 61

Ibid C. Abrams, Squatter Settlements the Problem and the Opportunity, Washington D.C. April 1966.

discussed later. Moreover, these policies admit exceptions such as when the land is to be used for projects highly imbued with public interest.

The details of these

exceptions and the operations of these policies are left to the sound judgment of the government.

Preventive

Measures.

The adage prevention is still better than cure rings

true in squatter settlements.

The government should anticipate population

movements and provide for them in the master plan of each city. Since industrial areas seem most prone to squatter settlements, then these areas should be guarded more judiciously than other areas. Police officers or task forces should also guard against any sign of unlawful construction of house, hut or dwelling in a private or public land. Through the government’s vigilance, informal settlers are then prevented from asserting any color of right in its possession of the land at the earliest moment.

Developmen t of Rura l Areas.

Rural areas can actually be used to

cushion urban squatting in two ways. First, disputes on agricultural lands should finally be settled.

Many farmers are still claiming their rights under the

Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. Policies may be enacted encouraging the settlement of these agricultural disputes. Second, as what Oliveros shared with the group, perhaps if factories are built or employment opportunities are created in the provinces, people may not see the need to migrate in the urban areas after all. Vast lands remain idle in the provinces which can be utilized to build houses, create jobs and alleviate the problem of squatting.

Political

Considerations.

Although the government may have laudable

projects for the informal settlers, there may be political motivations that will prevent the continuity of an otherwise laudable project. Moreover, public employees who are tasked to carry out the housing projects should not be allowed to profit at the expense of these informal settlers.

Consolidated

efforts

of al l govern ment agencies.

An attempt to

obtain just a simple statistics on informal settlers took the group from HLURB to NHA to HUDCC to the local barangay, only to be turned away on the pretext that the census is still ongoing. It is rather disappointing that the government agencies seem at a loss as to who should have the statistics. It is surprising that the NHA who is the sole government agency mandated to provide housing assistance to the lowest 30% of urban income earners does not have the statistics on squatters.

How can NHA

formulate sound policies on squatting if it does not even know the extent and nature of the problem? Clear delineation of duties should be part of the consolidated efforts of all government agencies. If the government agencies are clear on their assigned tasks, then they would in turn be able to help the people by at least pointing them towards the right government agency. Moreover, the importance of having the relevant information to help these government agencies in forming sound housing policies and programs should be emphasized.

Through their consolidated efforts, government agencies and local

government units would perhaps have in their hands information that is complete, relevant, and up-to-date.

2. Informal S ettler’s poin

Greater Participa tion.

t of vie w

Since it is the lives of these informal settlers which

are primarily affected by any action of the government or private owner of the land, it is but reasonable to involve them in any planned rehabilitation, eviction or relocation. This participative process is significant for three reasons 62. First, generally speaking, program results are more successful since people will be willing to 62

Upgrading of Urban Slums and Squatter Areas. supra at 51.

participate in the actual project implementation and maintain the upgraded community. Second, people’s participation educates the planners, administrators and the politicians. Third, the process builds community spirit and encourages residents to work actively on the improvement of their living conditions.

Secu rity of Land Tenure. Every informal settler fears the probability that he would the next day find himself back at the streets, the very same place he tried to escape from in the first place. The informal settlers we talked with do not have any definite idea as to how long they can stay in the lands they are occupying. That they could indefinitely stay in the lands so long as the same are not needed by the owners also mean that they have to be prepared to leave any day. The first step to address this insecurity is to force owners and informal settlers to negotiate with each other through statutes or some other authoritative means. The terms of the possession or dispossession should be clear to both the owner and the informal settler. If possible, the result of any negotiation should be put into writing. This piece of writing would in some sense give the squatters some color of right in their possession of the land and give them some security.

3. Private O wner’s Point of View

Secu rity of Owners hip Rights.

In many instances, private owners

complain about squatters in their lands. However, these private owners desist from taking action to oust the squatters for fear of reprisals. Moreover, even if the private owners already have favorable court orders in their hands, they find the actual eviction of the squatters costly and sometimes even impossible. Squatting on private property should be viewed as having more serious implications than squatting on public lands. Tolerance of such seizures reduces the

confidence in government and threatens the breakdown of law and property rights63. Hence, the government should have a firm policy to remove squatters settling on private property and should strictly enforce the same. The government should be quick to give succor at the earliest sign of unlawful occupation of private lands. In case of a judgment for the private owners, the government should be able to back up such court orders.

Con clusion From the time the authors have decided to set out on writing this paper, they already formulated three basic assumptions which they will use to analyze the law itself and find out why it has become a source of discontent to the affected as well as to some interested persons. The study was focused on ascertaining whether: 1) the law is defective in itself that it must be repealed at once; or 2) the law have only isolated flawed provisions that requires some amendments so that the law will cater to its purpose; and finally, 3) the law is already adequately crafted and the problem only lies in its implementation. Based on the assessments made, the law itself should undergo some finetuning to make it more responsive to the purposes for which it was enacted. The problem of squatting, however, is not only concerned with the legal, but is instead multidimensional. The study has found that different economic, social and political responses should also be undertaken by certain interest groups in order to uplift the conditions of the underprivileged and homeless persons in the urban area. The study has pointed out other key areas of concern and has recommended for policies that can be adopted by the government, private landowners and the informal settlers, themselves.

63

C. Abrams. supra at 53.

Addressing the problem of squatting has beset the country for a long period of time. Hopefully, through strong political will and dedicated involvement of various interest groups, the country will finally solve the problem. Of course, the sheer immensity of the problem should make it the top priority of everyone for, after all, no one should be homeless in his own land.

BI BLIOGRAP HY

BOOKS Angel,et al. Land for Housing the Poor. Thailand. The Craftsman Press Ltd., 1983 Berner, Erhard. Defending a Place in the City: Localities and the Struggle for Urban Land in Metro Manila. Quezon City. Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1997 Dwyer, Dennis John. People and Housing in Third World Cities: Perspective on the Problems of Spontaneous Settlement. London, Longman Group Ltd,. 1975 Sarin, Madhir. The Rich, The Poor and the Land Question in Land for Housing the Poor Thailand. The Craftsman Press Ltd. 1983 Schurman, Frans and Ton Van Naerssen. Urban Social Movements in the Third World. London. Routledge, 1989 Stone, Richard. Philippine Urbanization: The Politics of Public and Private Property in Greater Manila. Illinois, Northern University Center for Southeast Asian Studies, 1973.

CASE LIST

City of Mandaluyong v. Aguilar, G.R. No. 137152, January 29, 2001 De Castro Homesite Inc. v. Leachon, G.R. No. 124856, March 10, 2005 Estate Heirs of Late Ex-Justice Jose B. L. Reyes and Edmundo Reyes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132431 and 137146, 2004 Filstream International Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125218, January 23, 1998 Galay v Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120132. 2005 Lagcao et. al. v. Judge Labra, G.R. No. 155746, 13 October 2004 Macasiano v. NHA, G.R. No. 107921, July 1, 1993 Samahan ng Masang Pilipino sa Makati v. Bases Conversion Development Authority, G.R. No. 142255, January 26, 2007 Serapion v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115039, September 22, 1998 Tuates and De La Paz v. Judge Bersamin, G.R. No. 138962, October 4, 2002

DISCUSSION PA

PERS AND DISSERTAT

IONS

Remolona, Eli. A Simple Model of Squatters. Discussion Paper 79-20. Quezon City. University of the Philippines, School of Economics. 1979 Uy, Glenda. The Role of Internal Migration on the Squatting Problem in the Philippines. Quezon City. University of the Philippines, School of Economics. 1988

IN TERNE T SOURCES

ADB and Philippine Government to Sign Agreement for Relocation of Railroad Squatters. Found at August 10, 2001 [3]

GMA TV news. 30 cemetery dwellers rounded up in predawn saturation drive. Found at O ct ober 19 , 2007 [7] Ibay, Cecilia A. “UPD bares plan to address squatter problem.” Found at http://www.upd.edu.ph/~updinfo /archives/AugSept2005/articles/Squatter.htm. 2005 Lagman, John. Forced Evictions in the Philippines. Found at March 9, 2007 [1-2] Pabico, Alecks P. and Rimban, Luz. Nightmare at North Rail: Cost of Resettling 40,000 Families Deliberately Hidden. Found at 2005 [1-4] QC awards housing units to 77 squatter families. Found at 2006 [12] “RA 7972 not for UPD” Found http://www.upd.edu.ph/~updinfo/archives/MayJun2005/ articles/ra.htm. 2005

at

Trade Union Congress of the Philippines. Found at

PERIODICAL

ARTICLE

Antiporda, Jefferson. ‘Estero’ squatter problem will be solved in 5 years, says MMDA. The Manila Times. August 14, 2007

REPORTS Abrams, Charles. Squatter Settlements the Problem and the Opportunity. Washington D.C. April 1966. Upgrading of Urban Slums and Squatter Areas. United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat). Nairobi, Kenya, October 1981.