Raised on Promises: How the Sustainability Goals of the Urban Housing and Development Act of the Philippines Fall Short

• Author: Alexandra Nolan
• Position: J.D. Candidate, American University Washington College of Law 2020
• Pages: 32-33

32 Sustainable Development Law & Policy

Raised on PRomises: How tHe sustainability

Goals of tHe uRban HousinG and develoPment

act of tHe PHiliPPines fall sHoRt

Alexandra Nolan*

Forty percent of Manila’s population is impoverished and

living in communities of scrap material, makeshift hous-

ing. 1 Meanwhile, business tycoons from China, Japan,

and Korea dominate the city’s economy. 2 In order to compete

with other modern Asian cities, the Filipino government passed

the Urban Housing and Development Act of 1992 (UDHA) to

pursue a path of sustainable urban development focused on cre-

ating business centers in Manila.3 After its enactment, Manila

transformed into a city that attracts foreign trade and global

investment. 4 But despite the UDHA’s sustainable urban devel-

opment plan, informal settlers, whom are the people living in

makeshift housing communities, are losing their homes to for-

eign corporations so that Manila can compete in the Asian econ-

omy. 5 As a result, citizens have challenged the constitutionality

of the UDHA’s mass evictions of informal settlers from their

communities.6

The UDHA’s goal to create an attractive Manila for foreign

investors is masked by its stated purpose of providing safe

housing and employment for its informal settlers.7 The UDHA

provides terms to evict and relocate the settlers: “Eviction or

demolition . . . may be allowed under the following circum-

stances: (a) When persons or entities occupy danger areas . . .

(b) When government infrastructure projects with available

funding are about to be implemented, or (c) When there is a

court order . . . .”8 After eviction of the settlers, settlements are

demolished so that a company may build a business center.9 The

business centers epitomize the government’s idea of sustainable

urban infrastructure development.10 Yet the government’s failure

to keep its promises to the displaced settlers negates its overall

sustainable urban infrastructure development goals.11

The UDHA requires that evicted settlers are provided new

housing, livelihoods, and adequate transportation access to

Manila.12 While the settlers are often provided new housing,

their new communities are without the promised livelihoods

because the new communities are built in remote areas without

commercial opportunity or access to Manila.13 For example, a

community was built three hours north of Manila to house 1,200

residents.14 Additionally, the residents were promised employ-

ment in a grocery store so they could pay their monthly rents.15

Only ve of the 1,200 residents were to be employed in the gro-

cery store.16 As a result, only those ve could earn an income to

pay their new monthly rent.17

Without the promised livelihood component, settlers aban-

don their new communities and return to Manila to seek employ-

ment, thus building a new informal settlement community in

the process.18 The cycle of construction, eviction, and demoli-

tion repeats itself, costing the government signicant capital

that could be allocated into a more successful program.19 Other

groups of informal settlers are not afforded relocation under the

UDHA and also create new makeshift communities following

eviction.20 The settlers of Manila have little means of combat-

ing the UDHA’s program compared to the arsenal of resources

the large international corporations have.21 Despite their lack

of wealth, citizens have challenged the UDHA in the Filipino

court system.22

Before the UDHA’s enactment, the Supreme Court of the

Philippines (“Supreme Court”) held in Martires v. Court of

Appeals that a “squatter,” which is a derogatory term for an

informal settler, was not entitled to a land parcel despite his

basic need of shelter. 23 Following this case decision, the UDHA

dened “professional squatters” as “individuals or groups who

occupy lands without the express consent of the landowner and

have sufcient income for legitimate housing.”24 An “under-

privileged or homeless citizen” is dened as “individuals or

families living in urban and urbanizable areas whose income or

combined income falls within the poverty threshold . . . . This

shall include those who live in makeshift dwelling units.”25 As

both of these terms are applicable to informal settlers, the gov-

ernment applies the former to justify the eviction of all informal

settlers without notice and without warning as squatters under

Sections 27 and 28.26 Section 27 justies the immediate evic-

tion of squatters, without warning or warrant.27 Whereas, under

Section 28, underprivileged or homeless citizens are afforded a

thirty day notice before they are evicted.28

The biased squatter-homeless distinction extends beyond

the denitions to further diminish the possibility of successful

infrastructure development. Under Section 16, squatters are

explicitly precluded from receiving the benets of the UDHA.29

Under Section 27, the act of being a squatter is criminalized and

punishable by nes or imprisonment.30 Thus, some citizen chal-

lenges to the UDHA pertain specically to the constitutionality

of the squatter-homeless distinction, having standing rooted

in their classication as squatters and not underprivileged and

homeless citizens.

For example, the petitioners in Galay v. Court of Appeals

were evicted under the classification of squatters, without

warning or a warrant as permitted under Sections 27 and 28.31

*J.D. Candidate, American University Washington College of Law 2020

224813_AU_SDLP_Spg-Sum18.indd 32 10/18/18 1:53 PM

33

Spring/Summer 2018

Citing the Martires decision, the Supreme Court in this case

rejected the petitioners’ challenge to the squatter-homeless citi-

zen distinction: “While we sympathize with the millions of our

people who are unable to afford the basic necessity of shelter . .

. this sympathy cannot extend to squatting, which is a criminal

offense. Social justice cannot condone the violation of law nor

does it consider that very wrong to be a justication for priority

in the enjoyment of a right.”32 In The Republic of the Philippines

v. Mijares the petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the

squatter-homeless distinction under Section 27.33 The Supreme

Court reinforced that the UDHA’s benets and protections were

not applicable to squatters, ruling the petitioners were squatters

despite their impoverished state.34

Other citizen challenges to the UDHA are continuously

dismissed due to procedural shortcomings. The Supreme Court

dismissed the petitioner’s challenge to the constitutionality of

Section 28 in Macasiano v. National Housing Authority for lack

of standing.35 In Kalipunan Ng Damayang Mahihirap, Inc. v.

Robredo, the Supreme Court again failed to reach the question of

Section 28’s constitutionality because the case was dismissed.36

The Supreme Court in Kalipunan held that the petitioners failed

to meet the necessary standard of “unequivocal breach” of the

constitution, and thus failed to establish the abuse of discretion-

ary power by the government in evictions.37

The Filipino courts have faced claims against the UDHA,

but they have been unable to reach the substantive question of its

constitutionality. The eviction of non-favorable groups in pursuit

of the government’s vision of a globalized Manila that attracts

foreign business investment is marginalizing, discriminating,

costly, and unsuccessful. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the

Filipino legislative bodies to replace the UDHA with new legis-

lation that includes all members of society for the Philippines to

have a truly sustainable urban infrastructure.

EndnotEs

1 See Agence France-Pressee, Gov’t to Move 100,000 Squatters in Metro

Manila, InquIrEr.nEt, (Jan. 12, 2013 5:23 PM), http://newsinfo.inquirer.

net/339527/govt-to-move-100000-squatters-in-metro-manila; see also Gino

Antonio P. Trinidad, Rethinking the Urban Housing and Development Act of

1992, BusInEssWorld, (Jan. 25, 2018 at 12:03 AM), http://bworldonline.com/

rethinking-urban-development-housing-act-1992/.

2

See e.g., SM, Robinsons, Megaworld Take Top Awards for Retailing, thE

PhIlIPPInE star (June 20, 2016 12:00 AM), https://www.philstar.com/busi-

ness/2016/06/20/1594524/sm-robinsons-megaworld-take-top-awards-retailing

[hereinafter Megaworld].

3

See France-Presse, supra note 1; Trinidad, supra note 1.

4

See France-Presse, supra note 1; Trinidad, supra note 1.

5

See Urban Housing and Development Act, Rep. Act 7279 (Phil.) (1992),

available at: http://www.nha.gov.ph/about_us/2015-pdf/RA7279.pdf; see also

Nancy Kwak, Manila’s “Danger Areas,” PlacEs Journal (Feb. 2015), https://

placesjournal.org/article/manilas-danger-areas/.

6

See generally Kalipunan Ng Damayang Mahihirap, Inc. v. Robredo, 730

S.C.R.A. 322 (2014); The Republic of the Philippines v. Mijares, G.R. No.

170615-16 (2009); Galay, v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120132 (S.C. Decem-

ber 4, 1995); Macasiano v. National Housing Authority, G.R. No. 107921 (S.C.

1993); Martires v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 78036-37 (S.C. 1990).

7

See Urban Housing and Development Act, Rep. Act 7279 § 2(a)-(b)

(1992); Kwak, supra note 5.

8

See Urban Housing and Development Act, Rep. Act 7279 § 28(a)-(c)(8).

9

Kwak, supra note 5; Grace C. Ramos, The Urban Development and Hous-

ing Act (UDHA) of 1992; A Philippine Housing Framework, InquIrEr 12-1,

12-2 (Oct. 25, 1999), http://www.lth.se/leadmin/hdm/alumni/papers/ad2000/

ad2000-12.pdf.

10

See Ramos, supra note 9, at 12-6.

11

See Kwak, supra note 5; see also Ramos, supra note 9, at 12-4.

12

See Urban Housing and Development Act, Rep. Act 7279 at §§ 22, 27-28,

30, 35.

13

See id.; Trinidad, supra note 1.

14

See e.g., Alexandra Nolan & Alexandra Green, Feasibility Study Grameen

Australia Philippines Housing Co-op Santa Ana 2-4 (Aug. 1, 2016) (on le

with Author).

15

Id. at 3.

16

Id.

17

Id. at 3-4.

18

See Urban Housing and Development Act, Rep. Act 7279 at §§ 22, 28(8),

29; see also Ramos supra note 9.

19

See e.g., Trinidad, supra note 1 (providing 2017 budget percentages for

the program); see e.g., Nolan & Green, supra note 14 (providing 2016 budget

amounts).

20

See Urban Housing and Development Act, Rep. Act 7279 § 27; see e.g.,

Nolan & Green, supra note 14, at 3.

21

See Megaworld, supra note 2.

22

See generally Kalipunan Ng Damayang Mahihirap, Inc. v. Robredo, 730

S.C.R.A. 322 (2014); The Republic of the Philippines v. Mijares, G.R. No.

170615-16 (2009); Galay v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120132 (S.C. Dec. 4,

1995); Macasiano v. National Housing Authority, G.R. No. 107921 (S.C. 1993);

Martires v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 78036-37 (S.C. Aug. 3, 1990).

23

Martires, G.R. No. 78036-37 at *2, *4.

24

Urban Development and Housing Act, Rep. Act 7279 § 3(m).

25

Id. § 3(t).

26

See Kwak, supra note 5.

27

Urban Development and Housing Act, Rep. Act 7279 a§ 27.

28

Id. § 28.

29

Id. § 16.

30

Id. § 27.

31

Galay, v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120132 *3 (S.C. Dec. 4, 1995).

32

Id. at *8

33

The Republic of the Philippines v. Mijares, G.R. No. 170615-16 *3 (2009).

34

Id.

35

Macasiano v. National Housing Authority, G.R. No. 107921 *2, *5 (S.C.

1993).

36

See Kalipunan Ng Damayang Mahihirap, Inc. v. Robredo, 730 S.C.R.A.

322, 322-23, 325 (2014).

37

Id. at 325.

224813_AU_SDLP_Spg-Sum18.indd 33 10/18/18 1:53 PM