Republic of the Philippines as rarer ae
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES {i "57 CEIVED
Quezon City pane ee

FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
Second Regular Session

nee caae
House Bio, 9445

INTRODUCED BY ANAKPAWIS PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE
RAFAEL V. MARIANO

EXPLANATORY NOTE

Several international treaties, conventions and other standards,
including the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1966
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR),
recognize the right to adequate housing as a fundamental right, to which all
persons are entitled. Both internationa) documents have established the
right of adequate housing as one of the economic, social and cultural rights
to have gained increasing attention and promotion.

For the first time, the right to adequate housing was recognized at the
international level in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Article 25.1 thus proclaims 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.”

In 1966, almost 20 years after the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, the United Nations Member States adopted the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), in which they
recognized the right to adequate housing. Article 11.1 of the Covenant
declares that, “The State 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.”



Moreover, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to
Adequate Housing, Miloon Kothari stressed that “the human right to
adequate housing is the right of every woman, man, youth and child to gain
and sustain a secure home and community in which to live in peace and
dignity.” The Special Rapporteur further emphasized 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
inhuman 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 {rom its international commitment to
the right to housing, the 1987 Philippine Constitution embodies the aspects
of this right. In fact, Sections 9 and 10, Article XIII of the Constitution not
only mentioned the Right to Adequate Housing but also that of the Right
against Forced Evictions, as much of its recognition to the dignity of every
human person and respect for his rights and promotion of social justice

It is very important that any local legislation or enabling law must be
in compliance with the abovementioned principles on the right to adequate
housing. Unfortunately, realities and concrete experiences of the country’s
urban poor communities are different with the implementation of the
Republic Act No. 7279 or the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992
{UDHA}, making them more vulnerable to forced evictions and demolitions.

Despite recognition of the right to adequate housing in international
laws, the Philippines continues to evict hundreds of thousands of people in
its cities in the name of “beautification” and “development”. The landless
urban poor are the most affected by these forced evictions. In 2006, 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 housing
rights violator. It scored the country for its blatant disregard of the human
right to adequate housing and continued failure to abide by its international
obligation.

For urban poor families, threat of demolition is a threat to their lives
and livelihood. Usually, it highlights confrontations between the residents
and the demolition teams. Supposedly, there is a law that ensures the
welfare of poor families living in urban poor communities. Republic Act No.
7279 or the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 (UDHA) was
enacted to supposedly “uplift the conditions of the underprivileged and
homeless citizens in urban areas and in resettlement areas” through the
provision of ‘decent housing at fan| affordable cost, basic services, and
employment opportunities. It is an Act that was formulated to provide for a
comprehensive and continuing urban development and housing program.
As stipulated in the law, it covers “all lands in urban and urbanizable areas,
including existing “priority development sites, zona! improvement sites, stum


improvement and resettlement sites” and those which the local government
identifies as “suitable for socialized housing.”

But according to Kalipunan ng Damayang Mahihirap (KADAMAY), an
alliance of urban poor organizations, UDHA did not serve the interest of the
poor but only of the few ruling classes. The issue of forced eviction still
oceurs. The enactment of UDHA has led to demolitions of urban poor
communities to give way to development projects that favor big foreign and
local businesses pursuant to neo-liberal policies. Consequently, there is a
significant increase in the number of evictions in Metro Manila due to
“development projects” such as the rehabilitation of the Philippine National
Railway System, Quezon City Central Business District Project, among
others.

To begin with, Article If], Section 6 of UDHA specifies the formulation
of a National Urban Development and Housing Framework (NUDHF). It is
intended to be a macro framework for urban development and housing that
consist of policy guidelines and strategies to steer the country towards
efficient management of the urbanization process. However, the
“development” and “transformation” serve on the interest of foreign and local
businesses. It specifies “development of urban areas conducive to
commercial and industrial activities” (Article 1, Section 2.b.3) and “reduction
in urban dysfunctions” (Article I, Section 2.b.4). Urban dysfunctions refer
indirectly to the communities of the urban poor which are mostly danger
zones, such as esteros (big canals), beside the railroad tracks and similar
areas. On the other hand, “blighted lands” or areas where the “structures
are dilapidated, obsolete and unsanitary, tending to depreciate the value of
the land and prevent normal development” are therefore not “conducive to
commercial and industrial activities.”

Moreover, to achieve “development” and “transformation”, UDHA offers
“urban renewal and resettlement” (Article VII, Section 26). This includes the
“rehabilitation and development of blighted and slum areas and the
resettlement of Program beneficiaries.” Part of this rehabilitation and
development is the determination of Areas for Priority Development to
undergo Zonal Improvement Program in 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. Although
there is an option of an ‘on-site development” or “in-city relocation”, mostly
off-city resettlement has been the default option. Thus, it only allows
demolition and eviction of urban poor communities.

Article VIIl, Section 28 of the law also provided a list of prerequisites
that must be fulfilled before any eviction or demolition would take place,
which according to KADAMAY, in effect, has only “legalized demolition’. It
contradicts the government's principle of discouraging eviction and
demolition.


Furthermore, the housing provision for the poor is defined in Article V
of UDHA. It stipulated the Balanced Housing Development, wherein the role
of private developers in socialized housing shal! be in any of the following
manner: 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 has granted tax incentive
schemes (Article V, Section 20}.

However, KADAMAY criticized the existing policy in connection with
the State’s socialized housing projects for being “profit-driven.” The
government housing agencies and the private sector collude, to extract as
much profits and kickbacks as possible from what is supposed to be a social
service especially to the poor, making mass housing costly to poor informal
settlers. The housing sector will most likely turn mass housing into a profit-
making enterprise for big companies instead of providing service to the poor.
While CMP is a housing program for the relocatees where a piece of land is
awarded to the resident’s association, residents could hardly pay for the
monthly amortization as most of them do not have a stable source of
income. It is inevitable for residents abandoning or transferring the home-
lots awarded to them, due to lack of opportunities and services.

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

Contrary to the significant aspects of the right to housing reflected in
various international documents and in the Philippine Constitution,
domestic legislation such as the UDHA has been instrumental to violate this
right. UDHA does not effectively protect and promotes the rights and welfare
of the urban poor as it renders them vulnerable to forced eviction and
displacement. Moreover, over relying on private sector participation in the
housing provision turns mass housing to a business venture.

Also, the widespread legal recognition of right to adequate housing is
not a political option. Its recognition implies legal obligations. It requires
specific steps to which Governments should take turn these legal rights into
concrete realities. Sometimes, the right to housing is mistakenly thought as
simply requiring Governments to provide sufficient funds and subsequent
allocation of monetary resources towards this end. However, the right to
housing and, indeed, all economic, social and cultural rights, confer lengthy
and complex series of obligations on states. Government should realized the
right to adequate housing should not be narrowly or restrictedly interpreted
as merely providing a roof over one’s head or views shelter exclusively as


commodity. Rather it should be seen as the right to live somewhere in
security, peace and dignity,

Due to the lack of genuine agrarian reform and national
industrialization programs ~ two basic requisites to develop the country’s
economy, people in the countryside are forced to migrate to the cities
because of underdeveloped, export-oriented and import-dependent
agriculture and industries.

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

In view of the foregoing, the immediate deliberation and approval of

this measure is earnestly sought.


Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City

FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
Second Regular Session

r id

14g
HOUSE BILL-Wo, 9 #40

INTRODUCED BY ANAKPAWIS PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE
RAFAEL V, MARIANO

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 of 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.

Approved.