Rethinking the government’s socialized housing program
The problem with low-income housing is not housing, it is low-income. The government needs to rethink its Pambansang Pabahay Para sa Pilipino (4PH) program, which aims at reducing the 6.65 million housing backlog, of which 3.75 million are meant for informal settler families.
Although the Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development (DHSUD) and the National Economic and Development Authority (Neda) have recently raised the price ceilings for the urgently needed socialized housing units hoping to entice more private sector participation in the government’s 4PH program, the fact remains that over 50 percent of our population cannot afford even the lowest price ceiling. In fact, the new price ceilings make it even more unaffordable to the majority of Filipinos.
As mentioned in the Oct. 26 editorial of the Inquirer, “Socialized housing must be affordable,” the new price ceilings for a four-story socialized condominium building are P933,320 for a 22 square meter unit; P1.06 million for 25 sqm; and P1.145 million for 27 sqm units. The unit prices are higher in taller buildings (e.g., from five to more than 10 floors), with the highest being P1.62 million for 27 sqm.
The problem is that people’s incomes have not risen commensurately with the escalating prices of land and construction costs, while the government policy continues to insist on addressing the housing problem through the traditional commercial real estate approach instead of the more realistic and proven “human settlements” approach. Studies have shown that even before the 4PH program, up to 70 percent (the bottom seven deciles) could not afford the government price ceilings.
Until such time that people’s incomes make it possible to afford what the real estate market provides, or government adopts a more creative and innovative approach, the housing problem will only get worse.
There are existing good examples of decent and affordable housing settlements initiated by people’s organizations and nongovernmental organizations, some supported by the National Housing Authority or the Socialized Housing Finance Corp.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, there were also the government-initiated Bagong Lipunan Sites and Services housing, slum upgrading, and sites-and-services programs that offered affordable housing using innovative strategies such as incremental construction and usufruct (e.g., long-term lease) lease approaches. The latter, which is similar to the community land trust approach that is widely recognized in developed countries as an effective strategy to provide permanently affordable housing, has in more recent years adopted by Valenzuela City in its highly successful Disiplina Village housing settlements.
The “human settlements” approach includes the upgrading of existing urban poor communities. While some of these communities are informal settlements whose occupants will need to be given security of tenure, there are a large number of communities that were previously proclaimed in favor of their occupants during the term of President Corazon Aquino but where housing and environmental quality remains very poor. Conditions in these settlements include inadequate basic services, poor sanitary conditions, health deficiencies, food insecurity, high vulnerability to disasters, and lack of income-generating activities — all characteristics of inadequate housing.
Unfortunately, these settlements are not included in the 4PH program. Neither does the 4PH program support people’s plans for their own home construction in their communities with guidance from socially sensitive urban planners, architects, and engineers.
In short, the 4PH program is unrealistic and unworkable for most of the urban poor. The government needs to rethink its approach and instead lend more support to what has been proven to work in the past, including people-generated settlement programs.
Nathaniel von Einsiedel
Fellow
Philippine Institute of Environmental Planners
