Private landowners do not need to find relocation sites to evict illegal settlers from their property,

former Interior and Local Government Secretary Joey Lina said on Thursday.

Lina said the issue of relocation for illegal settlers on private land is one of the misconceptions
of Republic Act No. 7279 or the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992, which he helped
pass into law and is now often referred to as the "Lina law."

"If you own the land and somebody squats, whether professional or not, you don't need to give
them relocation. [Squatters] can get relocation only from the local government unit and only if
they are occupying government land. If they are not given land, then the LGU should give them
the equivalent of 60 days in daily wage. This is according to the principle of eviction of settlers in
a humane manner," he told radio dzMM.

"It would be unjust for private landowners to lose their property to settlers. It is really
government's responsibility to ensure that families have decent housing," he added.

Lina said demolition of illegal shanties should be done following the guidelines as enumerated in
the law.

He noted that the eviction of illegal settlers can be handled at the barangay level since it falls
under their jurisdiction.

"You can ask the barangay to stop [the settlers]. If they don't do anything, then he is liable for
violating the law. Walang building permit as provided under the National Building Code. The
executive of the local government can also evict if he declares the structure a nuisance," he
said.

Lina, meanwhile, said it is customary that private landowners ask a local court to order the
eviction of illegal settlers

"Under our system even without the Lina Law, they can't take the law in his hands. They have to
go to court for an ejectment. but if the LGU just moves, they have the power to enforce the
National Building Code to order the eviction and demolition of illegal structures," he said.

The much-debated Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 (Republic Act No. 7279) is a
piece of legislation that essentially calls for the provision for a comprehensive and continuing
urban development and housing program, and to establish the mechanism for its
implementation.
Also informally known as the Lina Law after its author, former senator Jose D. Lina, the law
mandates the local governments, with the support of the national government, to undertake
urban development and renewal, paying attention to underprivileged and homeless citizens. It
also sets the guidelines and the procedures in the eviction of informal settlers and demolition of
their dwellings.
The law, unfortunately, is one of the most misunderstood. Certain media practitioners have
wrongly interpreted or commented on it, contributing to its misunderstanding. National and local
government officials have failed to understand its philosophy, and at certain times intentionally
twisted the law to suit the interests of informal settlers, professional squatters, and syndicates.
But whatever are the reasons for the misconceptions, the ultimate result is the government’s
failure to spur an inclusive and comprehensive urban development and renewal, one that
addresses the needs of the homeless poor as stipulated by our Constitution. These
misconceptions have indirectly led to the all-too-familiar clashes between informal settlers and
the police whenever demolition of informal settlements is carried out.
Below are some of the most common misconceptions about R.A. 7279:

1. That under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, informal settlers shall own the land after squatting on it
for more than 10 years.
This is not at all true and has no basis in the law.

2. That private landowners are legally required to pay informal settlers “disturbance compensation” prior
to eviction.
Private landowners are neither legally required to pay informal settlers any form of
compensation nor are they required to oversee the informal settlers’ relocation. However, there
is nothing wrong if private landowners voluntarily give some financial assistance to the squatters
on their land when they are evicted and their dwellings demolished.

3. That the consent of the squatters or informal settlers is needed with regards their relocation site.
The law requires that the government must consult with the squatters on their eviction and
relocation, but consultation does not mean consent. It is still the government that finally decides
where the relocation site shall be, but the government must exhaust all alternatives to relocate
informal settlers near their job sites before moving them out.

4. That socialized housing always includes a house and lot.

Socialized housing could be in the form of lot only, or house only, as in the case of medium- or
high-rise building, and not necessarily house and lot. However, I suggest that the law be
amended to expand the meaning of socialized housing to include house and lot in case of row,
duplex, or single detached houses.

5. That the government has to provide free housing to the squatters or that squatters are entitled, as a
matter of right, to free housing.
This has no basis under the Constitution or R.A. 7279. There is no country yet that provides free
housing to its citizens.
Misconceptions also abound over what defines a professional squatter. The law qualifies
squatters as “professional” if they:
have sufficient income for legitimate housing, have previously been awarded home lots
or housing units by the government but who sold, leased, or transferred the same to
other parties to settle illegally in the same place or in another urban area, and [are] non-
bona fide occupants and intruders of lands reserved for socialized housing.”
While misconceptions over provisions and intent of the law apparently contributed to the
continued failure to abate squatting, let it not be said that R.A. 7279 caused the proliferation of
illegal settlers. To say so would be the greatest misconception.