Pucuse OF REPRESENTATIVES

Republic of the Philippines RECEIVED
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City, Metro Manila DATE:

TIME:
SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
First Regular Session BY:_/

HOUSE BIL No. 9D REGISTRATION UN!
BILLS AND INDEX SERVICE

|
1
|
i

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES

ARIEL B. CASILAO
CARLOS ISAGANI T. ZARATE, EMMI A. DE JESUS, ANTONIO L. TINIO,
ARLENE D. BROSAS, FRANCE L. CASTRO, AND SARAH JANE I. ELAGO

EXPLANATORY NOTE

‘The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the 1966
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)
and several other international treaties, conventions and_ standards,
recognize the right to adequate housing as among the fundamental
economic, social and cultural rights to which all persons are entitled.

‘The UDHR, the first important document that codified the right to
adequate housing, states in Article 25.1 that, "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 of the ICESCR, as adopted by the member states of the
United Nations, declares that, "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 the
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 co-operation based on free
consent.”

The United Nations’ first Special Rapporteur on the Right to Adequate
Housing, Miloon Kothari, said in 2012 that “the human right to adequate
housing is the right of every woman, man, youth and child to gain and
sustain a safe and secure home and community in which to live in peace
and dignity”.

‘The Special Rapporteur further underscored that the realization of the
right to adequate housing is intimately linked to the realization of other


basic human rights, such as the right to life, the right to protection of one’s
private life, of one's family and one's home, the right to not be subjected to
inhumane or degrading treatment, the right to land, the right to food, the
right to water and the right to health.

In the Philippine context, apart from the country’s international
commitment to the right to housing, the 1987 Philippine Constitution
explicitly guarantees this basic right. Sections 9 and 10, Article XIII of the
Constitution cite not only the Right to Adequate Housing but also the Right
against Forced Evictions.

It is but paramount that any local legislation or enabling law on the
right to adequate housing must be in full accord with the abovementioned
principles. It is however very unfortunate that one such law, Republic Act
No. 7279 or the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 (UDHA), has
proven to have not only failed in addressing the housing needs of the
country’s urban poor but has in fact made this sector more vulnerable to
forced evictions and demolitions.

UDHA was the legal basis for the formation in 1992 of a so-called
“National Urban Development and Housing Framework” which seeks to
guide government programs on housing and the purported development of
urban centers.

Urban poor groups however have long exposed such framework’s
problematic concept of development especially as regards UDHA’s
commitment to developing urban areas “conducive to commercial and
industrial activities” (Article I, Section 2.b.3), UDHA presents urban
development as the assumed outcome of the unimpeded enterprise of big
business entities including multinational corporations, consequently placing
the imperatives of profit above the social needs and welfare of the poor.

In Article I, Section 2.b.4, UDHA states the government’s mandate to
reduce what it terms as “urban dysfunctions,” particularly those that
adversely affect public health, safety and ecology. Over the last two decades,
this particular provision has been consistently invoked by the authorities in
justifying the wanton demolition of numerous urban poor communities.
Given that most urban communities easily fall under UDHA’s general
category of “urban dysfunctions,” shanty settlements that lack the facilities,
for example, for water and electricity and are not provided for with social
services in health and education, are all legally subject to be “reduced” in
the main through demolition.

Furthermore, UDHA, in Article VII, Section 29, explicitly exposes its
adherence to the demolition function of the state, as it out rightly gives
authority to the National Housing Authority to demolish every urban poor
community which it should find located along dangerous zones such as
canals, railways, dumpsites, shorelines, sidewalks and water ways.


With these provisions, thus, all urban poor communities can
practically be deemed as targets for demolition.

‘Thus, despite recognition of the right to adequate housing in
international laws, the Philippines continue to evict, in the name of
“beautification” and “development,” hundreds of thousands of people in
major urban centers, especially the landless urban poor.

In 2006, the Geneva-based Center on Housing Rights and Evictions
(COHRE), an international non-government organization that upholds the
housing rights of communities, cited the Philippines as one of the world's
worst violators of housing rights. COHRE criticized the Philippine
government for its blatant disregard of the right to adequate housing and
continued failure to abide by its international obligations.

As stipulated in UDHA, "all lands in urban and urbanizable areas,
including existing "priority development sites, zonal improvement sites, slum
improvement and resettlement sites" and other such areas are "suitable for
socialized housing.” From 2010 to 2013, the National Housing Authority
(NHA) has constructed housing for resettlement projects and for informal
settler families living along danger areas in Metro Manila. The NHA has
likewise tried to assist victims of calamities whose houses were either
damaged or completely destroyed due to flooding, and to upgrade existing
settlements through its Community Mortgage Programs (CMP). These efforts,
however, have all been under the framework of what urban poor groups
have been referring to as “housing-as-business” programs of the
government.

Article V of UDHA, unsoundly gives premium to the role of private
developers in socialized housing programs which may come in the following
forms: development of new settlement; slum improvement and resettlement;
zonal improvement programs; joint venture projects with either local
government units or any of the housing agencies; and participation in the
Community Mortgage Program (CMP). To encourage greater private sector
participation in socialized housing, the law furthermore grants tax incentive
to corporations (Article V, Section 20).

According to the Kalipunan ng Damayang Mahihirap (KADAMAY), an
alliance of urban poor organizations, UDHA has not at all served the interest
and welfare of the poor but only of the few ruling classes, particularly big
business and the private corporate sector. Pursuant to neo-liberal policies,
urban poor communities are in constant threat of being demolished to give
way to so-called development projects that favor big foreign and local
businesses. .

Consequently, there has been a significant increase in cases of forced
evictions and demolitions in the National Capital Region and other urban
areas in the country due to "development projects’ such as the
rehabilitation of the Philippine National Railway System, Quezon City


Central Business District Project, and other Public-Private Partnership (PPP)
projects promoted by the government.

‘The most recent attempt of the government to answer the looming
housing problem was the so-called National Housing Summit held last April
2016. The said endeavor was the brainchild of the housing and urban
development committees of both chambers of Congress ostensibly to address
the government’s 5.5 million housing backlog through a proposed budget of
Php 50 Billion for a 10-year projected timeframe upon approval of Congress.

No matter how supposedly noble the cause, the fact remains that the
government itself has awarded to private or corporate contractors, choice
projects which defeat the purpose of granting affordable housing for the
urban poor. Urban poor beneficiaries report that they are practically at the
mercy of rapacious contractors and developers engaged by government to
implement these housing projects. In fact, even in the National Housing
Authority’s relocation projects outside the National Capital Region, private
contractors together with their partner developers build low cost, and most
often substandard housing units. These contractors dictate the terms of
payment by way of amortization schemes. In addition, project contractors
and developers providing basic utility services often charge relocatees with
unreasonable fees.

‘Take for example Quezon City’s in-city housing project named after its
current local top executive, the Bistekville. This relocation project was
intended for urban poor beneficiaries of the city. But due to its high rental
rates, the original occupants or beneficiaries were rapidly replaced by those
who can afford monthly rent charges ranging from P800 to P1000 and
P1,800 to P2000. A typical urban poor family cannot cope with these
exorbitant monthly rental rates.

Moreover, UDHA concept of "urban renewal and resettlement” (Article
VII, Section 261) which include the "rehabilitation and development of
blighted and slum areas and the resettlement of Program beneficiaries" is
equally problematic. Part of this rehabilitation and development scheme is
the determination of Areas for Priority Development to undergo zonal
improvements in the form of on-site development within Metro Manila and
the Slum Improvement and Resettlement Program for those who will be
demolished and relocated outside Metro Manila. While there is an option for
"on-site development" or "in-city relocation," off-city resettlement has
however been the default option, which thus further justifies the demolition
and eviction of urban poor communities.

Article VIII, Section 28 of the law also provides a list of prerequisites
that must be fulfilled before any eviction or demolition could take place,
which according to KADAMAY, in effect, has only “legalized demolition" and
contradicted the government's principle of discouraging eviction and
demolition.


The absence of basic social services and the lack of employment
opportunities in resettlement areas and tenement houses are prevalent. The
inability of relocatees to find jobs and livelihood in far-flung relocation sites
make it difficult for them to pay for rent, amortization, electricity, water and
other housing-related charges, resulting to the denial of essential services
and, worse, to renewed threats of eviction.

Countervailing the salient aspects of the right to housing as reflected
in various international documents and in the Philippine Constitution,
UDHA has been instrumental in the violation of this right. UDHA failed to
protect and promote the rights and welfare of the urban poor as it in fact
rendered them vulnerable to forced eviction and displacement. Moreover,
excessively reliance on corporate private sector participation in the housing
provision has only transformed mass housing to a lucrative and predatory
business venture.

The recognition of the right to adequate housing implies legal
obligations. It requires specific steps which governments should take to turn
these legal rights into concrete realities. The right to housing should not be
mistakenly thought of as simply requiring government to provide sufficient
funds towards this end. The right to housing, as in all economic, social and
cultural rights, confers lengthy and complex series of obligations on states.
Government should realize that the right to adequate housing should not be
narrowly interpreted as merely the claim to a roof over one's head. Neither
should shelter be exclusively treated as a commodity. Rather, government
shouid view the housing question as a set of state tasks to provide people
with socio-economic security, peace and dignity.

Because of the absence of genuine agrarian reform and national
industrialization programs, the two basic requisites to develop the country’s
economy, people in the countryside are forced to migrate to the cities that
cannot however positively absorb them as urban workers, thereby creating
massive communities of urban poor citizens very much in need of decent
and affordable housing.

Economic development should benefit the majority of the population
and can be achieved only if the basic problems of our economy are resolved.
It cannot be achieved by forced evictions and demolitions or by throwing the
urban poor back to the countryside and remote places without decisively
resolving the roots of poverty and oppression.

In view of the foregoing, the immediate passage of this measure is
earnestly sought.

Approved.


REP. ARIEL’ B. CASILAO
ANAKPAWIS Party-list

A
oe
Reels foe
REP. 7X - \TE REP. EMMI DE’ JESUS

BAYAN MUNA Party-list GABRIELA Women’s Party
f
aE or a
‘ANTON! TINIO ARLENE D. BROSAS
ACT Teachers Party GABRIELA Women’s Party

REP. JANE I. ELAGO
ITAAN Party-list



Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City, Metro Manila

SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
First Regular Session

HOUSE BILL NO. 559

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES

ARIEL B. CASILAO
CARLOS ISAGANI T. ZARATE, EMMI A. DE JESUS, ANTONIO L. TINIO,
ARLENE D. BROSAS, FRANCE L. CASTRO, AND SARAH JANE I. ELAGO

AN ACT
PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7279
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS "AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR A
COMPREHENSIVE AND CONTINUING URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND
HOUSING PROGRAM, ESTABLISH THE MECHANISM FOR ITS
IMPLEMENTATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES"

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in the Philippines in
Congress assembled:

SECTION 1. Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, Republic
Act No. 7279, otherwise known as "An Act to Provide for a Comprehensive
and Continuing Urban Development and Housing Program, Establish the
Mechanism for its Implementation, and For Other Purposes" is hereby
repealed.

SECTION 2. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after the completion
of its publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two (2) national
newspapers of general circulation.