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whether: 1) the law is defective in itself that it must be repealed at once; or 2) the law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
<http://www.tucp.org.ph/departments/youth/index.htm>
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.

4
Ibid
5
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)
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 Migr ation on the Squatting
8
Problem in the Philippines , 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
Discussion Paper 79-20, November 1979, University of the Philippines, School of Economics
8
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)
10
Ibid
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
City of Mandaluyong v. Aguilar, G.R. No. 137152, January 29, 2001
13
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

15
Pres. Decree No. 1517 (1978) (7th Whereas Clause)
16
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
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:

29
supra
30
supra
31
G.R. No. 155746, 13 October 2004
 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 time-
barred 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
Lagcao v. Judge Labra, supra
33
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 so-
called “professional squatters” and provides the corresponding penalties for such
violations.35

34
City of Mandaluyong v Aguilar, supra.
35
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
 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 oft-
challenged 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 Rail-
South 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 <http://pcij.org/stories/2005/northrail.html> 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
<http :// ww w.gm anew s.tv /sto ry /65 053 /30- ceme ter y-dw eller s-ro unded- up -in-p red awn-
satu ra tion-d rive> 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
<http://www.quezoncity.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=158&Itemid=2> 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
44
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
<http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2007/aug/14/yehey/metro/20070814met2.html>
 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 set-
up.
Center on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE), an international non-
governmental 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:

46
Lagman, John. Forced Evictions in the Philippines. Available
<http://www.cohre.org/view_page.php?page_id=260> March 9, 2007 [1-2]
 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

47
ADB and Philippine Government to Sign Agreement for Relocation of Railroad Squatters. Available
<http://www.adb.org/Documents/News/2001/nr2001084.asp> August 10, 2001 [3]
 integrated urban development project will pilot-test a community-
based, 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 non-
government 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
Created by Presidential Decree No. 757
49
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 Settlers of Area 17- Bukid, University of the

Philippines Ca mpus, Quezo n City: An Interview 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 Oliveros, Presid ent of Sa mahan ng mga
Mamamayan sa Pa rk Seven
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 government-
owned 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
City of Mandaluyong v. Aguilar, supra
53
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
F, Schuurman and T.V. Naerssen. Supra at 6
57
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
Ibid
61
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 t of vie w

Greater Participa tion. 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 fine-
tuning 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 <http://www.adb.org/Documents/News/2001/nr2001084.asp>
August 10, 2001 [3]
GMA TV news. 30 cemetery dwellers rounded up in predawn saturation drive.
Found at <ht tp:// ww w.gmanews. tv/story/65053/30 -ce metery-dwel lers-
rounded -up-in- predawn-satura tion -drive> 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 <http://www.cohre.

org/view_page.php?page_id=260> 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 <http://pcij.org/stories/2005/
northrail.html> 2005 [1-4]

QC awards housing units to 77 squatter families. Found at <http://www.quezon

city.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=158&Itemid=2> 2006 [1-
2]

“RA 7972 not for UPD” Found at

http://www.upd.edu.ph/~updinfo/archives/MayJun2005/ articles/ra.htm. 2005

Trade Union Congress of the Philippines. Found at <http://www.tucp.org.ph/

departments/youth/index.htm>

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.