Even before their campaign commercials and jingles started to bombard the public through television and radio, we already knew that the contenders for the Senate would tackle the issue of poverty.
Some vow to create more jobs and raise wages to decent levels. Others promise free education for our children. Still others say they will keep an eye on food smugglers so that families will get to eat three square meals each day. And don’t forget the feeding programs and scholarship grants.
Are we electing senators to run charitable institutions and livelihood centers or to legislate laws designed to reduce poverty?
We understand that because the candidates can only come up with ads that are a few seconds long, their messages will give us the mere gist of their agenda, if they have any at all. But conscientious and responsible voters demand more than catchy jingles and hackneyed slogans.
Urban informal settlers who, like poor farmers, children, and women, are at the receiving end of the promises dished out by these politicians, need a place where they can live peacefully and work legally, and where their children can go to school without cutting deep into their pockets. They clamor for laws that will guarantee and facilitate access to land and housing in the city.
Two pieces of legislation are relevant to addressing the concerns of nearly a third of the urban population faced with threats of eviction and demolition or the possibility of being washed out by floods: the Urban Development and Housing Act (UDHA), and the National Land Use Act (NLUA). The former is a law that is in need of updating; the latter is pending approval but is being blocked by a handful of legislators, among them relatives of senatorial candidates promising to improve the lives of the poor.
The UDHA or Republic Act No. 7279 did not mandate the distribution of land to urban informal settlers as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program entitled farmers and IPRA (Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act) the indigenous peoples to ownership of land. As social legislation, however, it primarily aims to protect urban informal settlers from forced eviction and demolition of their houses. Section 28 lists the conditions that must be satisfied before an eviction or demolition can be conducted.
Yet the supposedly propoor law is also used by some government agencies to compromise the rights of the poor to secure housing. They argue that the UDHA merely discourages rather than prohibits such an oppressive act. The practice of “demolish now, complain later” has thus become the norm. Among other amendments, the UDHA needs teeth (e.g., allowing affected communities to decide on the location of the relocation sites and make a counteroffer) to prevent unjust eviction and demolition.
What is the stand of the senatorial candidates on strengthening the UDHA so that it will work for the poor?
The proposed NLUA, on the other hand, seeks to promote a framework and long-term vision for a more equitable and redistributive use of land. In urban areas, such a law would allow for the development of safe settlements and, at the same time, ensure the proximity of the urban poor to their places of work. Indeed, the land market has limited the access of many informal settlers to land by making the production of legal housing for low-income families too expensive. State neglect (no proper land use regulations, no taxation of idle lands) and poor enforcement of laws (such as the UDHA) exacerbate the situation.
As a result, the urban poor, whose contribution to a city’s wealth is largely ignored, are pushed to marginal and high-risk areas such as river easements, steep hillsides, and coastal areas. With a cross-sectoral land use policy, the extreme inequality in land appropriation and utilization can be minimized.
President Aquino has certified the proposed NLUA as urgent, but certain influential groups have opposed the Senate version (Senate Bill No. 3091), arguing that a bill that seeks to ensure food self-sufficiency, better protection of the environment, and safe settlements can impede economic growth. Proponents of the bill believe that these objectives are not necessarily irreconcilable with economic growth. Should the candidates being supported by these groups win Senate seats and assuming the bill will not get the approval of the current Congress, will the elected senators be brave enough to side with the landless urban poor who favor the enactment of a land use act? Or will they side with interest groups that put profit over people?
It is frustrating that the issues of security of land tenure and affordable housing rank low or are absent in the priority list of would-be legislators. Yet the fact remains that this lack of formal access to land and housing has plunged and is keeping thousands of families in poverty.
Institutionalizing redistributive measures is key to poverty reduction. Sound legislation that provides access by the poor to safe and affordable housing and to a legitimate place where they can earn a living in the city is the task of a senator committed to social reform. Given the developmental potential of legislation, those who wish to have a seat in the Senate should leave feeding programs to charitable groups, livelihood centers to NGOs, and scholarship grants to philanthropists.
Gerald M. Nicolas is a research assistant at the Urban Poverty and Governance Program of the John J. Carroll Institute on Church and Social Issues.