HOUSING BEYOND THE SHELTER

SOURCE: https://www.scribd.com/document/393874135/Housing-Beyond-the-Shelter
 While individuals and families living in homelessness have many
needs that must be met, the most critical are housing and shelter.

Housing has a pervasive impact on nearly all aspects of a

person’s life. If housing is adequate, it affords both physical and
emotional privacy; offers opportunities to create a positive sense of self
and empowerment; and provides stability and security. Housing can
be either permanent or transitional. When residents reach the time
limits built into transitional housing, they are expected to "graduate" to
more independent, "normal" housing settings. Thus transitional housing
is a stage in a progression, while permanent housing entails no
assumptions about personal growth and development. An additional
factor that sometimes distinguishes transitional from permanent housing
is tenancy rights. For transitional residents, tenure is usually contingent
on participation in services and compliance with program rules,
whereas permanent tenants usually hold leases and have full tenancy
rights.
Emergency shelter programs provide short-term housing on a first-
come, first-served basis where clients must leave in the morning
and have no guaranteed bed for the next night. Some emergency
shelters may provide beds for a specified period of time, regardless
of whether or not clients leave the building. Emergency shelters are
intended to remove individuals from the imminent danger of being
on the street. Although emergency shelter services are critical to
meeting the immediate needs of homeless people, they do not
provide people with permanent housing (Cunningham,2009),
which is the primary goal.
 SECURITY OF TENURE
In a number of regions and contexts where humanitarian
shelter programs are implemented, the use of and access to land
and housing by individuals and communities – including persons
affected by displacement – is of a different character and subject
to a different type of governance than in the Global North context
of formal ownership evidenced by written documents and official
records.
Despite this operational reality, until recently, both donors
and shelter agencies have largely adhered to traditional notions of
providing shelter solutions based on individual property ownership,
given the view that this was the only sufficiently secure form of
tenure. As a result, people lacking individual ownership – often
among the most vulnerable – were excluded from shelter solutions.
 INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ON SECURITY OF
TENURE

HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS

Security of tenure is one of the most important aspects of
the human right to adequate housing. Housing rights fall within the
category of economic and social human rights, as opposed to
those of a civil and political nature. Social and economic rights are
often conceived of as ‘positive’, in the sense that their fulfillment
requires government authorities to affirmatively undertake
measures in favor of individuals. By contrast, civil and political rights
are often described as ‘negative’ in the sense that they focus on
actions that government authorities must refrain from taking. An
example of this difference in practice involves comparing the right
to adequate housing with a right it is frequently associated with,
the right to property. The right to adequate housing is primarily
positive. For it involves steps the authorities should take to assist
individuals in accessing housing and improving its adequacy. The
classic right to property is negative in the sense of requiring
authorities to avoid interfering with property rights – unless doing so
is necessary to an important public purpose.
 INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ON SECURITY OF
TENURE

HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS

The right to adequate housing is protected as a
component of the broader right to an adequate standard of living
in Article 11 (1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

The Covenant’s provisions are not only broadly accepted

but have also been clarified through the issuance of numerous
authoritative interpretations by the UN Committee on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights (UN CESCR). CESCR has issued two
relating to the right to housing. In 1991 the first defined the right in
broad terms as “the right to live somewhere in security, peace and
dignity”.
 INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ON SECURITY OF
TENURE

HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS

It set out seven essential factors by which the ‘adequacy’
of housing in any given situation could be judged. Six of them –
availability of services; affordability; habitability; accessibility;
location and cultural adequacy – relate to the nature of the
housing itself. The seventh, however, relates security of tenure to
the legal relationship between the housing and its occupants.
Legal security of tenure is defined as guaranteeing “legal
protection against forced eviction, harassment and other threats.”
As with the other ICESCR-protected social and economic rights, the
right to adequate housing is meant to be implemented
“progressively” by states “to the maximum of [their] available
resources”.
 INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ON SECURITY OF
TENURE

HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS

The progressive approach to the fulfillment of positive rights
contrasts with the immediate obligation on states to ‘respect’
negative rights – by refraining from violating them through their
own actions – as well as to ‘protect’ their exercise by taking
reasonable measures to prevent foreseeable violations by non-
state actors. This difference is further highlighted by the fact that
states are explicitly required to provide effective legal remedies –
usually through access to proceedings before an impartial
adjudicator – when civil and political rights are violated. By
contrast, no explicit right to a remedy exists with regard to social
and economic rights, fuelling a persistent debate about whether
they were, by their very nature, averse to being ‘justiciable’
capable of being decided by a court of law.
 THE STATE OF HOMELESSNESS
IN THE PHILIPPINES

SOURCE: https://borgenproject.org/homelessness-in-the-philippines/?fbclid=IwAR0p6BrDAqGoyHaYYZTIvMjcwPeNVKwtIWtzPa2wZTs -9WSZZkBD6IzOCVM

The Philippines is one of the fastest-
growing economies in Southeast
Asia, yet it is facing a homeless
crisis. There are approximately 4.5
million homeless people, including
children, in the Philippines, which
has a population of 106 million
people. Homelessness in the
Philippines is caused by a variety of
reasons, including lost jobs,
insufficient income or lack of a
stable job, domestic violence and
loss of home due to a natural
disaster. The government and non-
governmental organizations (NGOs)
are working to address this issue.
 CAUSES OF HOMELESSNESS

In the Philippines, families end up homeless for many reasons, including:

• Poverty: Although the unemployment rate in the Philippines is low
(5.3% in March of 2020), 16.6% of Filipinos’ wages remained below
the country’s poverty line in 2018. Low income can make it difficult
for many families in the Philippines, especially those living in Manila,
to pay rent.

• Domestic violence: Women and children in the Philippines are in

danger of domestic abuse, exploitation and
trafficking. Approximately one in five women between the ages 15-
49 in the Philippines experience domestic violence in their
life. Women who escape their abusive partners could lose their
source of income and have difficulty finding a place to stay.
Shelters for women tend to have long waiting list.
 CAUSES OF HOMELESSNESS

• Human trafficking: In the Philippines, there are approximately

100,000 people trafficked each year. Many trafficked victims
are promised jobs in the cities. However, after moving to a city,
they are exploited and forced into prostitution.

• Natural disasters: In addition, some families have lost their

homes due to natural disasters such as typhoons, earthquakes
and volcano eruptions. In 2019, more than 20 typhoons battered
the Philippines. One of the typhoons that hit the country
damaged over 500,000 houses. A volcano eruption that
happened in January impacted half a million people and
forced the relocation of 6,000 families.
 TYPES OF HOMELESS FAMILIES

According to the Modified Conditional Cash Transfer for Homeless

Street Families (MCCT-HSF) program, homeless families fit into four
different categories:
• Families on the street: “Families on the street” represent 75% of
the homeless population. They are families who earn their
livelihood on the street, but eventually return to their original
communities. This category includes both “displaced homeless
families” and “community-based street families”.

• Families of the street: “Families of the street” are families who live
on the street for a long time and have created communities
among themselves. They perform daily activities, like cooking,
bathing or playing in the public spaces they live in. They are
visible by their use of a “kariton,” also known as a pushcart that
contains their family’s belongings, which they move around
within Manila.
 TYPES OF HOMELESS FAMILIES

• Displaced homeless families: “Displaced homeless families” are

families who have lost their homes due to natural disasters or live
in their communities. They are families who leave their rural
communities of the Philippines to find a job in the cities. This
category also may also include families and children who may
be escaping abuses at home. Displaced homeless families may
also push around a “kariton” that contains their personal
belongings.

• Community-based street families: “Community-based street

families” are families who are from rural communities, but move
to urban areas for a better way of life; however, they often end
up returning to the rural area they are from.
 HOMELESS CHILDREN

Homeless children are among the most vulnerable of the

homeless in the Philippines. There are approximately 250,000
homeless children; however, that number could be as high as 1
million. Children leave home and end up on the streets because of
the excessive beating from their parents, poverty or sexual
exploitation.

When children are on the streets, they can face

problems such as sexual exploitation, abuse and prostitution.
Although victims of circumstances beyond their control, children
who live on the street are often viewed as criminals or future
criminals resulting in discrimination from the police. Additionally, to
numb their pain and their hunger, some children may turn to drugs.
Both the external and internal factors that children face make it
very difficult for them to escape the street life.
 ADDRESSING HOMELESSNESS IN THE
PHILIPPINES

The government, NGOs and religious institutions are working

help the homeless. Government programs include the Modified
Conditional Cash Transfer for Homeless Street Families program (MCCT-
HSF). This program provides financial support, such as housing grants
and funding for health and education, to homeless families in Metro
Manila.
To help street children, ASMAE-Philippines travels the streets of
Manila to teach kids on the basics of hygiene. The organization also
provides children with school support, as well as supporting other NGOs
in the area. Kanlungan sa ER-MA Ministry, Inc. is another organization
that works to educate street children, though projects that teach
children about hard work while providing them with an income.
Although the government and NGOs have made efforts to
help the homeless population, much more still needs to be done.
Moving forward, these initiatives need to be increased in order to
significantly reduce homelessness in the nation.
– Joshua Meribole
MASS HOUSING

• Last March 2017, Kadamay took it upon itself to lead the just and
massive occupation of idle homes. Around 6,000 housing units were
occupied brought to light the glaring flaws in the housing system and
also a claim for social justice, as leaving idle homes amidst massive
homelessness was a misuse of public funds to say the least and criminal
to say the most.
• The government has a constitutional obligation to cater to the housing
rights of the poor and underprivileged. Kadamay asserts that a
comprehensive program for decent, affordable and mass housing
program must be undertaken. An immediate step in the right direction
would be to utilize the more than hundred thousand homes that are still
idle to shelter those most in need. In truth, the best solutions are the
simplest ones; providing affordable housing for the poor and the
services or utilities that should rightly come with it.
• Mass housing means correcting the blatant privatization and
profiteering involved in the current shelter schemes. It also entails that
the state should be the prime actor in subsidizing socialized housing,
instead of prioritizing payments to contractors and corporations. Also,
that informal settlements be recognized, developed and rehabilitated,
affording them basic infrastructure and services.
 GROUP 2
FERRER, ZILDJIAN
GASPAR, MARK ALDY
INIBA, JENNIKA