Of natural calamities, laws and political will: The typhoon Sendong story

The typhoon “Sendong” story in Cagayan de Oro -- that tragically claimed, as of last count, at least a thousand lives -- has become a cyclical phenomenon throughout the country for the past decade: Ormoc, Aurora, even Marikina, to name a few. 

Most of the victims were squatters living along the Cagayan de Oro riverbanks. According to Antonio Montalvan II, a Cagayanon born and bred:

“The alluvial plains—huge swaths of land that lie on the riverbanks—became a magnet for informal settlers over the last 20 years. And what started as a small delta has grown over the years from continuous siltation.

That is the island now known as Isla de Oro, heavily populated for the last 20 years but nothing but a bar of silt and sand.

xxx

And yet the city government allowed the informal settlers to mushroom.” (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/116425/we-had-been-warned-of-cagayan-rivers-fury)

On the other hand, reacting to such tragedies, Senator Manny Villar filed recently a bill banning the construction of houses along the waterways, including riverbanks. (Villar files bill banning houses along waterways. Philippine Star, December 23, 2011.)

I suggest that Republic Act (RA) No. 7279, or the “Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992,” be revisited by the good Senator and the concerned local government officials.

RA 7279 contains the following provisions:

Sec.  29. Resettlement. — Within two (2) years from the effectivity of this Act, the local government units, in coordination with the National Housing Authority, shall implement the relocation and resettlement of persons living in danger areas such as esteros, railroad tracks, garbage dumps, riverbanks, shorelines, waterways, and in other public places as sidewalks, roads, parks, and playgrounds. The local government unit, in coordination with the National Housing Authority, shall provide relocation or resettlement sites with basic services and facilities and access to employment and livelihood opportunities sufficient to meet the basic needs of the affected families. 

Sec.  30. Prohibition Against New Illegal Structures. — It shall be unlawful for any person to construct any structure in areas mentioned in the preceding section. 

After the effectivity of this Act, the barangay, municipal or city government units shall prevent the construction of any kind of illegal dwelling units of structures within their respective localities. The head of any local government unit concerned who allows, abets or otherwise tolerates the construction of any structure in violation of this section shall be liable to administrative sanctions under existing laws and to penal sanctions provided for in this Act. 

Sec.  45. Penalty Clause. — Any person who violates any provision of this Act shall be imposed the penalty of not more than six (6) years of imprisonment or a fine of not less than Five thousand pesos (P5,000) but not more than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000), or both, at the discretion of the court: Provided, That, if the offender is a corporation, partnership, association or other juridical entity, the penalty shall be imposed on the officer or officers of said corporation, partnership, association or juridical entity who caused the violation. 

Moreover, Section 2 of the “Implementing Rules and Regulations Governing Summary Eviction” of RA 7279, states:

Section 2. Coverage. – the following shall be subject for summary eviction:

1.0 New squatter families whose structures were built after the effectivity of RA 7279; and

2.0 Squatter families identified by the LGU in cooperation with Presidential Commission of the Urban Poor (PCUP), Philippine National Police (PNP) and accredited Urban Poor Organization as professional squatters or members of squatting syndicates as defined in the Act.

Applying the Implementing Rules, the appellate court, in the case of Hinacay, et. al. vs. Muntinlupa, et. al (CA-G.R. SP No. 80496) -- a case that appears not to have been elevated to the Supreme Court -- held, to wit:

“Petitioners failed to show that they are not “new squatters.” All they say is that they are occupants of the property “for a long period of time,” but fail to state the exact date of the start of their occupation.

Hence, they fall under the category of “new squatters”. As such, they are not entitled to the protection of RA 7279 and in fact should be subjected to summary eviction.

Petitioners’ houses may be demolished and they may be evicted from the land without need of an ejectment case.”

Thus, all it takes, perhaps, is sheer political will coupled with social justice, to prevent the unnecessary loss of lives of the poor and the downtrodden – and not an additional bill.

Of eviction and demolition: A tale of 2 cities and RA 7279

The recent news about the mayor of Davao City raining fists and fury on a hapless sheriff because of his refusal to wait for “Inday Sara” Duterte to arrive before ordering the demolition of the houses in a shanty town brought flurries of comments and reactions both negative and positive. The demolition was made due to a court order.

On the other end of the spectrum, this brings to mind the summary (sans court order) demolition of houses in a private compound in Makati City with the blessings, so it would appear from the news, of the mayor, Junjun Binay. He reportedly even had an altercation with the DILG secretary, Jesse Robredo. The demolition was enforced days after a raging fire engulfed the compound. It happened a few months ago and also elicited various reactions and criticisms.

Since most if not all the affected people were poor and underprivileged, is there a special law that addresses the matter of their eviction and the demolition of their houses?

Yes, it is Republic Act (RA) 7279, or the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992. Under this law, demolition is a last recourse:

“Sec. 28. Eviction and Demolition. — Eviction or demolition as a practice shall be discouraged. Eviction or demolition, however, 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.

In the execution of eviction or demolition orders involving underprivileged and homeless citizens, the following shall be mandatory:

(1) Notice upon the effected persons or entities at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of eviction or demolition;

(2) Adequate consultations on the matter of settlement with the duly designated representatives of the families to be resettled and the affected communities in the areas where they are to be relocated;

(3) Presence of local government officials or their representatives during eviction or demolition;

(4) Proper identification of all persons taking part in the demolition;

(5) Execution of eviction or demolition only during regular office hours from Mondays to Fridays and during good weather, unless the affected families consent otherwise;

(6) No use of heavy equipment for demolition except for structures that are permanent and of concrete materials;

(7) Proper uniforms for members of the Philippine National Police who shall occupy the first line of law enforcement and observe proper disturbance control procedures; and

(8) Adequate relocation, whether temporary or permanent: Provided, however, That in cases of eviction and demolition pursuant to a court order involving underprivileged and homeless citizens, relocation shall be undertaken by the local government unit concerned and the National Housing Authority with the assistance of other government agencies within forty-five (45) days from service of notice of final judgment by the court, after which period the said order shall be executed: Provided, further, That should relocation not be possible within the said period, financial assistance in the amount equivalent to the prevailing minimum daily wage multiplied by sixty (60) days shall be extended to the affected families by the local government unit concerned.”

According to the law’s implementing rules, “Any person or group identified as professional squatter and squatting syndicates shall be summarily evicted and their dwellings or structures demolished…” Also included are "new squatter families" whose structures were built after the effectivity of RA 7279.

It is important to remember that violation of this law carries a penalty of not more than six (6) years of imprisonment or a fine of not less than Five thousand pesos (P5,000) but not more than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000), or both, at the discretion of the court.