|
By Janice Alonso, Researcher
Last of two parts
Many local government units and private
landowners consider housing laws pro-squatting, citing the Urban
Development and Housing Act (Republic Act 7279) as the major
culprit. The law, more familiarly known as the “Lina law,” has
been denounced by the landed quarters for being apparently
pro-squatting.
Some of the more popular misconceptions about
the law are that it enabled the squatters to ask for payment and
relocation before demolition if proven qualified recipients under
the law.
“Local government units find these
arrangements favorable to squatters because along the lengthy
process, more settlers rush to come in and build their shanties in a
congested area,” said Romeo Espino, assistant to the head of
Quezon City’s Demolition and Eviction Department.
Jose Lina, former secretary of the interior and
local governments and principal author of the Housing Act, however,
disputed such notions. “The law is [neither] pro-poor nor
pro-landowner; it actually tries to reconcile the two,” Lina said.
“People are reacting left and right to
the law without actually reading [it] first,” Lina said.
Contrary to unfavorable publicity about the Act,
some local government units have had success in using it as a basis
for ridding their cities and towns of squatters. Lina identified
Marikina and Manila as cities that have used the law as a take-off
point for ejecting squatters.
Discrepancies
But some feel that laws against squatting have
gone soft on illegal settlements. Ramon Asprer, department head of
Quezon City’s Urban-Poor Affairs Office, thinks the Lina law can
stand amendments.
He cited the demolition of illegal structures in
the Doña Nicasia property in Quezon City, which has given rise to
legal cases filed against his office. “There’s no problem with
demolition; it’s what comes afterward that is a source of problems
because of certain provisions of the law,” Asprer said.
He noted discrepancies in the demolition of
public and private properties.
“If it’s on government property, [demolition
is] permissible as long as there’s an [administrative] order, but
if it’s on private land, it has to be judicially decided.”
In light of this, private landowners apparently
no longer enjoy the protection of the law. The wealthy landowners
can afford lengthy lawsuits, but the small property owners do not
have the same luxury and are often left powerless in their struggle
to eject the squatters from their property.
Against small owners?
Certain portions of the Housing Act that are a
thorn in the side of the Urban-Poor Affairs Office require the
provision of relocation sites or financial assistance to affected
residents. Although this sounds reasonable and looks good on paper,
the Act is impossible to carry out.
“The rich may shoulder some of the expenses,
but what about the small property owners?” asked Asprer. With the
country facing a financial crisis, satisfying this part of the law
becomes increasingly less doable.
Article 6, Section 28 of the Housing Act, says,
“Financial assistance in the amount equivalent to the prevailing
daily minimum wage multiplied by 60 days shall be extended to the
affected families by the [local government unit] concerned.”
A source at the Urban-Poor Affairs Office said
the government’s ready answer to this provision of the law has
always been: “We don’t have financial allocation for that.”
With close to 6,000 squatters in Quezon City
alone, providing them with financial support would effectively
“bankrupt” the city, the source added.
Sole clearinghouse
In 2002 Malacañang came out with Executive
Orders 152 and 153 in an attempt to fortify the government’s drive
toward eradicating the squatting problem. EO 152 designated the
Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor as the “sole
clearinghouse for the conduct of demolition and eviction involving
the homeless and underprivileged and establishing a mechanism to
ensure strict compliance with the requirements of just and humane
demolition and eviction under the [Housing Act].”
However, the source at the Urban-Poor Affairs
Office said it has yet to receive a single clearance from the
Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor to remove and relocate
recalcitrant communities. “I don’t know why we haven’t
received any. Maybe they’re also hesitant because they fear
getting sued.”
Under EO 153 the government tried to wage the
national campaign “to suppress and eradicate professional
squatting and squatting syndicates, amending previous orders 178
[1999] and 129 [1993]” that were carried out. The order called for
strengthening the National Police Task Force as the operational arm
of the HUDCC in the campaign against professional squatting and
squatter syndicates as well as increasing coordination between the
government-housing agencies involved.
The requirements set by the presidential
commission, coupled with the provisions of EO 152, are perceived as
burdensome for local government units in their attempts to clear
areas. The commission requires local governments to justify a
demolition and to give specific dates of inspection on squatter
areas before they can move in.
An effect of the Housing Act is that it has made
the local government units circumspect about demolishing illegal
structures, making these less prone to immediate demolition.
“We are more cautious now, especially when
demolishing within private properties,” the source said
|
