policy paper : squatting problems \u0026 other interrelated concerns

$: Policy Paper : Squatting Problems \u0026 Other Interrelated Concerns$
Policy Paper on Squatting Problems and its Interrelated Concerns

By:

JOSEPHINE B. ADAME

Master in Public Administration

October 2015 Policy Paper on Squatting Problems and its Interrelated Concerns

Executive Summary

This policy paper aims to furnish the soundness of the government’s attempt to

eradicate the wrecked havoc which squatting continuously spawning in more than fifty

(50) years already in the Philippines, by some means jeopardizing the country’s

development. It will render a more elucidating discussion on several reasons why

squatting seemed uncontrollable particularly those who are thriving in the Metro and an

attempt to examine the root cause of this crisis which had thrust the creation of several

policies, specifically those laws promulgated to respond the negative consequences it

yields to our people. It also intends to present some possible policy options in solving

the current issues on squatting.

Hereafter, the paper will analyze the salient features of those regulations that

have been approved as national law of the land and through the years the efforts of our

government as well as the policy makers in answering the increasing dismal effects of

squatting in the entirety of the nation. At the same time, it still considered the legal and

human rights which squatters should also possess despite their disagreeable situation

to balance all angles of discussion.

Henceforth, the formation of several laws relating the subject matter had started

through our late President Ferdinand E. Marcos by the establishment of National

Housing Authority on July 31, 1975. It was the birth of Presidential Decree No. 772 that

had made squatting a crime, making the Philippines one of only two countries (the other

is South Africa) where squatting is a crime that time. Until in the presidency of Cory

Aquino, Congress enacted Republic Act 7279 or the Urban Development and Housing

Act (UDHA) in 1992. The law gave a new name for the squatters: informal settlers.

Subsequently, it was repealed in 1997. This act is known “Anti-squatting Law Repeal

Act in 1997” or Republic Act 8368, which was approved during Ramos administration.

There were several attempts by the Congress by proposing a bill to repeal or revise the

following laws but still disapproved as of this time due to diverse contest and disputes


from different sectors, especially from the human rights advocates.

In quest of solving squatting predicaments, that indiscriminately hampering the

state’s progress and its possible rise of threatening scenario in the forthcoming years if

neglected, there are three policy options which the author considered and suggested.

The following laws were scrutinized and observe the loopholes which made the law a

failure to really respond the cause of intensifying setbacks of squatting. By means of

research via computer network of credible references, it helped the author to recognize

some strategic approach of some other countries in responding the said issue. This had

become the foundation in formulating policy proposals.

The author preferred the first policy option since through careful deliberations

and weighing the many good advantages it will bring in satisfying the main purpose of

this paper. The other two options could also be applicable and equally satisfactory, but

she believe that a total approach should be the utmost need today especially in the

objective to ultimately impair the devastating effects of squatting in almost fifty decades

already. It’s time to put solid canon regarding this matter.

The author deemed that a need of repeal of the presently observe law pertaining

the UDHA 1992. Socialized housing program is not a guaranteed solution to alleviate

poverty and eradicate squatting. This mistaken move of the former Senator Lina had

been the reason why squatting become much worse. Instead, by strengthening other

ways to live properly even without resorting to illegal dwelling could be an alternative

means. It purport to intensify the rural opportunities especially the agricultural and

farming aspects and other endeavors, livelihood through small and medium enterprise,

promoting education as an indispensable key of advancement and making our local

government units be responsible in the providing good quality of life to their

constituents.

Additional rationales to support the adherence of the purpose of disqualifying the

said law were also suggested by the author. Through cordoning the places of possible


building of illegal houses like the riverbanks and estuaries, it will restrain squatting to

spread and grow. The reason why these advantageous spaces attracted squatters to

gradually build a community is because they were exposed and unguarded. It may be

an enormous challenge on the part of the government but this is a clear manifestation of

stiff empowerment against squatting and will daunt them to inhabit such prohibited

places.

The option also included the promotion of rigid sanctions to those who protects

these squatters by becoming their source of domestic utilities through illegal tampering

of electricity and water. Being aware that there are legal penalties for the conniving

companies and households, it will curb them of freely and cunningly provide those utility

services that had been encourage these illegal dwellers to stay.

And lastly, the effort to fully implement such policy is by expressed condemnation of

the government against squatting. That will be fulfilled by precise statement of “nothing”

to expect from the government, either housing programs or any support. The major

culprit of the mushrooming squatting was because they anticipate these special

privileges which the law established.

Initially the said option could be the subject of protests and grievances especially

from illegal settlers, but by proper implementation and good communication in quest of

fighting the interminable poverty that caused them to be in that miserable situation, in

the long run, through optimistic approach and actions, it will surely result in a more

favorable society. But the challenge should not only confine with the government’s

initiative, instead everyone’s involvement is a must to achieve orderliness and more

progressive country.


BODY OF THE PAPERThe 1987 Philippine Constitution assigns the state the mandate to free its people

from poverty by improving the quality of their lives.1 When the state fails in this

obligation, the poor and homeless have come up with their solution – squatting.

Squatting is defined as unlawfully occupying of settlers in an uninhabited building

or settling on a piece of land which the latter has no legal claimed to the property. 2 The

one who resides on a property to which he or she has no title, right or lease is what

everyone commonly termed as squatter. This setting has almost everywhere around the

world by which it accounts roughly one billion squatters globally, that is, about one in

every seven people on the planet according to one author named Robert Neuwirth.3

An anarchist named Colin Ward said that “squatting is the oldest mode of tenure

in the world, and we are all descended from squatters.” This is illustrated from the

earliest record in the United Kingdom where the Queen with her 176,000 acres

(710 km2) as it is of the 54 percent of householders in Britain who are owner-occupiers

of that land. A statement that it is linked to the anti-social behavior and can cause a

great deal of nuisance and distress to local residents according to United Kingdom

police official Sue Williams. In some cases there may also be criminal activities

involved.4

The setting in the Philippines of squatting have regarded from squatters in

second and third generations of original settlers from the rural areas, looking for a better

_____________________

1 The 1987 Philippines Constitution

2 Roberts, Chris (2006), Heavy Words Lightly Thrown: The Reason Behind Rhyme, Thorndike Press 3 Neuwirth, R. (2004), Shadow Cities: A Billion Squatters, A New Urban World, Routledge

4 Ed. Wates and Wolmar (1980) Squatting: The Real Story (Bay Leaf Books)


opportunity and enhanced life in the city.5 Rural folks hoped to build a better future for

themselves and their family by risking in the metro. Many of these dreamers had grown

tired of the feudal trap that had stuck them in the farmlands of their respective

provinces. They choose to have settled mostly on unoccupied and unused public lands

which include river and railroad embankments, esteros (estuary in English), the space

underneath bridges, and garbage dumpsites and landfills (like the infamous Smokey

Mountain). Or if they have inhabited private lands, these are mostly abandoned or

unused property by the owner in a long time that helps the settlers to easily build their

houses.

Over time, these squatter dwellers have become the city’s wellspring of workers,

whether in construction, factory, transportation, and maintenance, and other types of

contractual labor that keeps the underground economy flourishing. It is also fair to say

that these squatter colonies had become also an avenue that attract criminal and gang

activities in the passage of time.

They found out later that while there were indeed jobs, the earnings were not

enough for their growing families. And the opportunities were not as unlimited as they

were made to believe. Subsequent to squatter’s unexpected challenges, many of them

got stuck in another trap – poverty and the slums.

But how does squatting start in the Philippines, particularly in Manila? Since

Manila is the capital of the country, a center of political and economic activities as well

as the home of extensive commerce and urban concentration, many settlers from rural

areas flocked to live and work there. It became a stark phenomenon after the Second

World War. Factories opened, commerce and services regained traction and offices of

_____________________

5 http://anuncomplicatedmind.blogspot.com/2013/07/squatting-as-basic-right.html

http://anuncomplicatedmind.blogspot.com/2013/07/squatting-as-basic-right.html


the neocolonial government, which were being organized along the “independence” that

the US granted the Philippines, implemented a recruitment program. New migrants

arrived continually. According to official estimates, Manila and suburbs had around

46,000 squatters in 1946; it rose to 98,000 in 1956 and to 283,000 in 1963. It was also

traced that during the American occupation that housing policies were applied to deal

problems of sanitation and concentration of settlers around business areas. Among

those implemented were business codes and sanitation laws in slum areas in the

1930s.6

Because there was seemingly a gradual alarming numbers of increasing settlers,

during this period and until the 1950s, new communities were opened for relocation.

Among these were Projects 1 − 8 in Diliman, Quezon City and the Vitas tenement

houses in Tondo. The government implemented the Public Housing Policy (1947) that

established the People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation (PHHC). A few years later,

it put up the Slum Clearance Committee which, with the help of the PHHC, relocated

thousands of families from Tondo and Quezon City to Sapang Palay in Bulacan in the

1960s.7

Relocation sites have become the immediate solution of the government to solve

squatting problems then. During President Marcos’ time, the World Bank and the Asian

Development Bank supported the programs for the “development of relocation” and “on-

site development.” Carmona and Dasmariňas in Cavite and San Pedro in Laguna

opened as relocation sites. The World Bank started allotting funds for loans for housing

programs in the Philippines in the 1970s as part of its push to create a huge housing

industry worldwide and a market that can sustain this. The participation of the private

_____________________

6 Philippine Human Rights Information Center, September 6, 2014 http://philrights.org/from-squatters-into-informal-settlers/

7 ibid.


http://philrights.org/from-squatters-into-informal-settlers/


sector was encouraged, especially of the banks, while governments gradually

decreased their subsidies for affordable housing. The bank also funded the “slum

upgrading projects” and “on-site developments (BLISS) in the country towards the end

of the 1970s. It lent P672M for the Dagat-Dagatan project (1976) and P317M for 13

other slum areas in other parts of Metro Manila (1980-84). It also allotted $115M for

projects such as slum upgrading in Davao, Cagayan de Oro, Iloilo city and Bacolod.8

Until the establishment of the National Housing Authority in 1975 had paved a

way of introducing the first decree focusing the measure pertaining to illegal settlement

and become the initial action of the government to control and absolutely penalizing

squatters, the Presidential Decree No. 772 dated August 20, 1975.9

The decree was purposely made to remove all illegal construction buildings on

and along “esteros” and river banks, those along railroad trucks and those built without

permits on public and private property. It ordered that any person, with the use of force,

intimidation or threat, or taking advantage of the absence or tolerance of the landowner,

succeeds in occupying or possessing the property of the latter against his will for

residential, commercial or any other purposes, should be punished by an imprisonment

ranging from six months to one year or a fine of not less than one thousand nor more

than five thousand pesos at the discretion of the court, with subsidiary imprisonment in

case of insolvency.10

The declaration also explained that if the offender is a corporation or association,

the maximum penalty of five years and the fine of five thousand pesos shall be imposed

upon the president, director, and manager or managing partners thereof.

Despite massive and forcible eviction from private lots and public lands, new

groups of informal communities continue to mushroom. The difficulties became intricate

_____________________

8 http://www.balita.ca/2013/06/28/is-there-a-solution-to-the-squatting-problem/ 9 Presidential Decree 757, National Housing Authority, July 31, 197510 Ibid.


http://www.balita.ca/2013/06/28/is-there-a-solution-to-the-squatting-problem/

when there were group of persons who were then slowly formed which engaged in the

business of squatter housing for profit and gain; they referred as “squatting syndicates.”

These squatters became entrenched in their newfound territory; it became even more

difficult to remove them. Every attempt to evict them was met with violent resistance.

But using the decree of 772, thousands of squatters were evicted, some of them jailed.

From Marcos administration up to the present government under President

Noynoy Aquino, all had their attempt to solve the nagging problems of squatting but

seemed have not completely solved the predicament situation.

Through First Lady Imelda Marcos, wife of late President Marcos, by building

low-cost housing projects called BLISS that were meant for the very poor, but ended up

accommodating the middle class simply because the poor squatters could not afford

them. Later, Mrs. Marcos launched on-site development projects, where the residents

did not have to leave the premises. But corruption also wrecked the projects and

beyond building narrow concrete roads inside the slums, nothing else was improved.

The sites remained slums with narrow concrete roads. Unable to make them leave or at

least make the slums look better, Mrs. Marcos decided to just wall them in, and at least

make them disappear from the view of foreign visitors and dignitaries.11

During the time of President Cory Aquino, the government launched the

Community Mortgage Program (CMP) in 1989 that aimed to turn over the lands to the

squatters. But it required squatters to organize into associations because the land was

sold to the association and not to individual families. The government did not provide for

subsidy to purchase the land, and the squatter families had to pay for interests on the

loans. Of course, it failed.

Likewise during the presidency of Aquino, PD 772 was repealed by Republic Act

8368 and replaced by RA 7279,12 otherwise known as the Lina Law after its principal

_____________________11 Donovan Storey, Housing the Urban Poor in Manila, Phil. Studies, Ateneo de Manila University, 1998

12 Republic Act 7279, Urban Development and Housing Act in 1992


author, Sen. Joey Lina, which required landowners to find a relocation site before they

can ask the squatters to move out. Under the law, only “professional squatters” may be

evicted. The law only encouraged more squatters to come into the urban centers. This

law also received several misconceptions and much debate.

The said 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.

During President Fidel V. Ramos, the former law which utterly identify today as

“Lina law” was then repealed in 1997. This act is known “Anti-squatting Law Repeal Act

in 1997.”13 Even if the law claims it does not intend to compromise the property rights of

legitimate landowners, clearly RA 8368 and the Lina law gave our professional

squatters the upper hand in settling into areas that they do not own.

_____________________

13 Republic Act 8368, Anti-squatting Law Repeal Act in 1997


In 1998, for the immediate relocation of all squatters living in hovels that line

esteros in Metro Manila, President Joseph Estrada ordered the release of P1 billion to

finance the resettlement. This is his fulfillment to provide the poor with decent housing.

Each house and lot costs about P 95, 000.00, which each squatter-family will be asked

to pay on a lease-purchase basis at P500 a month. Settlers have been transferred to

relocation sites such as the 12 NHA housing buildings along the C-5 and the new

township development area in Calauan , Laguna. Up to now, few families continue to

live in this community built along in the riverbanks of the metro.14

In 2007, President Gloria Arroyo formed a committee composed of various

government agencies to come out with a shelter program for the country’s squatters.

But it did not entice the informal settlers as the initial housing sites were far away from

their places of work. One resident, for example, complained that transportation costs to

her place of work took one-third of her monthly income, leaving very little for her family’s

subsistence, much less to pay the mortgage.15

And now, President Noynoy Aquino is again trying to solve also the problem. In

2011, in a talk with reporters in Jakarta, Aquino said that more than half a million

squatter families in Metro Manila will be relocated and receive two hectares of farm land

each under his administration’s program on illegal settlers. He said the government has

identified some 1.5 million hectares of farmland that could be distributed to an initial

560,000 squatter families in Metro Manila in a bid to decongest the capital and improve

agricultural production nationwide.16

Tracing back how the government trying to exterminate the appalling problems

that squatting had made over the years, it is quite obvious that till now our government

_____________________14 www.newsflash.org/199809/pe/pe000490.htm

15 Philippine Human Rights Information Center, September 6, 2014 http://philrights.org/from-squatters-into-informal-settlers/16 Ibid.




failed to really wrestle the issue. But we need to put an end to the vicious cycle of

squatting particularly in Metro Manila where most poor Filipinos from the provinces

seem to converge.

For a developing country like the Philippines, a methodical and strategic

approach should take into consideration especially in the government and also those

policymakers to bring to an end this issue. The squatters or illegal settlers need to move

out of wherever they have been squatting for years or even decades because they

simply do not belong there. They have long enjoyed their stay, which eventually result in

the flooding of the streets and residential areas of the cities especially in times of heavy

rain. As long as the squatters remain where they are and are allowed to flourish, the

Philippines will not reach its full potential as a business hub that finds favor in the eyes

of foreign investors.

What is so annoying is the activities of the people squatting are becoming stinky

and polluting the surroundings of the metropolitan area. They have no concern or

respect for the rights or property of others and have total disregard for the environment

and welfare of other people. Some squatters can also be quite arrogant, defiant and

selfish when law enforcement agencies finally clamp down on their illegal activities. One

video shows illegal settlers berating the court sheriff and demanding to know when and

if they are going to be paid by cash or check before they agree to being relocated. They

appeared to be enjoying their few minutes of fame in front of the camera relating their

tales of woes when being reported in the television about the commotions of forcible

eviction.

This whole thing had challenged the author to furnish some recommendations on

how to respond the ever negative setbacks which squatting had caused in debilitating

our country’s development. A set of alternatives was given and weighted the possible

consequences that each option could able to achieve and attain in answering the issues

of squatting. The author would also have the purpose of explaining how she sees the

situation and give helpful suggestion according to how she perceived right.


OVERVIEW / BACKGROUND

Through these years, from one administration to another, the national

government led in undertaking of solving the mess which squatting created. After the

formulation of several squatting laws, their action was resorted to state-funded housing

projects aiming to give a more decent and pleasant manner of living for them. Initially,

these socialized housing projects were intended for low-income families who could

afford to amortize these at subsidized costs but because of increasing urban migration,

they seemed the priority recipients of the government housing programs. But does the

action of the authority really made sense and helpful in alleviating the true sickness of

poverty that initiated those underprivileged dwellers to risk their fate in the metro?

Let’s have first a deeper understanding and brief flashback how squatting begin

and why did the old times could be the presume culprit of this hurdling circumstances.

After the arrival of Ferdinand Magellan in Homonhon, Eastern Samar in 1521

marked the beginning of Spanish colonization. The Philippines became part of

the Spanish Empire for more than 300 years. Further, in most areas, the friar in his role

of parish priest was the sole representative of the Spanish Government, as well as the

only educated person. In this secular capacity, the parish priest inspected schools,

administered labor drafts and the collection of head taxes, oversaw elections to munici‐ pal offices and the police force, and signed off on the municipal budget. He was the

president of the health board, the president of the prison board and the chief advisor for

the municipal council.17 As Governor William H. Taft put it, “The friars, priests, and

bishops, therefore, constituted a solid, powerful, permanent, well‐organized political

force in the islands which dominated policies.”bishops, therefore, constituted a solid,

powerful, permanent, well‐organized political force in the islands which dominated

policies.”

_____________________

17 "History of Cebu". Cebu City Tour. Retrieved February 22, 2013.

http://www.cebucitytour.com/about-cebu/history/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Empire


Over time, the Filipino population harbored considerable resentment against the

friars in their secular role. One major reason for this was the friars control over large

feu‐ dal estates, acquired over time by purchase, legal battles, ecclesiastical privileges,

and, at times, outright usurpation. Though they disliked friars, there are essential

improvements they introduced in terms of agriculture; they brought innovations such as

irrigation systems to the lands under their control, and introduced cash crops such as

sugarcane, tobacco and coffee.18

The uprising and grievance started, to record were the so-called Propaganda

Movement led by Jose Rizal and the formation of armed groups like the Katipunan (led

by Andres Bonifacio) which prepared for revolt against Spanish rule. The conflicts get

lesser when the American intervention ended Spain’s rule in the Philippines as a result

of the former's victory in the Spanish-American war. A compensation of 20 million US

dollars was paid to Spain according to the terms of the 1898 Treaty of Paris.19

But the Philippine rebels were still in their violent opposition afterwards. It took

two years—and an offer of total amnesty for the rebel fighters—to bring the violence

under control. The war in the Philippines became the signature issue of the 1900

presidential elections, and the insurgents carefully monitored the election

returns. When the Democrats lost under Williams Jennings Bryan, insurgent morale

collapsed, and surrenders multiplied. Emilio Aguinaldo himself surrendered in March

1901, and subsequently called on his followers to accept U.S. administration.20

For the United States to assess the situation in the Philippines, they sent the Taft

Commission in 1900. It was under the supervision on William Howard Taff, a prominent

_____________________

18 Lakshmi Iyer, Policies of Attraction: Colonial Rule, Property Rights and Economic Development in the Philippines, Harvard Business School, 2007

19 Halili, Maria Christine N. (2004). Philippine History. Rex Bookstore. pp. 119–120.

20 Agoncillo, Teodoro A. (1990). History of the Filipino People (8th ed.). Garotech Publishing.

http://books.google.com/?id=gUt5v8ET4QYC&pg=PA119


federal judge who later served as President and Chief Justice of the United States,

which to whom the commission was originally named. The Taft Commission arrived with

a mandate to not only to study conditions in the islands, but also to establish local

government, develop a career‐oriented civil service, implement tax measures and

legislate needed laws.21

The commission found out the problem of the friars and their lands. To resolve

this, they was recommended to keep in mind the principle of just compensation and the

provisions of the Treaty of Paris, which promised to protect the property rights of the

Spanish, specifically including “ecclesiastical bodies.” To push through the sale of the

friar lands and make sure that the Spanish friars left the Philippines after the sale, Taft

traveled to Rome to meet with Pope Leo XIII in 1902. The Pope endorsed the decision

to sell the lands, but he left the negotiations of the specifics to the friars in the

Philippines. The Pope also declared that he supported a voluntary withdrawal and the

gradual introduction into the Philippines of clergy from other countries, especially the

United States. On December 22, 1903, the United States finally agreed to buy 170,916

hectares (403,000 acres) at a price of only above 12 million pesos.22

Henceforth, this very important event became the start of tenants of those lands,

which was previously owned by friars, has the right to own land for them. The US

Congress agreed with the Taft Commission that the best course of action would be to

sell the lands to their tenants. The Philippine Organic Act of 1902 and the Friar Lands

Act of 1904 specified that: “Actual settlers and occupants at the time said lands are

acquired by the government shall have the preference over all others to lease, purchase

or acquire their holdings.” The government, therefore, immediately began the process

of breaking up the friar estates and selling them to Filipino peasants.23

_____________________21 Report of the Taft Commission22 In 1903, one U.S. dollar was worth approximately two pesos.23 Rene Escalante, The American Friar Lands Policy, Table 14, p 129.


The current occupant of the land was then given the first option to purchase this

land. The government chose not to subsidize the administrative costs of this program,

with the result that the purchaser had to pay for the cost of the surveys and any

administrative expenses including attorney’s and registration fees. Furthermore, in

order to recoup the interest expense on the bonds, the government raised the price of

the lands as time went on.24

Through the passage of Land Registration Act of 1903 of the insular government,

the chaotic state of land rights was escalated by using the Torrens system of land

registration in the Philippines. Under the Torrens system, the government sets up a

centralized land registry. No document (such as a sales registry or a mortgage) can be

considered effective unless and until it is recorded at the centralized registry.

Purchasers only need to verify one record, the title in the central registry, and the owner

of a property cannot have their title challenged or overturned except in cases of fraud or

error. Registration under the Torrens system, therefore, requires an investigation of the

title and all possible liens on the property in order to work.25

This titling had caused the failure to title more lands. It’s not because of tax

avoidance but the relatively high cost in time and money of obtaining formal property

rights. The high cost—compared to Philippine incomes—discouraged families whom

otherwise might have chosen to register their lands under the Torrens system. At the

same time, the law enforcement system set up by the Americans reduced the chances

that unclaimed lands would be seized by a third parties, reducing the most immediate

benefit to registering a land claim. This seems to suggest that the benefits of better

property rights might have been captured by large landowners to the detriment of small

_____________________

24 Rene Escalante, The American Friar Lands Policy, Table 14, p 129.25 Ibid.


farmers.26

This problematical scenario had thrust those meager farmers and peasants to

find hard owning a title for the land they are cultivating and that’s how squatting

began. Squatting even grew because the American policy made formal land titles very

expensive to obtain; locking squatters off public lands would have only served to keep

the poorest people in the country from have access to the Philippines’ large supplies of

empty land at a time of rapid population growth. The failure of land policy appears to

have contributed to increasing land inequality. Where the U.S. made a concerted effort

to prevent the emergence of large estates, such as on the friar lands, it

succeeded. What they have not made it agreeable here was the disparities in formal

titling in access to land. In short, the U.S. created effective institutions to enforce

property rights but failed to provide them as a true public good—access went to those

who could pay. As a safety valve, the U.S. allowed squatters to move into the frontier,

but this was a poor substitute for a concerted public effort to provide land titles. Such

an effort, however, would have been quite expensive.

The flashback of how squatting began simply illustrate the better advantages of

those wealthy people and sadly, the difficulties which those poor ones had confronted

then. If the American policy have been so equal and distribute lands in same proportion,

then I believe at first hand, there could be no disparity among the people. But the history

was already ended, and the present is the consequence of how the past had brought,

and it go beyond our future state.

What we could only do now is to correct what have been wronged but it seems

too complicated to solve since the problems become intertwining in the passage of time.

To mention also the result of the expansion of production for export and for food,

which have taking place in the rural that have caused arable lands to reached their

limits. There were as well conflicts ignited due to land grabbing. Construction of dams

_____________________26 Report of the Court of Land Registration, Report of the Philippine Commission 1903


and roads and the expansion of logging companies further reduced the lands once

occupied by the indigenous populations. This pushed the impoverished population to

migrate to new places to look for livelihood opportunities. Central Luzon first

experienced this during the first decade of the 1900s. This is also what happened during

the 1950s (until the 1970s) in Northern Luzon and Mindanao, the last frontiers of the

Philippines.27

But our government had tried to seek remedy on how to at least lessen the

intricacy and struggling which squatting had affected in the lives of our people. Below, in

a chronological order, are the enumerated policies which have been taken by our

government in attempt of giving solutions the chaos which squatting relentlessly causing

unpleasant impact in our country, both in social and economic aspects.

Presidential Decree No. 772 August 20, 1975 : Penalizing Squatting and Similar Acts

The Anti-squatting Law was instituted by the late President Ferdinand Marcos.

He penalized squatting and similar acts under PD 772 in 1975. The urge of the late

president to create this law was purposely to remove all illegal construction buildings on

and along “esteros” and river banks, those along railroad trucks and those built without

permits on public and private property. This was aligned with the issuance of Letter of

Instructions No. 19 dated October 2, 1972. Squatting under PD 772 was clearly

a criminal undertaking as Section 1 of the decree states…

“Any person who, with the use of force, intimidation or threat, or taking

advantage of the absence or tolerance of the landowner, succeeds in

occupying or possessing the property of the latter against his will for

residential commercial or any other purposes, shall be punished by an

imprisonment ranging from six months to

_____________________

27 Philippine Human Rights Information Center, September 6, 2014


one year or a fine of not less than one thousand nor more than five thousand

pesos at the discretion of the court, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of

insolvency.”28

The author could fairly say and critic that this enactment was the most effective

combat against squatting because thousands of squatters were successfully evicted

from land they were illegally inhabited and jailed for their offense.

Republic Act No. 7279 : Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992

To respond the continuing battle in squatting, Congress enacted RA 7279 or the

Urban Development and Housing Act (UDHA) and became effective in March 29, 1992.

It was otherwise known as Lina Law after its principal author was former Senator Joey

Lina under Corazon Aquino administration. The law gave a new name for the

squatters: informal settlers. Essentially, UDHA gives protection for big private ownership

of land in the urban areas, ensuring that these are protected from illegal occupants. The

law also widened the scope of private sector participation in the National Shelter

Program (NSP). It required landowners to find a relocation site before they can ask the

squatters to move out. It also sets the guidelines and the procedures in the eviction of

informal settlers and demolition of their dwellings. Under the law, only “professional

squatters” may be evicted.

“Professional squatters refer to individuals or groups who occupy lands

without the express consent of the landowner and who have the sufficient

income for legitimate housing. The term shall also apply to persons who

have previously been awarded homelots or housing units by the Government

but who sold, sold or transferred the same to settle illegally in the same

place or in another urban area, and non-bona fide occupants and intruders of

lands reserved for socialized housing. The term shall not apply to individuals

or groups who simply rent land and housing

_____________________

28 Presidential Decree No. 772 dated August 20, 1975


from professional squatters or squatting syndicates.”29

Socialized housing was introduced to the most reasonable price of land and

shelter based on the needs and financial capability of program beneficiaries and

appropriate financing schemes. The priority beneficiaries mentioned are those

unprivileged and homeless citizens, in short are those politically termed squatters

thriving in the metro. This only encouraged more squatters to come into the urban

centers. 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. 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.

Unfortunately, this law was largely misunderstood, misinterpreted and deemed

by some analytic people as one of the most useless law ever created.

Republic Act 8368 : An Act Repealing Presidential Decree NO. 772 of 1997

It is interesting to note that the sole purpose of RA 8368, considered as a

major piece of legislation on the country’s anti-poverty program, was to expressly repeal

PD 772. Under the administration of President Gloria Arroyo, it intensified the imposition

of penalty for the professional squatters and members of syndicates. However, it has

also been emphasized that the express repeal is never meant to encourage or protect

acts of squatting on somebody else’s land. The repeal of the Anti-Squatting Law,

however, does not mean that people now have unbridled license to illegally occupy

lands they do not own. Recourse may be had in cases of violation of their property

rights, such as those provided under the Lina Law which penalizes professional

_____________________29 Republic Act No. 7279, Urban and Development Act of 1992, Section 3


squatters and squatting syndicates. The Revised Penal Code provides for criminal

prosecution in cases of Trespass to Property, Occupation of Real

Property or Usurpation of Real Rights in Property and similar violations. Other available

remedies include the actions for forcible entry or unlawful detainer and civil liability for

damages under the Civil Code.

So far, the three abovementioned laws are the only existing laws which were

approved and passed in our country. There have been many attempts by our legislative

bodies especially from the Congress to amend, revise or revive those former laws, to

cite are:

House Bill 2145 : Amending Republic Act no. 8368

In 2011, one of the important authors of House Bill 2145 was House Deputy

Speaker Ma. Amelita C. Villarosa (Lone District, Occidental Mindoro). This is a bill

amending Republic Act 8368 and attempt to resurrect the spirit of PD 772. 30 This is a

measure initiating reforms in the government's drive against professional squatters and

squatting racketeers, including the imposition of stiffer penalties. She is pushing for an

expansion of the term “professional squatter.”

The bill says that any urban poor staying in a government or private property and

has been given a notice of eviction and doesn’t leave is considered a professional

squatter. The bill also says that if the occupants refuse to vacate a property within 90

days upon receiving a written demand, the occupants shall be considered professional

squatters. It provides for a penalty of 12 years imprisonment or a fine of P500,000 on

professional squatters and life imprisonment on members of squatting syndicates. The

House of Representative has approved on third reading but due to the mass action held

_____________________

30 House of Representatives, Press Releases, February 23, 2010


at Batasang Pambansa on March 9, 2011 to register opposition to this bill, the proposed

law seemed unsuccessful till this day.

House Bill 87 : Amending Republic Act 7279

Authored by Representatives Amado S. Bagatsing (5th District, Manila), Rodel

Batocabe (Ako Bicol) and Christopher Co ( Ako Bicol) amending Republic Act 7279,

also known as the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992, which provides for a

comprehensive and continuing urban development and housing program, the House Bill

87 was proposed in the Congress in 2015.31 Under the bill, illegal business of squatter

housing refers to the:

“Carrying out of an activity, intending to deceive or defraud other

persons, claiming ownership of a piece of land or the authority to dispose

said land and/or to convey proprietary rights or ownership over the same

which are false claims.”

What is so intriguing in this proposal was that those politicians and public officials

or employees are included, if they have found guilty of tolerating or abetting acts of

squatting face life imprisonment and perpetual disqualification from holding public office.

One of the reason squatters are becoming fearless and enjoying their illegal inhabitation

is because they are being protected by those politicians for self-interest especially in

times of election.

There were levels of sanctions to those who will offend. Government officials

and employees, squatting racketeers and leaders of squatting syndicates will likewise

be penalized with the maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Lesser offenses such as

professional squatting or membership to squatting syndicate will be penalized with six to

12 years imprisonment and fine of no less than R60,000 to R500,000.

The bill also categorizes as prima facie evidence of squatting racket or syndicate

acts of using fake or manufactured transfer certificate of title or decision to lure victims;

use of Spanish title or royal decree previously declared void by the courts; use of deed

_____________________

31 House of Representatives, Press Releases, April 10, 2015


Based on research, the development of such proposal had been endorsed the

passage by the House of Representative committee in January 2015 and been

approved for plenary debate by the House Committee on Housing and Urban

Development last April 2015. Still it did not progress to become law of the land.

**************************************************************

Though there were squatting laws which was already implemented, still the

motivation of our legislative bodies of drafting measures and proposals are extreme in

giving more teeth to the government's campaign against squatters rooted from the

aspiration of eradicating the filthy and shoddily image which squatting depicted in more

than decades already. Sadly, those problems become interweaving and appear to be

getting more. To enumerate are the clashes between the landowner and the illegal

dwellers, the proliferation of squatter syndicates who are making great deal of money

from the pocket of hard-earned squatters, the struggles of the police and court sheriff in

forcible evictions, the protection of the government officials for personal candidacy

motive, the tortuous position of professional squatters of leaving and coming back to the

same setting in quest of better opportunity, the ecological damage they had generated

in staying along esteros and riverbanks, illegally tapping of electricity and water for their

domestic consumption, the hindrance of reaching the full potential of our country as a

business hub that finds unfavorable in the eyes of foreign investors and how will the

policy makers will stand in the focal point of this situation. But we should not overlook

also that they are still citizens of the country, they necessitate having constitutional and

human rights too!

This hurdling issue had challenged the author to study the entire scenario and

from that, she suggested some recommendations to solve difficult impact of squatting

problems to our country. There were three possible policy options offered and explained

brief reasoning how each could be applicable. In the determination of giving sound

recommendations after a careful analysis and deliberation, a possible best option which

the author deemed most applicable.


DISCUSSION

Documenting the probable historical cause and how squatting in our country

evolved dramatically in the passage of time, we could conclude that they are not just

there for discussion but should really need an attention to meet a sound solution on how

knock down the negative bane and nuisances it continuously created. Or are we going

to accept the fact that what is happening now is just all right? Or blame the irresponsible

government mechanism as incapable of providing descent and quality life for her

people?

The author decided to give three possible recommendations on how to modify

some rulings from the previous squatting policies. Each policy option explains the

possible strength and weaknesses but could be an opportunity to resolve the

threatening impact of squatting.

Policy Option 1 : Level 1 Approach – Stiff but most Favorable

1. Revoke those questionable pronouncements of UDHA 1992. Instead

abolish the chance of those squatters to avail socialized housing.

2. Barricade the street passageways and preventing squatters to avail

facilities and utilities by strict monitoring on illegal wiretappings and water

connections.

3. Any companies or households befit the comforts of those illegal settlers by

making available of those utilities as source of their connections will be

punishable and liable to substantial amount of penalty.; this will restrain

them to become involve in tolerating the dwelling of squatters. This also

applies to professional squatters and syndicates.


4. If the squatter/s opted to leave their illegal inhabitation, they will not

receive any extra support from the government due to their abandonment,

nor any socialized housing to be offered. And if found by thorough

investigation that they keep coming back as squatters again like those

professional squatters and involved in syndicating, the ground will be more

grievous, along with life imprisonment, it’s a must that should not be bailed

to assert serious charge of punishing them.

Level 1 Approach is the stiff one and will surely pose the most negative impact

for informal settlers. Mass actions will surely at all times sightings in the street close

to Malacanang and two legislative offices. They will probably form road activities

screaming their constitutional and human rights all the time. But how will they last if

the law of the land should reign, they have no choice but to obey in a nearest

appropriate time.

Allow this approach to give justification on how it will really solve the present

issue.

First: The main reason why these squatters seemed so careless and relaxed

with their inhabitation is because they know that the government had already an

approved policy, pertain those declarations in UDHA 1992, which gave them an

opportunity to avail resettlement areas in an affordable cost. Though they were

acknowledge the tough living condition as being squatter, still many of our

underprivileged folks grab this special offer. Until this time, said law was never been

repealed and revise. Although there were some few changes in RA 8368, still most

of the pronouncements of UDHA 1992 are operational and applied at present.

Second: Visualize the picture if there will be blockage of possible passageways

of these squatters in the “outside world.” It could be possible by constructing tall and

hard close fences along esteros and riverbanks. In the first place, the openness of


those places persuaded those squatters to build their shanties and eventually form

dirty slums. Inaccessible those places will not induce them to erect inhabitation.

Third: Having with source of electricity and water also are the reason why they

continue to reside in those illegal lands comfortably. The offender could be those

companies or households taking the advantage of additional income from those

squatters. What are so distressing are the myriad wiretappings and illegal

connections. There had been a warning of the National Power Corporation of

possible shortage of electrical source in few more years. If they will continuously filch

their electric usage, then everyone will have a bad domino effect of such misuse.

Legal sanctions for the conniving companies and households will curb them of freely

and cunningly provide those utility services.

Fourth: In relation to rule number 1 which adhere the revocation of those

proclamations of UDHA 1992, the given circumstance in number 4 will inhibit more

people to live as squatters in the metro. Being aware that they will not expect any

support from the government, either in monetary or option for socialized housing,

and then they will surely anticipate that everything will end up nothing but forever

deprivation. In this regard, they will look for a better opportunity in the rural where

probably they have own legal settling, because for sure they will find hard to

continue the high-cost of living in the urban.

Based on the narration of how the government persistently looking for an ideal

answer of all mishaps which squatting had caused and appears to be unresolved still

at present, the author believes that stiffer rules could be the utmost answer to

squatting. Our laws became very lenient and generous, that triggered squatters to

take advantage on their part. They are just always pointing out their human rights

when there are forcible evictions. But in a higher ground, they are those who are

ruining the total humanity. Admittedly, they also provide employment services and

contributors of taxes but take note: most of them are having same income level like


those hard-earners member of society which are living according to the legal

standard and going through a tight belt to suffice with their basic needs.

Policy Option 2 : Level 2 Approach – Weak but could be Applicable

1. Building a community for the squatters by constructing high-rise buildings,

to maximize space, near the urban area for rent in a cheaper price compare

with the prevailing rental fee in the metro. They cannot have the right to

own the unit; they have only the right to stay. The ownership will

permanently belong to government property.

2. The recipient for this project will undergo a thorough investigation and

inquiry of the people applying to determine if they are truly incapacitated to

provide a modest living that’s why they resorted to squatting. Those

guaranteed squatters presently settling in unlawful lands are the utmost

priority occupants of the right to use such available rooms for lease. In this

respect, professional squatters are not qualified to become a tenant.

3. Those families who previously choose to live in resettlement/relocation

sites will not be given the chance of applying for such new

accommodation. This is to maximize the number of squatters presently

occupying illegal lands to totally diminish their occupancy in such

disfavored living condition.

4. To avail occupancy, they are not required to pay any down payment. Only

after the end of the month will be the mandatory date of payment. They will

be given a one month allowance to settle their account, fail to comply on

the deadline will subject them for eviction on the last day granted. This is

to hasten the strict collection of rent.


This option is less offensive to squatters and in some way more convincing for

them to leave their shacks and shanties in the slum. Though there are special

conditions implied but could be negotiable and favorable on the part of illegal settlers.

First: This proposal may look like another alternative instead of availing a

socialized housing program of the government but more “practical” than the latter. In

socialized housing, squatters are being displaced to another resettlement area which

normally located at nearby provinces. Since most squatters are already employed or

had found small venture in the urban, they keep coming back in the same place; this

urges them to go back and induce them to live again as squatters. They are

complaining the cost of transportation because most of the relocation sites were built

far from the access roads to employment/working prospect.

In housing project, it entails cost for the land and construction cost for the

building. Since the idea is to give an ownership of house and lot, more space is

needed. While in the construction of high-rise buildings, the government will

minimize the land cost at the same time maximize the space. A proper soil boring

test is a must to ensure of durability of the building erection. Situating the building

near the urban will ease the tenants to go with their same working routine because

of its proximity.

The condition of right “to stay” rather than the right “to own” is one safeguard of

the government so that tenants will not take advantage of the unit for personal

business purpose. This could be one scheme of the government to still retain the

property and like having a rent establishment in the other way around.

Second : The qualified tenants will undergo screenings and subject for inquiry to

make certain that they are really full-pledged poor squatters. Like in the case of Mrs.

Imelda Marcos program before named BLISS, where those middle class families

were mostly accommodated because those very poor could not afford it. To make

sure that this agenda will benefit the genuine impoverished squatters, a careful


examination of applicants according to their income and personal assets.

Professional squatters were avoided to partake since on the ground that they are

already been awarded homelots and keep coming back as squatters again; they are

also those have sufficient income for legitimate housing.

Third: Since the purpose is to fully wipe out squatters in the metro, those families

presently illegally occupying in those restricted places are the main concern.

Interested families who already availed the socialized housing in resettlement areas

will no longer qualified to apply.

Fourth: Understanding their poor condition, the approach would like to give an

ample allowance to settle the rental fee. Occupying a space will not require to pay

for a down payment, but their preference to pay in advance could be acceptable. To

analyze, they are given two months to settle their rent, fail to pay will only subject

them for eviction. This payment scheme is more generous compare to renting in a

regular room for rent, normally the house owner demands two months advance and

one month deposit. Recognizing their inadequacy in terms of financial capability, this

offer is moderately agreeable.

This approach is one alternative instead of socialized housing, where the style is

like leasing the room. Since it is understandable that the government could still be

liable with the depressing situation of our few citizens thriving in the slums as

squatters, this scheme may somehow alleviate their poor condition. Although they

are given the chance to have at least a more modest way of living, still they should

work hard to compensate what is accountable with them. It may not give them the

chance to own their individual house and lot; they should accept the norms of life,

that whoever strives hard deserves a more decent life. If they would like to break out

from that poor situation, the right to own a property is free for all. Just that, it is much

incorrect for them to live illegally to those land which they do not own. Dejectedly,

they seemed so arrogant and combatant to our security officers, which is displeasing

for them to behave. This approach is a friendly one and considers their human right.


Policy Option 3 : Level 3 Approach – Weak but Most Economical

1. Instead of constructing new building, explore the entire metro where

abandoned vacant building are not currently in use due to several reasons

like bankruptcy of the owner to continue the edifice, those that were

intentionally left by private companies that transferred in a more modern

office and alike. But the structure should still be fitted for occupancy as

seen in its good physical shape. The government could bargain the price of

those buildings; hence, it will have more savings in terms of needed capital

expenditure for the cost of land and building.

2. The scheme is somewhat the same with those conditions stated in Policy

Option 2, wherein leasing will be the contract between the tenants and the

government, instead of acquiring legal ownership.

The third option appeared to be the most economical yet the intention of

helping our squatters to be not far away from the busy city is still realizable. Due

to high-rising cost of land, especially near the metro will really require a great

deal of funds to finance the land cost. Government could have a good deal of

lowering the land cost of this type due to building’s unused state. The difference

with this proposal is that the building is ready for use, no more hassles for the

construction and pricey materials and labor expenses. It will only anticipate

renovations or minor repairs which will be taken to enhance the residing

feasibility of those buildings like paintings and finishing touches.

The condition of the “right to stay” rather than the “right to own” will also

adhered here for the security of possible personal advantage of those few

shrewd tenants, like reselling the ownership for individual gain. If they knew that

the agreement is a leasehold type, they will restraint of doing so. In this option,

the major risk is the sturdiness of those abandoned building for dwelling compare

with the newly one, since it have been used already and vacated for quite time.


RECOMMENDATION

As the author decides to work on the problems of squatting, she realized the

diverse aspects and interlocking factors it yields as time progresses over the years

in our country. Based from her examination, the culprit of this issue could be rooted

from inequality (the Torrens system which posed increasing cost in acquiring land

title which instigated scanty tenants make them hard to own land, further those well-

off had more benefited), scarcity of livelihood opportunity in the rural (an indication of

limited source of living in the rural due to growing population and possession of

landlords to agricultural lands) and fueled by irresponsible governance (insensitive

authority due to their individual personal interest and birth of UDHA 1992 that had

pampered squatters but still inapplicable to its purpose).

Accepting that the problem is already there and need to resolve the

saddening situation of our fellowmen who are the victims of poverty and

hopelessness, some recommendations are explained to transform our policies/laws

in squatting, aspiring to improve their living condition, disciplining those abusive

syndicates and providing our citizen to live with fairness and equality.

There were three possible policy options presented which the author deemed

applicable. A careful deliberation and analysis of the three possible answer to the

never-ending issues of squatting. At the end, the author chose the best approach

according to how she evaluated the attributes of the option selected.

Policy Option 1 established a more stringent and aggressive approach of

exterminating squatting problems yet in the other way around most favorable.

Let us review how this option could really answer the concerned issues:

1. By revoking several pronouncements of UDHA 1992, it will pave a way for the

local government units to free themselves as responsible in conducting inventory

of probable lands for conversion as resettlement site for the transferring


squatters. The author deemed such policy is such a big “faux pas” on behalf of

the creator of this law. Every provinces, especially its urban planners are

carefully planning how to maximize the density of their population per square

area of their territorial boundary, and because of this regulation, they will

prioritize those squatters which in the first place were not their constituents?

They could be come from mixed provinces, and for sure, not all local government

officials will be favorable with this.

What were so perplexing with such law are the incentives which the

National Housing Authority and private sectors who will participate in the

socialized housing, that they will enjoy several exemptions in several fees and

taxes. This is a simple indication of how they give much favor to the supporters of

spoiling squatters.

A statement from this enactment caught the attention of the writer also:

“The provisions of other basic services and facilities such as

health, education, communications, security, recreation, relief and

welfare should be planned and shall be given priority for

implementation by the local government unit and concerned agencies

in cooperation with the private sector and the beneficiaries

themselves.”

Imagine the extra baggage which the local government will be considering

because of this pronouncement, instead that they would just focus on the

concentration of livelihood for their own populace, and not for the squatters. It

looks like they are surrogate to those replaced squatters, while the latter are their

orphans. The said law should be abolished and validity should be rescinded,

hoping our lawmakers will contemplate its ineffectuality and make it void as soon

as possible.


2. Enclosing the entire squatting place by surrounding walls and high fences could

be an arduous action by the authority but a guaranteed indication of empowering

their stand against squatting. No more sympathetic approach, a must for an

unyielding stand to stop their proliferation. It’s a maneuvering strategy of

empowerment to discipline abusive squatters.

3. Coddling the necessities of those squatters had induced them to stay easily at

those prohibited lands. If the law will have a solid punishment for the conspiring

private people or companies supplying their basic utilities, they will be afraid of

the legal sanctions they will certainly confront upon careful investigation and

findings.

4. Knowing from the very start that the government does not have any offer like in

socialized housing for those unprivileged squatters, this will discourage them to

thrive in the urban. Nor any governmental support could be an effective

mechanism for them not to expect something. What is so questionable with our

law is its features had somehow triggered them to become troubled-free in

flocking at the urban since they anticipate such special privileges.

The author opts not to discuss comprehensively the Option 2 and 3 since

she believes that Option 1 is the most favorable.

Option 2 could also lessen the problems of squatting but due to its

complexity of implementation, like consideration of period in finding suitable

place for the construction of building (that it should be near the urban), the cost of

the building, the payment scheme which will probably instigate crisis between the

tenants and the government (expect delays and collection problems) and the

likelihood that those who could only afford the rent will have the chance to lease

the room (this is another manifestation of inequality). It may be effective only by

well-thought planning and corrupt-free implementation, but to risk such option is

a big challenge to our government credibility.


Option 3 is similar to Option 2, the only difference is the cost of acquiring

land and building is more economical because abandoned buildings within the

urban are the target. They may be identical with the idea, but the apprehension

of possible risk of edifice failure to be on its fittest physical capability to stand in a

long time. The lives of our tenants should still be our primary consideration.

The option chosen doesn’t give the idea that author is being anti-poor;

neither doesn’t she perceive squatters human rights. Just that, a rule of life is a

race where every player should play fairly and shouldn’t take advantage by doing

illegal acts just to keep in the race. Everyone deserves a good life by proper hard

works and not by dependency.

Admittedly, the cost of life today is becoming expensive and the role of the

government to free its people from poverty is really a hard fight. The gap

between the rich and the poor turned out to be getting more. But there are many

opportunities to break the shackles of deprivation; to name are the fruits of

education, strengthening our agriculture and farming in the rural, other could be

applying abroad, venture in a small livelihood like those small and medium

enterprises and many other legal ways to prosper the living condition. Squatting

is a mere escape of lessening the burden of hurdling lifestyle brought by the

modern world. But by proper management of how to be in power by gearing a

well-mannered and modest life, then squatting could be out of the story. No more

lavish attention of the government for them, but a total eradication of squatting so

that they will be disciplined and will press them to work harder in the same

standards and equal opportunities to all in this very competitive world.


IMPLEMENTATION

An initiative to execute any objective should start from a precise and thoughtful

planning to achieve its main goal and purpose. A need of encouragement and decisive

determination on the part of those implementers is the added factor. A good plan or any

policy offer cannot be functional and constructive, unless it will come up with proper

application and procedure. That is why, the importance of combined sound plan and

effort on the part of actors of the plan cannot be undervalued. They are two formulas of

possibility of success.

Who will be the great players to solve the problems of squatting and how the

policy selected will reach its purpose?

A. Public Involvement – It is an essential component of decision making

and encourages all people to provide their opinion and views regarding

those issues of squatting. The “majority rules” is an essential indication

of commonality and harmonized agreement in any group of people.

Through public participation, we can determine the applicability of the

said policy by knowing their general stand whether “opposing” or

“favoring.”

B. Business and Private Sectors – Undeniably, they are the generating

income producer through income taxes they are providing. Although a

first impression that they will surely “agree” on the proposal of

eradicating squatters, but identifying the severe impact on their

commercial activities, it can also be a gauge to pursue the said policy.

Are they going to sacrifice the employment of their people who are

incidentally in a categorized “informal settler” or they will hold them

back? Or will they ponder the interest of many rather than for those few

workers?


C. Local Government Unit Participation – Above all, they are the most

vital partakers of implementing the actions regarding squatting. Down

from the Barangay Captains and its Councilors, the Municipal and City

Mayors, and especially the Governors. No wonder why the

aforementioned House Bill No. 87 proposed that if ever those

politicians and public officials or employees had found guilty of

tolerating or abetting acts of squatting will face life imprisonment and

perpetual disqualification from holding public office. If there’s any

individual as principal responsible in hindering the mushrooming of

squatting, then it could be the LGU’s. By means of continuous

inspection and seeing the entire locality, especially those places prone

to the establishment of shanties like estuaries, creeks and riverbanks,

squatting will not progress definitely.

By the collective assent from their group of fervent battle to resist

the swelling number of squatters, they can support the policy

suggested of abolishing those pronouncements in UDHA 1992,

especially that the said recommendation stated that upon revocation of

such law, then the LGUs will no longer be answerable to look for

vacant or idle lots in their locale for the construction of socialized

housing intended to those unprivileged squatters.

An address especially to LGUs of the rural in achieving true

development is to end corruption and be fair to all their constituents.

The motive of more votes in time of election was also the reason

behind. They should be the initiator of change, a better change.

Indisputably, most of these squatters are those who have been denied

by their chance to live and work squarely because the governance in

their origin had been so careless and prioritizing more of their self-


interest. They are the culprit of making their people to become poorest

of the poor.

D. Legislative Bodies Initiative to repeal the former UDHA 1992

Squatting Law – A major transformation of the previous law is a must

to really achieve the very purpose of wiping out the problems of

squatting. The realization will only took effect through our legislative

bodies to revisit the decrees stated thereon and re-examine the

consequences it had made through the years. More than twenty years

from the time it was approved and the outcome appeared getting

abysmal. Poverty could be the never-ending root cause, but the laws

somehow instigate these squatters to be tolerated and fearless that in

some way jeopardizing their lives. By the firm intention of whomever

congressmen or senators who will devotedly focus and extremely

dedicate their effort to resolve the growing problems of squatting, then

a necessity to abolish such law will be the start of transformation. It’s a

matter of documenting the past events, analyzing all the variables, and

strategic planning on how to correct the said laws. By determinable

defend on the proposed bill on anti-squatting agenda raison d’état its

applicability and well-thought deliberation, they could easily conquest

the debates and discussions in the House. This is one vital

government’s campaign against squatting will introduce a more

effective regulation.

E. President’s Approval – Upon concur of the higher and lower

chamber of the congress by majority vote after third reading, then it will

be qualified to become law of the land. Once the bill is approved, it is

transmitted to the President of the Philippines for signature . The

President may then either sign the bill to indicate approval, or veto the

bill to indicate disapproval. If approved, the bill officially becomes a


law. If the President decides to exercise his veto powers, the Congress

may re-pass the vetoed bill if two-thirds of both Houses, voting separately,

approve its enactment. In this case, the bill also officially becomes a law.

References

1. Agoncillo, Teodoro A. (1990). History of the Filipino People (8th ed.). Garotech

Publishing.

2. Ed. Wates and Wolmar (1980) Squatting: The Real Story (Bay Leaf Books)

3. Halili, Maria Christine N. (2004). Philippine History. Rex Bookstore. pp. 119–120.

4. "History of Cebu" . Cebu City Tour. Retrieved February 22, 2013.

5. House of Representatives, Press Releases, February 23, 2010

6. House of Representatives, Press Releases, April 10, 2015

7. Lakshmi Iyer, Policies of Attraction: Colonial Rule, Property Rights and Economic

Development in the Philippines, Harvard Business School, 2007

8. Neuwirth, R. (2004), Shadow Cities: A Billion Squatters, A New Urban World,

Routledge

9. Philippine Human Rights Information Center, September 6, 2014

10.Presidential Decree 757, National Housing Authority, July 31, 1975

11.Presidential Decree No. 772 dated August 20, 1975

12.Rene Escalante, The American Friar Lands Policy, Table 14, p 129.

13.Report of the Court of Land Registration, Report of the Philippine Commission

1903

14.Report of the Taft Commission

http://www.cebucitytour.com/about-cebu/history/

http://books.google.com/?id=gUt5v8ET4QYC&pg=PA119

15.Republic Act 7279, Urban Development and Housing Act in 1992

16.Republic Act 8368, Anti-squatting Law Repeal Act in 1997

17.Roberts, Chris (2006), Heavy Words Lightly Thrown: The Reason Behind

Rhyme, Thorndike Press

18.Storey, Donovan, Housing the Urban Poor in Manila, Phil. Studies, Ateneo de

Manila University, 1998

19.The 1987 Philippines Constitution

20.http://anuncomplicatedmind.blogspot.com/2013/07/squatting-as-basic-right.html 21.http://philrights.org/from-squatters-into-informal-settlers/ 22.http://www.balita.ca/2013/06/28/is-there-a-solution-to-the-squatting-problem/

23.www.newsflash.org/199809/pe/pe000490.htm

http://www.balita.ca/2013/06/28/is-there-a-solution-to-the-squatting-problem/


http://anuncomplicatedmind.blogspot.com/2013/07/squatting-as-basic-right.html

policy paper : squatting problems \u0026 other interrelated concerns

Documents