Enhancing Shelter Provision at The Local Level Resource Books For LGUs PDF

SHELTER
Writer
Lourdes Didith Mendoza
Editors
Chay Florentino-Hofileña
Giselle Baretto-Lapitan
Project Management
Amihan R. Perez
Ateneo Center for Social Policy and Public Affairs (ACSPPA)
Technical and Editorial Team
Rene “Bong’Garrucho, LGSP
Mags Maglana, LGSP
Butch Ozarraga, LGSP
Myn Garcia, LGSP
Maricel Genzola
Art Direction, Cover Design & Layout
Jet Hermida
Photography
Ryan Anson
SHELTER
ENHANCING SHELTER PROVISION AT THE LOCAL
LEVEL
Enhancing Shelter Provision at the Local Level
Service Delivery with Impact: Resource Books for Local Governments
Copyright @2003 Philippines-Canada Local Government Support Program

(LGSP)
All rights reserved
The Philippines-Canada Local Government Support Program encourages

the use, translation, adaptation and copying of this material for non-
commercial use, with appropriate credit given to LGSP.
Although reasonable care has been taken in the preparation of this book,
the publisher and/or contributor and/or editor can not accept any liability
for any consequence arising from the use thereof or from any information
contained herein.
ISBN 971-8597-04-2
Printed and bound in Manila, Philippines
Published by:
Philippines-Canada Local Government Support Program (LGSP)

Unit 1507 Jollibee Plaza
Emerald Ave., 1600 Pasig City, Philippines
Tel. Nos. (632) 637-3511 to 13
www.lgsp.org.ph
Ateneo Center for Social Policy and Public Affairs (ACSPPA)

ACSPPA, Fr. Arrupe Road, Social Development Complex
Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights, 1108 Quezon City
A JOINT PROJECT OF
Department of the Interior National Economic and Canadian International

and Local Government (DILG) Development Authority (NEDA) Development Agency
IMPLEMENTED BY
Agriteam Canada Federation of Canadian

www.agriteam.ca Municipalities (FCM)
www.fcm.ca
SHELTER CONTENTS
FOREWORD i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
PREFACE v
ACRONYMS vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ix
INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER 1: HOMELESSNESS IN THE COUNTRY 7

Overview 7
LGUs Can Take the Lead 17
CHAPTER 2: LGU MANDATES 35

National Housing Laws 35
UDHA-defined LGU Shelter-Related Responsibilities 39
CHAPTER 3: IMPLEMENTATION & POLICY ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 45

National Level 45
Local Level 54
CHAPTER 4: GOOD PRACTICES 59

LGU-Originated Community Mortgage Program 60
Innovations in Financing and Partnership Arrangements 77
CHAPTER 5: REFERENCES AND TOOLS 89

Study Tour Sites 89
References 95
ENDNOTES 101
GLOSSARY 105
S E R V I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T: R E S O U R C E B O O K s F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T
FOREWORD
T
he Department of Interior and Local Government is pleased to acknowledge the latest
publication of the Philippines Canada Local Government Support Program (LGSP), Service
Delivery with Impact: Resource Books for Local Government; a series of books on 8 service
delivery areas, which include Shelter, Water and Sanitation, Health, Agriculture, Local Economic
Development, Solid Waste Management, Watershed and Coastal Resource Management.
One of the biggest challenges in promoting responsive and efficient local governance is to be able to
meaningfully deliver quality public services to communities as mandated in the Local Government Code.
Faced with continued high incidence of poverty, it is imperative to strengthen the role of LGUs in service
delivery as they explore new approaches for improving their performance.
Strategies and mechanisms for effective service delivery must take into consideration issues of poverty
reduction, people’s participation, the promotion of gender equality, environmental sustainability and
economic and social equity for more long- term results. There is also a need to acquire knowledge, create
new structures, and undertake innovative programs that are more responsive to the needs of the
communities and develop linkages and partnerships within and between communities as part of an
integrated approach to providing relevant and sustainable services to their constituencies.
Service Delivery with Impact: Resource Books for Local Government offer local government units and
their partners easy-to-use, comprehensive resource material with which to take up this challenge. By
providing LGUs with practical technologies, tested models and replicable exemplary practices, Service
Delivery with Impact encourages LGUs to be innovative, proactive and creative in addressing the real
problems and issues in providing and enhancing services, taking into account increased community
participation and strategic private sector/civil society organizational partnerships. We hope that in using
S E RV I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T: R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T i
FOREWORD
these resource books, LGUs will be better equipped with new ideas, tools and inspiration to make a
difference by expanding their knowledge and selection of replicable choices in delivering basic services
with increased impact.
The DILG, therefore, congratulates the Philippines-Canada Local Government Support Program (LGSP)
for this milestone in its continuing efforts to promote efficient, responsive, transparent and accountable
governance.
HON. JOSE D. LINA, JR.

Secretary
Department of Interior and Local Government
ii S E RV I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T: R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
T his publication is the result of the collaboration of many institutions and individuals who are
committed to helping local governments improve the delivery of services to their constituents:
The Philippine-Canada Local Government Support Program led by Alix Yule, Marion Maceda Villanueva
and Rene (Bong) Garrucho for providing the necessary direction and support
Maricel Genzola for conducting the research and the roundtable discussion from which this resource
book was based, and reviewing the manuscript
Butch Ozarraga for providing feedback to help ensure that the resource book serves the requirements
of LGUs
Participants at the Roundtable Discussion on Shelter Delivery held on August 7, 2002 in Davao City:
Mayor Isoceles Otero of Sta. Josefa, Agusan Sur; Mayor Apolmar Ruelo of San Isidro, Davao Oriental; Mayor
Reynaldo Castillo and Agripino Gurida of Compostela; Councilor Jun Sevilla of Muntinlupa City; Willy
Prilles, Jr. of Naga City; Ma. Laurisse Gabor of Butuan City; Hernane Gravina, Jr. of Midsayap and Joy Riel
of the League of Provinces
Imelda Soriano and her team from Habitat for Humanity; Philip Tan of the Rural Bank of Tangub; Dam
Vertido of Mindanao Land; Reynaldo Navacilla of TRANSFORM; Patricia Sarenas of the Mindanao
Commission on Women; and Nelia Agbon
LGSP Managers Abe dela Calzada and Merlinda Hussein, and LGSP Program Officers Abduljim Hassan,
Rizal Barandino and Cecile Isubal
S E RV I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T: R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Chay Florentino-Hofilena and Giselle Baretto Lapitan for their excellent editorial work
Lourdes Didith Mendoza for efectively rendering the technical report into user-friendly material
Amihan Perez and the Ateneo Center for Soical Policy and Public Affairs for their efficient coordination
and management of the project
Mags Z. Maglana for supplying content supervision, and coordination with technical writers
Myn Garcia for providing technical and creative direction, and overall supervision of the design, layout
and production
Jet Hermida for the art direction and layout
Sef Carandang, Russell Farinas, Gigi Barazon and the rest of the LGSP administrative staff for providing
support.
iv S E RV I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T: R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T
PREFACE
S
ervice Delivery with Impact: Resource Books for Local Government are the product of a series
of roundtable discussions, critical review of tested models and technologies, and case analyses
of replicable exemplary practices in the Philippines conducted by the Philippines-Canada
Local Government Support Program (LGSP) in 8 service sectors that local government units (LGUs) are
mandated to deliver. These include Shelter, Water and Sanitation, Health, Agriculture, Local Economic
Development, Solid Waste Management, Watershed and Coastal Resource Management.
The devolution of powers as mandated in the Local Government Code has been a core pillar of
decentralization in the Philippines. Yet despite opportunities for LGUs to make a meaningful difference
in the lives of the people by maximizing these devolved powers, issues related to poverty persist and
improvements in effective and efficient service delivery remain a challenge.
With LGSP’s work in support of over 200 LGUs for the past several years came the recognition of the need
to enhance capacities in service delivery, specifically to clarify the understanding and optimize the role
of local government units in providing improved services. This gap presented the motivation for LGSP
to develop these resource books for LGUs.
Not a “how to manual,” Service Delivery with Impact features strategies and a myriad of proven
approaches designed to offer innovative ways for local governments to increase their capacities to better
deliver quality services to their constituencies.
Each resource book focuses on highlighting the important areas of skills and knowledge that contribute
to improved services. Service Delivery with Impact provides practical insights on how LGUs can apply
guiding principles, tested and appropriate technology, and lessons learned from exemplary cases to their
organization and in partnership with their communities.
S E RV I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T: R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T v
PREFACE
This series of resource books hopes to serve as a helpful and comprehensive reference to inspire and
enable LGUs to significantly contribute to improving the quality of life of their constituency through
responsive and efficient governance.
Philippines-Canada Local Government Support Program (LGSP)
vi S E RV I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T: R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T
ACRONYMS
ALTERPLAN Alternative Planning Inc.

ADB Asian Development Bank
BHA Bacolod Housing Authority
CDS2 City Development Strategy
CSOs Civil Society Organizations
COA Commission on Audit
CHA Community Housing Association
CMP Community Mortgage Program
COPE Community Organizing of the Philippines Enterprise Foundation
CISFA Comprehensive and Integrated Shelter and Finance Act
CLUP Comprehensive Land Use Plan
DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DILG Department of Interior and Local Government
DOST Department of Science and Technology
DSWD Department of Social Welfare and Development
EPAs Environmental preservation areas
EMDO Estate Management Development Office
GSIS Government Service Insurance System
HIGC Home Insurance Guarantee Corporation
HLURB Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
HUDCC Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council
IRAP Integrated Rural Accessibility Planning
IRA Internal Revenue Allotment
JFPR Japan Fund for Poverty Reduction
KALAHI Kapitbisig Laban sa Kahirapan
KASARIVAL Kapulungan ng mga Samahan sa Riles Valenzuela Federation
LMB Land Management Bureau
LTAP Land Tenure Assistance Program
LGC Local Government Code of 1991
S E RV I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T: R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T vii
ACRONYMS
LHB Local Housing Boards

MRBs MediumRise Buildings
MBN Minimum Basic Needs
MSO Municipal Settlement Office
MDF Muntinlupa Development Foundation
NCUPC Naga City Urban Poor Federation
NHMFC National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation Community Mortgage Program
NHA National Housing Authority
NAMRIA National Mapping and Resources Information Authority
NEDF Negros Economic Development Foundation
PRRC Pasig River Rehabilitation Commission
PNB Philippine National Bank
PNP Philippine National Police
PCUP Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor
PGB Project Governing Board
PSSHLAI Purok Sunflower Squatters Homeowners and Livelihood Association, Inc.
SHoPCom Socialized Housing Program Committee
SARO Special Allocation and Release Order
SLUSVP St. Louis University St. Vincent Parish
TAO Technical Assistance Organization Pilipinas
TLRC Technology Livelihood Resource Center
UDHA Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992
UPAO Urban Poor Affairs Office
VRESCO Victorias Rural Electrification Service Company
viii S E RV I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T: R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
THE HOUSING SITUATION IN THE COUNTRY
The problem of insufficient housing in the country has reached staggering proportions. The government
has tried to respond to this problem, and has been doing relatively well. But measures to curtail the
increasing number of informal settlers have still been inadequate. A high national birth rate, migration
from rural areas to urban areas, and the premature classification of some rural areas into urban areas
further compound this problem. At present 3.3 million housing units are needed to house informal settlers
heavily concentrated in the National Capital Region, Regions 3 and 4. The necessary funding for
sustaining all shelter programs, however, needs to be addressed.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Government is tasked to ensure that land is available for housing and that residential infrastructure is
provided in housing development areas. It is also supposed to support finance systems and provide
mortgage guarantees, besides implement reforms in the housing market, with a special focus on
creating a sustainable housing finance system. The national government has also set as a policy the
involvement of both the local government and the private sector. Thus local governments are
encouraged to help address housing and urban development problems, while the private sector is
prodded to participate in the housing market.
To ensure that every Filipino will have access to decent housing, laws have been instituted. The two most
important laws are the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 (UDHA) and the Local Government
Code of 1991(LGC). UDHA recognizes the legitimate rights of the poor and has become the principal
legal framework governing public policy on the urban poor and socialized housing. The LGC, on the other
hand, identifies and spells out the roles and responsibilities of local governments in protecting the general
welfare of their constituents by delivering basic services and facilities.
S E RV I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T: R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T ix
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The housing sector may be beset with problems, but local governments can do their part in ensuring
that their own locales are squatter free. Housing the informal sector is not the task of the national
government alone.
WHAT LGUs CAN DO
There are ways LGUs can combat homelessness in the country. But to effectively do the job they need
several things: the political will and commitment of the local chief executive; complete information and
documents in the city or municipal government; ability to develop appropriate housing strategies for
particular target groups; tapping of existing national housing programs; creation of new structures or
their expansion to provide housing assistance; and ability to mobilize the participation of the people’s
organizations in all facets of the housing project.
Successful LGUs have also made use of multi-stakeholder mechanisms. These mechanisms mobilize the
city’s key players involved in pursuing socialized housing efforts. Some cities have also explored and
developed innovative local housing finance schemes to facilitate shelter provision.
WHAT SOME LGUs HAVE DONE
Naga City, for instance, introduced the “Kaantabay sa Kauswagan” program, which aimed to eliminate
the tenure problems of the poor. Through direct purchase, land swapping and land sharing, the city has
reduced the number of its informal settlements. Muntinlupa City initiated a housing program that banked
on the expertise of different groups. It synchronized at the city level the various efforts of stakeholders
involved in housing assistance. Mandaluyong City, through Former Mayor Benjamin Abalos, launched
the city’s “Land for the Landless Program” to respond to their housing problem. It pioneered in the use
of the Community Mortgage Program. Bacolod City, which also suffered from squatter problems,
x S E RV I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T: R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
designed a housing assistance package that includes land acquisition, relocation of squatters, slum
upgrading, resettlement site development, and socialized housing. Faced with lack of resources and
funding hurdles, the municipality of Victorias thought of a way to raise funds for its housing program.
It pioneered the use of bond flotation to develop lots and construct housing units.
The experiences documented here show that with determination and resourcefulness, local governments
can strive to overcome hurdles in their attempts to provide shelter for the poor.
S E RV I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T: R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T xi
INTRODUCTION
T
his resource book focuses on shelter. It touches on the current housing situation and the
challenges surrounding it; how some LGUs have responded to these problems; how city and
municipal offices have dealt with them by being familiar with both the sector and the laws that
govern it. The book also discusses the lessons learned from the experiences of other LGUs. It provides
a clear picture of the housing sector, suggests ways to improve it, and includes references and tools to
guide LGUs.
This is not a how-to manual, however. It merely recommends options and provides information that is
useful to local governments units. It hopes to inspire and prod LGUs to start their own programs,
however small, to create more impact and benefit more of their constituents. This resource book can
be used as a guide to set up such programs.
The first part discusses the current national housing situation and government’s housing programs and
projects such as the Community Mortgage Program, Land Tenure Assistance Program, and Medium-Rise
Buildings and Resettlement Assistance Program. These projects have tried responding to the need for
housing at a time of high urban growth rate. Some of them have succeeded; some remain inadequate.
Civil society groups have done their part, too, trying to fill in the gaps, with some success. In the end,
as successful shelter projects of other local offices show, LGUs can assume roles to better respond to
housing problems and needs.
LGU mandates on the housing sector are tackled in the second part of the resource book. This section
enumerates the enabling policies and describes the regulatory framework that can encourage an
efficient housing program. It also informs local officials of the mandates that directly affect them. This
section may come in handy during the planning and preparation stages of any housing program. It can
also be a tool that local officials can use in identifying areas for policy development.
S E RV I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T: R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T 1
INTRODUCTION
The third part shares the general issues, problems and concerns of the sector, and gives recommendations
on how best to solve the issues in program implementation. Since this section provides information on
the common problems that crop up in shelter programs, it can be used as reference during the housing
program preparation and implementation phases. It provides information on what to look out for, what
to anticipate, and how some LGUs have dealt with specific housing concerns.
To concretize the issues, the experiences of various local governments are documented. The fourth part
of the resource book features several housing projects initiated by local governments, along with the
innovations that were introduced to provide shelter security. These examples may serve as models for
different communities, or at the very least, inspire LGUs to take action despite limited resources and
capacities. The individual experiences illustrate how LGUs can transform their cities and municipalities
with grit, perseverance, and creativity.
Sites for study and observation are recommended in the fifth section, which lists some cities and
municipalities with successful housing projects. This can pave the way for a sharing of experiences,
emulation, and modification of working models. This section aims to provide LGUs with tools and
materials they can use to improve their delivery of shelter services.
Tools have been included in the Annex that LGUs might find helpful should they endeavor to replicate
the multi-stakeholder strategy in shelter provision. These are the Muntinlupa order that created the
Socialized Housing Project Committee (SHoPCom); and the Memorandum of Understanding that was
entered into by NHA, Habitat, Muntinlupa Development Foundation and the Muntinlupa local
government. The format of the tool used by the Muntinlupa SHoPCom to assess the situation of urban
poor communities is also available.
2 S E RV I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T: R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T
INTRODUCTION
It is hoped that these resources will aid LGUs in delivering shelter services with an impact. Some LGUs
have begun to acknowledge that shelter problems are urgently in need of attention. The magnitude
of the problem notwithstanding, some LGUs have succeeded in their efforts to deal with it and, in the
process, even blazed new trails.
1
CHAPTER
HOMELESSNESS IN THE COUNTRY
❙ OVERVIEW
HOMELESSNESS IN THE COUNTRY
◗ NATIONAL HOUSING SITUATION

CHAPTER
1
A roof over the heads of most Filipinos seems to be an impossible dream at the moment as rapid
urbanization has overtaken the government’s ability to provide sufficient shelter services. Presently,
the country has one of the highest urban growth rates in the developing world—from 1960-
1995, it reached 5.1 percent.
This phenomenon has been attributed to three forces: (a) a high national birth rate, an even higher
birth rate in urban areas; (b) migration from rural areas to urban areas; (c) and the premature
reclassification of rural areas with population densities higher than traditional rural areas into
“urban.” 1
The government is trying to close this huge gap, and is aiming to provide shelter tenure security
to at least 1.2 million households, with a budget requirement of P215.16 billion. The housing
backlog, however, remains at 3.3 million housing units.
◗ POLICY FRAMEWORK
The government’s main task is to develop the housing sector and provide homes for all its intended
beneficiaries. Specifically, it is mandated to provide a policy climate that will pave the way for an
efficient housing market and is tasked to set up efficient subsidy systems that can answer the shelter
needs of the bottom 40 percent of households. 2
1 SHELTER
To fulfill these tasks, the National Urban Development and Housing Framework has set the
following objectives:
Ensure that land is available for housing
Ensure that residential infrastructure is provided to recognized housing areas
Support housing finance systems
Provide mortgage guarantees
The government is implementing several strategies to meet these objectives. These include:
Reforms in the sector
Efficient focus on targeted housing assistance to the poor
Creation of a sustainable housing finance system
Local government involvement in housing and development problems
Promotion of greater participation of business, civil society, and people’s organizations
◗ HOUSING TYPES
The government offers affordable types of houses under various programs, categorized into the
following:
Socialized Housing refers to a house and lot package with a value of P225,000 and below, usually
situated in row housing projects in the suburbs of Metro Manila and generally targets the rank and
file office workers of government and corporate offices. This type of housing has limitations for
horizontal development; expansion may mean vertical development or an additional floor or
storey. For urban planners, the socialized housing category is just an initial housing phase until such
time that the family is in a better position to move on to another housing level category. 3
Low-cost housing refers to a house and lot package with a value of P225,000 to P500,000, usually
a single detached or duplex type of house. This category includes units in Medium-Rise Buildings
(MRBs) that are for sale. Prices of low-cost houses may vary due to several factors such as location
HOMELESSNESS IN THE COUNTRY 1
and accessibility, amenities available, materials used, presentation and design

of the house, among others.
Housing Types
MRBs or Medium-rise buildings are residential buildings of not less than
❍ Socialized
three stories, usually situated in highly populated urban areas. 4
housing
Economic housing refers to a house and lot package worth P500,000 to P2 ❍ Low-cost
million, intended for middle managers and executives of small companies. Like housing
low-cost housing, the value of houses in this category depends on location and ❍ MRBs or
accessibility, amenities, materials, etc.
Medium-rise
◗ PROGRAMS OF GOVERMMENT
buildings
❍ Economic
Regular Housing Programs for Informal Settlers housing
The government, aside from making different types of houses available to

different classes of buyers, also has several housing programs in place to ensure access to decent
and secure shelter.
NHMFC-Community Mortgage Program
The National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation’s (NHMFC) Community Mortgage Program (CMP)
could be described as the “favorite”program of informal settlers. Experts on housing issues also see
the CMP as an advantage for the underprivileged as it is a scheme that has worked well for the urban
poor sector as far as financing is concerned. For the poor, this is the most accessible tool they can
use to acquire security of tenure.
The CMP is a mortgage financing program that helps organized marginalized communities
purchase and develop a piece of land under the concept of community ownership. Its funding has
been institutionalized in the government system through the Comprehensive and Integrated
1 SHELTER
Shelter and Finance Act (CISFA). It uses the incremental approach in

Government developing the sites and facilities of the community and their respective
homes to the extent of their affordability.
Housing Programs
Mortgage payments are temporarily treated as rentals, and the title
1. Regular Housing stays with the community, until the beneficiaries have paid the full
Program for amount of the loan. Individual titles are then given to them. In this
Informal Settlers program, residents of depressed areas are given the opportunity to
own a lot they occupy, or legally own an area they choose to resettle in.
❍ NHMTC-
They can gradually improve this lot, the facilities available on it, and their
Community own homes based on their capacity to pay.
Mortgage
Program There are steps in the CMP process. It starts with a group of squatters
❍ NHA applying for assistance from the local government or a Non –
Government Organization to acquire a piece of land, which could be the
2. Special National
area they currently occupy or intend to occupy as a relocation site.
Government
Housing Project A key feature of this housing program is the Originator. This may either
be a local government or a non–government organization that will
assist the community association in setting up its organizational systems
for the housing project as well as provide technical assistance in the preparation and submission
of required documents.
If the LGU is the originator, the assigned office—either the Urban Poor Affairs Office or the City
Housing Office—then conducts an initial assessment on the organizational capacity of the
community association or it may conduct seminars on community-organizing among target
beneficiaries, who are encouraged to organize themselves into a community housing association
(CHA) for purposes of acquiring land and owning their own houses. The CHA must have a set of
officers and committees such as grievance and adjudication, audit and inventory, development and
services, membership and education, livelihood, maintenance, peace and order, social and cultural.
Communities must, however, also meet a set of criteria (minimum monthly income, minimum length
of stay, and age limit) set by the local government based on UDHA provisions or its own set of criteria.
After the community is organized, the LGU then initiates the process for land acquisition.
Several LGUs have used the CMP, and have thus become originators and partners of their respective
CHAs. This has resulted in stronger organizational capabilities of CHAs to sustain a socialized
housing project. As originators, the LGUs also provide technical assistance to the CHAs in fulfilling
the documentary requirements for a CMP loan approval and release. These LGUs include
Mandaluyong, Naga, Marikina, Muntinlupa, Bacolod, and Cebu.
National Housing Authority
Land Tenure Assistance Program

Launched in July 1999, the Land Tenure Assistance Program (LTAP) of the National Housing
Authority aims to give housing loans to community associations, like the CMP program of the
NHMFC. Compared to the CMP’s six (6) percent per annum interest rate, however, it has a higher
rate of 12 percent. It also has a shorter payment period of two to 10 years in equal monthly
amortizations versus CMP’s 25 years. It can offer loans up to P60,000 per member as long as the
resulting monthly amortization is not more than 20 percent of the borrower’s whole family
income. The LTAP scheme also requires equity payments equivalent to no less than 10 percent of
the total land price. However, this program was suspended during former President Estrada’s
administration to enable NHA to focus on housing production.
Resettlement Assistance Program with LGUs

This program is intended to benefit LGUs who undertake their own resettlement programs. It
minimizes or does away with NHA-initiated resettlement projects that require an NHA project team
to be present in each area to handle real estate matters. It enables and encourages LGUs to
directly oversee the development of their own projects, and in almost all cases, requires them to
shoulder the cost of land.
1 SHELTER
Medium-Rise Buildings (MRBs)

This is the recommended housing program of urban planners and government. Not less than three
storeys in height, MRBs are residential buildings usually located in a city. MRBs allow the maximum
use of land and accommodate more families of informal settlers.
Special National Government Housing Projects
An off-site and off-city relocation project is being implemented in Muntinlupa while a development
project is being implemented in Payatas. Both are funded by the Asian Development Bank’s (ADB)
Japan Fund for Poverty Reduction (JFPR) under grant agreement with the Department of Social
Welfare and Development (DSWD). The executing agency, the DSWD, has a Project Monitoring Office
that provides monitoring assistance to the two projects. These two projects are important because
the learnings from them have a bearing on ongoing work and proposed investment projects
such as the Development of Urban Poor Communities and Metro Manila Urban Services for the Poor.
Another ADB-funded project of the government is the Pasig River Environmental Management and
Rehabilitation Sector Development Program. It aims to improve the condition of Pasig River, as well
as solve the housing problems in the area.
The Off-Site, Off-City Relocation Project for the Vulnerable Communities of Muntinlupa
This ADB project intends to demonstrate the viability of an off-site, off-city relocation package for
vulnerable urban communities—especially those that could be affected by a government-initiated
development project.
The project will pilot-test this approach with two communities along the railroad tracks that will
be affected by the Southrail Development Project—Barangays Buli and Cupang. A three-hectare,
off-city relocation site, large enough to accommodate about 567 families from the two project
communities, will be identified and acquired during the project implementation phase.
The project includes selection of suitable property, site development, core housing construction,
provision of basic services, provision of livelihood and enterprise development opportunities,
and capability building for estate management, including environmental management. It likewise
intends to strengthen government approaches to off-city relocation efforts by incorporating the
lessons learned from previous efforts.
As a demonstration project, the Muntinlupa project will influence the formulation of a citywide
socialized shelter plan for Muntinlupa City. It will provide inputs to improve the national government’s
policies and programs in relocation and resettlement.5
Payatas Development Project
The On-site Integrated Urban Upgrading for Slum Communities of Payatas Project will directly guide
the design and implementation of the projects for core poverty interventions for slum upgrading,
expansion of access to basic services, and improving quality of life. Its main objective is to transform
a selected urban poor community in Payatas into a sustainable and viable community where
quality of life is greatly improved. To do this, the project will provide a comprehensive set of
physical interventions such as reblocking, construction of roads and infrastructure, housing
improvements, provision of water supply and sanitation systems.
It will also provide a comprehensive set of social interventions like access to education and
training, provision of a health insurance scheme, maternal and child care, care for the elderly and
the most vulnerable in the community. Economic interventions such as enterprise and livelihood
development will also be made. The project has five components: (i) land acquisition using the
revolving fund for bridge financing; (ii) site development and housing construction; (iii) livelihood
and micro-finance program; (iv) community-based health insurance; and (v) education, training,
and exchanges.
1 SHELTER
The Pasig River Environmental Management and Rehabilitation Sector Development Program
Already in place, the project tackles among other things, the housing problems along the Pasig River.
It was set up with technical grant assistance from the ADB. The latter also extended a technical
assistance grant to the national government for the environmental management and rehabilitation
of the Pasig River.
The overall objectives of the program are to improve environmental management of the Pasig River
basin within Metro Manila, particularly for waste and water management and urban renewal. To
oversee this project, the Pasig River Rehabilitation Commission (PRRC) was created in January 6,
1999. The Pasig River Environmental Management and Rehabilitation Sector Development Program
and the ADB also agreed in July 1999 on a policy reform agenda and the physical improvement
of the river.
The program provides for the establishment of 10-meter wide environmental preservation areas
(EPAs) along approximately 23 kilometers of both banks of the Pasig River. This will entail the
relocation of 10,000 families of informal settlers living along the riverbanks.
As of June 30, 2002, 4,662 households out of the 10,219 have been relocated to several Kasiglahan
Villages, where, sadly, there are inadequate socio-economic services and facilities. Some informal
settlers who have taken part in the census have also occupied titled lands within three to 10
meters of the rivers. Implementation of development projects in the cleared areas has also been
slow, although maintenance and surveillance of these are still ongoing.
Since September 2001, there has been no relocation movement because people have been
clamoring for in-city resettlement in Manila, Pasig, and Taguig and because the ADB has given low
priority to the 3,714 families occupying tributaries (in Pateros and Quezon City).
◗ CIVIL SOCIETY PROGRAMS
The provision of socialized housing assistance is not a monopoly of government alone. Some groups
within civil society have also contributed to the housing sector in various ways.
Habitat for Humanity
Habitat, through its local affiliates, has joined forces with local government units and their partner
community associations in housing the poor. Usually, it is the LGU or the community association
that provides the land, the LGU assists in site development activities, and Habitat helps qualified
families build their houses by providing financial assistance in the form of construction materials.
The beneficiary family members are asked to provide “sweat equity”in the construction of houses.
Home partners, or the qualified families, are encouraged to fully pay their mortgages within a period
of 10 to 15 years with a corresponding cost of money (it is referred to as an interest rate) of six percent
per year. The inflation rate could be factored in, too.
The LGUs of Muntinlupa and Dumaguete have undertaken a number of projects with Habitat. The
estimated construction cost of a 24-square-meter house in Metro Manila is no more than P120,000
but in the province, a slightly bigger 30-square-meter type costs P85,000.
Couples For Christ-Gawad Kalinga
As part of its commitment to share their time, talent, and treasures, the Couples For Christ has
embarked on a comprehensive community development program called “Gawad Kalinga”(GK) that
“addresses individual, family, and community needs.”6 At the same time, it provides a strong values
transformation program accompanied by programs that promote socio-economic upliftment,
restoration of the person’s confidence in him/herself, and assistance in helping people rise out of
poverty.
1 SHELTER
One of these components is the Shelter and Site Development Program called “TATAG,” a build or
rebuild shelter project. The program provides for the construction of new homes of relocated families
or the onsite improvement of houses of the poorest of the poor who have no way of helping
themselves. The average cost of a house is P30,000, its construction done through “bayadnihan.”
The program includes organizing the beneficiaries and other members of the community under
a Kapitbahayan Neighborhood Association. The assistance given to beneficiaries may or may not
be returned, depending on the assessment of the Couples For Christ.
ALTERPLAN and TAO
Two other NGOs—Alternative Planning Inc. (ALTERPLAN) and Technical Assistance Organization-
Pilipinas (TAO)—prefer alternative approaches to planning, whether this is in terms of participation,
perspective, building technologies, or housing schemes.
ALTERPLAN has been instrumental in helping the St. Louis University-St. Vincent Parish (SLU-SVP)
Housing Cooperative enrich its housing assistance to members. It also did a feasibility study on a
medium-rise building project for Habitat Philippines and is involved in the pre-planning activities
for the Parola Urban Poor Settlement Project, a Kapitbisig Laban sa Kahirapan (KALAHI)-assisted
project.
TAO’s expertise is being tapped in preparatory activities for the proposed relocation of the
Kapulungan ng mga Samahan sa Riles Valenzuela Federation (KASARIVAL), a city-level association
of community associations along the railroad tracks of Valenzuela, Bulacan.
❙ LGUs CAN TAKE THE LEAD

◗ SEVEN GLOBAL NORMS OF GOOD URBAN GOVERNANCE
However sluggish the national government may be when it comes to

housing the poor, and whatever problems there may be in the
Seven Norms of Good
housing sector, local government units can take the cudgels and do
what is necessary to house the informal settlers in their locales.
Urban Governance
One guide LGUs can use when tackling local problems such as shelter 1. Equity of access
insecurity is the “Seven Global Norms of Good Urban Governance” 2. Security of
adopted by the League of Cities in the Philippines. It advocates sound
individuals
standards that could effectively steer local governments to perform
better in their areas. These norms are:
3. Efficient basic
services delivery
1. Equity of access – this covers constituents’ access to basic social 4. Sustainability
services such as land for shelter and source of livelihood, natural 5. Decentralization
resources, education, water, credit, and gender equity
and subsidiarity
2. Security of individuals - land, livelihood opportunities, health,
education
6. Transparency and
3. Efficiency in delivering basic services to constituents accountability
4. Sustainability 7. Civic engagement
5. Decentralization and subsidiarity and citizenship
6. Transparency and accountability
7. Civic engagement and citizenship – this covers the partnership or
collaboration with civil society to include people’s organizations7
1 SHELTER
◗ ROLES FOR LGUS

Roles for LGUs
LGUs can also assume various roles to better respond to the shelter needs
of their cities or municipalities and do something about the ever increasing
1. Direct housing housing backlog in the country. For instance, LGUs can be a direct housing
provider provider. They can buy and allot hectares of land for socialized or low-
2. Partner through cost housing, and make housing packages suitable to the needs of their
communities.
Joint Venture
Projects City and municipal governments can also become partners of national
3. Source of interim government agencies or a private developer through joint venture
financing agreements. They can collaborate with a government or private organization
4. CMP originator to set up and plan a sound housing program for the poor.
5. Site developer
LGUs could also function as a source of interim financing that can assist
people’s organizations working for land tenure. Cities and municipalities with
enough resources can first pay for the land bought by their constituents in
cases when the national government is unable to release loans, and then collect the amount at a
later time from the agencies concerned.
LGUs can also assume the role of CMP originator. Cities and municipalities can make use of CMP
and adapt it in their respective locales, depending on the need.
LGUs can take an active role in site development after a community association has worked on its
tenurial security. LGUs can provide water facilities, provide the road network or do the community’s
storm & drainage canal.
◗ LGU INITIATED SUCCESSFUL HOUSING PROJECTS AT A GLANCE
There are some cities that have started their own housing programs, adopted the preceding
roles, and made use of various other strategies applicable to their own locales. The following
table gives us a preview of these cities and the strategies that have worked for them, and their
corresponding benefits. What follows is but a preview; each city and program will be discussed in
detail in Chapter 4.
LGU Project and key strategies used Results/Benefits
Naga City, Camarines Kaantabay sa Kauswagan (Partners in As of May 31, 2002, the Program has
Sur Development) a housing program covered a total of 7,301 urban poor
using an Urban Poor Affairs Office households through 44 on-site and
(UPAO); and collaboration with a non- off-site development projects. The
government organization, the figure is only 100 families shy of the
Community Organizing of the 7,400 low-income Naga households
Philippines Enterprise (COPE) who, according to the ADB estimates,
Foundation live below poverty line.
A housing project using a As of September 2002, the City

Muntinlupa, Metro multisectoral mechanism called the Government has assisted 714 families
Manila “Socialized Housing Program address their security of shelter tenure
Committee” or the “SHoPCom” and and an additional 350 families
provision of interim financing through the provision of interim
financing assistance.
The “Lote Para Sa Mahirap” Project to Four successive phases involving

San Carlos, Negros provide home lots for families with no parcels of land that will occupy an
Occidental regular salaries or have limited means area of at least 16 hectares to
of income accommodate about 1,750
unemployed or low-income families.
Its Phase I Project had an initial 473
beneficiary-families.
1 SHELTER
LGU Project and key strategies used Results/Benefits
Bacolod City, Negros A housing assistance package coursed Twenty-two (22) ongoing housing
Occidental through their own housing agency projects which will benefit informal
and which made use of the CMP workers, vendors, fisherfolks, laborers,
drivers, a few government and non-
government workers.
Mandaluyong, Metro Land for the Landless Program which Nine thousand (9,000) families have
Manila provided interim financing and made benefited from this project.
use of the CMP
Victorias, Negros A low cost housing program using Benefited homeless municipal
Occidental bond flotation workers, employees of the national
government, water district, VRESCO
and Victorias Milling Company.
Dumaguete, Negros Low cost housing through the Relocation of a depressed community
Oriental partnership with NHA, PPA and squatting along danger-prone
Consuelo Alger Foundation government land, to a resettlement
project which has basic amenities and
facilities.
Marikina, Metro Manila Elimination of squatting through CMP Relocation and resettlement of 21,887
and a Municipal Settlement Office, and families of informal settlers.
community participation
◗ HOUSING STRATEGIES FOR LGUS
Some cities and municipalities have already initiated their own housing
programs, and have been successful in providing shelter security to a
number of their constituents. Examples are cited here but will also be Common Qualities
discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4. of Successful
Housing Strategies
The successful experiences of the featured cities and municipalities show for LGUs
some common notable qualities, among them:
1. Political will and commitment of the local chief executive 1. Political will of
Local chief executives who demonstrate political will and commitment Local Chief
to provide their constituents with shelter can make a difference. This was Executive
evident in the former mayors of Mandaluyong, San Carlos, Naga, and 2. Full appreciation
Marikina, all of whom actively involved themselves in the
implementation of their housing projects.
of the
environment by
2. Local leadership’s full appreciation of his/her environment leadership
There were a number of LGUs that recognized the significant incidence 3. Recognition of
of informal settlements in their midst. Naga, Marikina, and Muntinlupa the power of the
are some examples of how some local offices saw the urgency in solving
this problem. Dumaguete City, for instance, was aware of the unstable
people
situation of some informal settlers living on government land. The city,
with the help of various agencies, strove to relocate them to a site
close to their means of livelihood, and where transportation and education were accessible.
3. Recognition of the power of their people

Some successful LGUs mobilized various people’s organizations and included them in all
aspects of the whole project. They wanted everybody involved so that they would own the project
1 SHELTER
and be committed to it. Marikina gave a set of assignments to communities that wanted to apply
for CMP. In the municipality of Victorias, the people themselves mobilized their community to
plant trees in their new resettlement site.
Some strategies that worked in jumpstarting shelter projects are worth emulating too. The
examples of strategies below show that LGUs can provide more than houses or structures to give
shelter to the poor. They show that providing shelter entails: (1) the creation of structures that
Shelter Strategies for LGUs

1. Preparation of the LGU’s Shelter Plan
2. Provision of basic services in settlement development
3. Creation of enabling mechanisms and structures
4. Work with other stakeholders such as CSOs
5. Tapping existing national housing programs
6. Exploration of innovative local housing finance schemes
7. Development of appropriate packages for partner-households
8. Mobilization of people’s organizations
9. Strengthening the capacity of people’s organizations
10. Development and installation of management systems
11. Effective recording and collection systems of monthly amortization
12. Development of an effective monitoring and evaluation system
not only house the biggest number of people but also ensure the availability of basic amenities
in the sites; (2) the active participation of relocatees or residents, and (3) the importance of building
communities, among others. A good housing project would also include opportunities to tap
other national housing programs. The strategies below point to ways that housing projects can
be planned in a comprehensive manner, because even the smallest of details are important and
are closely linked to other aspects of the housing program.
1. Preparation of the LGU’s shelter plan

The shelter plan puts forward the LGU’s long-term vision and development strategy for shelter
provision. The plan does not only target delivering housing units on a piece of property but also
looks at ensuring the sustainability of the settlement. For instance, the plan should pro-actively
consider the impact of settlements on the environment, particularly on the use of natural
resources—water, the clearing of agricultural areas, and the cutting of trees. The municipality
of Victorias, for example, in planning its housing project, made use of environment-friendly
materials for construction. It also factored in better land use and reclassification.
2. Provision of basic amenities in settlement development

This means providing water, electricity, access to education, health services, sanitation facilities,
and affordable transportation to and from employment opportunities. Dumaguete City, for
example, made sure that basic facilities and amenities were available in the resettlement sites
they offered to the depressed community of Barangay Looc.
3. Creation or expansion of enabling mechanisms/structures

Some LGUs such as Naga City set up an Urban Poor Affairs Office (UPAO), while Bacolod set up
the Bacolod Housing Authority to oversee its housing program. The city of Muntinlupa has its
Urban Poor Affairs Office too but also opted for a multi-stakeholder mechanism, the Socialized
Housing Program Committee (SHoPCom), to synchronize at the city level the various efforts of
its stakeholders in housing assistance. These mechanisms were used to enable and facilitate
housing projects in their own locales.
1 SHELTER
Marikina and Muntinlupa used different offices of their local governments as principal
implementers of their housing projects. Copies of the Muntinlupa order that created the
Socialized Housing Project Committee; and the Memorandum of Understanding that was
entered into by NHA, Habitat, Muntinlupa Development Foundation and the Muntinlupa local
government are included in the Annex.
4. Working with other stakeholders, such as civil society organizations

LGUs can work with the communities in their locales, or other civil society groups to complement
and supplement their own strengths and weaknesses. Naga City, as part of its strategy of
“focusing on its core work and doing only what it is good at,” partnered with the Community
Organizing of the Philippines Enterprise (COPE) Foundation especially in the area of community-
organizing work.
5. Tapping existing national housing programs

Most of the LGUs that successfully implemented housing projects made use of existing housing
programs of the National Housing Authority, especially in executing a relocation and resettlement
project or in developing new communities in identified areas. Most have also used the
Community Mortgage Program of the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation in on-site
incremental housing projects initiated by the community residents themselves.
6. Exploration of innovative local housing finance schemes

Funding is a perennial problem in most housing projects. But the use of innovative financing
schemes can partially, if not fully, solve this problem. Victorias of Negros Occidental broke
new ground in the use of bond flotation to finance its housing project for its employees. The
bond flotation worked on the principle of mobilizing local participation in the city’s development
projects. It had interested parties extend the financing themselves.
7. Development of appropriate packages for partner-households taking into consideration

their needs and their capacity to pay.
Providing houses for the people is not an easy task, and one of the most overlooked aspects of
most housing programs is the incomes of target beneficiaries. With less means to pay, housing
packages for the poor should be made very affordable. San Carlos City’s “Lote Para Sa Mahirap”
project provided home lots to low-income and poor squatter families with no regular income.
Its payment scheme of P5 daily from Mondays to Fridays was affordable and spread over a period
of five years.
8. Mobilization of people’s organizations to participate in all facets of the housing project

management cycle to ensure ownership and commitment to the undertaking.
To the stakeholders of Naga and Muntinlupa, this is called community organizing. The Muntinlupa
Development Foundation assists community associations in formulating their version of the Deed
of Restrictions, which they call the “Agreement for Community Living.” The agreement covers
site development and settlement management matters. Makati City used a different approach
in the management of its Pabahay Project. A floor leader, selected and elected by the unit
occupants of a floor, assumes leadership responsibilities.
9. Strengthening the capacities of the people’s organizations to get into a housing project
and eventually manage their settlements.
Marikina encouraged its constituents to deal with the various facets of their housing programs
by giving them a set of tasks to follow and implement in their own communities.
10. Development and installation of corresponding management systems and procedures

of shelter programs, projects and services.
This will include: the software and hardware development for the monitoring and updating
of an LGU’s registered socialized housing beneficiaries, its different housing projects, and its
land inventory for housing. This also includes on–the-job training of assigned personnel. Not
many cities or municipalities have used this strategy. Marikina’s attempt consisted of specifying
1 SHELTER
procedures for both informal settlers and landowners, which the Municipal Settlement Office
as well as the Mayor’s Office supervised to ensure the smooth flow of their housing projects.
As for the management of data on beneficiaries, housing projects, and land inventory, only four
cities—Makati, Davao, Cebu and Naga—have an established system.
11. Effective recording and collection system of monthly amortization payments at the
city level, while at the same time establishing a mechanism of monitoring these
payments at the community level.
Naga provides an example on effective recording and collection. In one of its communities,
the association treasurer is tasked to collect the payments of all beneficiaries. Those who are
unable to pay are given a penalty equivalent to one (1) percent of the amount due. The
collection is then deposited to the Land Bank Branch of Naga City. Today, majority of the
association members have paid from 12 to 17 months of the total 24-month equivalent of their
loan. Marikina also imposed penalties for late payments and has not experienced problems
in collecting monthly payments from beneficiaries.
12. Developing an effective monitoring and evaluation system that will provide the key
local leaders and officials with concrete feedback on the positive and negative results,
or impact of their local housing assistance.
Active community organizations can be a city or municipality’s channel for gathering positive
and negative feedback. Since settlement and/or urban poor affairs offices deal closely with
communities, they can set up dialogues with these groups to gather information on the
results of their housing projects. Among the cities that have active community organizations
are Naga, Marikina, and Muntinlupa. These cities work closely with their communities and
regularly hold dialogues with them.
Naga Housing Strategies8
National Government’s Community Mortgage Program

Self-help community mortgage. The local authority, instead of national government
provides the bulk of the financing requirement, and the urban poor community
provides a significant amount of equity.
Land sharing. The owner agrees to share land occupied by the urban poor community,
and sells only a portion of the property. The owner has the right to choose which part
of the land he will retain for his own use.
Leveraged land sharing plus. Instead of sharing the land, an adjacent land is
developed for relocation. The owner gets all of the land.
Land swapping. The owner agrees to exchange the land occupied by an urban poor
community with another property, which has the same value or size of his former land.
Community-initiated purchase. In this mode, the urban poor community puts up at
least half of the total project cost.
Proactive land banking. This means the purchase of raw landholdings at a cheaper
price, which will be developed into low-cost housing or resettlement areas.
Idle government lots. Unutilized/underutilized properties of the national government
or the local authority for housing are used for the housing program.
Livelihood housing. Communal farming and fishing—including support services—
on top of the traditional home lots for beneficiaries are provided.
Eminent domain. This entails the expropriation of privately owned landholdings by
the local authority, invoking the power of eminent domain.
1 SHELTER
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT CMP
What is CMP?
CMP is a mortgage-financing program of the NHMFC assisting the informal sector in buying and
developing a parcel of land under the concept of community ownership. It takes into consideration
the paying capacity of members of the community who want to use it as a tool for shelter tenure
security. It is implemented over a period of time to assist residents of depressed areas to own the
lot they occupy, or a lot located in a relocation area of choice. Loan payments under CMP are
temporarily treated as rentals. The community holds the title until all payments have been made.
Only then are individual titles given.
A distinct feature of this housing program is the role of the Originator. The originator is tasked to
assist the community association get organized for the housing project, set up the organizational
and project management systems, and provide technical assistance in complying with the
documentary requirements of NHMFC for as CMP loan. An LGU or a non – government organization
can be an originator.
What are the benefits of this approach?

The CMP is one of the measures that allow the poor to gain more access to land. It brings about the
collaboration of different housing stakeholders such as LGUs, national agencies, NGOs and
communities. This facilitates consultation, thus maximizing the expertise of all stakeholders in
housing. The approach also empowers people. It helps build strong communities by making them
work toward eventual land ownership and giving them a chance to develop their own sites together,
in the spirit of damayan or mutual aid and friendship. CMP has mechanisms, processes, criteria set
by LGUs and community housing associations (CHAs) that require approval from stakeholders.
The standards set by government such as BP 220 are also followed.
What are the disadvantages of the approach?

It takes a long time for the NHMFC to process loans. Because of this, the price of the land the
community wants to buy could increase during the time that the loan is being processed. However,
LGUs can provide interim financing schemes so the community could buy the land. The local
government can collect from the NHMFC at a later time through a Deed of Assignment signed by
the landowner in favor of the LGU. Another disadvantage is that loan applications may be kept
hanging whenever funding is not released to the NHMFC.
What are the required capacities of the people involved?

Providing shelter for the poor generally requires the political will, commitment, and creativity of LGUs.
The mayor’s role is critical in getting things done or in mobilizing needed resources from other
institutions. LGUs should also know the real situation in their areas. They should have a “feel” for the
priority problems and issues of their community, as well as the available resources they can tap to
get things done. Information, data, and documents relevant to their cities and municipalities,
especially on the urban poor should also be complete.
The mayor should have a designated office such as an Urban Affairs Office or a City Housing Office
to work on this. The LGUs’ staff should have experience in organizing work, and an understanding
of the CMP loan process and documentation.
How is the approach delivered?

The cities and municipalities featured in this resource book took the following steps in providing
housing for their poor:
Organization of residents into CHAs.
Request by CHAs for assistance in housing provision.
Screening by the city of beneficiaries (Each city and/or municipality may have different criteria
for eligibility).
Consultation by the city government with the people and the landowners.
Purchase of the land by the city through interim financing or from a loan released by the
NHMFC.
1 SHELTER
Turnover of the land title to the city government or to the community.

Payment by the community for the land on a monthly basis.
There are some cities, such as Bacolod, which used a slightly different approach to CMP.
A group of squatters applied for assistance with the local government to acquire a piece of land.
The housing office helped the group organize themselves into a housing association by
conducting seminars on community organizing.
The group then organized themselves into a CHA, with a set of officers, and requested for
housing assistance.
The LGU started critical activities for land acquisition.
Is the approach acceptable to LGUs?

Judging from the growing number of LGUs adopting the CMP, yes, it is acceptable to LGUs. The CMP
not only decreases the number of slum settlements within their boundaries, it also raises the
quality of life of their constituents as well. The CMP ultimately increases the LGU’s real property tax
collection.
What are the required resources?

LGUs need funding to help the poor in this area since CMP procedures entail costs. Seminars for the
communities would have to be conducted, and coordination with housing agencies would require
money, too. When loans take a long time to be released, LGUs will need money to be able to pay for
the price of land during the waiting period under an interim financing arrangement with the
community association and the landowner. Another needed resource is competent manpower for
consultations with communities and housing agencies, and for the provision of housing shelter. Land
is also needed. In off-site relocation programs, LGUs need to choose land that is suitable for
habitation yet still affordable for their poor constituents.
Who are the champions of this approach?

Because numerous LGUs have become champions of the CMP, it has been widely adopted in the whole
country. Experts on housing issues also see the CMP as an advantage for the underprivileged since
it has worked well for the urban poor sector as far as financing is concerned. For the poor, this is the
most accessible tool they can use to own houses.
What are the indications of the sustainability or the replicability of this approach?
The growing number of CMP beneficiaries in the whole country and the rise in their quality of life
are some of the indications of its sustainability. The number of LGUs all over the country adopting
CMP for their housing projects also shows that different cities and municipalities use CMP. Sri
Lanka has also looked into some successful housing projects here in the hope of replicating them.
2
CHAPTER
LGU MANDATES
❙ NATIONAL HOUSING LAWS
◗ MAJOR LEGISLATION
LGU MANDATES CHAPTER
2
The past years have seen various changes in policies regulating the housing sector. These were
envisioned to rid the country of poverty, ensure each citizen easier access to decent housing and
proper development of land, and encourage people from all walks of life to actively participate in
the country’s development. Laws relevant to the housing sector have a special significance to local
governments as these laws are also meant to improve the capability of local government units to
implement urban development and housing projects.
The Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991 (RA 7160)
The LGC of 1991 identifies and states, among other things, the roles and responsibilities of all local
government units from the province down to the barangay. It specifies that LGUs should protect
the general welfare of the citizenry through the delivery of basic services and facilities. Shelter, being
one of the basic needs, is mentioned specifically in the Code. Article 25 says that one of the major
functions of LGUs—especially municipalities, cities, and provinces—is the “planning and
implementation of the programs and projects for low-cost housing and other mass dwellings.”9
Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 (RA 7279)
In 1992, a landmark legislation that favors the poor was passed. The Urban Development and Housing
Act (UDHA) of 1992 recognizes the legal rights of the underprivileged and guarantees that people,
most specifically the beneficiaries of socialized housing, will be secure in their own lands. It also
provides more people the chance for better shelter.
2 SHELTER
The UDHA, besides aiding the urban poor sector also encourages the private sector to participate
in the development of national shelter programs. It gives incentives to developers who are willing
to share their resources.
The UDHA likewise gives importance to LGUs, giving them a significant role by mandating them
to take on urban development and housing programs and projects on their own for the benefit
of their own constituents.
The UDHA is the law often referred to on matters pertaining to homelessness and squatting. It is
the principal legal framework governing public policy on the urban poor and the provisions of
socialized housing.
The Comprehensive and Integrated Shelter Financing Act (CISFA) of 1994 (RA 7835)
The CISFA directs the national government to provide budgetary support to the country’s various
housing programs. It seeks to strengthen housing programs by vigorously implementing the
government’s programs for urban and rural housing, resettlement, the development of sites and
services, and the renewal of blighted areas.
Batas Pambansa 220
This is an act authorizing the Ministry of Human Settlements to establish and promulgate different
levels of standards and technical requirements for economic and socialized housing projects in urban
and rural areas from those provided under the Presidential Decree Nos. 1957, 1216, 1096, and 1185.
This was approved on March 25, 1982.
The Rules and Standards for Economic and Socialized Housing Projects to Implement Batas
Pambansa Blg. 220 was amended through a Board Resolution No. 579 of the Housing and Urban
Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC) and the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
(HLURB) in October 1995.
LGU MANDATES 2
This amended law led to a revised set of rules and standards for “Economic and Socialized Housing
Projects” to implement Batas Pambansa Blg. 220. This became the reference of developers and
homeowners associations in the preparation of their respective “Deeds of Restrictions.” And for some
community-based associations that pursued socialized housing concerns, this served as a basis for
the formulation of their collective “Agreement for Community Living” or “Kasunduan ng
Pampamayanang Pamumuhay.”
◗ LEGISLATION ON POSSIBLE SOURCES OF HOUSING FUNDS
There are also national policies identifying the possible sources of housing funds such as those that
can be generated by the LGUs themselves. These windows of opportunities are:
The Idle Land Tax (Art. 236 of the LGC)
This states, “A province or city, or a municipality within the Metropolitan area may levy an annual
tax on idle lands at a rate not exceeding 5 percent of the assessed value of the property which shall
be in addition to the basic real property tax.”
Taxation on Assessed Value of Lands (Sec. 43 of the UDHA)
This section states that all LGUs are authorized to impose an additional one-half percent tax on the
assessed value of all lands in urban areas in excess of P50,000. Proceeds of this tax can be used for
housing funds.
However, the Proposed Implementing Rules and Regulations of Section 43 have not been enacted.
HUDCC has put forward the rules to mandate the DILG to identify urban areas authorized to
assess and collect the socialized housing tax and individually inform the concerned cities and
municipalities of the same. The DILG shall publish the list of identified urban areas to assess and
collect the tax and individually inform the concerned cities/municipalities of the same.
2 SHELTER
In turn, identified LGUs shall, within 30 days from receipt of a DILG notice, inform the DILG and the
HUDCC of their intended action. If the LGU decides to assess and collect the tax, it shall specify in
its response the commencement of its implementation, the projected generated income, and the
prospective projects to be funded by the tax. If the LGU does not implement the tax, it shall
specify the reasons for the same.
The refusing LGU shall also state the measures taken to remove current impediments, the timeframe
within which identified impediments will be resolved and the appropriate time of the
implementation of the tax.
Art. 397 of Rule XXXIII on Local Government Credit Financing on Bonds and Other Long-
Term Securities (from the LGC)
A significant number of LGUs have made use of various financing schemes for their respective local
housing projects as specified in the Local Government Code. These funds may be sourced from the
20 percent allocation for development projects from the LGU’s Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA),
bond flotation, 80 percent of the LGU’s regular IRA share or the regular budget, or bank loans. Other
strategies of LGUs include: partnership with international donor organizations or with a national
housing agency, or other income generated by the LGU.
The city of Muntinlupa allocates a minimum of P10 million annually from its City Development Fund
for land banking purposes—not necessarily for socialized housing alone but for other social
service facilities. The city government in extending interim financing assistance to community
associations pursuing socialized housing efforts also uses this Fund. The City Development Fund
is sourced from the 20 percent share from the LGU’s annual Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA).
The municipality of Victorias was the first among the LGUs to embark on bond flotation for a low-
cost housing project for its employees. The municipal government initially explored two financing
alternatives: bank loan and credit financing before deciding on municipal bond flotation.
LGU MANDATES 2
The city of Naga has developed various innovative financing schemes for the specific housing
approach identified together with their partner community associations. It has tapped its City
Infrastructure Fund, and other lending institutions such as Land Bank of the Philippines, Government
Service Insurance System (GSIS), the Community Mortgage Program of the NHMFC, as well as the
National Housing Authority. It has also entered into partnership with international donor
organizations such as the Asian Development Bank to initially provide technical assistance to its
city housing program.10
There are several national housing finance agencies, local and international banks that provide credit
financing and loans to LGUs for their respective housing programs or to the end-buyers directly.
These are the Philippine National Bank, the Home Insurance Guarantee Corporation (HIGC), and
the NHMFC’s Community Mortgage Program.
❙ UDHA-DEFINED LGU
SHELTER-RELATED RESPONSIBILITIES
While the national laws spelled out the responsibilities of key national shelter agencies and the
various possible sources of funding, the Urban Development and Housing Act (UDHA) defined the
following duties of LGUs:
1. Prepare a comprehensive land use plan aimed at achieving the objectives of the UDHA (Sec.
6 and 39).
2. Conduct an inventory of all lands and improvements thereon within their respective localities
in coordination with the HLURB and with the assistance of the appropriate government
agencies (Sec.7). Update the inventory every three years and furnish the Housing and Urban
Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC) a copy of its inventory including updated ones
for planning purposes (Sec. 7).
2 SHELTER
3. Identify, in coordination with the National Housing Authority (NHA), the HLURB, the National
Mapping and Resources Information Authority (NAMRIA), and the Land Management Bureau
(LMB) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) lands for socialized
housing and resettlement for the immediate and future needs of the underprivileged and
homeless in urban areas (Sec. 8).
4. Certify as to the blighted status of lands, which shall be considered as one of the factors in the
evaluation of the market value of land for socialized housing (Sec. 13).
5. Identify and register all qualified socialized housing beneficiaries within their respective
localities (Sec. 17).
6. In pursuit of balanced housing development, enter into joint venture projects with private
developer (Sec. 18).
7. Provide basic services and facilities (potable water, power/electricity, adequate solid waste
disposal system, and access to primary roads and transformation facility) in the socialized housing
or resettlement areas in cooperation with the private sector and concerned agencies (Sec. 21).
8. Provide the program beneficiaries of their duly designated representatives, in coordination with
the Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor (PCUP) and concerned government agencies,
the opportunity to be heard and to participate in the decision-making process over matters
involving the protection and promotion of their legitimate collective interests (Sec. 23).
9. In cooperation with the Philippine National Police (PNP), the PCUP and PCUP-accredited
urban poor organizations in the area, adopt measures to identify and effectively curtail the illegal
activities of professional squatters and squatting syndicates (Sec. 27).
10. In coordination with the NHA, implement the relocation and resettlement of persons living in
danger areas such as esteros, railroad tracks, garbage dumps, riverbanks, shorelines, waterways
and in other public places such as sidewalks, roads, parks and playgrounds (Sec. 29).
11. Provide, in coordination with the NHA, relocation or resettlement sites with basic services and
facilities, and access to employment and livelihood opportunities sufficient to meet the basic
needs of affected families (Sec. 30).
LGU MANDATES 2
12. Assist the NHMFC in initiating the organization of Community Mortgage Program (CMP)
beneficiaries (Sec. 33).
13. Promote, in coordination with the HUDCC, NHA, the Technology Livelihood Resource Center
(TLRC), Department of Science and Technology (DOST), and other concerned agencies in the
production and use of indigenous, alternative, and low-cost construction materials and
technologies for socialized housing (Sec. 34).
14. Submit a detailed annual report, with respect to the implementation of the Act, to the
President and House of Representatives (Sec. 41).
15. May impose an additional one-half percent tax on the assessed value of all lands in urban areas
in excess of P50,000 (Sec. 43).
CHAPTER
3
IMPLEMENTATION & POLICY ISSUES
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
IMPLEMENTATION & POLICY ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
❙ National Level
The Government’s Performance
CHAPTER
3
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo promised security of tenure to at least 150,000 households, but
as of 2002 was able to assist 183,000, or 22 percent more than her promised target.
The national government also went beyond its goal of extending housing assistance to 50,000 urban
poor households. It gave assistance to a total of 83,457 households through the National Housing
Authority, the assistance coming in the form of resettlement and slum upgrading.
Despite these positive changes, the housing sector remains beset with problems. Though there have
been improvements, these do not come close to solving the immense housing problem in the country.
Low Government Targets
Although it was able to help urban poor households, the national government was unable to fully
assist the salaried workers. Only 72,375 out of the 100,000-target number of salaried workers
received housing assistance from the government.
Population densities, rapid urbanization, steep market value of lands, and very low incomes also
contributed to a rather shaky housing sector. The country now has 80 million people, and 40 million
are classified as poor. HUDCC declared that the housing backlog has reached 3.362 million, with
the bulk of the housing need concentrated in the National Capital Region (.06 million), followed
by Region 4 (0.6 million) then Region 3 (0.3 million).
3 SHELTER
The target set by the government—the provision of at least 1.2 million houses to its people—is
simply too small compared to our housing backlog. Thus government needs to set plans on a bigger
scale to benefit the most number of homeless households and respond better to the housing needs
of its people.
◗ PROGRAM-SPECIFIC ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
NHMFC-Community Mortgage Program
Issues:
Drastic cuts in CMP budget
Although CMP funding was institutionalized in the government system in 1995 through the CISFA
(Comprehensive and Integrated Shelter Finance Act), it still has experienced drastic cuts in the budget.
In 1999, P427 million was partially released to the program, but no budget was given the following
year. This, despite the issuance of a Special Allocation and Release Order (SARO) of P1.07 billion and
a signed subsidy of P1.78 billion. In 2001, despite the legislated subsidy of P1.07 billion, not even
one percent of the whole amount was released. In 2002, only P300 million was given to the
program.
Slow processing of CMP loan applications and low performance rate in lending
The CMP performance rate as a lending facility also needs a lot of perking up. Based on NHMFC’s
report, the CMP averages only 70 projects that benefit 8,839 households a year. NHMFC’s average
processing time of CMP loan applications takes from eight to 14 months. Although this is the only
ongoing flagship project of NHMFC, processing takes a very long time. This could be due to the
inadequate organizational capacity of NHMFC to carry out CMP-related functions.
Collection schemes within beneficiary communities should also be improved

There have been numerous cases when households have failed to pay their monthly amortizations
since assigned collectors do not have an effective system in collecting monthly amortizations.
IMPLEMENTATION & POLICY ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3
Limited reach of CMP and the need to fast track applications and projects
CMP has also failed to reach provinces. This is due to the slow processing time of loan applications
and the priority that NHMFC puts on on-site rather than off-site projects. In addition, there are also
more active and credible originators in the NCR, as well as a lack of information on programs such
as CMP. As of June 30, 2002, there were 188 CMP projects in the Regional Distribution of Approved
PCL (Purchase Commitment Line) and Taken Out Projects. Fifty-five percent or 104 projects were
located in the NCR while the rest were in other regions of the country.
Recommendations:
There is a need to look into the efficiency of the NHMFC structure, to determine which area is
causing the delay in loan processing.
Aside from hastening the process of loan applications, one way to fast-track housing projects
is for the President to issue land proclamations. This allows occupants of idle government
lands to legitimately own the lands their houses stand on. However, the turnover of these
proclaimed lands should be done rapidly through CMP, which would mean lower costs
compared to regular mortgage plans, since government land would be priced lower than
those owned by private entities.
Government should disseminate information about CMP in the provinces, to give communities
a chance for shelter security. It could provide LGUs with a list of other local governments
already involved in CMP, along with a list of accredited originators. They must encourage LGUs
to initiate housing projects and provide CMP as a viable option.
Local governments, as discussed in the previous section, can explore alternative schemes of
financing to fund their own CMP projects. They could also partner with private agencies and
NGOs who can help them respond to housing finance problems and other areas of CMP
origination. Most LGUs with successful housing projects have partnered with other institutions.
The city of San Carlos, for example, partnered with Consuelo de Alger Foundation, which
subsidized part of the cost of its housing project.
3 SHELTER
National Housing Authority
Land Tenure Assistance Program
Issues:
NHA has experienced collection problems in this program because of the following:
Weak leadership of the homeowners’ association
Non-implementation of sanctions imposed by NHA on delinquent payers
Lack of basic facilities in some LTAP sites since site development is incremental
Insufficient knowledge about the program
No approved subdivision causing members anxiety about their security of tenure
Recommendations:
Although LTAP has been suspended, the problems it encountered can serve as lessons both for LGUs
and the national government. The problems could have been easily remedied by various measures.
Value formation sessions can be done in areas with weak community leaders. Naga City and
Marikina have done these in their own areas. National agencies and local governments can also
make sure that basic facilities and amenities are available in resettlement sites before they move
people. Victorias and Dumaguete City did this in their respective relocation sites.
Medium-Rise Buildings
Issues:
Balancing Production Costs and Affordability
Another area of concern is the NHA’s program on medium-rise buildings or housing. This is the
recommended strategy of urban poor housing by government and urban planners, but there still
a need to look at its production cost versus the capacity to pay of the poor.
Recommendations:
The national government and LGUs, when undertaking housing projects, should not just limit
themselves to maximizing the use of land and relocating the most number of informal settlers.
They should also take into consideration the paying capacity of their target beneficiaries.
The city of Muntinlupa, as an example, entered into a joint venture agreement with NHA to
respond to the need of an organized urban poor group to develop a piece of property and provide
core housing. They designed a medium-rise building to maximize the size of the property and
ensure that the housing project could accommodate more households. The urban poor group,
however, officially withdrew from the project since the monthly amortization was P1,500 as
against the CMP’s amortization of P400 to P500. It further required each member of the group
to raise equity within a short period of time, over and above the monthly amortization.
Resettlement Assistance Program with LGUs
Issues:
Although no major issues regarding this program have been reported, previous experiences
show that there are still areas for improvement.
Recommendations:
Resettlement programs need to be undertaken by LGUs themselves. This is more feasible since
this eliminates the need for an NHA project team in every resettlement area. Consisting of an
engineer, a Community Relations Officer, and field staff, the NHA team handles estate
management. The LGU’s local office can take on this function instead.
LGUs should also consider the density of a city’s population and speculation on land prices.
Previous experiences of other LGUs show that these factors have hindered the identification of
suitable lands for socialized housing in some cities and municipalities.
3 SHELTER
◗ PRIORITY AREAS
Financing
Issues:
The Need for Funds
The biggest problem facing the housing sector is the lack of money to sustain all its shelter
programs. The CMP for instance, regularly lacks funds for loan applications. At one time, no
funding was released to the program at all.
The government has become overly dependent on pension funds such as the SSS, GSIS, and Pag-
IBIG. This over-reliance may have led to its failure to develop other alternatives to finance its
housing programs.
The government has also been making drastic cuts in the budget allocated for housing, most
especially in the CMP. This further hinders the homeless from acquiring houses of their own since
there are no other available lending programs for them.
Recommendations:
It is thus highly recommended that the government look for other sources of funds other
than those from pension funds such as the SSS or GSIS. The municipality of Victorias could serve
as an example. This small municipality ventured into bond flotation to finance its housing
programs. The national government could look into such schemes to support its own housing
programs, and see if they would be feasible for national housing projects. They could also support
and entice other LGUs to do the same.
The government should think twice before cutting budgets intended for housing projects. They
should actually increase them, since there are no other lending programs that cater to the poor.
As it is, the amount of loans extended to families has been relatively small. According to the June
2002 Monthly Status Report of CMP Projects Taken Out, the program had 50 projects with 7,030
beneficiary families. The equivalent mortgage value of these 50 projects is P213,866,580.59. This
means that loans taken out by each family amounts to an average of only P30,379.31. These
figures underscore the argument that the shelter challenge is not insurmountable, that with
appropriate investments and support though modest, poor families can be helped in securing
their shelter requirements.
There is also a need for the government to improve the credibility, efficiency and transparency
of institutions that administer the lending and subsidy programs.
LGUs, for their part, can work their way around these concerns. They can explore alternatives
for sourcing funds when NHMFC cannot immediately provide the funding they need. The
local government of Victorias, for example, used bond flotations to finance its housing program.
When the national government makes drastic cuts in the CMP budget, LGUs can lessen their
impact by allocating a percentage of their own budget for their housing projects. They could
source this through their IRAs or from income derived from land taxes. For example, Muntinlupa
and Mandaluyong provided interim financing for their housing projects. The city of Muntinlupa
allocated a minimum of P10 million annually from its City Development Fund, and part of this
fund goes to its housing project. The City Development Fund is sourced from the 20 percent
share of the LGU’s annual IRA. Mandaluyong, on the other hand, allocated P21 million for the
CMP in 1994, equivalent to 4.7 percent of the city budget.
Capacity Building
Issues:
The need to improve LGU capacity in shelter provision
Some LGUs still lack the tools and skills they need to improve shelter provision in their own areas.
For instance, some cities may have little resources to effectively appraise the informal settlers within
their jurisdiction. Others may be able to rapidly appraise their areas, but they may not have the
necessary tools to accurately analyze the data they collected. Some LGUs may have all the tools
at hand but lack the necessary knowledge and skills to use the data to make sound decisions in
developing their cities or municipalities. These are just some areas that LGUs need to consider to
further develop their capacity to provide shelter to their homeless constituents. But the responsibility
does not lie on their shoulders alone. The national government and other resource institutions can
help LGUs improve their capabilities in shelter provision.
3 SHELTER
Recommendations for both national government agencies and resource institutions:

Develop tools that will assist LGUs in doing rapid appraisal of the informal settlers in their midst
specially in determining the latter’s affordability level for housing assistance.
Provide tools to facilitate analysis of community data into meaningful facts and figures that will
be used for decision-making and planning. Although most cities have the Minimum Basic Needs
(MBN) Results and the Integrated Rural Accessibility Planning (IRAP) Survey Results, it has
been observed that only a handful of cities analyze and make use of these data for planning
purposes. For most, these are tasks mandated by national agencies that LGUs have no option
but to comply.
Provide technical and training assistance to LGUs in doing cost-benefit analysis of housing
development projects.
Pilot-test on an LGU an innovative scheme of financing low cost housing projects benefiting
farmers, fisherfolk, or others whose source of income is on a seasonal, not monthly, basis. The
pilot test includes the development, implementation and evaluation of this kind of a project.
Philippine Urban Forum-Identified Key Areas for Development
The Philippine Urban Forum recommended four other areas that needed more study to improve
the housing situation in the country.11 The Forum is a mechanism for continuing consultation,
sharing of information, discussion, and coordination. The Forum identified the following priority
areas below. Policy development and legislation can be pursued in partnership with the different
LGU Leagues (i.e., of Municipalities, of Cities and of Provinces).
Policy Issues and Legislation

Operationalization of the National Urban and Housing Development Framework
Passage of a consensus version of the National Land Use Act
Passage of legislation to support the development of viable and sustainable sources of housing
finance
Passage of legislation to improve institutional arrangement in housing and land use delivery
system
Amendments to the 1991 Local Government Code to include the creation of Local Housing Boards
as one of the local special bodies – In a Security of Tenure-related campaign activity with
LGUs, NGOs and POs, the DILG made a commitment to work on the creation of local housing
boards by issuing a memo circular on the policy and mechanics of Local Housing Boards (LHB).
Research
Creation of a Social Housing Fund. ADB is currently implementing a Technical Assistance
Project on the creation of a social housing fund
State-of-the-art methods in land titling in the Philippines
Benchmarking the success of UDHA implementation
Localization
LGUs can pursue the following recommendations themselves. They can also opt to collaborate with
national line agencies to work on the following suggestions:
Drawing from the experience of the 31 cities implementing the City Development Strategy 2
(CDS-2)
Follow through on the roundtable discussion on “Fighting Poverty with Passion” through
Improved Urban Governance organized by the League of Cities
Formulation of Comprehensive Land Use Plans
Formulation of model city action plans for urban governance and secure tenure
Awards and Incentives

An awards and recognition component to provide incentives to local governments that have
successfully implemented anti-poverty projects using the norms of good urban governance will
reinforce good practices among LGUs.
3 SHELTER
❙ Local Level
◗ LGUS AND THE UDHA
Issue:
Quality of CLUPs of Local Government Units
Although most LGUs comply with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP), they still have to ensure
that the plans they have put forward are sound and of good quality. This is highly necessary since
the CLUP “is the primary and dominant basis for future use of local resources and for reclassification
of agricultural lands.” Furthermore, it is mandated by The Urban Development and Housing Act and
is stated in the Local Government Code.
Based on the HLURB June 30, 2002 report, there are 111 out of the 112 cities that have an approved
CLUP. Of the 1,496 municipalities, 1,151 have an approved CLUP. Three cities and 56 municipalities
have just prepared their respective new CLUP, while 56 cities and 328 municipalities have updated
their CLUP. 12
Recommendations:
One way to ensure the quality of the LGUs’ CLUP is to elicit all the stakeholders’ participation and
inputs, and to make sure that all needs are taken into consideration. LGUs need to be creative in
mobilizing stakeholders to be part of the whole planning process. One example of successful
mobilization is Tangub City in Misamis Occidental, which was able to balance the interests of its
other stakeholders. They helped draw up a comprehensive land use plan that provided for the use
and allocation of the city’s natural resources for food production, human settlements, institutional
use, and industrial expansion.
Issue:
LGU Compliance with UDHA provisions
Generally, most LGUs do not have the competence and the tools needed to comply with UDHA
provisions. This was determined by the Urban Poor Associates and PHILSSA in a study they
conducted in March 2000 on the compliance of selected LGUs on UDHA provisions in the NCR. The
study covered 13 cities and/or municipalities, namely, Valenzuela, Navotas, Caloocan, Quezon
City, Marikina, Manila, Mandaluyong, Pasig, Pasay, Pateros, Taguig, Makati and Muntinlupa. Other
LGUs included in the study were: three cities in the Bicol Region—Naga, Iriga, and Legazpi; three
cities of Metro Cebu—Cebu, Lapulapu and Mandaue; and six cities of Mindanao. These were
Surigao, Butuan, Cagayan de Oro, Davao, General Santos and Zamboanga.
Recommendations:
The following are areas for improvement for local governments to be able to provide shelter with
the most impact:
Preparation of an updated land inventory and maintenance of a master list of identified and
potential sites for socialized housing.
Maintenance and monitoring system. LGUs were unable to monitor access of socialized housing
beneficiaries to housing opportunities and compliance by subdivision developers with the 20
percent balanced housing requirement. There were also cases of demolitions in their respective
jurisdictions.
Monitoring the development of new subdivisions. Only three LGUs—Naga City, Davao City, and
Cebu City do this type of monitoring.
Collection and preparation of data on land use, beneficiaries, and site for potential housing. Only
a handful of LGUs had available data on all of the above concerns and an established system
to document and retrieve the required data. These are: Makati, Naga, Cebu, and Davao.
Preparation of a land inventory based on the HUDCC-prescribed format. These LGUs most
often than not have the existing and proposed land use, and assessment reports. Two LGUs,
Navotas and Caloocan, have listings of government-owned sites within their jurisdiction, 90 and
166 sites respectively. Makati has defined uses of its total area to include classifications of
3 SHELTER
areas for priority development. Of socialized housing sites identified, all the NCR-based LGUs
have classified areas as either “identified” or “potential.”
Almost all of the 13 LGUs have the necessary support mechanism and/or programs to attend
to housing-related concerns: an Urban Poor Affairs or Settlement Office, or a committee of
equivalent structure. LGUs could activate these support mechanisms to close the gaps in
UDHA compliance.
Issue:
LGU officials’ unfamiliarity with the rules and regulation pertaining to economic and socialized
housing
It has been observed that there is a lack of knowledge between city and municipal engineers
regarding the rules and regulations of socialized and economic programs. This has resulted to various
structure violations in their own housing programs ranging from the lack of easements around
structures to deficient or no ventilations at all.
Recommendation:
Local governments should keep in mind that pertinent information regarding the building of housing
units and relocation sites must clearly be given to city or municipal engineers. LGUs that are
unfamiliar with the regulations pertaining to economic and socialized housing may well review Batas
Pambansa 220 and the HUDCC and HLURB Board Resolution No. 579. There is a need to translate
the rules and regulations of socialized housing and economic programs into actual applications
to avoid structure evaluations that could adversely affect not just the site, but the residents as well.
CHAPTER
GOOD PRACTICES
4
GOOD PRACTICES CHAPTER
This section features the experiences of some LGUs that have initiated housing programs all over
the country, sourced from case studies made by both NGOs and the government.
4
These can provide other local offices helpful information on how to go about their own shelter
programs in their own locales.
4 SHELTER
LGU-ORIGINATED COMMUNITY MORTGAGE PROGRAM

BACOLOD CITY
Problem
Bacolod City Bacolod City’s squatter problem seemed insurmountable at first. Forty percent
Contact Information
of its population is made up of informal settlers. The rest are migrant families from
City Government
Department Head II nearby provinces forced out by frequent military operations.
Bacolod Housing
Authority Solution
(034) 434-4051
The city, meeting this issue head on, created a policy climate that aimed to provide
affordable and decent housing to it constituents. The local government, determined
to pursue its own policy, designed a housing assistance package that included land acquisition,
relocation of squatters, slum upgrading, resettlement site development, and socialized
housing. The project was implemented and supervised by the Bacolod Housing Authority
(BHA), which adopted and started the implementation of CMP in 1989.
Benefits
BHA started CMP during the last quarter of 1989. It has 22 ongoing projects, four of which
reached the “take out” stage which means the community may get the loan they applied
for. Beneficiaries of these projects are those belonging to the low-income bracket and
earning not more than P2,000 to P3,000 a month. These include a few government and NGO
employees, informal contract workers, vendors, fisherfolk, laborers, and drivers.
Strategies
Allocation of land
The city first allocated land for resettlement sites with low-cost housing and socialized
housing. Ninety seven (97) hectares were allotted, and they negotiated with the
GOOD PRACTICES 4
LGU-ORIGINATED COMMUNITY MORTGAGE PROGRAM Bacolod City
Development Bank of the Philippines and the Philippine National Bank for 49 hectares of foreclosed
properties. The City funded the allocation of 95.4 hectares for a resettlement area and another 45
hectares that was set aside. Both properties were under partnership terms with developers.
Recovery of expenses from land acquisition through CMP and other financing schemes. To recover
the cost of land acquisition, the city used the CMP to pay landowners. The city also set aside 10 percent
of its budget for LGU-originated housing projects, and explored bridge financing to avoid waiting
for long processing at the NHMFC.
Use of a structure to oversee the housing program .

The city set up the Bacolod Housing Authority to implement housing policies and carry out housing
activities. Some of its activities included socialized housing, relocation, resettlement development,
and slum upgrading.
Use of typical CMP process

The city followed the steps provided for in the CMP process. First, informal settlers applied for assistance
from the local government in acquiring a piece of land. The BHA then conducted seminars on community
organizing among target beneficiaries. The informal settlers then organized themselves into a CHA for
the purpose of land acquisition and owning their own houses. The LGU then pursued activities on land
acquisition, using the checklist of requirements at every step.
Issues Encountered
Although the process appears simple, it was not without problems. In fact, the different CHAs and the city
housing authority faced issues that, in one way or another, directly affected the effective and speedy
implementation of CMP. One was the lack of manpower at the city housing office. Another pertained to
the NHMFC requirements, processing, and approval of payment, which caused landowners to back out
in favor of better offers and better selling prices elsewhere. Problems were also encountered in letters of
intent to sell from banks. Despite these problems, the city was able to achieve part of its goal. This is due
4 SHELTER
Bacolod City LGU-ORIGINATED COMMUNITY MORTGAGE PROGRAM
to the determination of key officials of Bacolod City and the housing staff to pursue CMP despite these
obstacles. They believed that CMP, even with its flaws, was an appropriate program for poor squatter families.
Some Examples of How Communities Responded

One of the community housing associations (CHAs) that applied for CMP was the Bata Amity Community
Association composed of urban poor families from the city proper and nearby towns. This off-site
housing project has 7,188 square meters, with six to 14 square meters of these allocated for housing,
and 1,174 square meters for open space. The community through the NHMFC purchased a lot from the
Cristina Agricultural and Development Corporation at P190 per square meter. However, the project was
adversely affected when the community leader duped the families into paying more, and then ran away
with the money. The beneficiaries requested government agencies to help them out. The NHA, PCUP,
and the NHMFC helped them reorganize the association and process their documents. The community
eventually obtained the approval for their plans and met all the needed requirements.
Another CHA that applied for CMP was the Purok Sunflower Squatters Homeowners and Livelihood
Association, Inc. (PSSHLAI). The CMP was an off-site housing project with a total land area of 17,408 square
meters divided among 161 beneficiaries. The members of the association used to live in a foreclosed lot
owned by Union Bank. When the owner decided to redeem the property, the association sought the help
of the mayor. When they finally found a suitable area, they immediately processed the requirements the
community needed. The association is now waiting for NHMFC’s Letter of Guarantee that will signal “take
out.” The beneficiaries said their success was due in part to their leader, and the members’ cooperation
and willingness. The affordability of the amortization, as well as the efficient and speedy processing of
documents, also contributed to its success.
Source: Case Feature in the Local Government Originated Community Mortgage Program – Processes and Cases in the
Implementation of a Socialized Housing Program by Ma. Lourdes G. Rebullida D.P.A., A Publication of the Philippine Business for
Social Progress. October 1998
GOOD PRACTICES 4

MANDALUYONG CITY
Problem
The relatively small city of Mandaluyong had a rapidly increasing squatter Mandaluyong City
population. This alarmed city officials, especially its former mayor, Benjamin Contact Information
S. Abalos. He had a dream and vision for each Mandaluyong family to Mandaluyong Housing
and Development
eventually own their lands and houses. Upon his election in 1986, the city Authority
had 5,000 squatter families, a number that increased to almost 9,000 in 1990. Maysilo Circle,
Mandaluyong City
Solution (02) 535-4380
The Land for the Landless Program, which sought to make Mandaluyong
squatter-free through mass housing, had two main strategies—buying land and allocating
these to the informal settlers, and the CMP. The program also included low-cost marginal
housing for government employees and medium-rise housing projects.
Benefits
Because of the determination showed by the city government, it was awarded the Galing
Pook Award in 1994-1995. It succeeded in minimizing the squatter problem where many
have failed. The city’s budget allocation to avoid the delays by NHMFC and the way it
organized residents are the most outstanding facets of its Land for the Landless Program.
Nine thousand (9,000) families have already benefited from the program, among them
informal settlers, policemen, firemen, teachers and government employees. The city also
pioneered in the use of CMP, thereby making it a model for both local and international LGUs.
Mandaluyong’s direct land purchase expedited the CMP process. Communities moved on
to the “take out” stage within three to six months instead of the NHMFC’s usually longer
process of about three to four years.
4 SHELTER
Mandaluyong City LGU-ORIGINATED COMMUNITY MORTGAGE PROGRAM
Strategies
A strategic approach to shelter provision

A housing policy and program framework guided Mandaluyong City. It appropriated funds and
designated a specific administrative unit for implementation. Four offices of the city government were
directly involved in the housing program implementation. These were the Mayor’s Office; the Estate
Management Development Office (EMDO); Planning Office; and the Sangguniang Panglunsod. The mayor
also personally opened his door to listen to the needs of his constituents and negotiated with landowners
for the lowest possible purchase cost.
Allocation of budget
The city allocated a budget for the CMP, which helped the people organize themselves to apply for the
housing loan with the NHMFC. Its 1994 budget of P21 million for CMP was equivalent to 4.7% of the city
budget.
Securing affordable land

The city government convinced landowners within their jurisdiction to sell properties at prices affordable
to low income communities. They allocated these to illegal occupants who were made to pay at a low
amortization rate directly to the government.
Mandaluyong pioneered the LGU Originated CMP Project

Mandaluyong pioneered the use of the LGU as the originator for the CMP. It devised the alternative scheme
of direct purchase so that the landowner got paid for the property without the usual processing delays.
The city recovered the amount from the NHMFC. Mandaluyong also followed the standard CMP
process. First, the people organized themselves and registered with the HIGC accreditation. Then they
asked the city government to make them CMP beneficiaries, following a certain process. The city
screened the members and consulted them on the type of housing they preferred and other related
GOOD PRACTICES 4
LGU-ORIGINATED COMMUNITY MORTGAGE PROGRAM Mandaluyong City
matters. Mandaluyong then bought the land for them, and the Sangguniang Panglunsod approved the
award of the land to the beneficiaries. The community then paid for the land. Ideally, the LGU is
expected to complete all three phases of the CMP—land acquisition, house construction, and site
development. However, Mandaluyong only covered Phase 1—the title was transferred from the
landowner to the city government—which took about three to six months. The beneficiaries constructed
their houses and developed the site on their own effort and personal funds.
Provision of low-cost marginal housing projects not just to the informal sector, but to low paid
regular government workers too
The Land for the Landless Program also included low-cost marginal housing projects for policemen,
firemen, teachers, and government employees. They were offered 250 units at P800 in monthly
amortization. Medium-rise housing projects or condominiums were constructed to resolve the problems
of space, maximize land use, and accommodate more families.
Issues Encountered
Although the program was a success, the city encountered some hitches along the way. Some of these
problems include the beneficiaries’indifference to their monthly amortizations, lack of penalties for arrears,
and fears of some residents on being displaced by future government projects.

The beneficiaries of the program constructed their own houses and developed the site through their
own efforts and money. They owed the city government only the cost of land, which they paid back with
an annual interest rate of 12 percent. The residents of Buayang Bato Estate have lived there since the
1960s and 1970s. Household heads generally worked as drivers or construction workers and individual
family income ranged from P5,000 to P10,000. The Mandaluyong city government bought the land and
awarded lots to beneficiaries at P713 per square meter. The size and location of the awarded lot
4 SHELTER
Mandaluyong City LGU-ORIGINATED COMMUNITY MORTGAGE PROGRAM
depended on the area already occupied by the beneficiaries, varying mostly between 11 to 50 square
meters. The families built their houses where they first squatted and improved on them, step by step,
as funds and materials were available.
Residents paid their monthly amortization through the treasurer of the association who gave the
payment to the city government. With almost completed amortization payments, community members
can get their land title from the local government. The community, when awarded the land title, will
eventually transfer this to the beneficiaries.
Another community also sought the help of the city government. Informal settlers in Barangay Vergara
wanted to acquire the land they were living on, but their monthly income only ranged from P1,000 to
P10,000. They organized themselves into a housing association, after which the city bought the land from
the owner at P500 per square meter. Most of the beneficiaries paid a monthly amortization of P151 to
P300 to the association treasurer who remitted the money to the LGU.
Source: Case Feature in the Local Government Originated Community Mortgage Program – Processes and Cases in the Implementation
of a Socialized Housing Program by Ma. Lourdes G. Rebullida D.P.A., A Publication of the Philippine Business for Social Progress. October
1998
GOOD PRACTICES 4

NAGA CITY
Problem
Naga City had 5,000 urban poor families in 1995. This was partly blamed on Naga City
the influx of people who came to work in Camarines Sur, since it is the area’s Contact Information
trading and financial center. Mayor Jesse Robredo aimed to eliminate their UPAO Chief, Urban
Poor Affairs Office
tenure problems through an innovative housing program that won for his Naga City Hall
city the Galing Pook Award. (054) 472-9219
Solution
The implementation of the Kaantabay sa Kauswagan Program, which featured the
collaboration of the government, private landowners, NGOs, the urban poor federation,
and the community. The program also looked at new modes of land acquisition and
sought to improve the living conditions of slum dwellers and empower them as active
partners of the local government
Benefits
As of May 31, 2002, the Kaantabay sa Kauswagan Program has covered a total of 7,301 urban
poor households through 44 on-site and off-site development projects. The figure is only
100 families shy of the 7,400 low-income Naga households, which, according to ADB
estimates, live below the poverty line. Another benefit of the program is the partnerships
forged among different groups that collaborated in the program.
Strategies
Setting up of a special office to benefit the poor

The city set up an Urban Poor Affairs Office to oversee the housing projects of Naga.
4 SHELTER
Naga City LGU-ORIGINATED COMMUNITY MORTGAGE PROGRAM
A sound housing policy was formulated

The city then drew up a housing policy using new modes of land acquisition. Naga also set short-term
goals that entailed the participation of the poor in LGU short-term housing activities. The poor took part
in improving living conditions, minimizing eviction/demolition, and acquiring lands. The city also set
long-term goals, which included the provision of dwelling places for the homeless, the construction of
basic infrastructure, and provision of life support services.
The CMP was adopted by the city government

The city adopted the CMP to meet its goals. They started implementing their first two projects within
two years’ time. However, project implementation took longer than expected.
The city council allocated a budget of P5 million for land acquisition projects.
Preparation of a program of support services

The city provided a program of support services for land surveys, legal research, and land dispute
mediation. It also gave comprehensive livelihood programs and established an urban poor trust fund
for socialized housing and resettlement. The city also conducted capacity-building activities for the poor.
These included social preparation, community organizing, leadership training, and values reorientation.
Involving Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) in the implementation

The LGU worked with NGOs such as the Community Organization of the Philippines Enterprise (COPE)
Foundation in the implementation of the Program. For instance, the parties identified and defined the
structure of UPAO, and helped set up as well as define the role and functions of the Naga City Urban Poor
Federation (NC-UPC).
GOOD PRACTICES 4
LGU-ORIGINATED COMMUNITY MORTGAGE PROGRAM Naga City
Alternative Land Acquisition Strategies

The program used various modes to fast track land acquisition. These were: direct purchase by the local
government, which entailed the city government buying the land and the community amortizing the
cost of individual lots to the government; land swapping between the LGU and other entities, where the
land occupied by the poor was exchanged for another which, in turn, was paid for by the urban poor;
and land sharing between the LGU and other entities, where the landowner used the property but agreed
to allow the urban poor to occupy part of the land. These schemes were used for the city’s off-site
development of relocation areas and on-site development of communities.
Issues Encountered
Naga City experienced a number of problems, such as difficulties encountered by CHAs in complying
with NHMFC requirements and the agency’s delayed payments to landowners. Other snags were the
distance between Naga City and the NHMFC’s headquarters in Manila, and the reorganization of the
NHMFC that delayed the processing of documents. However, the city overcame these obstacles by using
new modes of land acquisition.

In Igualidad Interior, one of the city’s assisted communities, families have lived on the site for close to
40 years, and have been dreaming of owning the properties they have long occupied. To avoid eviction,
community members formed an association, The Barangay Igualdad (Zone 5) Homeowners Association,
Inc., and sought the assistance of UPAO. The office submitted all necessary papers and facilitated the
purchase of the land by directly negotiating with the landowner on behalf of the community.
The Community and UPAO staff worked together to comply with all the steps of CMP applications. They
saw inconsistencies in the signatures of beneficiaries, but eventually, funding commitment was granted
in the amount of P959,994. This was still short by P411,426 to cover the equity needed for 63 families.
The UPAO made representations with NHMFC for reappraisal of the land. The NHMFC president then
4 SHELTER
Naga City LGU-ORIGINATED COMMUNITY MORTGAGE PROGRAM
inspected the site and approved the project cost of P1,371,420. The deed of absolute sale was finally
executed after the beneficiaries shouldered all the arrears and penalties in realty taxes.
The UPAO served as originator of the on-site CMP project. The beneficiaries undertook the construction
of houses. The association and UPAO jointly undertook the development of roads, water supply, lighting
facilities, and electricity.
Majority of association members have paid between 12 to 17 months of the total 24 months. Their monthly
amortizations were either collected or paid to the association treasurer, or deposited directly with the
Land Bank branch in Naga City.
1998
GOOD PRACTICES 4

MARIKINA CITY
Problem
Marikina used to be the home of 21,887 squatter families, 1,142 of them living Marikina City
Contact Information
in danger zones. After the Local Government Code and UDHA took effect, the
Officer In Charge
local government targeted elimination of the squatter problem by 1997. At Marikina Settlements
present, the informal settlers have been relocated to different sites. Office
Marikina City Hall
(02) 646-2317
Solution
The implementation and operationalization of the provisions of the Urban
Development and Housing Act
Benefits
21,887 families of informal settlers were either relocated or resettled in various resettlement sites.
Strategies
Use of a structure/mechanism to oversee housing programs

The Municipal Settlement Office (MSO) led the implementation of the city’s housing program
while the mayor’s office directed the Sanggunian-approved resettlement program under CMP.
Implementation of CMP housing projects with the direct involvement of the city
government
As originator, the LGU concentrated on the provision of technical assistance in land
acquisition, beneficiary selection, lot allocation, livelihood program, physical upgrading,
estate management and cost recovery. The LGU also provided livelihood and basic
services and ensured the sanitation of relocation sites. The LGU followed the steps in the
4 SHELTER
Marikina City LGU-ORIGINATED COMMUNITY MORTGAGE PROGRAM
process of CMP. Communities that wish to avail of CMP must request assistance from the LGU. Before
their requests can be approved, the communities must meet a set of criteria (minimum monthly
income, minimum length of stay, and age limit). The city then instructs communities to organize
themselves into CHAs. Technical assistance is given to them, as well as livelihood programs, along with
tasks such as estate management and cost recovery.
The city did not allocate a budget for land acquisition; it banked on NHMFC funding to pay the
landowner for the site cost. However, the LGU set aside 10 percent of its budget for CMP operations.
The expenses included office facilities, communication, coordination, subdivision planning, site planning
and development, surveys, travel to the NHMFC Manila office, monitoring and livelihood projects.
Making land affordable

The city pegged the land price at P1,500 per square meter for the low-income groups, instead of P2,500
to as much as P3,500 per square meter at market prices.
Dialogues and seminars with communities and landowners

The city, through the MSO, also conducted seminars to teach people the value of paying their debts
regularly. The office likewise worked hard to develop unity among members of the association by
meeting and threshing out differences among them. The LGU, for its part, explained to the landowner
the nature of CMP and the reason for delays that have plagued the program since about a year and a
half since its inception.
Assigning responsibilities to communities

The communities were given a set of assignments to ensure the smooth flow of the CMP process in
Marikina. They were first asked to organize themselves into CHAs for CMP then to inform all their
members about the details of the occupancy, terms of the lot allocation, and the mortgage take-out
GOOD PRACTICES 4
LGU-ORIGINATED COMMUNITY MORTGAGE PROGRAM Marikina City
contracts. They were also tasked to prepare the overall development plan for the approval of agencies
concerned. Communities were required to assist in property development. First, they were asked to help
in the survey of the property then to reblock their communities, dismantle illegally constructed
structures, and remove or move them in accordance with the approved development plan. The CHAs
also had to deal with estate management and project maintenance. They were tasked to plan and
implement recovery of all the cost they incurred while undergoing CMP, and to make sure that their loan
would be paid. After payment of the loan, the CHAs awarded lot titles, including legal documentation
necessary to support the use, possession, and ownership of the lot. They were expected to keep and
maintain the project. Members had to comply with the association’s Code of Policies and By-Laws and
were required to secure mortgage financing from NHMFC with the assistance of the city government
to fund the purchase of the land from landowners.
Assigning responsibilities to landowners

The landowners were also given a set of assignments to facilitate the flow of the CMP. They were
obliged to sell the property to the CHA at an amount agreed upon by both parties. They were asked to
clear the property of any encumbrances and to update payments of real estate taxes on land transfer
tax/capital gain tax if any are necessary before the property is transferred to the name of the association.
Issues Encountered
Marikina encountered delays in NHMFC payments to landowners. However, they were able to get
around this by explaining to the landowners the process involved in CMP.

The first project of the MSO in Marikina was in the community along Apitong Street. The community
association, called the Damayang Magkakapitbahay Homeowners’Association, Inc., had members with
individual family incomes ranging from P5,000 or less, and up to P10,000. Damayan sought the help of
the LGU to purchase a property with a total land area of 1,349.96 square meters.
4 SHELTER
Marikina City LGU-ORIGINATED COMMUNITY MORTGAGE PROGRAM
MSO and the community then started with the procedures, requirements and processes of the CMP.
Orientation sessions were held, as well as survey processing and documentation. Negotiations with the
landowner were conducted until Damayan was eventually given the land at the cost of P1,349,960 payable
in 25 years. Lot sizes ranged from 30 to 32 square meters and monthly amortizations ranging from P251
to P300. The families constructed houses on their own means.
According to members of the community, the project became successful because of their community
leader, who persistently worked on the requirements. The project was taken out on Nov. 15, 1995, and
they did not encounter any problems in the monthly amortizations.
Another community that availed of the CMP was the Bisig ng Mamamayan in Marikina Heights. This is
an off-site housing project of the MSO. The lot covers an area of 1,721 square meters, and the community
association was able to negotiate with the owner for the lowest possible price. The joint efforts of the
community and the local government have given the project a boost. The lot was subdivided among
52 beneficiaries ranging from 30 to 50 square meters. Monthly amortization ranges from P250 to P300
depending on land area.
1998
GOOD PRACTICES 4

MUNTINLUPA CITY
Problem
Muntinlupa, like other cities in Metro Manila, also experienced problems in Muntinlupa City
security of shelter tenure. The city government wanted to respond to this Contact Information
problem in a way that would allow all stakeholders to participate in the UPAO Head
3rd Flr. Annex Bldg.,
solution of this problem. Muntinlupa City Hall,
Muntinlupa City
Solution (02) 543-0816
The city used a multi-sectoral mechanism called “Socialized Housing Program
Committee” (SHoPCom) to synchronize at the city level the various efforts
of its stakeholders involved in housing assistance. It availed of the assistance of two
NGOs, Muntinlupa Development Foundation (MDF) and Habitat for Humanity. It also
provided interim financing to communities who formally requested for it.
Benefits
As of September 2002, the city government has assisted 714 families address their security
of shelter problem. An additional 350 families were helped through the provision of
interim financing assistance.
Strategies
Tapping the expertise of different groups to collaborate on the city’s housing program
through the SHoPCom.
The city sought the assistance of NGOs, namely MDF, because it has technical competence
on estate or settlement management concerns, CMP origination work, and micro credit
assistance; and Habitat for Humanity because it is an expert on house construction. The
4 SHELTER
Muntinlupa City LGU-ORIGINATED COMMUNITY MORTGAGE PROGRAM
city also used NHA’s expertise in engineering work as well as planning and construction of horizontal
structures like medium-rise housing. The SHoPCom includes subgroups that facilitate progress of
housing projects. One of these subgroups is settlement development. This group assesses a community
housing association’s (CHA) request for LGU assistance for interim financing. This group visits the site and
conducts dialogues with the community to determine the feasibility of the request. It also looks into the
association’s organizational management capacity to handle a socialized housing project.
Use of the CMP : CMP was used by the city through the SHoPCom, with the participation of CHAs.
In several communities, the LGU, Habitat, MDF and the CHA joined forces in improving the living
conditions of the community residents and in changing the status of the residents from being squatters
to legitimate home lot owners. The CHA, with the help of MDF, strengthened its organization and worked
on the documentary requirements of its CMP loan application. When needed, it also worked on the
realignment of housing structures based on the approved subdivision plan; then tapped the LGU for
assistance in construction of the road network, canals, and utilities. If the members needed help in building
homes, the CHAs submitted to Habitat their application for housing assistance on behalf of their
interested members.
Use of interim financing

The city provided interim financing to assist the informal settlers in buying the lot they wanted to
legitimately occupy.
How Communities Responded

Hand in hand with the local government, various organized communities in the city dealt with matters
concerning site development-undertaking or settlement management matters. The communities also
formulated their own version of the “Agreement for Community Living” with the help of the NGO
partner MDF.
GOOD PRACTICES 4
Innovations in Financing and Partnership Arrangements

VICTORIAS BOND FLOTATION
Vision
The municipality of Victorias had many informal settlers, and worse, 30 Municipality of Victorias
Contact Information
percent of its local government employees were without homes themselves.
Housing Officer
When engineer Severo Palanca became mayor, he was faced with this Housing and Home Site
problem that was worsened by the lack of resources for low cost socialized Office
housing. Nevertheless, this did not dampen his spirits. He looked for various Victorias City Hall
Victorias, Negros
financing alternatives to solve the problem of squatting and homelessness
Occidental
in Victorias. The municipality envisioned a housing project for its informal
settlers in an area not too far from the main office and business district. They
selected a site located in Barangay VII, a 10-minute tricycle ride from the municipal hall. It covered 146
housing units and 235 prime lots. The biggest was 198 square meters (one lot only) and the smallest was
89 square meters (10 lots only). The rest of the lots were between 100 to 140 square meters. The
beneficiaries included 88 municipal employees, 35 national government employees, and 23 employees
from the water district, VRESCO (Victorias Rural Electrification Service Company), and Victorias Milling
Company. The housing program would also generate local employment for carpenters, masons, and other
skilled manpower in Victorias. However, they needed money to make this dream a reality.
Innovation: Bond flotation as a financing alternative to fund the project

Upon the recommendation of Ms. Margie Matheu of the HIGC, the LGU made use of bond flotation to
raise funds to develop the acquired lots and to construct the housing units. A municipal bond is an
instrument of indebtedness of the LGU. It is backed up by a pool of real estate properties issued by the
LGU and conveyed to a trustee. The proceeds of the issues are used for the development and/or
disposition of the property. The flotation of municipal bonds for the program was designed for a period
of two years. They were issued on July 18, 1994 with a maturity date of July 18, 1996. The interest was
fixed on the issue date and every anniversary date based on the 364-day average T-Bill rate of the Central
4 SHELTER
Victorias Bond Flotation INNOVATIONS IN FINANCING & PARTNERSHIP ARRANGEMENTS
Bank of the Philippines. The bonds were issued to generate funds to finance not only the construction
and development of the housing project, but also its livelihood facilities, which were to be managed by
a multipurpose cooperative among the homeowners. The HIGC guarantee fund for the Pabahay
Municipal Bonds is a facility aimed at ensuring the face value of the bonds and the interest of as much
as 8.5 percent per annum. HIGC encouraged the housing project following a market survey and
feasibility study. The market survey focused on determining two concerns – the demand for housing
and the buying capacity of the target market. The LGU explored two other financing alternatives:
bank loan and credit financing before deciding to float bonds for the housing project. Victorias was
confident in exploring bond flotation since the Local Government Code allows any LGU to create
indebtedness and avail of credit facilities to fund local infrastructure and socio-economic programs. To
maximize this provision, Victorias City, then a municipality, passed Municipal Ordinance in 1993 to
authorize the flotation of bonds secured by RE Properties, owned by the LGU itself.
Strategies used to implement the housing project
The collaboration of different agencies which represented various responsibilities and capacities
Partnership and coordination between the municipal government, the Municipal Engineering Office,
the provincial government, the Negros Economic Development Foundation (NEDF), the Home
Development and Guarantee Corporation, and the Philippine National Bank (PNB).
Clarity of procedures that aided beneficiary applications

The process started with the submission of application forms of interested applicants to the Pabahay
(Housing) Project. Eligible applicants consisted of the municipal employees as first priority and employees
of water district, VRESCO, Victorias Milling Company and other private companies as last priority. The
requirements for application included the following: certificate and/or residence certificate; assessor’s
certificate stating that the applicant did not own any real property; certificate of net pay from employer;
picture and income tax receipt for two years, and a certificate of loan and eligibility which required
GOOD PRACTICES 4
INNOVATIONS IN FINANCING & PARTNERSHIP ARRANGEMENTS Victorias Bond Flotation
applicants to attend a seminar on the Pabahay. Of the 212 applicants, only 146 were approved. Others
were disapproved mainly due to inability to pay the processing fee on time. Approved applications were
submitted to the NEDF for further evaluation. These were forwarded to PAG-IBIG for funding. Once funding
was approved, PNB was then instructed to release the funds. With the release of P8 million, the
construction of the houses began.
LGU effort to make housing project environment friendly

The city government ensured that the project would be environment friendly, and encouraged members
of the community to help. Steel trusses, instead of wood, were used for the framework supporting the roof.
Students and civic groups planted trees and other plants along the pathways of the area. The homeowners’
association coordinated and mobilized the Sangguniang Kabataan and other civic groups in the locality
to join the students and civic groups in tree planting. Open canals were dug and drainage systems were
constructed to avoid clogging. The water system was installed with distribution pipes servicing every
household, thereby reducing the possibility of water-borne diseases.
Development of the resettlement site

The selected project site was adjacent to the national highway, yet not attractive at the time of its selection
since there were sugarcane plantations in the surrounding areas. With the housing project in place,
however, the LGU was able to reclassify real properties, thereby effecting better land use and land
reclassification. After the project site was chosen, the LGU sought the services of NEDF, an NGO, to act
as the developer of the housing project.
Key Success Factors

Credibility of LGU. Bondholders were readily open to the idea of LGU-initiated bond flotation, even
if it was the first time such a measure was implemented. They trusted the municipality enough to invest
money in a novel financing scheme.
4 SHELTER
Victorias Bond Flotation INNOVATIONS IN FINANCING & PARTNERSHIP ARRANGEMENTS
Support provided by HIGC. HIGC’s technical assistance prepared Victorias for the bond flotation. Aside
from this assistance, the agency also guaranteed the bonds, thus enhancing investor support.
Efficient Management. A specific office, the Project Governing Board (PGB), led the project, and two
other offices—the Commission on Audit (COA) and the Provincial Treasurer—monitored the whole
process.
Multisectoral collaboration – Each stakeholder in the project had distinct resources that they openly
shared with other members to make the program a success.
Benefits
Enthusiastic bond subscription. The bond flotation scheme was welcomed by both the private
sector and some NGOs. PAG-IBIG even offered to buy all the bonds, but then Mayor Palanca opted
to sell the bonds to ten local investors.
Overflowing of patronage funds. Numerous applicants applied for the housing project, that there
came a time when the number of applicants exceeded the number of units built. This implied that
the cost of the houses was so low, making it affordable for more people.
Cost sharing by other service providers. Offices involved with the project shouldered the expenses
of some aspects of the housing program. For example, VRESCO provided electrical materials needed
without charge, the Victorias Water District provided materials for water installation for free.
Empowerment of beneficiaries. Beneficiaries were also able to organize themselves into community
associations, which took part in monitoring the project right form the start.
Enhanced local economy. Construction businesses thrived in the area since all materials were
purchased locally. The unemployed also benefited since local workers were hired for the project.
Redemption of bonds as scheduled. The bonds were also redeemed as scheduled, and a total of P1.9
million was paid as interest to the bondholders.
Source: Department of Interior and Local Government – Local Government Academy Publication, 1999
GOOD PRACTICES 4

SAN CARLOS COMMUNITY BUILDING PROGRAM
Vision
The city had its share of housing problems as squatter settlements occupied San Carlos City
Contact Information
both private and public property. Approximately 3,233 households (10% of City Administrator
the total household population) fall into the urban poor category. Twenty San Carlos City Hall
percent of the population is unemployed, while the rest work as stevedores San Carlos City, Negros
for shipping, sugar plantation workers, vendors, pedicab drivers or operators, Occidental
(034) 312-5112
or government employees. Managing Director
San Carlos Development
Mayor Rogelio Debulgado initiated a resettlement program, “Lote Para sa Board
Mahihirap,” for the very poor residents of San Carlos City. It was patterned after
a housing program he initiated while he was in the private sector.
On March 2,1993, the city government purchased land situated between Greenville and Barangay
Rizal of San Carlos City. In June 1993 the government started to develop the site by providing basic facilities
such as roads, water, light, drainage, and school buildings.
Innovation: A targeted and affordable payment scheme for the poorest of the poor
Since the program was targeted for the poorest of the poor, it called for an affordable payment scheme.
To do this, the LGU used a beneficiary profile to identify the poorest of the poor. They sold the lots based
on the initial investment (land acquisition and development). Profit was not a prime consideration, so
down payment was not needed and interest was not charged. For Phase 1, buyers paid either a daily
fee of P5 five times a week, or a weekly P25 for a period of five years.
4 SHELTER
San Carlos Community Building Program INNOVATIONS IN FINANCING & PARTNERSHIP ARRANGEMENTS
Partnership with Different Stakeholders

The city sought the help of the national government and a private organization to help them finance
site development. National government funds from the NHA and the national government calamity fund
were used for road work, drainage, water pump installation, and electrical work. The Consuelo Alger
Foundation also pitched in to support community development and house construction.
The city also generated the support of various sectors. It sought assistance from the San Julio Realty, Inc.,
a private land developer, in developing the scheme and subdivision of the area. It also asked the help
of the Julio and Florentina Ledesma Foundation, Inc. to teach livelihood skills and provide capital. At the
same time, it conducted a value formation seminar for commitment building and organizational
enlistment.
Strategies used to implement the housing project
Development and division of land into phases

The city provided basic facilities such as roads, water, light, drainage, and school buildings. It divided the
land into residential lots with an average area of 54 square meters. The project site had four phases. Phase
1 was intended for informal settlers and low-income families. Phase 2 was for low-income landless
government employees. Phase 3 catered to the urban poor segments of the city. Phase 4 was for a mixed
low-income and upgraded urban population.
The city’s facilitation of various stages of the project

The city consulted with target beneficiaries during the planning process. Briefing sessions for beneficiaries
were also held before the relocation. An ordinance integrated the project into the city’s Thirty-Year
Comprehensive Development Plan to protect it in the event of a change in administration or leadership.
Proceeds from the sale of home lots are kept in a trust fund especially created for the purpose and reverted
to the program for the acquisition of more raw land and development of home lots.
GOOD PRACTICES 4
INNOVATIONS IN FINANCING & PARTNERSHIP ARRANGEMENTS San Carlos Community Building Program
Key Success Factors

Active involvement of the mayor in the planning and implementation of the program
City government’s facilitation on the stages of the project
Affordable housing rates
Gathering the support of various sectors
Benefits
Recognition for a successful housing project. The LGU received the 1996 Galing Pook Award, a yearly
national award by the Asian Institute of Management for the best local government projects.
National and international guests have visited the project as a model for replication. The mayor has
been a guest speaker at forums, seminars, and talk shows to explain about the projects.
Land formerly occupied by informal settlers was cleared and developed into roads, cemetery, and/or
for commercial use.
Provision of homes to the poorest of the poor and renewed hopes to beneficiaries. The initial
beneficiaries of Phase I were 436 families who squatted on government lands and who were victims
of a fire in 1992. The beneficiaries were mainly pedicab drivers, fish and vegetable vendors,
construction workers, and dockworkers.
Source: An Article on the San Carlos Community Building Program by Daniel Z. Urquico of Consuelo Zobel Alger Foundation
featured in the SELAVIP Newsletter October 1998 (Journal of Low-Income Housing in Asia and the World of Eduardo Jorge
Anzorena, S.J.) Prepared in partnership with Pagtambayayong Foundation, Inc.
4 SHELTER

DUMAGUETE CITY LOW COST HOUSING: THE LOOC/CADAWINONAN
RESETTLEMENT PROJECT
Vision
Dumaguete City Dumaguete City, the capital of Negros Oriental, has a small land area with
Contact Information
relatively high population. As of 1995, the population density of the city is
City Planning and
Development Office 2,700 per square meter. The city has 1,100 squatter households, 33 percent
Dumaguete City Hall of them living in Zones 2 and 4 in Barangay Looc, a depressed community.
(035) 225-2640 The community occupies government land that the city needed for
expansion.
Mayor Agustin Perdices envisioned a low-cost housing program to house the squatters
located in Barangay Looc. He sought the help of government agencies (the National
Housing Authority and the Philippine Ports Authority or PPA) and private foundations
(Consuelo Zobel Alger Foundation and Mother Rita Barcelo Foundation).
Innovation: Coordination of the activities of government agencies and private

foundations for lower housing packages
The collaboration of the Office of the President, NHA, Alger Foundation and the PPA
enabled the city to offer affordable housing schemes to the beneficiaries of this project.
The LGUs coordinated the activities of these agencies, which then subsidized part of the
project cost. NHA subsidized the cost of land. Alger Foundation shouldered the construction
of the first 150 houses and the PPA, the construction of 400 houses.
The use of social preparation

A six-month social preparation phase that was made part of a feasibility study also helped
the people, the city government, and supporting agencies to clarify alternative development
GOOD PRACTICES 4
INNOVATIONS IN FINANCING AND PARTNERSHIP ARRANGEMENTS Dumaguete City Low Cost Housing
schemes. It enabled beneficiaries to see the advantages and disadvantages of various schemes, until they
eventually opted for relocation.
Steps used to implement the housing project
Purchase of land for resettlement site

The Mayor requested the President to grant financial assistance for the purchase of land. The President
in turn instructed the NHA to purchase a lot; a 5.5-hectare lot in Barangay Cadawinonan was eventually
selected.
Consultation with concerned families

A series of consultations with the concerned families was conducted to discuss the advantages and
disadvantages of the project. Target beneficiaries were also given exposure tours to the resettlement
site in Barangay Cadawinonan.
Site development
Site development work was worth P5 million, paid by the NHA. Construction and development started
in 1996. It has water, sanitation, facilities, drainage, roads, transportation, and a school, with plans for
a community center. Houses are sturdy, concrete structures on 36 meters of floor space, with an 18-square
meter loft. Lot size is 54 square meters.
Affordable houses
Families pay an average of P275 monthly for 30 years. The price is affordable because of subsidies.
4 SHELTER
Dumaguete City Low Cost Housing INNOVATIONS IN FINANCING AND PARTNERSHIP ARRANGEMENTS
Key Success Factors

The city’s coordination and collaboration with different agencies
Research that included social preparation
The efforts of the city’s social workers
Benefits
The project was able to relocate a depressed community squatting on a danger-prone government land
to a resettlement project with basic amenities and facilities.
Source: An Article on the Low Cost Housing in Dumaguete by Daniel Z. Urquico, of Consuelo Zobel Alger Fdn. featured in the
SELAVIP Newsletter October 1998 (Journal of Low-Income Housing in Asia and the World of Eduardo Jorge Anzorena, S.J.) –
Published in partnership with Pagtambayayong Foundation. Inc.
5
CHAPTER
REFERENCES AND TOOLS
❙ Study Tour Sites
REFERENCES AND TOOLS CHAPTER
5
To fully appreciate the significance of the strategies used and benefits of the successful housing
projects of some cities, it would be worthwhile for other LGUs—especially those with no experience
in providing shelter—to visit the project sites. Below is a listing of such sites that LGUs can see and
learn from.
BACOLOD CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL
Other LGUs can learn much from Bacolod’s experience in

Contact Information
housing. It has created a local housing structure to address
City Government
the shelter needs of its constituents. It has also partnered with
Department Head II
national government and an NGO to develop its housing
Bacolod Housing
communities.
Authority
(034) 434-4051
5 SHELTER
DUMAGUETE CITY, NEGROS ORIENTAL
Dumaguete City has been able to generate support from

both the government and the private sector to fully Contact Information
implement its housing program. This housing strategy is City Planning and
worth looking into especially in carrying out relocation in Development Office
Dumaguete City Hall
partnership with various sectors.
(035) 225-2640
MANDALUYONG CITY, METRO MANILA
Mandaluyong pioneered the use of CMP in housing the

poor and has also used interim financing to advance land Contact Information
payment to landowners when the release of government Mandaluyong Housing
funds take a long time. This city has valuable CMP experience and Development
other LGUs can learn from. Authority
Maysilo Circle,
Mandaluyong City
(02) 535-4380
REFERENCES AND TOOLS 5
MAKATI CITY, METRO MANILA
Makati City has housing sites other LGUs can study. It has
a Tenement Housing or Medium-Rise Buildings under a Contact Information
rent-to-lease arrangement. The first project was the Tejeros Chief Makati Social
Welfare Department
Tenement, constructed in 1989, with 314 units. Each tenant
Makati City
pays the amount of P1,000 a month as rental fee. When the
project began, the monthly rental fee was only P300. Three
Chief Supervisor,
units of the tenement are being utilized as an office, day
Tenement Housing
care center and a livelihood training center. The collection Division
efficiency rate for this housing project as of December 8th floor, Makati City Hall
2002 was 85.4%. J. P Rizal, Makati
(02) 899-8965 loc. 1625
The second housing project, the Makati Pabahay, is and 1626
composed of three five-storey buildings with a total of
480 residential units. Each building has 160 units or 32 units per floor with toilet and bath per
unit unlike the Tejeros Tenement which has common toilet and bath facilities for the occupants.
Water and electricity are provided and to avoid over-crowding, occupancy is limited to a
maximum of five persons per unit13. Failure to comply with this policy or non-payment of
the monthly rental fee of P2000 is a basis for ejection from the housing project.
This is a scheme worth looking into especially by LGUs with a big number of constituents who
have a limited capacity to pay amortizations. This scheme has also enabled communities to
elect their own leaders among the unit occupants to monitor compliance by residents with
housing policies.
5 SHELTER
MARIKINA CITY, METRO MANILA
Marikina also assumed the role of CMP originator to

undertake the problem of housing informal settlers. It did not Contact Information
stop at merely providing lots; it also ensured that all the Officer-In-Charge
Marikina Settlements
houses in its resettlement areas have toilet facilities. The
Office
city helped members of the relocated families to gain access
Marikina City Hall
to employment opportunities to ensure payment of their
(02) 646-2317
CMP loans. The city’s housing projects should be visited
because aside from these benefits, the relocation of
communities also improved Marikina’s environment. What used to be a squatter colony
along the riverbanks is now a park.
MUNTINLUPA CITY, METRO MANILA
Muntinlupa boasts of three mechanisms that worked for its

Contact Information
housing programs. These are the Urban Poor Affairs Office
UPAO Head
(UPAO); a multisectoral mechanism called the Socialized
3rd flr. Annex Bldg.,
Housing Program Committee (composed of NGOs, three city-
Muntinlupa City Hall
level federations of urban poor groups, and city department
Muntinlupa City
heads involved in housing); and interim financing to assist (02) 543-0816
urban poor groups. Muntinlupa City has worked with civil
society and has a pilot project of voluntary relocation involving
two communities along the railroad tracks. It was also able to establish mechanisms for people’s
participation and local governance in shelter provision.
NAGA CITY, CAMARINES SUR
Naga City is worth visiting because aside from its “Kaantabay

sa Kauswagan” program that features the partnership of Contact Information
the LGU, landowners, NGO and urban poor associations, it UPAO Chief, Urban
Poor Affairs Office
also has a decade of experience in housing the poor. It is close
Naga City Hall
to reaching its target of zero squatters. Naga has also been
(054) 472-9219
able to cater to the needs of the urban poor through the help
of COPE and housing schemes responsive to the poor’s
needs. These have gained national and international recognition for both the city and the mayor.
SAN CARLOS CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL
Other LGUs can see up close how San Carlos has developed
Contact Information
a housing scheme that targeted the poorest of the poor in
City Administrator
its area. The city prides itself with the “Lote Para Sa Mahirap”
San Carlos City Hall
project wherein beneficiaries pay P5 a day for five years for
(034) 312-5112 or
a 54-square meter lot.
Managing Director
San Carlos Development
Board
5 SHELTER
TANGUB CITY, MISAMIS OCCIDENTAL
It is one of the few cities that used a participatory approach

Contact Information
in finalizing its land use plan. It also has an integrated
Office of the Mayor
perspective in developing and housing its poor constituents.
Tangub City Hall
(088) 521-0038 or
395-3888
VICTORIAS CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL
Victorias has made a name for itself due to its innovative

practice of using bond flotation to finance it housing projects. Contact Information
Other municipalities and cities can visit this site to learn Housing Officer,
Housing and Home Site
more from this experience and see other ways it has
Office
generated funds for its housing projects.
Victorias City Hall
Victorias, Negros
Occidental
❙ References
◗ CASE BOOKS
Galing Pook Foundation, et. al. Book 4: Fighting Poverty Together. Kaban Galing (The Philippine Case
Bank on Innovation and Exemplary Practices in Local Governance). Manila, Philippines, 2001
Edition.
(Features the experiences of General Santos City of South Cotabato on using different land
acquisition schemes applied to house the homeless in San Carlos City of Negros Occidental
on Home Sweet Home community.)
Galing Pook Foundation, et. al. Book 3: Promoting Excellence in Urban Governance. Kaban Galing (The
Philippine Case Bank on Innovation and Exemplary Practices in Local Governance). Manila,
Philippines, 2001 Edition.
(Features the house bonds of Victorias, Negros Occidental.)
Rebullida, Ma. Lourdes G. The Local Government Originated Community Mortgage Program. Processes
and Cases in the Implementation of a Socialized Housing Program. Manila, Philippines:
Philippine Business for Social Progress, October 1998.
◗ SOURCE BOOKS
A Place to Call Home: Working Together Towards Quality, Humane and Adequate Housing for the
Urban Poor. Project SHELTER of Partnership for Philippine Support Service Agencies, Inc.,
2001.
Arcega-Buenavista, Leonora and Alex Manuel SG Maaliw. Community Organizing for the Community
Mortgage Program: A Manual for Trainers and Field Workers, Volume 1. Philippine Business
for Social Progress: Social Development Management Institute of the Philippines, 1992.
5 SHELTER
Department of Interior and Local Government-Local Government Academy. The Victorias Bond
Flotation for Housing. 1999.
Foundation for Development Alternatives; Harnessing Self-Reliant Initiatives and Knowledge Inc.
(HASIK); and Mapua Institute of Technology (MAPUA). Barefoot Architecture and Site
Engineering (A Manual on Basic Site Engineering and Architecture for Non-Technical Persons
Involved in Socialized Housing). Project SHELTER of Partnership for Philippine Support
Service Agencies, Inc., November 2001.
Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council. National Urban Development and Housing
Framework for 1999-2004. Manila, 2000.
National Board and the Technical Working Group of the League of Provinces of the Philippines. Policy
Handbook on Environment, Social Welfare and Development, TESDA training functions, Health,
Agriculture, Land Use, Housing, Public Works, Auditing and Education. Year 2000 Edition. Manila,
Philippines: Philippine Business for Social Progress.
Small Enterprises Research and Development Foundation. “Building Houses for the Poor: A Source
Book on Low-Income Housing Programs, Strategies, Technologies and Designs.” Papers and
Proceedings from a Consultative-Workshop Series held in Manila, Cebu, and Davao from Oct.-
Dec. 1990. Feb. 1992.
◗ LEGAL REFERENCES
General Primer of RA 7160. Republic Act 7160 (The Local Government Code), 1991.
Partnership of Philippine Support Service Agencies, Inc. (PHILSSA). Volume 1: Land Use and
Acquisition. Socialized Housing in the Philippines: A Compilation of Housing Laws and Other
Reference Materials. Quezon City, 1998.
Partnership of Philippine Support Service Agencies, Inc. (PHILSSA). Volume 2: Financing Socialized
Housing. Socialized Housing in the Philippines: A Compilation of Housing Laws and Other Reference
Materials. Quezon City, 1998.
Partnership of Philippine Support Service Agencies, Inc. (PHILSSA). Volume 3: Socialized Housing
Regulations and Beneficiaries. Socialized Housing in the Philippines: A Compilation of Housing Laws
and Other Reference Materials. Quezon City, 1998.
Partnership of Philippine Support Service Agencies, Inc. (PHILSSA). Volume 4: Eviction and Relocation.
Socialized Housing in the Philippines: A Compilation of Housing Laws and Other Reference Materials.
Quezon City, 1998.
Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code. Republic Act 7160 (The Local
Government Code), 1991.
“The Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 – Republic Act 7279 (with Filipino translation)”
In: Partnership of Philippine Support Service Agencies, Inc. (PHILSSA). Socialized Housing in the
Philippines: A Compilation of Housing Laws and Other Reference Materials. Quezon City, 1998.
◗ DATABASES/STATISTICS
Partnership of Philippine Support Service Agencies, Inc. (PHILSSA). Ang Mga Maralitang Tagalungsod:
Mga Datos Hinggil sa Kanila In: Socialized Housing in the Philippines: A Compilation of Housing
Laws and Other Reference Materials. Quezon City, 1998.
Urban Poor Associates and Partnership of Philippine Support Service Agencies, Inc. (PHILSSA). LGU-
UDHA Compliance Monitoring Report from 1992-1999. March 2000.
5 SHELTER
◗ TECHNICAL REPORTS/CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS
GHK International, et. al. Volume 2: Pilot Local Government and Community Sub-Projects. Draft Final
Report on the TA 3291: Development of Poor Urban Communities Project (DPUCP): Philippines for ADB
and HUDCC. December 2000.
GHK International, et. al. Volume 4: Social Impact Assessment. Draft Final Report on the TA 3291:
Development of Poor Urban Communities Project (DPUCP): Philippines for ADB and HUDCC. December
2000.
Overseas Project Management Consultants, Ltd., et. al. Final Report of the JBIC Pilot Study on
Approaches to Consensus Building among Stakeholders for Relocation and Resettlement. September
2002.
Muntinlupa Development Foundation, Inc. Proceedings of Conference Workshop on Socialized

Housing Initiatives. Sept. 1996.
Planning and Development Collaborative International (PADCO, INC.), et al. Final and Main Report
on the Assessment of the Community Mortgage Program. May 1993.
◗ NEWSLETTERS AND NEWS MAGAZINES
SELAVIP Newsletter, Journal of Low-Income Housing in Asia and the World. Cebu City: October 1999.
SELAVIP Newsletter, Journal of Low-Income Housing in Asia and the World. Cebu City: October 1995
SELAVIP Newsletter, Journal of Low-Income Housing in Asia and the World. Cebu City: April 1994.
SELAVIP Newsletter, Journal of Low-Income Housing in Asia and the World, October 1993.
Urban Poor Colloquium Newsletter. Partnership of Philippine Support Service Agencies, Inc. (PHILSSA),
December-February 2002.
“Urban Development,” Salindiwa Quarterly. Publication of the Partnership of Philippine Support Service
Agencies Inc. (PHILSSA), July-November 2001. 23 pp.
◗ PUBLISHED ARTICLES
ALTERPLAN and the Urban Poor Associates (UPA). “Are We Ready for MRBs (Medium Rise Housing)?”
Quezon City, August 18, 1998. (Handout)
Asian Development Bank. Grant Assistance to the Republic of the Philippines for Supporting the Off-
Site and Off-City Relocation of Vulnerable Slum Communities of Muntinlupa City Project, December 2000.
City of Makati Annual Report. Makati City, 2001.
“Civil Society Assessment of Government Performance vis-à-vis the Medium Term Development
Plan 2001 – 2004.” n.p. n.d.
Couples for Christ Global Mission Foundation. A Paper on the CFC Gawad Kalinga National Build Project
submitted to the Presidential Management Staff. April 2002.
5 SHELTER
League of Cities of the Philippines, et. al. Good Urban Governance Campaign. CD ROM format,
January 2000.
Handouts on the Philippine Urban Forum. n.p. n.d.
HUDCC- DILG Regional Field Offices Report. June 30, 2002.
Prilles, Willy. “A Paper on the Kaantabay Sa Kauswagan Program of Naga City.” Philippines. Roundtable
Discussion on Shelter Delivery. Grand Regal Hotel, August 7, 2002.
Salazar, Tessa R. “Rural, Mass-based Housing to Stimulate Realty Sector.” Philippine Daily Inquirer. 7
January, 2003, page B-8.
Urquico, Daniel Z. “San Carlos Community Building Program.” SELAVIP Newsletter, Journal of Low-
Income Housing in Asia and the World. Cebu City, October 1998.
Urquico, Daniel Z. “Low Cost Housing in Dumaguete” SELAVIP Newsletter, Journal of Low-Income
Housing in Asia and the World. Cebu City, October 1998.
ENDNOTES
1 The National Statistics Office defines “urban areas” on the bases of modest levels of population
density (500 or 1,000 residents/sq. km.) and the existence of certain basic facilities (such as a church,
a plaza, a market, and a public building). The urban amenities that one would expect to find in
such areas simply do not exist; in fact, service levels are frequently lower than in rural areas. A
consequence of this rather loose definition that results in premature urbanization is that local
governments are hard-pressed to provide the kinds of urban services that are generally expected
in cities or to raise funds to support them.
2 Housing & Urban Development Coordinating Council with the assistance of the Asian Development
Bank, National Urban Development & Housing Framework for 1999-2004.
3 The Community Mortgage Program (CMP) of the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation
(NHMFC), and the Group Land Acquisition Development (GLAD) of the Home Development
Mutual Fund or commonly known as Pag-IBIG generally concentrates on socialized housing. Often
times, it represents the 20% Balanced Housing Program required by law to developers of
subdivisions. Section 18 of UDHA mandates developers of proposed subdivision projects to
develop an area for socialized housing equivalent to at least twenty percent (20%) of the total
subdivision areas or total subdivision project cost, at the option of the developer.
4 Partnership of Philippine Support Service Agencies, Inc. (PHILSSA), Vol. 2: Financing Socialized
Housing, Socialized Housing in the Philippines: A Compilation of Housing Laws & Other Reference
Materials (October 1998).
5 Asian Development Bank, Document on the Grant Assistance to the Republic of the Philippines
for Supporting the Off-Site & Off-City Relocation of Vulnerable Slum Communities of Muntinlupa
City Project (December 2000).
SHELTER
6 Couples for Christ Global Mission Foundation, A Paper on the CFC Gawad Kalinga National Build
Project submitted to the Presidential Management Staff (April 2002).
7 CD-Rom on Good Urban Governance Campaign Prepared by League of Cities of the Philippines,
Philippine Urban Forum, United Nations Development Programme and United Nations Centre
for Human Settlements
8 Willy Prilles, “A Paper on the Kaantabay Sa Kauswagan Program of Naga City, Philippines.”
Presented During the Roundtable Discussion on Shelter Delivery. Grand Regal Hotel, August 7,
2002.
9 Rules & Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991. Republic Act No. 7160
10 GHK International, et. al., Volume 2: Pilot Local Government and Community Sub-Projects, Draft
Final Report on the TA 3291: Development of Poor Urban Communities Project (DPUCP):
Philippines for ADB and HUDCC (December 2000).
11Hand-outs on the Philippine Urban Forum
12Urban Poor Associates and Partnership of Philippine Support Service Agencies, Inc. (PHILSSA),
LGU-UDHA Compliance Monitoring Report from 1992-1999 (March 2000).
13Makati 2001 Annual Report
GLOSSARY
Affordability
The potential amount of income that could be made available for housing investment after
excluding basic necessities such as food, clothing, education, medical expenses, transportation,
income tax & recurrent costs of housing (electricity, water, garbage disposal)
Bayadnihan
A work-for-pay scheme to enable urban poor beneficiaries to settle their lot amortizations, current
or past due, through participation in the implementation of the city’s infrastructure projects, their
maintenance or by rendering frontline services
Community-initiated purchase
In this variant of self-help community mortgage, the urban poor community puts up at least half
of the total project cost.*
Community Mortgage Program

Mortgage financing program of the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation that assists legally
organized associations of underprivileged and homeless citizens to purchase and develop a tract
of land under the concept of community ownership. The primary objective of the program is to
assist residents of blighted or depressed areas to own lots they occupy, or where they choose to
relocate and eventually improve their neighborhood & homes to the extend of their affordability.
Cost Recoverable Programs

Undertaken by government through NHA in cooperation with the LGUs, housing cooperatives.
SHELTER
Economic Housing
Per HLURB, same standards on rules and regulations; only varies on the loanable amount/limit
provided by the key housing agencies. Based on the latest changes on the price packages of
house & lot, an economic housing unit is one that costs P500,000 to P2 million.
Eminent domain
The last option to push on-site development. Involves the expropriation of privately owned
landholdings by the local authority, invoking the power of eminent domain.
Household
As defined by NSO is a social unit consisting of a person or a group of persons who sleep in the same
dwelling unit and have common arrangement for the preparation and consumption of food.
Idle government lots

Involves the use of unutilized/underutilized properties of the national government or the local
authority for housing.
Land sharing
Owner agrees to share landholding occupied by the urban poor community, and sells only a
portion of the property. Owner gets choice portion (usually the frontage) of the property.*
Land swapping
Owner agrees to swap landholding occupied by urban poor community with another property
roughly of the same value or size preferably without occupants.*
Leveraged land sharing plus

Instead of sharing landholding under a straight land sharing term, property acquired an adjoining
property and develops it into a relocation site. Owner gets to have all the of main landholding.*
gLOSSARY
Livelihood housing
A new concept which involves the provision of communal farming and fishing, including support
services, on top of the traditional home lots for beneficiaries.
Low-cost housing
A house and lot package falling within the range of P225,000 to P500,000.
Medium-Rise Public and Private Housing

Entails the construction of walk-up buildings as in-city relocation for low-income families and other
beneficiaries as defined by R.A. 7279 residing in high density urban areas. The scheme minimizes
economic displacement among intended beneficiaries and maximizes the use of scarce high cost
urban land available for socialized housing.
Proactive land banking

Essentially the acquisition of raw landholdings, especially outside the urban area, at a significantly
lower cost. These landholdings are earmarked for development into low-cost housing or resettlement
areas.
Self-help community mortgage

The local authority, instead of national government provides bulk of financing requirement, and
the urban poor community provides a significant amount of equity.*
Shelter Needs
are 1) the new housing units needed (lot, basic services and dwelling unit), and 2) the upgrading
needs (either land tenure, some of basic services, or structural improvement of unit or combinations
of these.
SHELTER
Socialized Housing
Refers to housing programs and projects covering houses and lots and home lots only undertaken
by the government or private sector for the underprivileged and homeless citizens which shall
include sites and services development, long term financing, liberalized terms of terms of interest
payments, and such other benefits in accordance of this Act.
A socialized housing unit shall not exceed P 180,000.00 or such adjusted amount as maybe later
on determined by the Housing & Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). However, based on the recent
pronouncements of HUDCC, socialized housing means a house-and-lot package from P225,000 and
below.
Socialized Housing Needs

Based on the UDHA, these are housing needs of underprivileged and homeless individuals or
households residing in the urban or urbanizable areas whose income fall within the poverty
threshold determined by NEDA.
*Refers to definitions made/formulated by Naga City

Enhancing Shelter Provision at The Local Level Resource Books For LGUs PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Enhancing Shelter Provision at The Local Level Resource Books For LGUs PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SHELTER

Copyright @2003 Philippines-Canada Local Government Support Program

All rights reserved

The Philippines-Canada Local Government Support Program encourages

Printed and bound in Manila, Philippines

Philippines-Canada Local Government Support Program (LGSP)

Ateneo Center for Social Policy and Public Affairs (ACSPPA)

Department of the Interior National Economic and Canadian International

Agriteam Canada Federation of Canadian

CHAPTER 1: HOMELESSNESS IN THE COUNTRY 7

CHAPTER 2: LGU MANDATES 35

CHAPTER 3: IMPLEMENTATION & POLICY ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 45

CHAPTER 4: GOOD PRACTICES 59

CHAPTER 5: REFERENCES AND TOOLS 89

HON. JOSE D. LINA, JR.

Jet Hermida for the art direction and layout

Philippines-Canada Local Government Support Program (LGSP)

ALTERPLAN Alternative Planning Inc.

LHB Local Housing Boards

THE HOUSING SITUATION IN THE COUNTRY

WHAT LGUs CAN DO

WHAT SOME LGUs HAVE DONE

◗ NATIONAL HOUSING SITUATION

and accessibility, amenities available, materials used, presentation and design

The government, aside from making different types of houses available to

NHMFC-Community Mortgage Program

Shelter and Finance Act (CISFA). It uses the incremental approach in

National Housing Authority

Land Tenure Assistance Program

Resettlement Assistance Program with LGUs

Medium-Rise Buildings (MRBs)

Special National Government Housing Projects

Payatas Development Project

◗ CIVIL SOCIETY PROGRAMS

Habitat for Humanity

Couples For Christ-Gawad Kalinga

ALTERPLAN and TAO

❙ LGUs CAN TAKE THE LEAD

However sluggish the national government may be when it comes to

◗ ROLES FOR LGUS

◗ LGU INITIATED SUCCESSFUL HOUSING PROJECTS AT A GLANCE

LGU Project and key strategies used Results/Benefits

A housing project using a As of September 2002, the City

The “Lote Para Sa Mahirap” Project to Four successive phases involving

LGU Project and key strategies used Results/Benefits

◗ HOUSING STRATEGIES FOR LGUS

3. Recognition of the power of their people

Shelter Strategies for LGUs

1. Preparation of the LGU’s shelter plan

2. Provision of basic amenities in settlement development

3. Creation or expansion of enabling mechanisms/structures

4. Working with other stakeholders, such as civil society organizations

5. Tapping existing national housing programs

6. Exploration of innovative local housing finance schemes

7. Development of appropriate packages for partner-households taking into consideration

8. Mobilization of people’s organizations to participate in all facets of the housing project

10. Development and installation of corresponding management systems and procedures

Naga Housing Strategies8

 National Government’s Community Mortgage Program

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT CMP

What are the benefits of this approach?

What are the disadvantages of the approach?

What are the required capacities of the people involved?

National Government’s Community Mortgage Program

Turnover of the land title to the city government or to the community.