Human Rights - Finals

HUMAN RIGHTS Final Paper
CEU SLAJ
Robert M. Ramirez March 29, 2014
1 | P a g e R A 7 2 7 9 a n d I n f o r m a l S e t t l e r s

Informal Settlers in the Philippines and RA 7279: An Analysis

I. Introduction

Every time informal settlers and slum dwellers in the country become a hot topic, the
debate splits into two. One side thinks informal settlers are an entitled group of parasites, who
suck the lifeblood out of meaningful government projects and hardworking people. The other
thinks the settlers are downtrodden underclass who is just trying to get ahead in a society that
favors the rich at the expense of everyone else. The issue of squatting is a complicated matter
because economic, social and political factors are intertwined with such issue. In addition,
certain civil rights of informal settlers have to be taken into consideration in adopting policies
dealing with the eviction and resettlement of the informal settlers. Bottom line is that the issue of
evicting squatters from land they have no right to inhabit will not have been muddled into idiotic
debates that invoke humanitarian appeal had laws on squatting and legal use of both public and
private property been observed from the very start. As such, there is a need for an effective law
in order to harmonize the conflicting interests in connection with the matter of squatting.

Our 1987 Constitution specifically Article XIII Section 10 provides that Urban or rural poor
dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwellings demolished, except in accordance with law in a
just and humane manner. It further states that no resettlement of Urban or Rural Dwellers shall
be undertaken without adequate consultation with them and communities where they are to be
relocated. This provision in the constitution strongly protects the human rights of the informal
settlers, but the private owners of the land who were infested by these dwellers cried on the
protection of their own rights. One of the laws protecting the rights of the informal settlers is the
RA 7279 or widely known as the Lina Law.

This paper will discuss the salient features of the Lina Law and the related jurisprudence.
This will also be analyzed in terms of its effects to Human Rights based on international
standards. In the end, policy recommendations would also be presented to strengthen and
enhance the effectiveness of the law.

II. Lina Law (RA 7279) Summary

This law is formally known as the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992(UDHA).
RA 7279 is entitled "An Act to Provide for a Comprehensive and Continuing Urban
Development and Housing Program, Establish the Mechanism for its Implementation, and for
Other Purposes. The Lina Law is the governing law on the subject matter of "squatting" in the
Philippines. It is the law that governs the local expropriation of property for purposes of urban
land reform and housing. It also governs the eviction and demolition of informal settlers.
CEU SLAJ

"Underprivileged and homeless citizens," who are the beneficiaries of UDHA, are the
"individuals or families residing in urban and urbanizable areas whose income or combined
household income falls within the poverty threshold as defined by the National Economic and
Development Authority and who do not own housing facilities. This shall include those who live
in makeshift dwelling units and do not enjoy security of tenure.

Eviction or demolition as a practice is discouraged under the Lina Law. However, eviction or
demolition may be allowed under the following situations:
(a) When persons or entities occupy danger areas such as esteros, railroad tracks, garbage
dumps, riverbanks, shorelines, waterways, and other public places such as sidewalks,
roads, parks, and playgrounds;
(b) When government infrastructure projects with available funding are about to be
implemented; or
(c) When there is a court order for eviction and demolition.

Section 28 of the UDHA (RA 7279) lays down the mandatory requirements for the valid
execution of eviction and demolition orders involving underprivileged and homeless citizens.
These are:
(a) NOTICE should be given thirty (30) days prior to demolition;
(b) Adequate CONSULTATION with the settlers of the affected area;
(c) Adequate RELOCATION; whether temporary or permanent;
(d) Members of the Philippine National POLICE must be properly uniformed;
(e) Proper IDENTIFICATION of all persons taking part in the demolition;
(f) Heavy EQUIPMENT should not be used except for permanent structures;
(g) Local government officials or their REPRESENTATIVES must be present; and
(h) Execution must be done only during regular OFFICE hours from Mondays to Fridays

The Lina Law allows a summary eviction and demolition against professional squatters.
"Professional squatters" are "individuals or groups who occupy lands without the express consent
of the landowner and who have sufficient income for legitimate housing. The term shall also
apply to persons who have previously been awarded homelot or housing units by the
Government but who sold, leased, 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." Violators shall be punished by imprisonment of not more than six (6) years or a fine of
not less than Five Thousand Pesos (PhP5,000) but not more than One Hundred Thousand Pesos
(PhP100,000), or both, at the discretion of the court.

The local government units, in cooperation with the Philippine National Police, the
Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor (PCUP), and the PCUP-accredited urban poor
CEU SLAJ

organization in the area, shall adopt measures to identify and effectively curtail the nefarious and
illegal activities of professional squatters and squatting syndicates, as herein defined. Any person
or group identified as such shall be summarily evicted and their dwellings or structures
demolished, and shall be disqualified to avail of the benefits of the Program. A public official
who tolerates or abets the commission of the abovementioned acts shall be dealt with in
accordance with existing laws.

A court-ordered eviction or demolition must comply with the following:

1. Once the case has already reached finality, the court is duty bound to send
notice to the:

i. Local Government Unit (LGU) and / or National Housing Authority
(NHA) of the finality of the decision for eviction and demolition to
enable the LGU and / or NHA to provide relocation within forty-five
(45) days from receipt of notice or financial assistance in the event that
no relocation is provided (Section 28, UDHA); and
ii. Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor (PCUP) five (5) days
prior to its intended implementation (OCA Circular No. 72-2003).

2. Immediately after the receipt of the notice, and within the forty-five (45) day
period, the LGU and / or NHA are duty-bound to conduct the following:

i. Provide a thirty (30) day notice to the evictees;
ii. Conduct adequate consultation; and
iii. Provide for relocation or financial assistance.

3. With the provision of relocation or the financial assistance at the lapse of the
forty-five (45) day period, the court upon motion or motu proprio will issue
the writ of execution and demolition. Said writ should contain specific
instructions addressed to the sheriff to comply with the other remaining
requirements of Section 28 of UDHA (RA7279) which constitute the just and
humane manner of eviction and demolition (police presence, LGU
representative, identification for demolition crew, no use of heavy equipment,
and demolition during 8am-3pm during weekdays and in good weather).
Socialized housing shall be the primary strategy in providing shelter for the
underprivileged and homeless. "Socialized housing" refers to housing programs and projects
covering houses and lots or homelots only undertaken by the Government or the private sector
for the underprivileged and homeless citizens which shall include sites and services
CEU SLAJ

development, long-term financing, liberalized terms on interest payments, and such other
benefits in accordance with the provisions of this Act. However, if the tenurial arrangement in a
particular socialized housing program is in the nature of leasehold or usufruct, the same shall be
transitory and the beneficiaries must be encouraged to become independent from the Program
within a given period of time, to be determined by the implementing agency concerned.
To qualify for the socialized housing program, a beneficiary:
(a) Must be a Filipino citizen;
(b) Must be an underprivileged and homeless citizen, as defined by RA 7279;
(c) Must not own any real property whether in the urban or rural areas; and
(d) Must not be a professional squatter or a member of squatting syndicates.
The National Housing Authority, with respect to lands belonging to the National
Government, and the local government units with respect to the other lands within their
respective localities, shall coordinate with each other to formulate and make available various
alternative schemes for the disposition of lands to the beneficiaries of the Program. These
schemes shall not be limited to those involving transfer of ownership in fee simple but shall
include lease, with option to purchase, usufruct or such other variations as the local government
units or National Housing Authority may deem most expedient in carrying out the purposes of
this Act. A scheme for public rental housing may be adopted.
Disposition of lands, including any improvements thereon, owned by the National
Government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities and/or the local government units through
direct negotiated sale to the occupants thereof without need of public bidding shall be allowed
subject to the following conditions:
a) The lands are within a residential zone as classified by the local government unit
concerned;
b) The lands are certified to be for socialized housing purpose by the Housing and Urban
Development Coordinating Council;
c) The occupants are qualified beneficiaries in accordance with Section 16 and are
registered as such in accordance with Section 17 of this Act;
d) The cost of said lands shall be made affordable to the beneficiaries, taking into
consideration their income and land valuation required in Section 13 of this Act;
e) Any subsequent disposition of the said land shall be subject to the limitations provided in
Section 14 of this Act; and
f) The occupants have resided on the said lands subject to the prohibitions provided in
Section 30 of this Act.

CEU SLAJ

No land for socialized housing, including improvements or rights thereon, shall be sold,
alienated, conveyed, encumbered or leased by any beneficiary of this Program except to
qualified Program beneficiaries as determined by the government agency concerned. Should the
beneficiary unlawfully sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of his lot or any right thereon, the
transaction shall be null and void. He shall also lose his right to the land, forfeit the total
amortization paid thereon, and shall be barred from the benefits under this Act for a period of ten
(10) years from the date of violation. In the event the beneficiary dies before full ownership of
the land is vested on him, transfer to his heirs shall take place only upon their assumption of his
outstanding obligations. In case of failure by the heirs to assume such obligations, the land shall
revert to the Government for disposition in accordance with this Act.
III. Lina Law (RA 7279) and the Human Rights

Urban population growth patterns indicate that the poor are concentrated in undesirable
areas, leaving them vulnerable to heightened risk of disease, disaster and insecurity. The urban
poor face many of the same challenges in daily life as the rural poor, with the added burden of
overcrowded and often unsanitary living conditions. Given that the urban poor very rarely own
tenure over their land or housing, they often face the constant threat of eviction, are vulnerable to
mistreatment owing to the informality of renting agreements, have greater difficulty in obtaining
access to credit, and cannot use their homes for income-generating activities.

The proliferation of slums and the large number of urban poor families without secure
housing tenure underscore the high cost of legal and formal housing and the short supply of
government-subsidized or assisted housing in urban areas. The continuing and rapid pace of
urbanization has increased the demand for housing to a level that is far beyond the current
capacity of the government to address alone. The present housing situation also reflects the
extralegal and informal arrangements that the urban poor employ to be able to survive and cope
with their limited options for land ownership. While the government seeks to remove and
prevent the formation of informal settlements, the urban poor seem to have no other choice but to
resort to such living arrangements because it is in urban areas where jobs and basic services are
most accessible.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the right to a standard
of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food,
clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services. The right to adequate housing
includes security of tenure, accessibility to services and infrastructure, habitability, affordability,
inclusive location, and cultural adequacy. For the urban poor, securing adequate housing that
meets these criteria in order to achieve such a standard of living is a challenge.
CEU SLAJ

As a basic human right, housing is best seen on the ground rather than read on paper.
International treaties and covenants such as the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights are cited as bases for Philippine
compliance with its right to housing obligations. Pursuant to the Doctrine of Incorporation, these
international agreements are written into the fundamental laws of each state party. Such
incorporation can be found in Article XIII, sections 9 and 10 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution,
which provisions basically dissect the right to housing into two sub-rights: the right against
forced evictions and demolitions and the right to adequate and affordable housing. The said sub-
rights are further fleshed out in the Urban Development and Housing Act (UDHA) or Republic
Act No. 7279. As far as the right against forced evictions and demolitions is concerned, the
UDHA lays down a strict protocol in Section 28, where basic guidelines on how to conduct a just
and humane eviction and demolition are listed. To further this mandate, the executive department
issued Executive Order No. 152 (2002), which designates the Presidential Commission for the
Urban Poor (PCUP) as the sole clearing house when it comes to evictions and demolitions.
According to EO 152, certificates of compliance (COCs) must first be issued by the PCUP
before any demolition can be carried out by a proponent. Further fleshing out the right against
forced evictions and demolitions is Republic Act No. 8368, which repealed Presidential Decree
No. 772 a law which criminalized the act of squatting.

Republic Act (RA) 7279, was enacted primarily to uplift the living conditions of the
underprivileged and homeless citizens in urban and resettlement areas by making available to
them decent and affordable housing, basic services, and employment opportunities. The most
criticized provision of the law, however, is the prohibition against demolition even of patently
illegal structures before the state provides a relocation site for the squatters.

IV. Jurisprudence

The first case involving RA 7279 focus on the constitutionality of some its provisions. In the
case of Macasiano vs. National Housing Authority et al (G.R. No 107921, 7/1/1993), a retired
police general questioned Sections 28 and 44 of RA 7279 as according to him, these provisions
serve as drawback to his tasks and duties regarding demolition of illegal structures and that as a
taxpayer, he has direct interest in seeing to it that public funds are properly and lawfully
disbursed. Here the court immediately denied the petition on the ground of the petitioners lack
of locus standi and the absence of an actual case and controversy.

In the case of Galay v. Court of Appeals, issues concerning the application of Section 28 (c)
of RA 7279 regarding the procedure to be followed in cases of demolition, eviction and
relocation were tackled. Here, Galay was being ousted from her home as she was squatting on the land
owned by Wong. Galay assailed the ownership of Wong. Galay said the land is owned by Dr. Alejo
CEU SLAJ

Lopez. Trial ensued. Wong won and the decree became final and executory. This gave Wong the right to
eject and demolish the house occupied by Galay. Galay appealed before the Court of Appeals. Galay
argued that RA 7279 or the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1991 was not complied
upon as Galay is entitled to relocation. Galay also requested for a Temporary Restraining Order
against the execution of the decree.

The Court of Appeals denied the TRO being asked for but granted Galays appeal pertaining
to the provisions of RA 7279. Wong subsequently complied with the provisions of RA 7279 and
she gave Galay sufficient time to find relocation. Wong then asked that the writ of execution be
finally granted. Galay opposed claiming this time that the judgment by the Court of Appeals was
based on a compromise entered into by her former lawyer with which she had no knowledge of
and that on the basis of social justice, she should be given consideration. That Wong should also
shoulder some of the expenses of the relocation.

But the court ruled that the law explicitly states that it should be the local government and the
National Housing Authority who should be handling the expenses and that if the relocatee was
not relocated within the time given, the local government shall pay the relocatee the minimum
wage for each day of delay. It has been held that the policy of social justice is not intended to
countenance wrongdoing simply because it is committed by the underprivileged. At best it
may mitigate the penalty but it certainly will not condone the offense. Compassion for the
poor is an imperative of every humane society but only when the recipient is not a rascal
claiming an undeserved privilege.

In the case of Samahan ng Masang Pilipino sa Makati vs. Bases Conversion Development
Authority GR No 142255, 1/26/2007, the court decided on the issue of squatting on public lands.
The court declared that RA 7279 does not automatically accord possession of public land. The
petitioners failed to show that they are under the category of underprivileged and homeless
citizens to be accorded the benefits under the law. The court dwelt on the fact that the structures
revealed that it was made of concrete and other strong materials. Thus, the court concluded that
the petitioners have the financial capacity to build their own housing facilities, thus taking them
out of the ambit of RA 7279. The petitioners may even be criminally prosecuted under RA 7279
as professional squatters.

V. Analysis of Lina Law and Related Jurisprudence

RA 7279 basically considers the rights of the informal settlers with respect to eviction and
demolition. It is clear that eviction and demolition is not prohibited under RA 7279 as long as the
procedure laid therein is strictly complied with and that the moratorium on eviction will only
apply when invoked by qualified beneficiaries under the program.

CEU SLAJ

As mentioned elsewhere in this paper that as a basic human right, housing is best seen on the
ground rather than read on paper. However, it also pays to scrutinize and delve into the
intangibles of a right associated so much with tangibility. This law was enacted primarily to
uplift the living conditions of the underprivileged and homeless citizens, but for twenty two (22)
years since this law was enacted the problem on adequate housing is still rampant. The law
specifically provide guidelines for demolition and eviction cases, however, violent and
disordered demolition cases still exist extensively.

Notable provisions of RA 7279 refer to the responsibility of the local government units to
enforce and implement the laws provisions on eviction and relocation of informal settlers. It
provides proper steps that may be taken in addressing the problem of squatting. However, the
ideal character of relocation that some of these informal settlers hope to get from government
relocation can hardly be practiced at all times and in different parts of Metro Manila. Here we
could see that there is a need to clarify how the objectives and strategies of the law are applied.
Sec. 2 of RA 7279 states the objectives of the law, however, these objectives seem too ideal to be
properly implemented. At the same time, there is no certainty as to how informal settlers would
react to a relocation no matter how proper and conducive it may seem to the government.

The rights of the informal settlers, and the balancing of these rights, certainly give us an idea
on the importance of the issues involved legal, economic, political, and social. Also, the
number of government agencies involved in housing issues should tell us something about the
importance of settling some of the issues involving these informal settlers. In dealing with
informal settlers, it is important to remember that they are people with inherent rights which the
law protects. At the same time, the government has a duty to execute the mandate it was given by
the people in a proper way. Just because this proper way is hard to find does not mean that the
government will just settle on a manner that only seems to comply with the mandate imposed by
law.

The Supreme Court correctly interprets the law especially in the case of Galay when it puts
emphasis on the balance of the rights of the informal settler and the landowner. It is really
interesting to note that in the case of squatting, private rights may also be infringed. Thus, it is
critical to maintain the equilibrium of the rights of the affected parties.

I also support the decision of the Supreme Court on the Samahan ng Masang Pilipino sa
Makati case. The court here simplifies its decision when they refer to the status of the petitioners
to be classified as beneficiaries of the law.

CEU SLAJ

VI. Recommendations and Conclusion

Human Rights - Finals

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Human Rights - Finals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HUMAN RIGHTS Final Paper

You might also like