Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City

SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
Second Regular S

HOUSE BILL NO,“

INTRODUCED BY ANAKPAWIS PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE
FERNANDO L, HICAP

EXPLANATORY NOTE

‘The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the 1966
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICPSCR) 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 ¢ 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 secked to guide yovernment
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
1, Section2.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 1, Section 2.b.4, UDHA states the government’s mandate to reduc
what it terms as “urban dysfunctions,” particularly those that adversely alfect
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 urba
communities easily fall under UDHA’s general category of “urban dysiunctions,
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 outrightly gives authorily to
the National Housing Authority to demolish every urban poor community which it
should find located along dangerous zones such us 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 evici, 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 scttlements through its Community Mortgage Programs (CMP)
These efforts, however, have all been under the framework of what urban poor
groups have been refering 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

Moreover, UDHA concept of "urban renewal and resettlement" (Article Vil
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 Shim 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-cite 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 plece, 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 livelihoods in far-flung 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 relying on the private
corporate sector participation in the housing provision has only transformed mas
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 should 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

ERNANDO/L/HICAP


Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City

SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
Second Regular Session

5562

HOUSE BILL NO,

INTRODUCED BY ANAKPAWIS PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE
FERNANDO L, HICAP

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 tor its
Implementation, and For Other Purposes” is hereby repealed

ompletion of its
ewspapers of

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

Approved.