MANILA, Philippines - Chairman Leila de Lima of the Commission on Human Rights is a brilliant election lawyer. If ever I had a problem with the Commission on Elections (which is unlikely), I would like her to represent me. As a human rights lawyer, however, she is another bleeding heart whose heart bleeds for the wrong people and the wrong reasons.

Last week, she issued a statement to the press pushing for a moratorium on the demolition of squatter shanties. She has reportedly began investigating personnel of the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) for evicting squatters in violation of their rights.

It is all very well for her heart to bleed for the squatters but why is it closed to the property-owning taxpayers whose lots have been illegally occupied by squatters? She is concerned with the rights of squatters who are lawbreakers; what about the rights of property owners who pay the taxes that fund the salaries and allowances of public officials like Leila de Lima? She is concerned with the rights of squatters that are allegedly being violated by MMDA personnel but who, unlike most government workers, are only performing their duties, but it is the squatters themselves who are violating the rights of property owners.

Squatters have nothing to do the whole day except put up their shanties in any unguarded vacant space, so they have all the time to march to offices like the CHR and pressure their officials to suspend the workings of the law if it goes against them. Property owners, on the other hand, have to work the whole day to earn the money to pay the taxes that keeps the government running and keeps public officials like Leila de Lima well compensated. So property owners have little influence at all in agencies like the CHR; they have no time to march and demonstrate for themselves, unlike the squatters.

In fact, De Lima?s statement was no doubt the result of 300 squatters marching to the CHR seeking a stop to squatter evictions and who had cleverly invited the press to witness the occasion. De Lima had no choice but to issue the statement she gave. But that is grandstanding pure and simple. She was speaking to please the squatters although she knows better as a lawyer, that they are in the wrong and that they cannot have any rights superior to those of property owners whose land they have taken over illegally.

What she should have done was explain to them that their rights are limited when they encroach on the rights of others. She should have explained the law to them clearly. More particularly, she should have explained the provisions of that stupid Lina Law that was, by the way, the handiwork of another bleeding heart. She should have explained that the Lina Law, stupid as it is, did not give them the right to squat on the property of others. And that the law does not entitle them to compulsory relocation.

In fairness to the Lina Law, it did have some safeguards to prevent abuses, but these are not being implemented. What is being implemented are those provisions favorable to the squatters, even non-existent provisions.

For example, the law provided for a census in 1992 of all squatters; those that are in the census will be entitled to relocation; no relocation for those that come after them. But until now, all squatters are demanding either relocation or the payment of what is called ?disturbance fee? but is really a bribe for them to leave voluntarily. The law also provides that squatters on a road right of way or on the banks of waterways are nuisance per se and can be evicted summarily.

But surprisingly, the Department of Public Works and Highways pays (bribes to) all of them, old or new squatters alike, because it does not like to exert any effort to enforce the law properly. So what happens is that when squatters hear a road is about to be constructed, they flock to the site, erecting their shanties everywhere, expecting to be paid by the DPWH. This not only doubles the cost of building a road but also encourages squatting.

And at this rate, the government will run out of money and land but the squatting problem will never be solved. In fact, the problem has gotten much worse, not better, since the passage of the Lina Law. Local government officials have used it as an excuse not to touch squatters. ?The Lina Law prevents us from doing anything,? they say. Which is a lie, but which is an excuse anyway for their laziness and cowardice.

Politics is another reason for the worsening squatter problem. Squatters are voters and politicians will coddle anybody who votes. Congressmen, mayors and councilors will stop government workers from demolishing squatter shanties even if they know that what they are doing is wrong. They do it only to grandstand to the squatters whose votes they court.

Barangay officials, supposedly the first line of defense against squatting, not only coddle them but actually bring them in for their votes.

Finally, let me emphasize to the bleeding hearts that there are two types of squatters: the really destitute ones, who are in the minority, and the wealthy opportunists, who are in the majority. Some people mistakenly think that all squatters are all the same. No, some are wealthier than the lot owners they have robbed of their properties. Many of them have become landlords, renting out shanties to other squatters, stealing light and water from Meralco and the water utilities and selling them to their tenants. They have money-earning stores and shops but pay neither rent nor taxes. They are well organized and employ lawyers, security people, fixers and influence peddlers. They take advantage of gullible public officials.

The property-owning taxpayers, alas, have little chance against them unless we wake up to this spreading cancer in our midst.