SPECIAL ISSUE 2011

PHILSSA SEMI-ANNUAL PUBLICATION OF THE PARTNERSHIP OF PHILIPPINE SUPPORT SERVICE AGENCIES, INC. (PHILSSA)

SALIN-DIWASALIN-DIWASALIN-DIWASALIN-DIWASALIN-DIWA

PHILSSA’s Continuing Initiatives inBudget Monitoring and Advocacy

INSIDE

Salin-Diwa, which

means the “flowing of

learnings and ideas,”

has a threefold purpose:

networking, advocacy,

and capability building.

Salin-Diwa comes out

twice a year to tackle

issues relating to people

development and urban

change. It welcomes

comments and sugges-

tions from its readers.

Salin-Diwa

Monitoring of Budget and Expenditure of

National Housing Authority (NHA) 4

Revisiting Southville 3:

NHA Resettlement Project inside

National Bilibid Prison 13

Subdivision, Reblocking, and Auxiliary

Service Fund 16

Looking Back at Bicol Calamity

Assistance Rehabilitation Efforts (Bicol

Care) 19

Sacred Heart Ville Jagobiao Housing

Project

Presidential Proclamation 1772 22

NHA Kadayawan Muslim Village HOA,

Davao City 23

PHILSSA and NHA Joint Assessment of

the Budget Partnership Agreement (BPA)

and Identified Action Points 26

Arnold de VeraSALIGANChair

Sarah RedobladoALTERPLANVice Chair

Anna Marie A. KaraosJJCICSISecretary

Rodrigo Olarte Jr.KPS SEEDTreasurer

Ermin Stan Pimentel (KKP-SIP)Invictus Paradela (FORGE)Ann Gladys Ponteras (BALAYAN)Ian Clark Parcon (SICO)Isabelita Solamo-Antonio (PLRC)Jocelyn Vicente-Angeles (COPE)Trustees

Anna Marie A. KaraosJJCICSI - NCRCristina LimASSRC - LUZONCatherine RuizCPAG- VISAYASDemetrio Dawa, Jr.SALORSEDFI - MINDANAORegional Representatives

Benedict O. BalderramaNational Coordinator

EDITORIAL & PRODUCTION STAFF

PHILSSA, Inc.Publisher

Benedict O. BalderramaEditor-in-Chief

Rhea Kristine AguilarProject Coordinator

Maribeth M. AñonuevoLay-out Artist

PHILSSA SECRETARIAT

Rhea Kristine AguilarMaribeth M. AñonuevoJaypee BombalesAmaris Grace CabasonJennifer G. CruzNicasio de RosasJoel M. GonzalesAgapito Gutierrez

The Partnership of Philippine Support ServiceAgencies, Inc. is a nonstock, nonprofitnetwork of 56 social development NGOsbased in urban centers and performingsupport service or intermediate functions toprimary grassroots organizations. PHILSSAenvisions a society based on justice andequality, operated through mechanisms thatare participative and democratic. PHILSSAwas founded on 31 May 1988 by 18convenor NGOs, registered with theSecurities and Exchange Commission onFebruary 14, 1990 and accredited by theQuezon City council on May 26, 1993.

This special issue was supported by theUSAID and The Governance and Trans-parency Fund of the Department for Interna-tional Development of the United Kingdom(DFID-GTF).

PHILSSABOARD OF TRUSTEES

From the Editor

This special issue features studies made by PHILSSA members on the National Housing

Authority’s agency budget and expenditure, and on selected housing projects in different

parts of the country.

The first article is a study done by Arch. Sarah Redoblado of the Alternative Planning

Initiatives (ALTERPLAN) on the agency budget and expenditure of NHA in the past years.

Other articles are studies done by PHILSSA members on selected NHA housing projects in

different parts of the country:

• Southville 3 (National Bilibid Prison) in Muntinlupa City by Muntinlupa

Development Foundation (MDF)

• National Government Center (NGC)-Eastside in Quezon City by Foundation for the

Development of the Urban Poor (FDUP)

• Taysan Resettlement Site in Legazpi City by Community Organiztion for the

Philippines Enterprise (COPE Foundation)

• Sacred Heart Ville Jagobiao Housing Project in Mandaue City by Fellowship for

Organizing Endeavors (FORGE)

• Kadayawan Muslim Village in Davao City by San Lorenzo Ruiz Socio-Economic

Development Foundation (SALORSEDFI)

Along side these case studies, we include the NHA response and result of the PHILSSA-NHA

Joint Assessment of these case studies.

Finally, we also have an article on the general action points agreed upon in the PHILSSA-

NHA Joint Assessment of the Budget Partnership Agreement.

These articles reaffirm PHILSSA’s continuing budget monitoring and advocacy work, as

part of promoting good governance and transparency in the country.

Again, we would like to thank in a special way, the US Agency for International

Development (USAID), LINC-EG, International Center for Innovation, Transformation and

Excellence in Governance (INCITEGov), as well as the UK Department for International

Development (DFID) for supporting PHILSSA’s work on enhancing transparency,

accountability and responsiveness in government social housing agencies and

programmes.

Benedict O. Balderrama

National Coordinator

PHILSSA

Spe

cial

Issu

e

4 Salin-Diwa

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Total Amount Proposed 7,110.03 M 12,598.313 M 14,136.183 M 12,382M 11,667M

Funds Raised 3,604.56 M 3,005.512 M 16.6% decrease

6,626.143 M 120% increase

6,927M 4.5%

6,728M -2.9%

8,106M 20.5%

17,035M 110%

5.67 X 2006

NG Support 2,310.00 M

64.1% of FR

1,574.714 M 31.8% decrease

52.4% of FR

4,743.359 M 201.2%

71.6%

5,765M 21.5%

83.2%

5,049M -12.4%

75%

6,014M 19.1%

74.2%

14,136M 135%

8.98 X 2006 83%

Funds Internally

Generated 694.556 M

19.3% of FR

930.798 M

34% increase

31% of FR

1,582.784 M

70%

23.9%

1,162M

-26.6%

16.8%

1,679M

44.5%

25%

2,023M 20.5%

25%

2,860M 90.8%

4.15 X 2006 16.8%

Funds Borrowed 600 M 16.6% of FR

500 M 16.6%

300 M 4.5%

- - 69M 0.8%

39M 0.2%

Beginning Balances 2,177.07 M 2,602.326 M 1,785.572 M 3,110M 5,740M

TOTAL 5,781.53 M 5,607.838 M 8,411.715 M 10,037M 12,468M

Table 1. Total Corporate Operating Budget Proposed andl Funds Raised

Monitoring of Budget and Expenditure of National

Housing Authority (NHA)

DATA AND FINDINGSDATA AND FINDINGSDATA AND FINDINGSDATA AND FINDINGSDATA AND FINDINGS

In 2007, the difference

between Target and Actual funds

available for National Housing

Authority operations (5,724.468

M) could be traced to the

difference in the Target and Actual

National Government Support

raised (6,011.759 M). In 2005 and

2006, bulk of the difference is in

Borrowings, where the Target was

several times bigger than the

actual funds. In 2005, the variance

in Borrowings was 1,925.34 M

when the difference in Proposed

and Raised funds was 1,328.5 M.

In 2006, the variance in

Difference in Target and Actual Funds Raised

Borrowings was 6,202.244 M when

the difference in Proposed and

Raised funds was 5,724.468 M.

Increases in Funds Raised

Total Funds Raised, as well as

NG Support and Internally

Generated Funds, are generally

increasing. The 2011 Funds Raised

is more than three times the

amount in 2006, while NG Support

is more than five times 2006 levels

and Internally Generated Funds is

almost twice 2006 levels.

Higher Beginning Balances

were seen in 2008 and 2009,

increasing by 74% from 2007 to

2008, and by 85% from 2008 to

2009. This suggests a problem

with timely utilization of funds.

According to NHA officers, the

situation is caused by NG releases

being made toward the latter part

of the year, which makes it very

difficult for NHA to utilize a big

portion of the funds during the

year.

Contributions to Funds Raised

Although Internally Generated

Funds contribute a significant

amount to Funds Raised, averaging

1

1All figures in this column, except amount for Funds Internally Generated, are from the Funds Raised table on page 20 of the 2005 Annual Report of the NHA.2All figures in this column, except amount for Funds Internally Generated, are from the Funds Raised by Source table on page 15 of the NHA Annual Report 2006.3All figures in this column, except amount for Funds Internally Generated, are from the Funds Raised by Source table on Annex D1 of the 2007 Accomplishment Report of the NHA.4All figures in this column, except amount for Funds Internally Generated, are from the Budget (Annex D) table on page 10 of the 2008 Annual Report of the NHA.5All figures in this column, except amount for Funds Internally Generated, are from the table on page 10 of the 2009 Annual Report of the NHA.6From records of SARO and Corporate Operating Budget, NHA Financial Management Department.7Ibid.8Total of Corporate Receipts (667.573 M) and Trust Fund (26.983 M) from Funds Raised table on page 20 of the 2005 Annual Report of the NHA.9Total of Corporate Receipts (878.074 M) and Trust Fund (52.724 M) from Funds Raised by Source table on page 15 of the NHA Annual Report 2006.10Total of Corporate Receipts (1,498.017 M) and Trust Fund (84.767 M) from Funds Raised by Source table on Annex D1 of the 2007 Accomplishment Report of the NHA (unpublished).11Total of Corporate Receipts (984 M) and Trust Fund (178 M) from Budget (Annex D) table on page 10 of the 2008 Annual Report of the NHA.12Total of Corporate Receipts (1,228M) and Trust Fund (451 M) from the table on page 10 of the 2009 Annual Report of the NHA.

1

1. Agency Budget and Sources of Funds

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12

By Arch. Sarah Redoblado

ALTERPLAN

Table 1. Total Corporate Operating Budget Proposed and Funds Raised

Spe

cial

Issu

e

5Salin-Diwa

Table 2. NG Support

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Total Amount Proposed 1,010.00 M 1,880.546 M 10,755.118 M 7,901M 4,000M

Amount Allocated to NHA in

the GAA 1,000.00M

43.5%

1,000M (Re-enacted)

64.6%

256.775M

74.3% decrease 5.4%

3,500M

1263% increase 60.7%

3,500M

0% increase 69.3%

3,600M

2.9% increase 105%

4,375M

21.5% increase 51.6%

Unprogrammed Funds

Resettlement

GK Laguindingan

Rail NLEX CARE

Smokey Mountain MRH Ondoy response

Irosin AFP-PNP

Debt service

500M 800M

548M

5M 25.5M

2,500M 600M 500M 557M

556M (Total of above

includes amount

in GAA)

5,515M

250M

(Total of above

includes amount

in GAA)

650M

2,700M

1,399M

(Total of above

includes part of

amount in GAA)

1,567M 63.04M

(Even with

unprogrammed

releases, total of

SARO was less

than amount in

GAA)

4,200M

Total NG Support 2,300 M 1,548 M 4,743.359 M 5,765M 5,049M 3,423M 8,475M

From Republic Acts (GAAs)

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

TOTAL 1,000M 256.775M 3,500M 3,500M 3,600M 4,375M

Resettlement 940M 94%

256.775M 100%

3,500M 100%

3,200M 91.4%

3,230M 89.7%

4,275M 97.7%

North and South Rail 500M 50%

Other Resettlement 440M 44%

Medium-rise Public and

Private Housing Program 60M

6%

Local Housing Program 300M 8.6%

170M 4.7%

Slum Upgrading for Lands

Proclaimed as Housing

Sites

100M 2.8%

100M 2.3%

Aurora Special Economic

Zone Act Housing Project 100M

2.8%

Table 3. GAA, by program/project

13Funds Raised table on page 20 of the 2005 Annual Report of the NHA.14Funds Raised by Source table on page 15 of the NHA Annual Report 2006.15Funds Raised by Source table on Annex D1 of the 2007 Accomplishment Report of the NHA.16Budget (Annex D) table on page 10 of the 2008 Annual Report of the NHA.17Table on page 10 of the 2009 Annual Report of the NHA.18RA 933619RA 940120RA 949821RA 952422RA 997023RA 1014724List of Released SAROs and NCAs, NHA Financial Management Department25From Republic Acts (GAAs)

24% yearly from 2005 to 2011, NG

support is still the biggest

contributor to NHA’s operations,

with an average contribution of

70.5%. This confirms that NHA is

far from turning into a self-

supporting corporation.

Borrowings accounted for an

average of 12.6% from 2005 to

2007, but have not contributed to

NHA’s funds since 2008.

The NHA Budget in the GAA and

Other Sources of NG Support

NHA’s allocation in the GAA

saw a big jump from 2005-2007

levels to 2008, remained at the

same level until 2010, then rose

again by 21.5% in 2011.

In five of the past seven years,

the amount allocated to NHA in the

GAA accounted for only about half

of the total national government

support provided to NHA during

the year. The other half comes

from Unprogrammed Funds such

as funds that become available

for calamity response, mass

housing projects for special

groups (e.g. AFP-PNP), or

resettlement for infrastructure

projects of the national

government.

13 14 15 16 17

18 19 20 21 22 23

25

Spe

cial

Issu

e

6 Salin-Diwa

NHA Programs with Budgetary

Support in the GAA

From 2005 to 2011, NHA’s

Resettlement Program has been

allotted at least 90% of the NHA

budget in the GAA every year. This

indicates that as far as the

national government is

concerned, resettlement is the

main purpose of the NHA. In

2005, 50% of NHA’s allocation in

the GAA was earmarked for

resettlement of households

affected by North and South Rail

rehabilitation.

Other programs that have

been provided funding support in

the GAA are: a) the Local Housing

Program (2009 and 2010),

b) Slum Upgrading for Lands

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Corporate Receipts 667.573 M 96.1%

878.074 M 94.3%

1,498.017 M 94.6%

984M 84.7%

1,228M 73.1%

Trust Fund 26.983 M 3.9%

52.724 M 5.7%

84.767 M 5.4%

178M 15.3%

451M 26.9%

Medium Rise Housing 13M 1.1%

5M 0.3%

Local Housing 76M 6.5%

45M 2.7%

NGC 16M 1.4%

15M 0.9%

Socialized Housing Units

Participation 72M

6.2% 65M 3.9%

PAF3 1M 0.06%

North Triangle 300M 17.9%

SLEX 21M 1.2%

TOTAL 694.556 M 930.798 M 1,582.784 M 1,162M 1,679M

Table 4. Funds Internally Generated

Proclaimed as Housing Sites

(2010 and 2011), c) Aurora

Special Economic Zone Act

Housing Project (2010), and d)

Medium-rise Public and Private

Housing Program.

The figures show that few

District Representatives have

accessed funds mandated by the

Comprehensive Integrated Shelter

Finance Act (CISFA) for housing in

Congressional districts.

Also, despite the big number

of Presidential Proclamations

declaring parcels of public land

open for disposition to qualified

beneficiaries (115 Proclamations

since 2001, comprising 27,286

hectares with an estimated

270,000 beneficiaries26), funds

have been provided for Slum

Upgrading for Lands Proclaimed

as Housing Sites only in 2010 and

2011, and then comprising less

than 3% of NHA budgetary

support in the GAA each time. The

funds were mostly intended for

tenurial upgrading only (survey

and titling), not for structural or

site utilities upgrading.

The Aurora Special Economic

Zone Act Housing Project appears

to have a rare urgency, getting its

own line in the 2010 GAA.

Medium-rise Housing was

provided funds in 2005 based on

the CISFA law. Such provision in

the GAA has not been repeated

since.

Table 5. Funds Borrowed

Sources of Borrowings 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

NDC and NHMFC 600 M

Philippine Veterans Bank 500 M

Land Bank of the Philippines 300 M

Total 600 M 500M 300 M

26http://www.hudcc.gov.ph/index.php?p=15827From Funds Raised table on page 20 of the 2005 Annual Report of the NHA.28From Funds Raised by Source table on page 15 of the NHA Annual Report 2006 and documents of NHA Financial Management Department.29From Funds Raised by Source table on Annex 4.1 of the 2007 Accomplishment Report of the NHA.30From Funds Raised by Source table on Annex D1 of the 2008 Annual Report of the NHA.31From Funds Raised by Source table on Annex D1 of the 2009 Annual Report of the NHA.32NHA 2005 Annual Report, p. 1433NHA Annual Report 2006, p. 934COA Report, March 14, 2008, p. 16

27 28 29 30 31

32

33

34

Spe

cial

Issu

e

7Salin-Diwa

Sources of Internally Generated

Funds

Corporate Receipts make up

the bulk of Internally Generated

Funds, making up more than 90%

from 2005 to 2007, but has

dropped to 84.7% and 73.1% in

2008 and 2009 respectively.

The total amount in the Trust

Funds has generally increased

from 2005 to 2009 suggesting

either that a) some earmarked

funds have remained in Trust

rather than utilized during the

period for their purpose and/or

b) funds have been put in trust for

additional items. According to

NHA’s Financial Management

Department, the amount

indicated in the Trust Funds could

be a combination of collections

or interest (unless specifically

indicated interest). The North

Triangle appears as one

significant additional item under

Trust Fund in 2009. The amount of

300M is part of the funds

provided by the Ayala Group for

resettlement of the households to

be displaced from North Triangle.

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Project Development 2,034.87 M 59.9%

2,768.178 M 72%

3,252.573 M 61.4%

3,050M 71%

6,011M 82.1%

National Programs 2,906M 5,262M

Regular Programs 144M 748M

Housing Support 70.199 M 2.1%

14.750 M 0.4%

84.686 M 1.6%

19M 0.4%

32M 0.4%

Land Acquisition/Assembly 323.152 M 9.5%

34.745 M 0.9%

56.053 M 1.1%

9M 0.2%

75M 1%

Other Project-related Capital Outlay 2M 0.03%

Other Capital Outlay 1.717 M 0.05%

2.455 M 0.06%

10.789 M 0.2%

34M 0.8%

13M 0.2%

Debt Service 86.018 M 2.5%

133.250 M 3.5%

686.418 M 12.9%

74M 1.7%

60M 0.8%

COE 878.682 M 25.9%

888.958 M 23.1%

1,210.896 M 22.8%

1,110M 25.8%

1,127M 15.4%

Total Amount Disbursed 3,394.64 M 3,842.336 M 5,301.415 M 4,297M 7,319M

Table 6. Disbursements by Use

The amount for SLEX in the 2009

column is from the Alabang-Sto.

Tomas Development Inc.

According to the Financial

Management Department, the

spike in Corporate Receipts in

2007 could represent the receipt

of bulk receivables from the

DOTC.

While NG Support and

Internally Generated Funds have

generally increased from 2005 to

2011, Borrowings have generally

dropped in the same period.

Sources of Borrowings from 2005

to 2007 have been banks and

government financing

institutions.

The Financial Management

Department noted the following

on the figures from the report:

• Of the amount for 2005,

100M is from NHMFC and

500M is from NDC. NHMFC

had released another 100M

in 2004. The total loan from

NHMFC was thus 200M.

• Of the PVB loan of 500M in

2006, 300M was released in

2006 and 200M was released

in 2007.

• The whole loan amount of

300M was released by Land

Bank in 2007.

2. Agency Expenditures

Share of Project Development and

COE to Total Disbursements

As the value of total

disbursements have gone up, so

have the share of project

development to total

disbursements increased. With

the significantly higher total

disbursement in 2009 (7,319M

from 4,297M in 2008), the share

of Project Development climbed

to 82.1% from 71%, while COE

dropped to 15.4% from 25.8% in

2008. This apparent trend for

more efficient corporate

operations bears watching in the

future. Further study of Project

Development budgets would also

be useful in showing that

operating expenses were not

merely shifted to project costs.

35All figures in this column are from the Disbursements table on page 21 of the 2005 Annual Report of the NHA.36All figures in this column are from the Disbursements table on page 17 of the NHA Annual Report 2006.37All figures in this column are from the Disbursements by Use table in Annex D3 of the 2007 Accomplishment Report of the NHA (unpublished).38All figures in this column are from the Disbursements by Use table in Annex D3, page 31 of the 2008 Accomplishment Report of the NHA.39All figures in this column are from the Disbursements by Use table in Annex D3, page 37 of the 2009 Accomplishment Report of the NHA.

35 36 37 38 39

Spe

cial

Issu

e

8 Salin-Diwa

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Project Development 2,034.87M 2,768.178M 3,252.573M 3,050M 6,011M

National Programs 87.7%

92.7%

2,492.340M 76.6%

2,906M 95.3%

5,262M 87.5%

- Resettlement 2,423.211M 74.5%

2,598M 85.2%

5,261M 87.5%

NHA Administered 1,783.64M 87.7%

2,565.461M 92.7%

Rail 2,348.145M 2,498M 4,198M

NLEX 75.066M 109M 178M

SLEX 2M

- CARE 65.183M 2%

303M 10%

187M 3.1%

- Reconstruction Program 697M 11.6%

- Slum Uprgrading (PP) 3.946M 5M 1M

Regular Programs 12.3%

7.3%

760.233M 23.4%

144M 4.7%

748M 12.4%

Resettlement 23.755M 0.7%

105M 3.4%

47M 0.8%

Resettlement - Assistance to

LGUs 48.262M

2.4% 20.202M

0.7%

Slum Upgrading 9.656M 2.768M 0.759M 5M 8M

Si tes and Services 28.096M 47.515M 202.184M 16M 9M

Core Housing 15.412M 24.505M 10.975M 3M 9M

Medium Rise Housing 149.798M 7.4%

107.929M 3.9%

522.949M 16%

15M 0.5%

676M 11.2%

Table 7. Disbursements by Use (Project Development)

40All figures in this column are from the Disbursements table on p. 21 of the 2005 Annual Report of the NHA.41All figures in this column are from the Disbursements table on p. 17 of the 2006 Annual Report of the NHA.42All figures in this column are from the Disbursements by use table in Annex 4.3, page 33 of the 2007 Accomplishment Report of the NHA.43All figures in this column are from the Disbursements by Use table in Annex D3, page 31 of the 2008 Accomplishment Report of the NHA.44All figures in this column are from the Disbursements by Use table in Annex D3, page 37 of the 2009 Accomplishment Report of the NHA.

Share of Programs to total

disbursements for Project

Development

The share of National

Programs to total

disbursements for Project

Development averages 88%

from 2005 to 2009. With the

exception of the CARE

Program, the National

Programs have tended to be

located in NCR and the

adjacent Regions 3 and 4.

Nationally, Resettlement

uses up 87.12% of

disbursements for Project

Development in the same

period. Calamity Assistance

began to appear in the table in

2007, and from 2007 to 2009

averaged 8.9% of total

disbursements for Project

Development.

Of the programs with the

smaller disbursements,

Medium Rise Housing gets the

biggest share, averaging 7.8%

of total disbursements for

Project Development from

2005 to 2009. Slum Upgrading

got the smallest

disbursements from 2005 to

2009.

40 41 42 43 44

Spe

cial

Issu

e

9Salin-Diwa

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Actual Actual

National Programs 31,383 14,647 38.6%

59,296 16,474 35.7%

59,238 54,788 82.1%

30,651 73.7%

14,612 35.3%

Resettlement - Northrail 18,930 13,611 16,270 16,270 10,292 22,725 0

Resettlement – Southrail 21,814 14,547

NLEX 532 1,875

CARE 32,564 25,053 5,941

Slum Upgrading (Pres.

Proc.)

12,453 1,036 21,212 204 15,850 7,010 8,288

Regular Programs 14,449 2,524 6.7%

21,832

9,777 21.2%

12,622 9,016 13.5%

8,396 20.2%

18,751 45.4%

Resettlement – NHA

Administered

1,071 292 1,130 208 702

Resettlement –

Assistance to LGUs

2,524 62 5,374 2,481 1,442

Slum Upgrading 3,498 1,274 8,999 3,452 8,728 5,225 5,751

Sites and Services 4,789 512 4,578 3,061 2,935 1,819 957

Core Housing 1,931 384 815 575 869 1,120 246

Medium-Rise Housing 636 936 90 150

Other Housing Assistance 4,270 20,733 54.7%

6,255 19,894 43.1%

7,045 2,902 4.4%

2,531 6.1%

7,982 19.3%

Total 50,102 37,904 75.7%

87,383 46,145 52.8%

78,905 66,706 84.5%

41,578 41,345

Table 8. Housing Starts

3. Agency Targets and Performance

45All figures in this column are from NHA 2005 Annual Report, Housing Starts table, p. 16.46All figures in this column are from NHA Annual Report 2006, Housing Starts table, p. 11.47All figures in this column are from NHA 2007 Accomplishment Report (unpublished), Production Starts by Program table, Annex A1.482008 Accomplishment on Production table, pp. 32-38, 2008 NHA Annual Report49List of Projects Implemented in 2009 table, pp. 38-44, 2009 NHA Annual Report50All figures in this column are from NHA 2005 Annual Report, Housing Completions/Assistance table, p. 17.51All figures in this column are from NHA Annual Report 2006, Housing Completions/Assistance table, p. 12.52All figures in this column are from NHA 2007 Accomplishment Report (unpublished), Production Completions by Program table, Annex A2.532008 Accomplishment on Production table, pp. 32-38, 2008 NHA Annual Report54List of Projects Implemented in 2009 table, pp. 38-44, 2009 NHA Annual Report

Biggest Contributors to Actual Starts

The biggest contributors to actual starts in 2005 and 2006 are Other Housing Assistance (tenurialassistance, technical assistance, housing financial assistance, housing materials assistance, provision ofhousing facilities, and other local housing projects), National Programs in 2007 and 2008, and Regular

Programs in 2009.

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Actual Actual

National Programs 21,794 16,784 38.8%

32,384 14,513 35.6%

51,647 28,560 67.1%

35,076 72.7%

23,637 76.9%

Resettlement – Northline 15,828 15,788 16,270 14,513 11,200 16,291 730

Resettlement – Southline 13,814 14,195

NLEX 532 1,620

CARE 32,564 12,087 18,156

Slum Upgrading (Pres. Proc.) 5,966 996 2,300 7,351 182 375

Regular Programs 21,425 7,533 17.4%

15,811 5,308 13%

18,513 8,801 20.7%

9,762 20.2%

2,948 9.6%

Resettlement – NHA Administered 122 292 237 5,535 277

Resettlement – Assistance

to LGUs

4,475 880 2,579 877 2,129

Slum Upgrading 7,998 4,136 6,562 1,338 7,891 3,707 6,231

Sites and Services 5,478 1,192 4,432 2,061 4,658 4,036 1,361

Core Housing 3,247 1,033 1,896 927 429 721 41

Medium-Rise Housing 105 105 105 60

Other Housing Assistance 3,796 18,982 43.8%

8,511 20,987 51.4%

7,655 5,190 12.2%

3,442 7.1%

4,144 13.5%

Total 47,015 43,299 92.1%

56,706 40,808 72%

77,815 42,551 54.7%

48,280 30,729

Table 9. Housing Completions

Biggest Contributors to Actual Completions

The biggest contributors to actual completions are Other Housing Assistance in 2005 and 2006, and

National Programs from 2007 to 2009.

45 46 47

48 49

50 51 52

53 54

Spe

cial

Issu

e

10 Salin-Diwa

Area 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Housing Need (2010)

NCR

16.8%

11,055

25.5%

2,247

5.5%

6,908

16.2%

10,657

22.1%

4,421

14.6%

496,928

13.2%

NCL

32.1%

18,601

43%

24,761

60.7%

11,924

28%

5,161

10.7%

5,480

18.1%

769,504

20.5%

SLB

38.18%

6,928

16%

8,069

19.8%

19,344

45.5%

26,571

55%

16,541

54.6%

1,002,103

26.7%

Visayas

5.78%

2,931

6.8%

2,905

7.1%

2,226

5.2%

1,805

3.7%

1,837

6.1%

632,323

16.8%

Mindanao

7.18%

3,784

8.7%

2,826

6.9%

2,149

5.1%

4,086

8.5%

2,015

6.7%

855,214

22.8%

TOTAL 43,299 40,808 42,551 48,280 30,294 3,756,072

Table 10. Housing Production by Geographical Distribution

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

COB 5,781.53 M 5,607.838 M 8,411.715 M 10,037M 12,468M

Completions 43,299 40,808 42,551 48,280 30,294

Cost per completed unit 133,525.72 137,420.06 2.9% increase

197,685.48 43.8% increase

207,891.47 5.2% increase

411,566.65 98% increase

Table 11. Production vs. COB

Table 12. Production vs. COE Cost per completed unit

The cost per completed unit has increased, sometimes in small, sometimes in big increments, in the period

from 2005 to 2009. The cost per completed unit in 2009 is three times the cost for 2005.

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

COE 878.682 M 888.958 M 1,210.896 M 1,110M 1,127M

Completions 43,299 40,808 42,551 48,280 30,294

COE per completed unit 20,293.36 21,783.91 7.3% increase

28,457.52 30.6% increase

22,990.89 19.2% decrease

37,202 61.8% increase

Table 12. Production vs. COE

Table 13. Collection EfficiencyCOE per completed unit

Like the cost per completed unit, the figures for COE per completed unit show a general upward trend, but

the percentage of increments vary a lot from year to year. COE per completed unit in 2009 is 1.8 times the figure

in 2005.

Housing production by region compared to housing need

The order of regions from most to least production is the same as the order of regions with most to least

housing need. However, the proportion of production in NCL and SLB are each about 12 percentage points above

their proportion of housing need, while the proportion of production in Visayas and Mindanao are 5 to 10

percentage points below their proportion of housing need.

The focus on Resettlement programs seen in earlier tables also raises the question of what proportion of

local housing need the housing production figures actually address, especially in NCL and SLB, which might have

big production only because they serve as receiving localities of resettlers from NCR.

55Housing Completions/Assistance, by Region, page 17, 2005 NHA Annual Report56Housing Completions/Assistance, by Region, page 12, 2006 NHA Annual Report57Housing Production and Capital Outlay by AMO, page 26, 2007 NHA Annual Report582008 Housing Production by Geographical Distribution table, page 7, 2008 NHA Annual Report.592009 Housing Production Assistance by Geographical Distribution table, page 8, 2009 NHA Annual Report.60Table 2.11. Housing need per region, 2005-2010, National Urban Development and Housing Framework 2009-2016.

55 56 57 58 59 60

Spe

cial

Issu

e

11Salin-Diwa

61All figures in this column are from NHA 2005 Annual Report, p. 13. Collection efficiency for 2005 is cited as 29% in p. 9 of the NHA Annual Report 2006.62All figures in this column are from NHA Annual Report 2006, pp. 8-9. Collection efficiency for 2006 is cited as 12% in p. 5 of the NHA 2007 Accomplishment Report (unpublished).63All figures in this column are from NHA Annual Report 2008, pp. 8-9.64All figures in this column are from NHA Annual Report 2009, p. 9.65NHA Annual Report 2007, p. 30. Collection by program table.66Ibid.

61 62 63 64

Recommendations

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Total Collections

Installment Contracts Rental / Lease

683.67 M

96% 4%

693.897 M

94% 6%

1,458.451M

47% 53%

1,078 M

76% 24%

1,049M

77% 23%

Collection Efficiency

Residential accounts Non-residential

accounts

33%

68% 11%

26% 33% 33%

Table 13. Collection Efficiency

61 62 63 64

65

66

RECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONS

Findings: Beginning Balances were

seen in 2008 and 2009, increasing by

74% from 2007 to 2008, and by 85%

from 2008 to 2009. This suggests a

problem with timely utilization of

funds. According to NHA officers, the

situation is caused by NG releases

being made toward the latter part of

the year, which makes it very difficult

for NHA to utilize a big portion of the

funds during the year.

Recommendation: For CSOs to probe

the cause(s) for releases to NHA

being made in the latter part of

the year. Determine if CSOs can

contribute to alleviating this

problem through CSO participation

in budget execution.

Findings: In five of the past seven

years, the amount allocated to NHA in

the GAA accounted for only about half

of the total National Government

support provided to NHA during the

year. The other half comes from

Unprogrammed Funds such as funds

that become available for calamity

response, mass housing projects for

special groups (e.g. AFP-PNP), or

resettlement caused by infrastructure

projects of the national government.

Recommendation: For budget

monitoring teams to be alert to

projects that are quickly prepared

during the year and receive big

amounts from Unprogrammed

Funds.

Findings: From 2005 to 2011, NHA’s

Resettlement Program has been

allotted at least 90% of the NHA

budget in the GAA every year. This

indicates that as far as the national

government is concerned, resettlement

is the main purpose of the NHA. In

2005, 50% of NHA’s allocation in the

GAA was earmarked for resettlement

of households affected by North and

South Rail rehabilitation.

Recommendations 1: The big blocks

of funds provided for Resettlement

in the NHA budget highlight the

need for budget advocates to keep

on studying how Resettlement is

being done, and to keep on

advocating how Resettlement

could be better planned and

implemented to succeed. Safe

location and sufficient social and

economic infrastructure are all

necessary components of planned

settlements and lessen the risk of

projects turning out to be

unacceptable to beneficiaries.

2: That the livelihood concern of

NHA in resettlement projects not

be limited to promoting home-

based micro-businesses but

should take into consideration the

directions of local economic

development.

3: That NHA give more thought to

projects that are centrally located

(‘in-city’) before turning to projects

located in urban peripheries

where social and economic

infrastructure are not well-

developed and give reason for

beneficiaries to return to informal

housing arrangements in the city.

Findings: The figures show that few

District Representatives have accessed

funds mandated by the Comprehensive

Integrated Shelter Finance Act (CISFA)

for housing in Congressional districts.

Despite the a number of Presidential

Proclamations declaring parcels of

public land open for disposition to

qualified beneficiaries (115

Proclamations since 2001, comprising

27,286 hectares with an estimated

270,000 beneficiaries1), funds have

been provided for Slum Upgrading for

Lands Proclaimed as Housing Sites

only in 2010 and 2011, and then

comprising less than 3% of NHA

budgetary support in the GAA each

time. The funds were mostly intended

for tenurial upgrading only (survey and

titling), not for structural or site

utilities upgrading. Medium-rise

Housing was provided funds in 2005

based on the CISFA law. Such provision

in the GAA has not been repeated

since.

Recommendation 1: That CSOs urge

their respective Representatives to

cause the release of more Local

Housing Program funds by

equipping the Representatives

with information and concrete

options to address local housing

need.

2: That Slum Upgrading programs

and funds not be limited to

tenurial upgrading but should

include improvements to

sanitation, safe water and other

conditions for quality of life.

Spe

cial

Issu

e

12 Salin-Diwa

3: That Medium Rise Housing be

provided more resources as one

of the more viable options for in-

city housing development.

Findings: The total amount in the

Trust Funds has generally increased

from 2005 to 2009 suggesting either

that a) some earmarked funds have

remained in Trust rather than utilized

during the period for their purpose

and/or b) funds have been put in

trust for additional items. According

to NHA’s Financial Management

Department, the amount indicated in

the Trust Funds could be a

combination of collections or interest

(unless specifically indicated

interest).

Recommendations 1: That CSOs

study the intended purposes

(restricted uses) of the Trust

Funds for possible alignment

with CSO proposals.

2: The national government

should program the principal

payments for the loans incurred

by NHA, so that corporate funds

for interest payments can be

channelled to more productive

uses.

Findings: As the value of total

disbursements have gone up, so have

the share of project development to

total disbursements increased. With

the significantly higher total

disbursement in 2009 (7,319M from

4,297M in 2008), the share of Project

Development climbed to 82.1% from

71%, while COE dropped to 15.4%

from 25.8% in 2008. This apparent

trend for more efficient corporate

operations bears watching in the

future. Further study of Project

Development budgets would also be

useful in showing that operating

expenses were not merely shifted to

project costs.

Recommendation: For budget

advocates to continue monitoring

the efficiency of corporate and

project expenses.

Findings: The share of National

Programs to total disbursements for

Project Development averages 88%

from 2005 to 2009. With the

exception of the CARE Program, the

National Programs have tended to be

located in NCR and the adjacent

Regions 3 and 4... The order of

regions from most to least

production is the same as the order

of regions with most to least housing

need. However, the proportion of

production in NCL and SLB are each

about 12 percentage points above

their proportion of housing need,

while the proportion of production in

Visayas and Mindanao are 5 to 10

percentage points below their

proportion of housing need. . . The

focus on Resettlement programs

seen in earlier tables also raises the

question of what proportion of local

housing need the housing production

figures actually address, especially in

NCL and SLB, which might have big

production only because they serve as

receiving localities of resettlers from

NCR.

Recommendations 1: The national

government agencies and the

local government units should be

able to link housing delivery with

more strategic plans for shelter

at the national and local levels.

2: For budget advocates to look

more closely at the costing

parameters for the various forms

of assistance provided by NHA.

Findings: Collections doubled from

2006 to 2007, and then dropped

again in 2008 and 2009. 2007, the

year with the highest collections,

was also the year when rental/lease

collections made a bigger

contribution to collections than

instalment contracts...Collection

efficiency was never higher than 33%

in the period from 2005 to 2008.

Recommendations 1: For NHA to

consider whether rentals/leases

are not of more value in terms of

generating revenues for the

agency.

2: For national government to

consider collection from turned-

over units in the context of other

revenue generation programs for

housing, given the typical

situation and capacity of the

agency’s clientele.

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Debt Service 86.018 M 2.5%

133.250 M 3.5%

686.418 M 12.9%

74M 1.7%

60M 0.8%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Cost per completed unit 133,525.72 137,420.06 2.9% increase

197,685.48 43.8% increase

207,891.47 5.2% increase

411,566.65 98% increa se

COE per completed unit 20,293.36 21,783.91 7.3% increase

28,457.52 30.6% increase

22,990.89 19.2% decrease

37,202 61.8% increase

Finding:

Finding:

Result of the NHA and PHILSSA

joint assessment of Case Studies

• Releases greater than what was

specified in the GAA is due to

special tasks given to NHA for

resettlement, prompting the

national government to provide

added funds.

• Most of the subsidy received by

NHA for resettlement went to the

relocation of informal settlers

along the rail. A bigger challenge

for NHA is post-relocation

because they continue to spend

for it.

• NHA is the only agency doing

construction in the housing

sector. If the government enters

into a big venture with a creditor

for infrastructure, one of the

conditions is to fund relocation of

informal settlers. If this is not

done, the creditor might take the

money back, and it will pose a

big problem to the government.

That is called off-budget funding

by the national government.

Spe

cial

Issu

e

13Salin-Diwa

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

To improve the national

transport system in the

Philippines the national

government during the Arroyo

Administration implemented an

ambitious project to rehabilitate

and modernize the national

railway station from north to

south including removal of

thousands of informal settlers

along the railroad tracks to give

way to the improvement and

expansion. To remove the

informal settlers the national

government through the National

Housing Authority (NHA) was

tasked to develop numerous

resettlement sites where these

informal settlers can be

relocated. One of the

resettlement sites developed in

the south to address this massive

relocation is the Southville 3

where informal settlers along the

railroad track within Muntinlupa

are transferred.

Project Location. Southville 3

is located in a 50 hectare

property inside the National

Revisiting Southville 3:NHA Resettlement Project inside National Bilibid Prison

Bilibid Prison in Barangay

Poblacion, Muntinlupa City under

Presidential Proclamation No.

234 and 335.

Project Type. It is a mass

housing project and in-city type

of relocation. The tenurial

arrangement is usufruct–30 years

lease and average amortization

of Php400 monthly for the

housing unit and development

worth Php 135,000. Housing type

is raw house.

Beneficiaries. The

beneficiaries come from the

railroad tracks of Barangay

Alabang up to Barangay Tunasan,

almost 8.3 kilometers for the first

4 Phases of the Project. Of the

10,500 families only 6,400 are

qualified. The rest that did not

qualify opted to be paid and the

rest availed

of the “Balik

Probinsiya”

program.

For the

additional

295 bene-

ficiaries,

they come

from the

property

being

developed by

NHA for

government

employees.

They are members of the

“Koalisyon ng Samahang

Maralita ng NBP” living inside

the Bilibid Compound. There

are three associations

included in the 295 additional

units. They are:

• Buklurang Samahan ng

Sitio Daang Hari with 36

members;

• Samahang Maralita ng

Sitio Daang Hari with 36

members;

• Sitio Mapalad Farmers &

Settlers with 31

members.

Contractors. For the 6,946

units they employed four

contractors for site development

and 60 contractors for the

housing units. It would mean at

least 115 units per contractor.

For the additional 295 units they

have identified through a bidding

process four contractors.

Contractors have employed

community beneficiaries who are

skilled in the housing

construction as a support to the

beneficiaries.

Cost. The overall cost of the

project including the additional

295 units is P1.25B. It is divided

into site infrastructure cost and

housing cost. The average cost

per housing unit including

infrastructure is Php 129,000 –

81,000 for the housing unit and

an average of 48,000 for site

development.

Lots Generated. The lot has

an average size of 36 sq.m. and

the housing unit has an area of

20 sq.m.

Project Status. As of now,

they have already completed the

6,946 units where the breakdown

per phase was provided in Table

(Excerpts from Muntinlupa Development Foundation Case Study)

Spe

cial

Issu

e

14 Salin-Diwa

b. Project Construction

(comparing target

unit construction

with completions)

They have

completed all the

targeted units in

the first four

phases except the

additional units of

295 due to the

absence of funds.

c. Unit Cost Efficiency

(variance in established

unit cost)

From the reports that we

have gathered it seems that NHA

followed the cost per unit in

terms of utilization. In the

absence of data on actual

expenditures we cannot

determine variance between

target costs to actual

expenditures.

d. Project Responsiveness

(percentage of target

beneficiaries

accommodated/ included)

The units generated and

completed are more than

enough to meet the needs of the

identified beneficiaries that

qualify along the railway in

Muntinlupa. The project

generated 6,946 as compared

to 6,400 qualified

beneficiaries. If we include

families that are disqualified

and those who opted to avail of

the Balik Probinsiya program,

the generated lots would not be

enough, short of at least 3,000

units.

The presence of an

authentic Local Inter-agency

Committee (LIAC) during the

first four phases of the project

wherein CSO and PO

participation is adhered to

from planning, implementation

and monitoring have greatly

contributed in the

responsiveness and eventual

success of the project.

Unfortunately, due to political

intervention of the current local

officials, it is affecting the

authentic participation of the

community in the resettlement

project. Traditional and

patronage politics is affecting

the participative and

democratic processes initially

established by CSOs and POs.

As an example, LIAC is currently

inactive and duly elected

representatives were removed

in the implementing body by the

local chief executive and

replaced by his handpicked

leaders. With this, it somehow

affects the implementation of

the additional 295 units.

Affected beneficiaries are not

consulted and represented in

the implementing body of the

project like LIAC. In a dialogue

with NHA the leaders suggested

to dissolve the previous LIAC

and create another one headed

by NHA.

2. As for the additional 295 no

construction has started yet

despite having identified the four

winning bidders for construction

of units. NHA Bgy. Poblacion is

still waiting for the release of the

funds according to Engr. Johnny

Coronel, Project Engineer of NHA,

to be able to start the

construction of the units.

For the basic and communal

facilities, almost all are provided

like water tanks, health centers,

schools (elementary to

highschool) and recreational

facilities except for the jeepney

station, public market and

material recovery facilities.

The community is at a stage

wherein it has to address estate

management concerns like

maintaining facilities, addressing

unlawful sale of housing units by

beneficiaries and ensuring

payment of amortization. These

are common problems being

raised during discussions with

leaders and NHA personnel.

MONITORING RESULTS

AND FINDINGS

a. Budget utilization

(comparing budget releases

and utilization)

Data is not sufficient enough

to compare budget releases and

utilization. But it is very clear

that there is a delay in the

releases of the budget that

causes delays in the completion

of the project specially for the

additional 295 units. As for the

6,946 they started four months

delayed.

Location No. of Lots Housing Units

Completed Additional

Phase 1 1831 1831

Phase 2 1828 1714 114

Phase 3 1993 1934 69

Phase 4 1589 1467 112

Total 7241* 6946 295

Table 2:

* Including the additional (295 units)

Spe

cial

Issu

e

15Salin-Diwa

Result of the NHA andPHILSSA jointassessment of CaseStudies• Inter-agency implementation of

the project is strong during the

early stage of the project.

Lately, due to influence of the

current local officials it somehow

affected the participation of Civil

Society Groups and People’s

Organizations.

• Define the role of the LGUs in

terms of sustainability of the

project and how to ensure

authentic participation.

• Who will undertake the estate

management and when will

NHA disengage from the

project? Will the LGU assume

that responsibility?

e. Project quality (identify

project defects)

During the 4 phases of the

project, minimal defects are

addressed immediately by

contractors due to presence of

CSO monitoring teams that

provide instant feedback to

NHA. Basic and communal

facilities needed in the

community are present

compared to other resettlement

sites due to the active

participation of the different

stakeholders of the project.

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

• It is difficult to determine

cost effectiveness and

efficiency of project

without the necessary data

or availability of data.

There is cooperation in the

part of NHA in the

monitoring effort but lack

necessary information in

providing adequate

conclusions. Some data

somehow provide a hint of

the problem like delays in

releases but not enough to

establish cost

effectiveness and

efficiency. Established

protocol somehow causes

delays unlike when it is

already available in the

website for transparency

purposes.

• As for responsiveness, the

project specially for

Phases 1-4 is responsive

in terms of addressing

number of beneficiaries

and ensuring targeted

beneficiaries are provided

with housing. Aside from

this, basic community

facilities are met and

provided. For the

additional units of 295,

there was delay releasing

funds.

• The monitoring period is

too short to gather data to

establish a more in-depth

analysis of the project.

Hopefully, a longer period

of monitoring involving all

the cycle of budget from

formulation to execution

specially for the additional

295 lots could be

conducted.

• Southville 3 remains to be

one of the best practices of

NHA in terms of in-city

relocation, inter-agency

cooperation and CSO

participation.

Unfortunately, due to

politics, readiness and

sustainability of CSOs’ and

POs’ efforts to address the

current issues and

concerns of the project

(estate management stage)

they might not be able to

uphold the success that

they have accomplished

through the years. Thus, we

recommend to assess

current inter-agency

mechanism and address

problem areas with the

participation of CSOs and

People’s Organization. To

also address the turn-over

plans of maintaining and

sustaining project gains.

Spe

cial

Issu

e

16 Salin-Diwa

INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION

NGC Project Background and Legal

Bases

In 1979, President Ferdinand

E. Marcos issued Proclamation

No. 1826, reserving 444

hectares of land along the

Commonwealth (both the east

and west sides) area in Quezon

City for the development of the

National Government Center

(NGC), a centralized site /

government complex apportioned

for housing major government

institutions. Proclamation No.

1826 was however seemed to

remain futile as the plan did not

fully materialize. There were

seven government offices, erected

which include among others

(DSWD, Batasan Pambansa,

Commonwealth High School etc),

covering a total of around 43

hectares, but the whole area was

not fully used for the primary

purpose of making it a hub for

government offices. Informal

settlers started to impinge the

area, built temporary dwellings

until it became a permanent

residence for them. Then in 1987,

President Corazon C. Aquino

issued Proclamation No. 137

excluding 184 hectares (west

side) from the coverage of

Proclamation 1826, declaring the

same open for disposition to

qualified beneficiaries.

NGC-EASTSIDE

The NGC-East side area which

covers a total of 238 hectares

was opened for disposition to

bona fide residents in 1994

through a Proclamation No. 1169

issued by the former President

Fidel V. Ramos. Then it was made

Subdivision, Reblocking, and Auxiliary Service FundA Study on Fund Utilization of NGC-Eastside

into a law by the former President

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo

through a Republic Act No. 9207

(National Government Center

Housing and Land Utilization Act)

in 2003. The said Act has also

stipulated that those institutions

already operating and with

existing facilities or structures at

the time of effectivity of the said

Act will be retained and the land

area that may be allocated to

them shall be based on the area

that they actually occupied.

Portion for commercial/

economic area was also

allocated, and the SRA area which

already existed at the time of the

Act was also retained. A year

later (2004), the NGC-East Master

Development Plan (see annex 1)

was developed and approved by

the Quezon City Council thru

Ordinance No. SP-1386, S-2004.

This was followed by the

approval of the Implementing

Rules and Regulations (IRR) for

R.A. 9207 by the NGC-

Administration Committee.

Approximately, 20,500 lots

are projected to be generated for

residential use and were opened

for availment by the legitimate

residents. Determination of the

legality of residency was based

on the census survey conducted

in 1994 and occupancy

verification survey conducted in

2000. Both surveys recorded

29,931 families belonging to

different Home Owners

Associations (HOAs). Only these

29,931 censused families were

considered as “bona fide”

residents who will be entitled to a

lot allocation as provided for by

R.A 9207.

Homelots Generated and

Beneficiaries

As per the initial projections,

with 29,931 families and only

20,500 lots for allocation, there

is a considerable shortage –

almost 10,000 more lots are

needed to accommodate all the

bona fide residents. The National

Housing Authority (or NGC

eastside PMO) came up with a

proposition to allocate 4.5

hectares from the 238 hectares

for the construction of medium

rise buildings. One hectare could

approximately accommodate 10

buildings with 60 units each.

Around 45 buildings are

projected to be constructed, and

these can house approximately

2,700 families. Still a long way to

fill in the difference but the NGC-

EDP Project Management Office

(PMO) believes that this may be

enough since from the last survey,

a number of “legitimate”

residents have already left, and

those who have sold or bought

units would be disqualified;

renters and sharers are not also

qualified.

A total of 298 Home Owners

Associations (HOAs) exist in the

NGC East Side, and out of this

number, only 258 are qualified to

outline their Community

Development Programs (CDPs).

The Community Development Plan

serves as guide for all land

development undertakings in

NGC-East in the coming years. It

describes the aims of the

proposed land use plan, the

proposed spatial structure for the

area, and proposed policies for

land use management. This is

also one of the pre-requisites in

applying for the NGC Housing

Project. For HOA to be qualified

(Excerpts from Foundation for Development Alternatives, Inc. Case Study)

Spe

cial

Issu

e

17Salin-Diwa

in the housing project, certain

criteria / requirements must be

met based on the policies set by

the NGC-AC).

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATIONPROJECT IMPLEMENTATIONPROJECT IMPLEMENTATIONPROJECT IMPLEMENTATIONPROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

Project Updates

A. Number of Qualified

Beneficiaries

15,631 out of 29,931 families

included in the 2000

Occupancy Verification

Census

B. Number of HOAs with

approved CDP: 196 out of

256 HOAs

C. Number of HOAs with

approved Subdivision Plan:

21 out of 196 HOAs

D. Number of lot disposed: 524

out of 1,658 generated lots

The NGC-EDP Project

Manager admitted that the

implementation of the project

was not that easy. There were

problems encountered along the

way. Financial capability of the

target beneficiaries was one of

the major problems identified.

Preparation of the required

documents entails corresponding

expenses. Though for lot prices,

the bonafide residents were only

charged a very minimal cost

(Php700/sqm.) plus other

incidental expense i.e., surveyor’s

fee, processing of

documents and other related

expense.

As experienced by

NAMABA HOA, the first HOA

which applied for the

housing project, its payment

to the surveyor was delayed;

consequently, submission of

the CDP was delayed as well.

Another setback

encountered was the issue

with the “recalcitrant”.

During the reblocking phase,

a number of complaints

were received by the NGC

office; complaints from the

leaser and the lessee,

demolition activities,

reduced lots, etc. Hence,

getting a legal service was

another burden that deliberately

impeded the project. It was an

added burden to the NHA and the

people.

Reblocking activities usually

prolong the whole process. NGC-

AC advises the HOA to start the

reblocking activity as soon as the

CDP is approved by the NHA even

without the DENR’s approval of

the subdivision plan yet so as not

to be subjected to price increase.

With this recurring issues

and problems, realization of this

project seemed to be unworkable

at this point. Even if there are

families who are ready to

transfer, they cannot go on

unless the adjacent structure is

also willing and ready to move.

NHA’s intervention is also seemed

to be insufficient. As

acknowledged by the PMO,

implementation of the project is

not easy due to the problems

identified.

THE BIRTH OF ORDINANCETHE BIRTH OF ORDINANCETHE BIRTH OF ORDINANCETHE BIRTH OF ORDINANCETHE BIRTH OF ORDINANCE

NONONONONO. SP-1073, S-2009. SP-1073, S-2009. SP-1073, S-2009. SP-1073, S-2009. SP-1073, S-2009

With all those obstructions,

the HOAs were advised by the

PMO to get assistance from the

Local Government Unit. With the

upcoming 2010 national election,

it would be an opportune time to

seek assistance from them to

fasten the reblocking activities. It

was very fortunate that the QC

LGU through the help of Councilor

Allan Francisco, the proponent of

the Ordinance No. SP-1073, S-

2009, an ordinance

appropriating Php 18,585,000 to

be allocated for the community

development on NGC Eastside

Housing Projects was enacted

and approved on 2 December

2009. Php 17,500,000.00 of the

total fund would come from the

Office of the Vice Mayor Herbert

Bautista while the remaining

(Php1,000,000 would come from

the office of Councillor Allan

Francisco). The amount

appropriated would be included

in the 2010 annual budget or in

any available funds of the City

Treasury of the City Government.

THE FUND APPROPRIATED

The fund allocated was

named as National Government

Center-Eastside Development

Project (NGC-EDP) Subdivision,

Reblocking, and Auxiliary

Services Fund, a government

subsidy from the Quezon City

Government. Said fund was

released to the National

Government Center Eastside

Development Project (NGC-EDP)

Management Office thru the

National Housing Authority. This

means that the NGC-ED PMO

would take the accountability of

managing and supervising the

implementation of the project.

The fund is intended to

assist the accredited

homeowner associations in

NGC-Eastside in (a) funding

the preparation and

approval of their respective

subdivision plan, (b)

Funding the operation of the

Task Force Reblocking,

especially in undertaking

the reblocking of structures

(as per approved

Community Development

Plan (CDP), and (c) Auxiliary

Legal Services which would

help the beneficiaries,

facing formal complaints in

judicial bodies and/or other

forms on account of their

ISSUES ENCOUNTERED THAT HELD DOWN

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

1. Determination of the qualified beneficiaries. Issue /

problems with the “sharers” and /or “renters”

continue to surface even it was made clear from the

start that only those censused families will be

considered as “bonafide” residents and therefore

entitled to lot allocation.

2. Preparation of the required documents

• Financial constraints. Payment to surveyors,

preparation of subdivision plan, etc.

• Processing and approval of documents usually

takes time

3. Reblocking Phase.

• Complaints on reduced lot sizes

• Recalcitant

• Legal services

Spe

cial

Issu

e

18 Salin-Diwa

compliance with the reblocking

requirement of the project.

THE SECRETARIAT

To ensure an effective and

efficient implementation of the

project, a secretariat was formed;

this is composed of originally five

representatives from different

offices/sector with direct

involvement in the project.

However, with the defeat of

Councillor Francisco in the last

election, representative from his

office was excluded from the

Secretariat.

The Secretariat is tasked to:

A. Prepare a yearly program of

activities with corresponding

budget.

B. The program shall include the

list of regular activities the

secretariat will be conducting

based on the objectives set.

C. Ensure the smooth and

effective implementation of

the submitted organizational

and financial plan

D. Decide on matters pertinent to

the effective execution of the

Subdivision plan and

Reblocking Trust.

E. Revise, amend the submitted

program or provide funds for

activities not specified

therein, as long as the

activities are consistent with

the objectives.

MONITORING RESULTMONITORING RESULTMONITORING RESULTMONITORING RESULTMONITORING RESULT

A. Budget utilization

As explained by the PMO, as of

to date no fund utilization

took effect. The fund remains

untouched and it is still with

the bank.

B. Project Updates

From the initial target of

20,500 lots for disposal, only

524 has been so far disposed.

However, this is not included

in the 18.5M fund

appropriated by the LGU. It

has been disposed prior the

approval of the grant from the

LGU.

The proposed construction of

a medium rise building to

accommodate at most 2,700

families is shelved.

c. Number of Qualified HOAs

(to avail of the grant from the

LGU) and total number of

beneficiaries

No data as of now. Validation

of HOA applicants would be

done by August 2011.

MONITORINGMONITORINGMONITORINGMONITORINGMONITORING

FINDINGS ANDFINDINGS ANDFINDINGS ANDFINDINGS ANDFINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the data gathered

through interviews and review of

available documents, no fund

disbursement or utilization took

effect from the time the fund was

transferred to NGC EDP

Management Office last

December 2010. The actual

amount is still with the bank.

Ceremonial awarding was done

in July 2010, however, actual

transfer of funds was done five

months later.

According to Engr. Antonio

Del Rosario, the NGC-EDP Project

Manager, the office is still doing

the necessary preparatory

activities. For the last six

months, most of the PMO’s

activities were focused on doing

all the necessary preparations.

However, he did not elaborate on

what activities the office has

been doing. According to him, it is

the government’s process that

slowed down the activities.

A Secretariat’s meeting was

set for July 15, 2011 to discuss

the plans and upcoming

activities. The HOAs were hopeful

that after the meeting, activities

would start to roll on (especially

on the reblocking activities).

During the interview the NGC-

EDP Project Manager mentioned

that there is a projected plan of

activities with corresponding

budgetary allocations, and

promised to give us a copy. But no

copy was given even after a

couple of follow ups. According

to one of the Secretariat

members, the of activities and

budget plan are actually not yet

on hand and would only be made

available by first week of July

2011.

RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Conduct a new survey or

validation survey of the legal

beneficiaries, to see how

many more lots are still

needed. Cross check it with

the data of the 1994 census

and occupancy verification

census in 2000.

B. PMO should conduct regular

meeting with the involved /

interested HOAs as to the

timeline and/or the plan of

activities to avoid any

wariness on the part of the

HOAs.

Result of the NHA and PHILSSA joint assessment of Case

Studies• The allocated budget will be used for the approval of a subdivision survey,

reblocking itself, and legal and financial assistance, if necessary.

• The budget itself is a grant, not a loan. It is not recoverable. The challenge is that

beneficiaries do not have the initiative to provide a counterpart for the fund to roll.

• NGC uses the IRR of the Ordinance as their guideline. PO and NGO

representatives sit in the secretariat to monitor fund utilization.

• Cooperation from private organizations through granting of loans to

beneficiaries is encouraged.

• According to RA 9207, the national government must appropriate funds yearly

for this purpose. Since the NGC project started in 2003, they have not

received any appropriation. PHILSSA can help lobby for appropriation from

the national government.

Spe

cial

Issu

e

19Salin-Diwa

PROJECT DESCRIPTIONPROJECT DESCRIPTIONPROJECT DESCRIPTIONPROJECT DESCRIPTIONPROJECT DESCRIPTION

BACKGROUND OF BICOL CARE

PROJECT ( Taysan Resettlement

Site)

On 21 January 2009, the

President of the Philippines

passed an Executive Order no.

779, amending the Executive

Order No.634, dated July 3,2007,

Entitled “Creating the Bicol

Calamity Assistance and

Rehabilitation Efforts Committee.

The Bicol Care Commission (B-

Care) was created in 2007 to

integrate relief, rehabilitation,

resettlement, recovery, livelihood,

and development efforts in

different areas of the Bicol Region

particularly affected by

Typhoons, Caloy, Millenyo, and

Reming . The B–CARE was funded

Looking Back at Bicol Calamity Assistance Rehabilitation

Efforts (Bicol Care)Taysan Resettlement Site, Barangay Taysan, Legazpi City

under the R.A 9401 General

appropriation Act of 2007. The

amount covered expenses for

relocation site development, land

acquisition, construction of

housing units and home

materials assistance.1

The Taysan Resettlement Site

is one of the recipients of this

project located at the Barangay

Taysan, Legaspi City,

Taysan Resettlement Site

was used as a Transit Center on 7

January 2007 with Barangay

Padang having the biggest

number of families prior to the

creation of B-CARE. Shelter

Construction started in July 2007

with the residents clearing up the

entire area rather than wait for

NHA to do the task.2

Based on Housing records

in 2009, 389 units were under

the usufruct agreement. The

partners for housing projects

were Community Organization of

the Philippines Enterprise

Foundation, Inc. (COPE),

Department of Social Welfare

and Development, Philippine

Council of Evangelical Churches

thru: Philippine Relief and

Development Services (PHILRADS),

Compassion International , Y’s

Men , Gawad Kalinga,3 while the

NHA tasked under the Bicol Care

Project to provide land

development to identified

resettlement sites owned by

LGUS; acquisition and

development of new relocation

site and housing materials

assistance4

Name of Village

Project Name No. of Units Active /Actual Type of Unit

COPE COPE/ Christian Aid 110(55 duplex) 110 duplex

DSWD DSWD Core Shelter project 240 127 Single detached

PHILRADS House of HOPE Project 50 (25duplex) 50 duplex

Compassion Compassion Village 28(14duplex) 28 duplex

Gawad Kalinga

GK Village 400 66 Single detached

Y’s Men Y’s men and Masonic Village 8 (4-duplex) 8 duplex

Total 726 units 389

(Excerpts from Community Organization of the Philippine Enterprise Foundation, Inc.

Case Study)

1 Executive Order No. 779 – Amending Executive Order No. 634, dated July 3, 2007 entitled” Creating the Bicol Calamity Assistance and Rehabilitation Committee.2 “ Taysan Resettlement Site” DSWD Presentation during the City Sharing in Legazpi City on October 29 , 20093 Ibid4 NHA document “ NHA Status Report” as of Jan 18, 2008

Spe

cial

Issu

e

20 Salin-Diwa

PROJECT STATUSPROJECT STATUSPROJECT STATUSPROJECT STATUSPROJECT STATUS

Basis

Republic Act 9401 known as

General Appropriation Acts of

2007 provided for a budget for

the B–CARE amounting to 750M.

The NHA reported that

there are gaps for lots and

shelter with 10,683 target

number of families to be served;

while lot to be generated is

9,431. The gap is 1,603 . While

the shelter target is 10, 683

only 3,363 commitment with the

gap of 7, 320. 5

Budget UtilizationThese are the coverage of NHA project under B–CARE:

Description Sq. M %

Residential 60.874 53.24%

School Site 10.005 8.75 %

Community Facilities 1.581 1.38

Circulation 29.623 25.91%

Legal Easement 754 0.66%

Open Space 1.513 1.32%

Unbuildable 9.989 8.74%

Total 114,339 100.00%

Community Facilities : Space allocation

Parks and Play ground: Space allocation

Infrastructure works : Turned over to LGU 2/19/10

Community Facilities and Project Utilities

FINDINGS ANDFINDINGS ANDFINDINGS ANDFINDINGS ANDFINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONRECOMMENDATIONRECOMMENDATIONRECOMMENDATIONRECOMMENDATION

FINDINGSFrom the data gathered at

the office of NHA, the Agency

cannot provide the pertinent

documents unless there is an

approval from their General

Manager.

NHA has a very clear report

on the project it took at Taysan.

Resettlement Site, on the other

hand, based on our ocular

inspection and focus group

discussion (FGD), the

researcher found out that;

• NHA has built 500 septic

tank at the vacant lot

without housing structure.

Septic tank were built

without following proper

technology ( e.g septic tanks

have no proper outlet and

location )

• 24 jetmatics were installed.

Of the 24 water pumps only

3 are functioning. Of the

three one water pump is

served as the drinking

water servicing 389 families

of the entire resettlement

site (located at COPE

Village)

• School facilities–not enough

room for students ( e.g high

school students were

occupying the elementary

classroom or extension

room thru tent)

• Electricity –No primary line

at the Resettlement Site; No5 NHA Document

Spe

cial

Issu

e

21Salin-Diwa

individual meter

(electrification source)

connected at Barangay Hall.

• Incomplete Drainage system

• Poor Drainage system (no

cover)

• Substandard canals. There

were two canals on the main

line located on both sides of

the road, but in the rear

portion of the site, canals are

only constructed on one side

of the road.

As per NHA protocol, any

request for data in the regional

offices has to be coursed

through the national office for

approval.

Push for a functional LIAC or

re-activate regular consultation

among LGU, NHA, CSOs and

beneficiaries. Maximize existing

structures like the LHB.

RECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONS

• NHA Bicol Care document

must be available to anyone

who is requesting it because

it is a public document.

Result of the NHA and

PHILSSA joint

assessment of Case

Studies

• The housing units in the

project site came from

many donors, i.e.

Gawad Kalinga, Habitat,

PHILRADS, COPE

Foundation, Y’s Men,

DSWD. Because of the

very nature of the

project, it is hard to

determine who is

accountable for the

specific development or

housing unit. Should

include joint monitoring

and assessment of

project for immediate

feedback to NHA and

other agencies involved

in the project to address

accountability and

immediate rectification of

substandard work.

• Before the land is

turned over to the LGU,

the acceptance

committee of NHA has to

approve the housing

conditions.

• NHA is only for land

development.

• Review documents so

the people we will be

informed about project

design and other

specifications and as

basis for any feedback

about the project.

• There should be budget

transparency, as to how the

budget being allocated and

how it is being used

(disposition)

• NHA consultation with LGU

and civil society with regard

to acceptability of the project

should be done.

• There must be a public notice

through the use of signage

reflecting the contractor/the

agency who will implement

the project , the duration of

the project implementation,

the amount of the project

etc.

• The project should be apt to

the needs of the community

(e.g excessive installation of

septic tank must be

converted into other services

that are useful to the

community)

• Canals and drainage must

be installed both in the rear

and front of the houses

and in between of the houses

/block

Spe

cial

Issu

e

22 Salin-Diwa

PROJECT DESCRIPTIONPROJECT DESCRIPTIONPROJECT DESCRIPTIONPROJECT DESCRIPTIONPROJECT DESCRIPTION

Proclamation No. 1772

dated 14 May 2009 is an

amendment to Proclamation No.

507 dated 21 October 1932,

which reserved certain parcels of

land in Barangay Jagobiao,

Mandaue City, Cebu as additional

Leprosarium site for the Eversely

Child Treatment Station. The said

amendment excludes portions

thereof and declaring the same

for urban development and

socialized housing purposes in

favor of qualified beneficiaries

under the provisions of Republic

Act No. 7279 otherwise known as

the Urban Development and

Housing Act.

Sacred Heart Ville Jagobiao Housing Project

Presidential Proclamation 1772

PROJECT STATUSPROJECT STATUSPROJECT STATUSPROJECT STATUSPROJECT STATUS

The Cebu Project Office has

submitted the necessary documents

for the approval of the Survey and

Individual Titling Works Contract

proposal to NHA-Visayas

Management Office.

For Public Bidding and Award.

FINDINGSFINDINGSFINDINGSFINDINGSFINDINGS

There were claimants of the

land particularly Lot 1969,

1989, 1991 which consist of 3.3

hectares of the area. But NHA

Region VII said that this is not a

problem anymore.

The residents of Sacred

Heart Ville were divided into

two Homeowners Associations

– the Jagobiao Urban Poor

Organization and the Sacred

Heart Ville HOA. One of the

major factors of the split is

local politics.

NHA Region VII said that

the bidding is on-going. CSO

was not involved during the

bidding process.

RECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONS

Recommend to NHA that

CSO should be involved with

the projects’ bidding process.

Continue to strengthen

the partnership/working

relation with the NHA Region

VII

Continue monitoring the

Sacred Heart Ville Jagobiao

Housing Project until its

completion.

Result of the NHA and

PHILSSA joint

assessment of Case

Studies

NHA is amenable to the

idea that PHILSSA and

beneficiaries of the

proposed projects can

participate in the bidding

process as observers,

based on the Procurement

Law. AGM Kampitan is the

head of the Bids and

Awards Committee.

(Excerpts from Fellowship for Organizing Endeavors Case Study)

PROJECT NAME JAGOBIAO HOUSING PROJECT

(Presidential Proclamation 1772)

LOCATION

AMO Visayas

Region VII

Province Cebu

District 6th District

City Mandaue City

Barangay Jagobiao

PROJECT CLASSIFICATION Slum Upgrading Project (SUP)

PROJECT BENEFICIARIES Qualified On-Site Beneficiaries (RA 7279)

PROJECT PROPONENTS

NHA Land Administrator

MANDAUE CITY LGU Functions per PP 1772 IRR

PCUP Functions per PP 1772 IRR

(Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor)

DENR Functions per PP 1772 IRR

(Department of Environment and Natural Resources)

TOTAL ACQUISITION COST To be agreed by DENR and NHA

Total Estimated Project Cost (Survey Works and Titling)

Survey Works and P 2,785,570.80

Individual Titling

PROPOSED PHYSICAL FEATURES Slum Upgrading Features

TOTAL AREA 118,874 Square Meters

PROJECTED BENEFICIARIES 907 Families

Spe

cial

Issu

e

23Salin-Diwa

PROJECT SUMMARPROJECT SUMMARPROJECT SUMMARPROJECT SUMMARPROJECT SUMMARYYYYY

The project is covered by

TCT No. T-100471 registered in

the name of NATIONAL HOUSING

AUTHORITY (NHA) with a total

land area of 73,637 sq. m. Out

of the total area, only 50,000

sq. m. is being considered for

development into resettlement

site for members of TALOMO

MUSLIM VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS

ASSOCIATION (TAMVIHA) and

having a total value of 14 million

Pesos.

The property is presently

occupied by members of Talomo

Muslim Village Homeowners

Association (TAMVIHA) and

TAUMU. However, only the Talomo

Muslim Village Homeowners

Association recognizes NHA as

the owner of the property.

TAMVIHA is presently headed by

its President, Hadji George

Sacar. Project packaging is

being prepared for the said

property by the Technical Unit of

NHA-Region XI Office.

The project is severely

depressed and the actual

occupants had continuously and

openly took possession of the

area even before the entry/

acquisition of the NHA. NHA has

not introduced any development

in the area until at present.

The site was originally

included for the proposed

Kadayawan Homes Housing

Project but due to the hard

opposition and resistance of the

occupants, the area was not

developed.

A Certificate of Budget

Allocation (CBA) in the amount of

P300,000 dated 14 October 2002

was granted by the Finance

Department for the said proposed

survey works. Publication of

invitation to bid was made in

the local newspaper on 24

November 2003. No interested

party submitted application to

bid probably due

to the hostile

environment and

peace and order

situation of the

area at that

period.

Just this year,

a Certificate of

Fund Availability

(CFA) amounting

to P1,223,564.62

was approved for

the survey works,

and public

bidding was set

sometime in the

last week of July

2011.

NHA Kadayawan Muslim Village HOA, Davao City

At present, the new set of

Officers of TAMVIHA, headed by

Hadji George Sacar, is more open,

friendly and progress–oriented

that NHA is taking advantage of

the new environment so that this

much delayed project can now

move forward and finally be

realized.

QUICK FAQUICK FAQUICK FAQUICK FAQUICK FACTS- SUMMARCTS- SUMMARCTS- SUMMARCTS- SUMMARCTS- SUMMARYYYYY

OF SURVEY RESULTSOF SURVEY RESULTSOF SURVEY RESULTSOF SURVEY RESULTSOF SURVEY RESULTS

Below are some quick

figures culled from the results

of the Monitoring Survey:

Project Name SURVEY WORKS FOR NHA

MUSLIM VILLAGE

RESETTLEMENT PROJECT

Location Kadayawan Homes, Bangkal,

BarangayTalomo, Davao City

Project Classification Slum Upgrading

Project Land Area 73,637 sq. .m

Total No. of Units 370 units (more or less)

Total Project Cost P 16,745,921.08

Project Duration 245 calendar days

Project Status For Bidding (3rd quarter of 2011)

Approved Budget P1,223,564.62

Budget Allocated for Survey Works

Mode of Procurement Public Bidding

(Excerpts from San Lorenzo Ruiz Socio-Economic Development Foundation, Inc.

Case Study)

Spe

cial

Issu

e

24 Salin-Diwa

Figure 1. FGD with TAMVIHA President

3. RESULTS OF THE3. RESULTS OF THE3. RESULTS OF THE3. RESULTS OF THE3. RESULTS OF THE

MONITORING SURVEYMONITORING SURVEYMONITORING SURVEYMONITORING SURVEYMONITORING SURVEY

3.1 BASIC INFORMATION

3.2 LAND PROFILE

Target Beneficiaries:

Members of Talomo MuslimVillage Homeowners

Association (TAMVIHA)

HOA President Hadji George

Sacar

Address Atis St., Muslim

Village HOA,

Bangkal, Brgy

Talo

Contact No 09192582752

Topography Relatively flat

below sea level

Existing Utilities

Water provided by Davao

City Water District

Power provided by Davao

Light and Power

Company

Drainage outfall thru existing

Talomo River

Access Road along existing

subdivision road

3.3 SITE CHARACTERICTICS /

CONDITIONS:

3.4 EXISTING FACILITIES: (within 5

kms from the Project Site)

Schools

Elementary Dolor Elem

School

High School Matina National

High School,

Daniel Aguinaldo

College UM Matina

Commercial Areas Matina CENTRO,

NCCC Matina,

MAKRO

Industrial Areas: Coca Cola Plant

Hospital/Clinics Sanitarium

Hospital

Religious Center Our Lady of

Lourdes,Seventh

Day Adventist

Communication PLDT, Bayantel,

Fac. Smart, Globe, Sun

3.5 LEGAL ASPECT

Landowner National Housing Authority

Area per TCT 73, 637 sq. m.

Area considered 50,000 q.m. Land

Use Classification Residential

Tenancy/Squatting Occupied by proposed

beneficiaries

Encumbrance Claimed by the actual

Litigants Claims occupants

3.6 GENERATED LOTS

No of Lots Generated 370 lots

Lot Sizes 94 sq.m.

Density (lot per hectare) 40 lots per

hectare

Housing Units Self-help

Construction

3.7 PROJECT COST SUMMARY

Direct Cost (Land 14M + 1.22M

Cost + Survey works) Php 15,223,564.62

Indirect Cost Php 1,522,356.46

(10% pf Direct Cost)

Total Project Cost Php 16,745,921.08

3.8 SELLING PRICE AND AFFORDABILITY

CONSIDERATION

Selling Price

The proposed price is PHP510.00 per square

meter or an average of Php 47,940.00 lot

value per beneficiary. NHA have proposed

repayment options for 30,20 and 10 years with

an amortization of 287.42 (lowest) and 566.02

(highest).

Buyers Financing NHA In-house

Plan Mode of Awarding Direct Award to the

qualified beneficiaries

Spe

cial

Issu

e

25Salin-Diwa

3.9 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

Community’s Knowledge on the

Selling Price:

As of to date, the Community

does not have information yet as

to how much is the cost of the lot/

property per square meter. During

the FGD, majority expressed their

willingness to start paying but

also hoped that the price is not

so high. They are willing to

negotiate with the NHA on the

said matter.

Presence of PO during consultation

It was learned from the FGD

attended by key leaders of the

NHA-Talomo Muslim Village HOA

that there were series of

visitation, census and tagging,

inspection and consultation

made by NHA with regards to the

implementation of the NHA-

TAMVIHA Housing Project.

Mode of Selection Process –

Identification of Beneficiary

The respondents of the FGD

have likewise expressed that they

will have the “as is - where is”

mode of selection and

identification of beneficiaries of

the housing project. NHA XI

already conducted census tagging

three years ago and will again

conduct a socio profiling before

the implementation of the

approved budget on Survey Works

in partnership with the

Community leaders.

3.10 OBSERVATIONS

The observation noted by the

team is based on the current

physical conditions of the

housing units. Renovations,

repairs and improvements were

already done on some units.

During the FGD and actual

visitation of the team to the

housing project site,

infrastructure surrounding the

housing units was likewise

observed and among the

remarkable problems expressed

by the respondents and observed

by the team were:

• The project is in the middle

of two big Rivers – Talomo

River and Matina Rivers

• The community did not

observe the proper easement;

• Roads were primarily

macadam-built (a road made

from broken stones

combined with asphalt);

• There were no subdivision

and housing plans for the

project

• No proper canals and

drainage system,

• No proper water system;

• Seawall is obsolete (Marcos

Administration) and no

longer serves its purpose.

Sample Houses

There are about 370 (more or

less) self-constructed units in the

project.

During the FGD, some pioneer

residents recalled that their

houses made of bamboos, wood,

nipa and generally light and

cheap materials were submerged

by floods.

Community Livelihood program

The FGD respondents

expressed that there is an

existing livelihood program for

women. The community has a

nipa project and most of the

active participants are Muslim

women. The community took the

opportunity of maximizing the

available resources in the area

for livelihood.

3.11 OTHER FINDINGS AND

OBSERVATIONS TO THE PROJECT

• Majority of the settlers,

almost 95%, are Muslims

and claimed that their

ancestors stayed for almost

80-90 years in the area and

already passed from three

generations. They claimed

that this area is their

heritage property. This is the

main reason why for the

past years, there was heavy

resistance from the

occupants on the said

project. They further claimed

that they occupied the land

for years now without paying

a single centavo; but they

also fear for future

demolition. They just hope

for proper consultation on

the said property. They are

willing to negotiate with NHA

on the pricing of their

claimed land.

• There are two HOA/Groups

existing in the area, the

TAMVIHA and TAUMO. But

TAMVIHA is recognized by

NHA as the owner of the

property, while TAUMO

questions the legality and the

ownership of NHA. TAMVIHA

is headed by Hadji Madjid

George Sacar, while TAUMO

is headed by Larry Cabaquio.

Spe

cial

Issu

e

26 Salin-Diwa

TAUMO occupied mostly the

proposed open space of the

property.

• TAMVIHA has apprehensions

on the selling price of the

project and the payments

schemes that will be

imposed to them. It also

considered the issue on re-

alignment, lot adjustment

and re-blocking after the

survey works.

• Big portion of the property

is still covered by Nipa trees

and submerged in water.

Muddy and sandy portions

of the property are also

observed.

• Some parts/blocks that are

supposed to be part of

Kadayawan Homes are part

and parcel used by

TAMVIHA.

• The property is in the

middle of the Talomo and

Matina Rivers. It regularly

suffers from flash floods.

Two of the most disastrous

floods was on 29 June 2009

and 29 June 2011 which

damaged millions of pesos

of properties, killed 31

people, affected almost

13,000 families, and washed

out 649 houses. Community

members of TAMVIHA are

wary for another flash

floods

• Have an existing road-right-

of-way from the access road

of Kadayawan Homes.

Pathways can also be seen

inside the property but no

clear roads for those units

near the river and nipa trees.

• According to other

respondents, issues on

social and religious

discrimination are also

prevalent in the area. Petty

crimes exist and neighboring

communities always tagged

them as culprits of those

crimes;

• Youth development is very

commendable in the

community. The Bangkal

Muslim Youth Organization

(BMYO) is now a known

Muslim youth organization

in Brgy Talomo and Davao as

well. These groups enhance

the capacity of the youth and

expand their knowledge on

social issues and

development.

• At present, the new set of

Officers of TAMVIHA headed

by Sacar is progress oriented

that NHA is taking advantage

of the new environment so

that this much delayed

project can now move

forward and finally be

realized.

4.4 .4 .4 .4 . RECOMMENDATIONS:RECOMMENDATIONS:RECOMMENDATIONS:RECOMMENDATIONS:RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Full implementation of the

planned lay-out and project

implementation of the Survey

Works project. An audit of

the finished project must

first take place before final

payment to the contractor/

surveyor.

2. To include in the Survey

Works, complete housing

plan for the community –

Road Plan, Drainage Plan,

Topography plan, Water

and Light etc.

3. To better facilitate/mitigate

the issues on corruption,

public consultation, public

bidding and monitoring

must be implemented.

4. A thorough study of the

sites, especially on how to

mitigate or adapt with the

flooding, etc. be made first

and should the project

proceed, consideration to

address the issues must be

included.

5. Craft a plan that will

minimize lot adjustment or

dislocation if in case

houses will be affected by

re-blockings and re-

alignments.

6. Social preparedness is very

important in this kind of

project. It is very important

to conduct another round

of socio-economic

profiling and census

tagging within the

Community to identify the

present occupancy status

and affordability study of

the beneficiary. Conduct

public consultation

specially to inform the

would-be beneficiaries and

discuss the acceptability of

the selling price and terms

of payments and invite

other stakeholders in the

consultation process like

members of the Local

Housing Board of Davao

City specially the CSO’s, the

Urban Poor PO groups and

NGO and other government

shelter agencies.

Result of the NHA and PHILSSA joint assessment of Case Studies

• We should exercise caution in using the “as is, where is” term because it means

the community will not be moved even for reblocking purposes.

• The cost of land development is only Php 35/sq.m. Because it only covers land

cost and survey.

Spe

cial

Issu

e

27Salin-Diwa

Issues Raised

• BPA is only limited to the formulation ofthe budget. How about the differentphases of the budget cycle? As wellas other aspect of projectimplementation like humandevelopment.

• NHA was not involved in thedevelopment of the researchframework and indicators for the casestudy/research

• Previous studies should includevalidated information and updates fromNHA

• Difficulties in getting relevant data fromNHA.

• Some issues raised in some projectscannot be attributed only to NHA due tothe multisectoral approach in projectimplementation. Some stakeholders ofthe project are not involved andincluded in the assessment.

• How to ensure efficient implementationof projects identified in the budget for2012 and how about policyrecommendations that was raisedduring NHA assessment.

• How to ensure project ID andimplementation in the regions.

• PHILSSA was not invited in the biddingprocess of projects of NHA.

• Lack of sustainability of the monitoringeffort from budget preparation up toproject completion of CSO due to lackof resources.

• Include DBM in the budget formulationand monitoring process.

Action Points

• Prepare a clear set of indicators that can be accomplished within the period of the BPA. Howdo we address other components of human development aside from housing that is notcovered by the budget? Have a leveling-off of indicators and expectations.

• Discuss having an agreement with NHA for another BPA that includes PHILSSA participationin monitoring of project implementation aside from budget preparation.

• Ask for formal guidelines from DBM that would include CSO in budget execution and budgetmonitoring.

• Monitoring and assessment should be longer than three months to cover the implementationof the project.

• For the next case study development and BPA, include NHA in the formulation of theresearch framework and monitoring tool. Make it a joint endeavor with NHA.

• Validate previous case studies to rectify inaccuracies.

• Protocol for getting data from NHA: Should be requested from National before it would bereleased to CSO to make it official.

• NHA to be involved in the development of the research tool to ensure data provision.

• Include and coordinate with different stakeholders in the regions in the assessment of NHAprojects to enable them to see the nuances of project implementation and for us to havebetter information for proper and accurate assessment of the projects. Identify the properagencies that will provide the basic services, since only electrification is borne by theNHA.

• Require a memorandum of agreement between sending and receiving LGUs in terms ofresettlement issues.

• Identify project sites per region given the budget ceiling set by DBM per program andestablish partnership with CSO in its implementation.

• TWGs created in regions with CSO representation will be adopted. PHILSSA membersare already part of this TWG in Bicol, Visayas and Mindanao. (There are existing TWGsin Bicol, Visayas and Mindanao. TWGs should also be created in NCR andCALABARZON.)

• Project ID to be processed by the regions through the TWG and this is where policychanges can be implemented. This would serve as the pilot site for policy changes.Only then when it is found effective will it be adopted by NHA national.

• NHA is open to the idea that PHILSSA or any CSO can observe in the bidding processof projects conducted in Manila. Just inform NHA or include it in the BPA with NHA.Check website for schedules.

• Joint effort with NHA with government and international funding support for the monitoringeffort.

• Include DBM in the BPA. They should be part of the BPA process from the start ot theend. This would prevent any expectations from the participating agencies and CSO. Itwould establish the parameters and limitations of the engagement.

PHILSSA and NHA Joint Assessment of the

Budget Partnership Agreement (BPA) and

Identified Action Points

This joint activity was held on 31 August 2011 at NHA Conference room to assess the Budget Partnership Agreement

(BPA) between PHILSSA and NHA in formulating the 2012 NHA budget. The BPA came about because of the NationalMemorandum Order # 109 issued by DBM to pilot test budget formulation reforms in seven National Governmentagencies, wherein CSOs are included in the formulation of the agencies budget. But prior to the BPA, PHILSSA and

NHA have been partners in budget reforms under the National Budget Monitoring Project 1 of INCITEGOV andUSAID.

If

undel

iver

ed p

leas

e re

turn

to

PH

ILSSA SECR

ETAR

IAT

PH

ILSSA SECR

ETAR

IAT

PH

ILSSA SECR

ETAR

IAT

PH

ILSSA SECR

ETAR

IAT

PH

ILSSA SECR

ETAR

IAT

3/F

lr.

Hoe

ffne

r B

uild

ing,

Soc

ial

Dev

elop

men

t C

ompl

exA

tene

o de

Man

ila

Uni

vers

ity,

Loy

ola

Hei

ghts

1108 Q

uezo

n C

ity

Tel

. N

os.:

4264328 •

4260811 •

4266001 loc

. 4854

Tel

efax

: 4264327

E-m

ail:

phi

lssa

@pl

dtd

sl.n

et