National Housing Summit on Housing and Urban Development

SYNTHESIS REPORT

Second Meeting of the Thematic Working Group on Participatory Governance:

Recognizing the Roles and Commitments of LGUs in Shelter Provision 1

A. Highlights/Recommendations
1. Five points drawn from the Ten Pressing Issues of People’s Summit 1 apply particularly to
the TWG on Participatory Governance:
a. Non-recognition by and lack of support from local government units (LGUs) of the
People’s Plans. Complicated bureaucracies thwart community-generated housing
initiatives.
b. Ongoing demolitions and evictions to off-city resettlement sites of thousands of Informal
Settler Families (ISFs) along the waterways and those affected by infrastructure projects
continue. Many return to the city for lack of employment.
c. Poor coordination between the sending and receiving LGUs to ensure the welfare of
resettled families, resulting in inadequate basic services and unchecked discrimination
by the long-time residents against the relocatees
d. Government agency violations of the Urban Development and Housing Act (UDHA) in
transferring families to ill-prepared resettlement sites
e. Under-representation of urban informal settler groups in local decision-making special
bodies. LGU and National Government Agency (NGA) officials greatly outnumber the
members of people’s organizations (POs), so the latter’s attempts to promote people-
centered initiatives are usually defeated.
2. A review of evictions in January to July 2015 (32 cases in five cities) underscored the
importance of:
a. Reviewing RA 10121, the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of
2010, which LGUs and NGAs use to justify relocation;
b. Strictly implementing UDHA provisions on relocation; and

1
This document was prepared by the National Housing Summit Management Team, Institute of Philippine
Culture, School of Social Sciences, Ateneo de Manila University, as part of the National Housing and Urban
Development Summit. An eight-month long endeavor incorporating a series of learning sessions, assessments,
and dialogues among representatives of key stakeholder groups, the Housing Summit focuses on “Making In-
City Housing a Reality.”

Page 1 of 4
 c. Declaring a moratorium on evictions and off-city relocation, certainly while the Housing
Summit process is underway
3. POs and NGOs are underrepresented in the Local Housing Boards (LHB), and are easily
outnumbered when a Certificate of Compliance (COC) is discussed and issued authorizing
eviction and demolition. This discrepancy undermines the credibility of the LHB’s
effectiveness as a mechanism for solving of ISF needs.
4. Unlike more cooperative LGUs and NGAs, the City of Manila and the Philippine Ports
Authority (PPA) offer examples of government entities which remain unsupportive of
People’s Plans. For example, although the Local Inter-Agency Committee (LIAC) knew the
PPA had allocated substantial funds for each family’s relocation, LIAC members rejected the
POs in-city plan, continuing to insist on off-city relocation.
5. Participatory planning should include children and youth, who can articulate problems in
relocation sites specific to them, like overcrowded or distant schools, high transport costs to
school, safety, and lack of basic services; other vulnerable groups should likewise participate.
6. Because LGUs generally lack the capacity and resources to implement socialized housing
programs, support from NGAs is needed, including Community Mortgage Program (CMP),
bridge financing for community associations, and clearer and consistent guidelines for
dealing effectively with both government and private properties.
7. Instead of a blanket moratorium on eviction and relocation, insistence on compliance with
UDHA regulations might be more workable.
8. Better coordination and concrete mechanisms for shared responsibilities between sending
and receiving LGUs regarding relocatees must be developed.
9. A human rights framework can apply as a basis for not forcibly evicting informal settlers;
however, if clear policies and programs are put into place regarding unauthorized
occupation of vacant spaces, these will help prevent future conflicts.
10. If government gives poor families appropriate in-city alternatives to living in their current
danger areas, ISFs would not insist on remaining in the danger zones.
11. A more nuanced understanding of “danger areas” is needed, for example, before declaring a
location a danger area. Apply all possible engineering and technical solutions and if these do
not work out, only then declare the area unsafe.
12. LGUs should maintain a database of their informal settler populations as well as offer survey
and documentation assistance to community associations with People’s Plans so that a PO-
LGU partnership for housing can get underway complete with basic services. Las Piñas offers
some good examples.
13. Given the absence of a comprehensive land inventory (and difficulty in accessing such a list),
organized ISF groups with People’s Plans face significant hurdles in identifying in-city land
alternatives. These shortcomings need to be addressed.
14. LGUs tend to prioritize revenue-generating goals in their land use initiatives rather than
socialized housing uses.
15. In order to enhance LGU accountability in identifying socialized housing sites and preparing
comprehensive land use plans, instead of proposing sanctions, offer incentives and
disincentives.
16. Create a single government entity that facilitates coordination among stakeholders,
processes documents and other requirements, and reconciles conflicting mandates and

Page 2 of 4
 policies, thereby eliminating the already beleaguered ISFs’ having to take on these daunting
tasks.
17. Proponents of People’s Plans within the same LGU should coordinate regarding their criteria
for beneficiary selection as well as synchronize their implementation activities with LGU
plans.
18. Low-rental housing is one good alternative for social housing, whether it entails long-term
rental as a 25-year transitional strategy to ownership elsewhere, or as a rent-to-own
scheme.
19. The Presidential Commission on the Urban Poor (PCUP) has developed a Resettlement and
Relocation Action Plan (RRAP), which incorporates existing People’s Plans. This is being
discussed with various city governments.
20. The Residential Free Patent Act (RFPA) offers another option for organized communities to
gain security tenure on land they have occupied for at least 10 years.
21. Receiving LGUs are more likely to serve relocatees if the voters among them register in that
city. New ISF arrivals should, therefore, be encouraged to register locally and not accept
enticements to return to the sending city to vote.

B. Pending Issues
1. The Joint Committee Secretariat led by Atty. Joseph Peter Sison will invite more LGUs to the
next TWG session through the IPC Management Team.
2. Prepare a position paper and/or resolution for the Joint House and Senate affirming the
National Housing Summit’s prioritization of in-city resettlement, pointing out also the LGUs’
duties and responsibilities under the UDHA to prevent forced eviction and demolition, and
encouraging LGUs to issue a moratorium on eviction and demolition in their respective
localities.
3. An alternative formulation to the blanket moratorium would be a resolution to strengthen
UDHA compliance mechanisms on eviction and demolition and holding LGUs accountable for
violations.
4. Define “danger areas” more flexibly, for example, only when no further engineering or other
possible technical solutions can be applied to an area to minimize risks and hazards. Only
then should it be rendered unfit for human habitation.
5. Make local development, land use, and shelter planning more participatory and accessible to
communities, with corresponding funds allotted.
6. Establish a single government entity that will coordinate all land-related issues, projects, and
policies (e.g., Department of Housing and Urban Development).
7. Create public rental housing as an option for low-income informal settlers.
8. Mainstream People’s Plans into the local shelter plans through the RRAP, drawing on
guidance from the PCUP.
9. Exact accountability from LGUs, either with sanctions through the national government
(DILG) for those not carrying out their social housing mandates, and/or applying incentives
and disincentives for non-compliance.

C. Agreements/Action Points
1. Increase the participation of LGUs in the TWG on Participatory Governance.

Page 3 of 4
 2. Begin the next TWG sessions with a review of action points and pending issues identified in
the previous meeting.
3. Include in future sessions of the TWG a discussion on interpretations related to informal
settlers of the Supreme Court’s writ of mandamus that directs government agencies to clean
up, rehabilitate, and preserve Manila Bay.
4. Study the experience of the Las Piñas City government in building a database of ISFs and
developing socialized housing programs and projects through partnerships with the
nongovernment sector.

D. For Input to Other TWGs

1. For the consideration of the TWG on Housing Finance: Limited resources of LGUs for in-city
socialized housing and for other forms of assistance to ISFs, especially if evicted by a court
order
2. For the consideration of the TWG on Land and Housing: Inadequate and inaccessible LGU
land inventories, increasing the difficulties in POs pursuing self-developed and -managed
housing projects (People’s Plans)

Facilitator: Dr. Anna Marie A. Karaos

Documentor: Gerald M. Nicolas

Page 4 of 4