Shelter - SD with Impact

SHELTERWriterLourdes Didith MendozaEditorsChay Florentino-HofileñaGiselle Baretto-LapitanProject ManagementAmihan R. PerezAteneo Center for Social Policy and Public Affairs (ACSPPA)Technical and Editorial TeamRene “Bong’ Garrucho, LGSPMags Maglana, LGSPButch Ozarraga, LGSPMyn Garcia, LGSPMaricel GenzolaArt Direction, Cover Design & Layout Jet HermidaPhotographyRyan Anson

ENHANCING SHELTER PROVISION AT THE LOCALLEVEL

SHELTER

Enhancing Shelter Provision at the Local LevelService Delivery with Impact: Resource Books for Local Governments

Copyright @2003 Philippines-Canada Local Government Support Program(LGSP)

All rights reserved

The Philippines-Canada Local Government Support Program encouragesthe use, translation, adaptation and copying of this material for non-commercial use, with appropriate credit given to LGSP.

Although reasonable care has been taken in the preparation of this book,the publisher and/or contributor and/or editor can not accept any liabilityfor any consequence arising from the use thereof or from any informationcontained herein.

ISBN 971-8597-04-2

Printed and bound in Manila, Philippines

Published by:

Philippines-Canada Local Government Support Program (LGSP) Unit 1507 Jollibee PlazaEmerald Ave., 1600 Pasig City, PhilippinesTel. Nos. (632) 637-3511 to 13www.lgsp.org.ph

Ateneo Center for Social Policy and Public Affairs (ACSPPA)ACSPPA, Fr. Arrupe Road, Social Development ComplexAteneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights, 1108 Quezon City

A JOINT PROJECT OF

IMPLEMENTED BY

Department of the Interiorand Local Government (DILG)

National Economic andDevelopment Authority (NEDA)

Canadian InternationalDevelopment Agency

Federation of CanadianMunicipalities (FCM)

www.fcm.ca

Agriteam Canadawww.agriteam.ca

CONTENTSSHELTER

FOREWORDACKNOWLEDGEMENTSPREFACEACRONYMSEXECUTIVE SUMMARYINTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1: HOMELESSNESS IN THE COUNTRYOverviewLGUs Can Take the Lead

CHAPTER 2: LGU MANDATESNational Housing LawsUDHA-defined LGU Shelter-Related Responsibilities

CHAPTER 3: IMPLEMENTATION & POLICY ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONSNational LevelLocal Level

CHAPTER 4: GOOD PRACTICESLGU-Originated Community Mortgage ProgramInnovations in Financing and Partnership Arrangements

CHAPTER 5: REFERENCES AND TOOLSStudy Tour SitesReferences

ENDNOTES

GLOSSARY

iiiivviiix1

7717

353539

454554

596077

898995

101

105

S E R V I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T: R E S O U R C E B O O K s F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T

T he Department of Interior and Local Government is pleased to acknowledge the latestpublication of the Philippines Canada Local Government Support Program (LGSP), ServiceDelivery with Impact: Resource Books for Local Government; a series of books on 8 service

delivery areas, which include Shelter, Water and Sanitation, Health, Agriculture, Local EconomicDevelopment, Solid Waste Management, Watershed and Coastal Resource Management.

One of the biggest challenges in promoting responsive and efficient local governance is to be able tomeaningfully deliver quality public services to communities as mandated in the Local Government Code.Faced with continued high incidence of poverty, it is imperative to strengthen the role of LGUs in servicedelivery as they explore new approaches for improving their performance.

Strategies and mechanisms for effective service delivery must take into consideration issues of povertyreduction, people’s participation, the promotion of gender equality, environmental sustainability andeconomic and social equity for more long- term results. There is also a need to acquire knowledge, createnew structures, and undertake innovative programs that are more responsive to the needs of thecommunities and develop linkages and partnerships within and between communities as part of anintegrated approach to providing relevant and sustainable services to their constituencies.

Service Delivery with Impact: Resource Books for Local Government offer local government units andtheir partners easy-to-use, comprehensive resource material with which to take up this challenge. Byproviding LGUs with practical technologies, tested models and replicable exemplary practices, ServiceDelivery with Impact encourages LGUs to be innovative, proactive and creative in addressing the realproblems and issues in providing and enhancing services, taking into account increased communityparticipation and strategic private sector/civil society organizational partnerships. We hope that in using

iS E R V I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T : R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T

FOREWORD

these resource books, LGUs will be better equipped with new ideas, tools and inspiration to make adifference by expanding their knowledge and selection of replicable choices in delivering basic serviceswith increased impact.

The DILG, therefore, congratulates the Philippines-Canada Local Government Support Program (LGSP)for this milestone in its continuing efforts to promote efficient, responsive, transparent and accountablegovernance.

HON. JOSE D. LINA, JR.SecretaryDepartment of Interior and Local Government

FOREWORD

ii S E R V I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T : R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T

T his publication is the result of the collaboration of many institutions and individuals who arecommitted to helping local governments improve the delivery of services to their constituents:

The Philippine-Canada Local Government Support Program led by Alix Yule, Marion Maceda Villanuevaand Rene (Bong) Garrucho for providing the necessary direction and support

Maricel Genzola for conducting the research and the roundtable discussion from which this resourcebook was based, and reviewing the manuscript

Butch Ozarraga for providing feedback to help ensure that the resource book serves the requirementsof LGUs

Participants at the Roundtable Discussion on Shelter Delivery held on August 7, 2002 in Davao City:

Mayor Isoceles Otero of Sta. Josefa, Agusan Sur; Mayor Apolmar Ruelo of San Isidro, Davao Oriental; MayorReynaldo Castillo and Agripino Gurida of Compostela; Councilor Jun Sevilla of Muntinlupa City; WillyPrilles, Jr. of Naga City; Ma. Laurisse Gabor of Butuan City; Hernane Gravina, Jr. of Midsayap and Joy Rielof the League of Provinces

Imelda Soriano and her team from Habitat for Humanity; Philip Tan of the Rural Bank of Tangub; DamVertido of Mindanao Land; Reynaldo Navacilla of TRANSFORM; Patricia Sarenas of the MindanaoCommission on Women; and Nelia Agbon

LGSP Managers Abe dela Calzada and Merlinda Hussein, and LGSP Program Officers Abduljim Hassan,Rizal Barandino and Cecile Isubal

iiiS E R V I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T : R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Chay Florentino-Hofilena and Giselle Baretto Lapitan for their excellent editorial work

Lourdes Didith Mendoza for efectively rendering the technical report into user-friendly material

Amihan Perez and the Ateneo Center for Soical Policy and Public Affairs for their efficient coordinationand management of the project

Mags Z. Maglana for supplying content supervision, and coordination with technical writers

Myn Garcia for providing technical and creative direction, and overall supervision of the design, layoutand production

Jet Hermida for the art direction and layout

Sef Carandang, Russell Farinas, Gigi Barazon and the rest of the LGSP administrative staff for providingsupport.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

iv S E R V I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T : R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T

S ervice Delivery with Impact: Resource Books for Local Government are the product of a seriesof roundtable discussions, critical review of tested models and technologies, and case analysesof replicable exemplary practices in the Philippines conducted by the Philippines-Canada

Local Government Support Program (LGSP) in 8 service sectors that local government units (LGUs) aremandated to deliver. These include Shelter, Water and Sanitation, Health, Agriculture, Local EconomicDevelopment, Solid Waste Management, Watershed and Coastal Resource Management.

The devolution of powers as mandated in the Local Government Code has been a core pillar ofdecentralization in the Philippines. Yet despite opportunities for LGUs to make a meaningful differencein the lives of the people by maximizing these devolved powers, issues related to poverty persist andimprovements in effective and efficient service delivery remain a challenge.

With LGSP’s work in support of over 200 LGUs for the past several years came the recognition of the needto enhance capacities in service delivery, specifically to clarify the understanding and optimize the roleof local government units in providing improved services. This gap presented the motivation for LGSPto develop these resource books for LGUs.

Not a “how to manual,” Service Delivery with Impact features strategies and a myriad of provenapproaches designed to offer innovative ways for local governments to increase their capacities to betterdeliver quality services to their constituencies.

Each resource book focuses on highlighting the important areas of skills and knowledge that contributeto improved services. Service Delivery with Impact provides practical insights on how LGUs can applyguiding principles, tested and appropriate technology, and lessons learned from exemplary cases to theirorganization and in partnership with their communities.

vS E R V I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T : R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T

PREFACE

This series of resource books hopes to serve as a helpful and comprehensive reference to inspire andenable LGUs to significantly contribute to improving the quality of life of their constituency throughresponsive and efficient governance.

Philippines-Canada Local Government Support Program (LGSP)

PREFACE

vi S E R V I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T : R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T

ACRONYMS

ALTERPLAN Alternative Planning Inc. ADB Asian Development Bank BHA Bacolod Housing Authority CDS2 City Development StrategyCSOs Civil Society Organizations COA Commission on Audit CHA Community Housing Association CMP Community Mortgage Program COPE Community Organizing of the Philippines Enterprise FoundationCISFA Comprehensive and Integrated Shelter and Finance Act CLUP Comprehensive Land Use Plan DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources DILG Department of Interior and Local Government DOST Department of Science and Technology DSWD Department of Social Welfare and Development EPAs Environmental preservation areas EMDO Estate Management Development Office GSIS Government Service Insurance System HIGC Home Insurance Guarantee Corporation HLURB Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board HUDCC Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council IRAP Integrated Rural Accessibility Planning IRA Internal Revenue Allotment JFPR Japan Fund for Poverty Reduction KALAHI Kapitbisig Laban sa Kahirapan KASARIVAL Kapulungan ng mga Samahan sa Riles Valenzuela Federation LMB Land Management Bureau LTAP Land Tenure Assistance Program LGC Local Government Code of 1991

viiS E R V I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T : R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T

ACRONYMS

viii S E R V I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T : R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T

LHB Local Housing Boards MRBs MediumRise Buildings MBN Minimum Basic Needs MSO Municipal Settlement Office MDF Muntinlupa Development Foundation NCUPC Naga City Urban Poor Federation NHMFC National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation Community Mortgage Program NHA National Housing Authority NAMRIA National Mapping and Resources Information Authority NEDF Negros Economic Development Foundation PRRC Pasig River Rehabilitation Commission PNB Philippine National Bank PNP Philippine National Police PCUP Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor PGB Project Governing Board PSSHLAI Purok Sunflower Squatters Homeowners and Livelihood Association, Inc. SHoPCom Socialized Housing Program Committee SARO Special Allocation and Release Order SLUSVP St. Louis University St. Vincent Parish TAO Technical Assistance Organization Pilipinas TLRC Technology Livelihood Resource Center UDHA Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 UPAO Urban Poor Affairs Office VRESCO Victorias Rural Electrification Service Company

THE HOUSING SITUATION IN THE COUNTRY

The problem of insufficient housing in the country has reached staggering proportions. The governmenthas tried to respond to this problem, and has been doing relatively well. But measures to curtail theincreasing number of informal settlers have still been inadequate. A high national birth rate, migrationfrom rural areas to urban areas, and the premature classification of some rural areas into urban areasfurther compound this problem. At present 3.3 million housing units are needed to house informal settlersheavily concentrated in the National Capital Region, Regions 3 and 4. The necessary funding forsustaining all shelter programs, however, needs to be addressed.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Government is tasked to ensure that land is available for housing and that residential infrastructure isprovided in housing development areas. It is also supposed to support finance systems and providemortgage guarantees, besides implement reforms in the housing market, with a special focus oncreating a sustainable housing finance system. The national government has also set as a policy theinvolvement of both the local government and the private sector. Thus local governments areencouraged to help address housing and urban development problems, while the private sector isprodded to participate in the housing market.

To ensure that every Filipino will have access to decent housing, laws have been instituted. The two mostimportant laws are the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 (UDHA) and the Local GovernmentCode of 1991(LGC). UDHA recognizes the legitimate rights of the poor and has become the principallegal framework governing public policy on the urban poor and socialized housing. The LGC, on the otherhand, identifies and spells out the roles and responsibilities of local governments in protecting the generalwelfare of their constituents by delivering basic services and facilities.

ixS E R V I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T : R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The housing sector may be beset with problems, but local governments can do their part in ensuringthat their own locales are squatter free. Housing the informal sector is not the task of the nationalgovernment alone.

WHAT LGUs CAN DO

There are ways LGUs can combat homelessness in the country. But to effectively do the job they needseveral things: the political will and commitment of the local chief executive; complete information anddocuments in the city or municipal government; ability to develop appropriate housing strategies forparticular target groups; tapping of existing national housing programs; creation of new structures ortheir expansion to provide housing assistance; and ability to mobilize the participation of the people’sorganizations in all facets of the housing project.

Successful LGUs have also made use of multi-stakeholder mechanisms. These mechanisms mobilize thecity’s key players involved in pursuing socialized housing efforts. Some cities have also explored anddeveloped innovative local housing finance schemes to facilitate shelter provision.

WHAT SOME LGUs HAVE DONE

Naga City, for instance, introduced the “Kaantabay sa Kauswagan” program, which aimed to eliminatethe tenure problems of the poor. Through direct purchase, land swapping and land sharing, the city hasreduced the number of its informal settlements. Muntinlupa City initiated a housing program that bankedon the expertise of different groups. It synchronized at the city level the various efforts of stakeholdersinvolved in housing assistance. Mandaluyong City, through Former Mayor Benjamin Abalos, launchedthe city’s “Land for the Landless Program”to respond to their housing problem. It pioneered in the useof the Community Mortgage Program. Bacolod City, which also suffered from squatter problems,

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

x S E R V I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T : R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T

designed a housing assistance package that includes land acquisition, relocation of squatters, slumupgrading, resettlement site development, and socialized housing. Faced with lack of resources andfunding hurdles, the municipality of Victorias thought of a way to raise funds for its housing program.It pioneered the use of bond flotation to develop lots and construct housing units.

The experiences documented here show that with determination and resourcefulness, local governmentscan strive to overcome hurdles in their attempts to provide shelter for the poor.

xiS E R V I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T : R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This resource book focuses on shelter. It touches on the current housing situation and thechallenges surrounding it; how some LGUs have responded to these problems; how city andmunicipal offices have dealt with them by being familiar with both the sector and the laws that

govern it. The book also discusses the lessons learned from the experiences of other LGUs. It providesa clear picture of the housing sector, suggests ways to improve it, and includes references and tools toguide LGUs.

This is not a how-to manual, however. It merely recommends options and provides information that isuseful to local governments units. It hopes to inspire and prod LGUs to start their own programs,however small, to create more impact and benefit more of their constituents. This resource book canbe used as a guide to set up such programs.

The first part discusses the current national housing situation and government’s housing programs andprojects such as the Community Mortgage Program, Land Tenure Assistance Program, and Medium-RiseBuildings and Resettlement Assistance Program. These projects have tried responding to the need forhousing at a time of high urban growth rate. Some of them have succeeded; some remain inadequate.Civil society groups have done their part, too, trying to fill in the gaps, with some success. In the end,as successful shelter projects of other local offices show, LGUs can assume roles to better respond tohousing problems and needs.

LGU mandates on the housing sector are tackled in the second part of the resource book. This sectionenumerates the enabling policies and describes the regulatory framework that can encourage anefficient housing program. It also informs local officials of the mandates that directly affect them. Thissection may come in handy during the planning and preparation stages of any housing program. It canalso be a tool that local officials can use in identifying areas for policy development.

1S E R V I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T : R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T

INTRODUCTION

The third part shares the general issues, problems and concerns of the sector, and gives recommendationson how best to solve the issues in program implementation. Since this section provides information onthe common problems that crop up in shelter programs, it can be used as reference during the housingprogram preparation and implementation phases. It provides information on what to look out for, whatto anticipate, and how some LGUs have dealt with specific housing concerns.

To concretize the issues, the experiences of various local governments are documented. The fourth partof the resource book features several housing projects initiated by local governments, along with theinnovations that were introduced to provide shelter security. These examples may serve as models fordifferent communities, or at the very least, inspire LGUs to take action despite limited resources andcapacities. The individual experiences illustrate how LGUs can transform their cities and municipalitieswith grit, perseverance, and creativity.

Sites for study and observation are recommended in the fifth section, which lists some cities andmunicipalities with successful housing projects. This can pave the way for a sharing of experiences,emulation, and modification of working models. This section aims to provide LGUs with tools andmaterials they can use to improve their delivery of shelter services.

Tools have been included in the Annex that LGUs might find helpful should they endeavor to replicatethe multi-stakeholder strategy in shelter provision. These are the Muntinlupa order that created theSocialized Housing Project Committee (SHoPCom); and the Memorandum of Understanding that wasentered into by NHA, Habitat, Muntinlupa Development Foundation and the Muntinlupa localgovernment. The format of the tool used by the Muntinlupa SHoPCom to assess the situation of urbanpoor communities is also available.

INTRODUCTION

2 S E R V I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T : R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T

It is hoped that these resources will aid LGUs in delivering shelter services with an impact. Some LGUshave begun to acknowledge that shelter problems are urgently in need of attention. The magnitudeof the problem notwithstanding, some LGUs have succeeded in their efforts to deal with it and, in theprocess, even blazed new trails.


INTRODUCTION

HOMELESSNESS IN THE COUNTRYCHAPTER 1


CHAPTER 1❙❙ OVERVIEW

◗ NATIONAL HOUSING SITUATION

A roof over the heads of most Filipinos seems to be an impossible dream at the moment as rapidurbanization has overtaken the government’s ability to provide sufficient shelter services. Presently,the country has one of the highest urban growth rates in the developing world—from 1960-1995, it reached 5.1 percent.

This phenomenon has been attributed to three forces: (a) a high national birth rate, an even higherbirth rate in urban areas; (b) migration from rural areas to urban areas; (c) and the prematurereclassification of rural areas with population densities higher than traditional rural areas into“urban.” 1

The government is trying to close this huge gap, and is aiming to provide shelter tenure securityto at least 1.2 million households, with a budget requirement of P215.16 billion. The housingbacklog, however, remains at 3.3 million housing units.

◗ POLICY FRAMEWORK

The government’s main task is to develop the housing sector and provide homes for all its intendedbeneficiaries. Specifically, it is mandated to provide a policy climate that will pave the way for anefficient housing market and is tasked to set up efficient subsidy systems that can answer the shelterneeds of the bottom 40 percent of households. 2

HOMELESSNESS IN THE COUNTRY

8

To fulfill these tasks, the National Urban Development and Housing Framework has set thefollowing objectives:

Ensure that land is available for housingEnsure that residential infrastructure is provided to recognized housing areasSupport housing finance systemsProvide mortgage guarantees

The government is implementing several strategies to meet these objectives. These include: Reforms in the sectorEfficient focus on targeted housing assistance to the poorCreation of a sustainable housing finance systemLocal government involvement in housing and development problemsPromotion of greater participation of business, civil society, and people’s organizations

◗ HOUSING TYPES

The government offers affordable types of houses under various programs, categorized into thefollowing:

Socialized Housing refers to a house and lot package with a value of P225,000 and below, usuallysituated in row housing projects in the suburbs of Metro Manila and generally targets the rank andfile office workers of government and corporate offices. This type of housing has limitations forhorizontal development; expansion may mean vertical development or an additional floor orstorey. For urban planners, the socialized housing category is just an initial housing phase until suchtime that the family is in a better position to move on to another housing level category. 3

Low-cost housing refers to a house and lot package with a value of P225,000 to P500,000, usuallya single detached or duplex type of house. This category includes units in Medium-Rise Buildings(MRBs) that are for sale. Prices of low-cost houses may vary due to several factors such as location

1 SHELTER

S E R V I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T : R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T

9

and accessibility, amenities available, materials used, presentation and designof the house, among others.

MRBs or Medium-rise buildings are residential buildings of not less thanthree stories, usually situated in highly populated urban areas. 4

Economic housing refers to a house and lot package worth P500,000 to P2million, intended for middle managers and executives of small companies. Likelow-cost housing, the value of houses in this category depends on location andaccessibility, amenities, materials, etc.

◗ PROGRAMS OF GOVERMMENT

Regular Housing Programs for Informal Settlers

The government, aside from making different types of houses available todifferent classes of buyers, also has several housing programs in place to ensure access to decentand secure shelter.

NHMFC-Community Mortgage Program

The National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation’s (NHMFC) Community Mortgage Program (CMP)could be described as the “favorite”program of informal settlers. Experts on housing issues also seethe CMP as an advantage for the underprivileged as it is a scheme that has worked well for the urbanpoor sector as far as financing is concerned. For the poor, this is the most accessible tool they canuse to acquire security of tenure.

The CMP is a mortgage financing program that helps organized marginalized communitiespurchase and develop a piece of land under the concept of community ownership. Its funding hasbeen institutionalized in the government system through the Comprehensive and Integrated


Housing Types

❍ Socializedhousing

❍ Low-costhousing

❍ MRBs orMedium-risebuildings

❍ Economichousing

HOMELESSNESS IN THE COUNTRY 1

10

Shelter and Finance Act (CISFA). It uses the incremental approach indeveloping the sites and facilities of the community and their respectivehomes to the extent of their affordability.

Mortgage payments are temporarily treated as rentals, and the titlestays with the community, until the beneficiaries have paid the fullamount of the loan. Individual titles are then given to them. In thisprogram, residents of depressed areas are given the opportunity toown a lot they occupy, or legally own an area they choose to resettle in.They can gradually improve this lot, the facilities available on it, and theirown homes based on their capacity to pay.

There are steps in the CMP process. It starts with a group of squattersapplying for assistance from the local government or a Non –Government Organization to acquire a piece of land, which could be thearea they currently occupy or intend to occupy as a relocation site.

A key feature of this housing program is the Originator. This may eitherbe a local government or a non–government organization that willassist the community association in setting up its organizational systems

for the housing project as well as provide technical assistance in the preparation and submissionof required documents.

If the LGU is the originator, the assigned office—either the Urban Poor Affairs Office or the CityHousing Office—then conducts an initial assessment on the organizational capacity of thecommunity association or it may conduct seminars on community-organizing among targetbeneficiaries, who are encouraged to organize themselves into a community housing association(CHA) for purposes of acquiring land and owning their own houses. The CHA must have a set ofofficers and committees such as grievance and adjudication, audit and inventory, development andservices, membership and education, livelihood, maintenance, peace and order, social and cultural.

1 SHELTER


Government

Housing Programs

1. Regular HousingProgram forInformal Settlers❍ NHMTC-

CommunityMortgageProgram

❍ NHA2. Special National

GovernmentHousing Project

11

Communities must, however, also meet a set of criteria (minimum monthly income, minimum lengthof stay, and age limit) set by the local government based on UDHA provisions or its own set of criteria.After the community is organized, the LGU then initiates the process for land acquisition.

Several LGUs have used the CMP, and have thus become originators and partners of their respectiveCHAs. This has resulted in stronger organizational capabilities of CHAs to sustain a socializedhousing project. As originators, the LGUs also provide technical assistance to the CHAs in fulfillingthe documentary requirements for a CMP loan approval and release. These LGUs includeMandaluyong, Naga, Marikina, Muntinlupa, Bacolod, and Cebu.

National Housing Authority

Land Tenure Assistance ProgramLaunched in July 1999, the Land Tenure Assistance Program (LTAP) of the National HousingAuthority aims to give housing loans to community associations, like the CMP program of theNHMFC. Compared to the CMP’s six (6) percent per annum interest rate, however, it has a higherrate of 12 percent. It also has a shorter payment period of two to 10 years in equal monthlyamortizations versus CMP’s 25 years. It can offer loans up to P60,000 per member as long as theresulting monthly amortization is not more than 20 percent of the borrower’s whole familyincome. The LTAP scheme also requires equity payments equivalent to no less than 10 percent ofthe total land price. However, this program was suspended during former President Estrada’sadministration to enable NHA to focus on housing production.

Resettlement Assistance Program with LGUsThis program is intended to benefit LGUs who undertake their own resettlement programs. Itminimizes or does away with NHA-initiated resettlement projects that require an NHA project teamto be present in each area to handle real estate matters. It enables and encourages LGUs todirectly oversee the development of their own projects, and in almost all cases, requires them toshoulder the cost of land.



12

Medium-Rise Buildings (MRBs)This is the recommended housing program of urban planners and government. Not less than threestoreys in height, MRBs are residential buildings usually located in a city. MRBs allow the maximumuse of land and accommodate more families of informal settlers.

Special National Government Housing Projects

An off-site and off-city relocation project is being implemented in Muntinlupa while a developmentproject is being implemented in Payatas. Both are funded by the Asian Development Bank’s (ADB)Japan Fund for Poverty Reduction (JFPR) under grant agreement with the Department of SocialWelfare and Development (DSWD). The executing agency, the DSWD, has a Project Monitoring Officethat provides monitoring assistance to the two projects. These two projects are important becausethe learnings from them have a bearing on ongoing work and proposed investment projectssuch as the Development of Urban Poor Communities and Metro Manila Urban Services for the Poor.Another ADB-funded project of the government is the Pasig River Environmental Management andRehabilitation Sector Development Program. It aims to improve the condition of Pasig River, as wellas solve the housing problems in the area.

The Off-Site, Off-City Relocation Project for the Vulnerable Communities of Muntinlupa

This ADB project intends to demonstrate the viability of an off-site, off-city relocation package forvulnerable urban communities—especially those that could be affected by a government-initiateddevelopment project.

The project will pilot-test this approach with two communities along the railroad tracks that willbe affected by the Southrail Development Project—Barangays Buli and Cupang. A three-hectare,off-city relocation site, large enough to accommodate about 567 families from the two projectcommunities, will be identified and acquired during the project implementation phase.

1 SHELTER


13

The project includes selection of suitable property, site development, core housing construction,provision of basic services, provision of livelihood and enterprise development opportunities,and capability building for estate management, including environmental management. It likewiseintends to strengthen government approaches to off-city relocation efforts by incorporating thelessons learned from previous efforts.

As a demonstration project, the Muntinlupa project will influence the formulation of a citywidesocialized shelter plan for Muntinlupa City. It will provide inputs to improve the national government’spolicies and programs in relocation and resettlement.5

Payatas Development Project

The On-site Integrated Urban Upgrading for Slum Communities of Payatas Project will directly guidethe design and implementation of the projects for core poverty interventions for slum upgrading,expansion of access to basic services, and improving quality of life. Its main objective is to transforma selected urban poor community in Payatas into a sustainable and viable community wherequality of life is greatly improved. To do this, the project will provide a comprehensive set ofphysical interventions such as reblocking, construction of roads and infrastructure, housingimprovements, provision of water supply and sanitation systems.

It will also provide a comprehensive set of social interventions like access to education andtraining, provision of a health insurance scheme, maternal and child care, care for the elderly andthe most vulnerable in the community. Economic interventions such as enterprise and livelihooddevelopment will also be made. The project has five components: (i) land acquisition using therevolving fund for bridge financing; (ii) site development and housing construction; (iii) livelihoodand micro-finance program; (iv) community-based health insurance; and (v) education, training,and exchanges.



14

The Pasig River Environmental Management and Rehabilitation Sector Development Program

Already in place, the project tackles among other things, the housing problems along the Pasig River.It was set up with technical grant assistance from the ADB. The latter also extended a technicalassistance grant to the national government for the environmental management and rehabilitationof the Pasig River.

The overall objectives of the program are to improve environmental management of the Pasig Riverbasin within Metro Manila, particularly for waste and water management and urban renewal. Tooversee this project, the Pasig River Rehabilitation Commission (PRRC) was created in January 6,1999. The Pasig River Environmental Management and Rehabilitation Sector Development Programand the ADB also agreed in July 1999 on a policy reform agenda and the physical improvementof the river.

The program provides for the establishment of 10-meter wide environmental preservation areas(EPAs) along approximately 23 kilometers of both banks of the Pasig River. This will entail therelocation of 10,000 families of informal settlers living along the riverbanks.

As of June 30, 2002, 4,662 households out of the 10,219 have been relocated to several KasiglahanVillages, where, sadly, there are inadequate socio-economic services and facilities. Some informalsettlers who have taken part in the census have also occupied titled lands within three to 10meters of the rivers. Implementation of development projects in the cleared areas has also beenslow, although maintenance and surveillance of these are still ongoing.

Since September 2001, there has been no relocation movement because people have beenclamoring for in-city resettlement in Manila, Pasig, and Taguig and because the ADB has given lowpriority to the 3,714 families occupying tributaries (in Pateros and Quezon City).

1 SHELTER


15

◗ CIVIL SOCIETY PROGRAMS

The provision of socialized housing assistance is not a monopoly of government alone. Some groupswithin civil society have also contributed to the housing sector in various ways.

Habitat for Humanity

Habitat, through its local affiliates, has joined forces with local government units and their partnercommunity associations in housing the poor. Usually, it is the LGU or the community associationthat provides the land, the LGU assists in site development activities, and Habitat helps qualifiedfamilies build their houses by providing financial assistance in the form of construction materials.

The beneficiary family members are asked to provide “sweat equity” in the construction of houses.Home partners, or the qualified families, are encouraged to fully pay their mortgages within a periodof 10 to 15 years with a corresponding cost of money (it is referred to as an interest rate) of six percentper year. The inflation rate could be factored in, too.

The LGUs of Muntinlupa and Dumaguete have undertaken a number of projects with Habitat. Theestimated construction cost of a 24-square-meter house in Metro Manila is no more than P120,000but in the province, a slightly bigger 30-square-meter type costs P85,000.

Couples For Christ-Gawad Kalinga

As part of its commitment to share their time, talent, and treasures, the Couples For Christ hasembarked on a comprehensive community development program called “Gawad Kalinga”(GK) that“addresses individual, family, and community needs.”6 At the same time, it provides a strong valuestransformation program accompanied by programs that promote socio-economic upliftment,restoration of the person’s confidence in him/herself, and assistance in helping people rise out ofpoverty.



16

One of these components is the Shelter and Site Development Program called “TATAG,” a build orrebuild shelter project. The program provides for the construction of new homes of relocated familiesor the onsite improvement of houses of the poorest of the poor who have no way of helpingthemselves. The average cost of a house is P30,000, its construction done through “bayadnihan.”The program includes organizing the beneficiaries and other members of the community undera Kapitbahayan Neighborhood Association. The assistance given to beneficiaries may or may notbe returned, depending on the assessment of the Couples For Christ.

ALTERPLAN and TAO

Two other NGOs—Alternative Planning Inc. (ALTERPLAN) and Technical Assistance Organization-Pilipinas (TAO)—prefer alternative approaches to planning, whether this is in terms of participation,perspective, building technologies, or housing schemes.

ALTERPLAN has been instrumental in helping the St. Louis University-St. Vincent Parish (SLU-SVP)Housing Cooperative enrich its housing assistance to members. It also did a feasibility study on amedium-rise building project for Habitat Philippines and is involved in the pre-planning activitiesfor the Parola Urban Poor Settlement Project, a Kapitbisig Laban sa Kahirapan (KALAHI)-assistedproject.

TAO’s expertise is being tapped in preparatory activities for the proposed relocation of theKapulungan ng mga Samahan sa Riles Valenzuela Federation (KASARIVAL), a city-level associationof community associations along the railroad tracks of Valenzuela, Bulacan.

1 SHELTER


17

❙❙ LGUs CAN TAKE THE LEAD

◗ SEVEN GLOBAL NORMS OF GOOD URBAN GOVERNANCE

However sluggish the national government may be when it comes tohousing the poor, and whatever problems there may be in thehousing sector, local government units can take the cudgels and dowhat is necessary to house the informal settlers in their locales.

One guide LGUs can use when tackling local problems such as shelterinsecurity is the “Seven Global Norms of Good Urban Governance”adopted by the League of Cities in the Philippines. It advocates soundstandards that could effectively steer local governments to performbetter in their areas. These norms are:

1. Equity of access – this covers constituents’ access to basic socialservices such as land for shelter and source of livelihood, naturalresources, education, water, credit, and gender equity

2. Security of individuals - land, livelihood opportunities, health,education

3. Efficiency in delivering basic services to constituents4. Sustainability5. Decentralization and subsidiarity 6. Transparency and accountability7. Civic engagement and citizenship – this covers the partnership or

collaboration with civil society to include people’s organizations7



Seven Norms of GoodUrban Governance

1. Equity of access 2. Security of

individuals 3. Efficient basic

services delivery4. Sustainability5. Decentralization

and subsidiarity 6. Transparency and

accountability7. Civic engagement

and citizenship

18

◗ ROLES FOR LGUS

LGUs can also assume various roles to better respond to the shelter needsof their cities or municipalities and do something about the ever increasinghousing backlog in the country. For instance, LGUs can be a direct housingprovider. They can buy and allot hectares of land for socialized or low-cost housing, and make housing packages suitable to the needs of theircommunities.

City and municipal governments can also become partners of nationalgovernment agencies or a private developer through joint ventureagreements. They can collaborate with a government or private organizationto set up and plan a sound housing program for the poor.

LGUs could also function as a source of interim financing that can assistpeople’s organizations working for land tenure. Cities and municipalities withenough resources can first pay for the land bought by their constituents in

cases when the national government is unable to release loans, and then collect the amount at alater time from the agencies concerned.

LGUs can also assume the role of CMP originator. Cities and municipalities can make use of CMPand adapt it in their respective locales, depending on the need.

LGUs can take an active role in site development after a community association has worked on itstenurial security. LGUs can provide water facilities, provide the road network or do the community’sstorm & drainage canal.

1 SHELTER


Roles for LGUs

1. Direct housingprovider

2. Partner throughJoint VentureProjects

3. Source of interimfinancing

4. CMP originator5. Site developer

19

◗ LGU INITIATED SUCCESSFUL HOUSING PROJECTS AT A GLANCE

There are some cities that have started their own housing programs, adopted the precedingroles, and made use of various other strategies applicable to their own locales. The followingtable gives us a preview of these cities and the strategies that have worked for them, and theircorresponding benefits. What follows is but a preview; each city and program will be discussed indetail in Chapter 4.



LGU

Naga City, CamarinesSur

Muntinlupa, MetroManila

San Carlos, NegrosOccidental

Project and key strategies used

Kaantabay sa Kauswagan (Partners inDevelopment) a housing programusing an Urban Poor Affairs Office(UPAO); and collaboration with a non-government organization, theCommunity Organizing of thePhilippines Enterprise (COPE)Foundation

A housing project using amultisectoral mechanism called the“Socialized Housing ProgramCommittee” or the “SHoPCom” andprovision of interim financing

The “Lote Para Sa Mahirap” Project toprovide home lots for families with noregular salaries or have limited meansof income

Results/Benefits

As of May 31, 2002, the Program hascovered a total of 7,301 urban poorhouseholds through 44 on-site andoff-site development projects. Thefigure is only 100 families shy of the7,400 low-income Naga householdswho, according to the ADB estimates,live below poverty line.

As of September 2002, the CityGovernment has assisted 714 familiesaddress their security of shelter tenureand an additional 350 familiesthrough the provision of interimfinancing assistance.

Four successive phases involvingparcels of land that will occupy anarea of at least 16 hectares toaccommodate about 1,750unemployed or low-income families.Its Phase I Project had an initial 473beneficiary-families.

20

1 SHELTER


LGU

Bacolod City, NegrosOccidental

Mandaluyong, MetroManila

Victorias, NegrosOccidental

Dumaguete, NegrosOriental

Marikina, Metro Manila

Project and key strategies used

A housing assistance package coursedthrough their own housing agencyand which made use of the CMP

Land for the Landless Program whichprovided interim financing and madeuse of the CMP

A low cost housing program usingbond flotation

Low cost housing through thepartnership with NHA, PPA andConsuelo Alger Foundation

Elimination of squatting through CMPand a Municipal Settlement Office, andcommunity participation

Results/Benefits

Twenty-two (22) ongoing housingprojects which will benefit informalworkers, vendors, fisherfolks, laborers,drivers, a few government and non-government workers.

Nine thousand (9,000) families havebenefited from this project.

Benefited homeless municipalworkers, employees of the nationalgovernment, water district, VRESCOand Victorias Milling Company.

Relocation of a depressed communitysquatting along danger-pronegovernment land, to a resettlementproject which has basic amenities andfacilities.

Relocation and resettlement of 21,887families of informal settlers.

21



◗ HOUSING STRATEGIES FOR LGUS

Some cities and municipalities have already initiated their own housingprograms, and have been successful in providing shelter security to anumber of their constituents. Examples are cited here but will also bediscussed in greater detail in Chapter 4.

The successful experiences of the featured cities and municipalities showsome common notable qualities, among them:

1. Political will and commitment of the local chief executiveLocal chief executives who demonstrate political will and commitmentto provide their constituents with shelter can make a difference. This wasevident in the former mayors of Mandaluyong, San Carlos, Naga, andMarikina, all of whom actively involved themselves in theimplementation of their housing projects.

2. Local leadership’s full appreciation of his/her environmentThere were a number of LGUs that recognized the significant incidenceof informal settlements in their midst. Naga, Marikina, and Muntinlupaare some examples of how some local offices saw the urgency in solvingthis problem. Dumaguete City, for instance, was aware of the unstablesituation of some informal settlers living on government land. The city,with the help of various agencies, strove to relocate them to a siteclose to their means of livelihood, and where transportation and education were accessible.

3. Recognition of the power of their peopleSome successful LGUs mobilized various people’s organizations and included them in allaspects of the whole project. They wanted everybody involved so that they would own the project

Common Qualitiesof SuccessfulHousing Strategiesfor LGUs

1. Political will ofLocal ChiefExecutive

2. Full appreciationof theenvironment byleadership

3. Recognition ofthe power of thepeople

22

and be committed to it. Marikina gave a set of assignments to communities that wanted to applyfor CMP. In the municipality of Victorias, the people themselves mobilized their community toplant trees in their new resettlement site.

Some strategies that worked in jumpstarting shelter projects are worth emulating too. Theexamples of strategies below show that LGUs can provide more than houses or structures to giveshelter to the poor. They show that providing shelter entails: (1) the creation of structures that

1 SHELTER


Shelter Strategies for LGUs

1. Preparation of the LGU’s Shelter Plan

2. Provision of basic services in settlement development

3. Creation of enabling mechanisms and structures

4. Work with other stakeholders such as CSOs

5. Tapping existing national housing programs

6. Exploration of innovative local housing finance schemes

7. Development of appropriate packages for partner-households

8. Mobilization of people’s organizations

9. Strengthening the capacity of people’s organizations

10. Development and installation of management systems

11. Effective recording and collection systems of monthly amortization

12. Development of an effective monitoring and evaluation system

23

not only house the biggest number of people but also ensure the availability of basic amenitiesin the sites; (2) the active participation of relocatees or residents, and (3) the importance of buildingcommunities, among others. A good housing project would also include opportunities to tapother national housing programs. The strategies below point to ways that housing projects canbe planned in a comprehensive manner, because even the smallest of details are important andare closely linked to other aspects of the housing program.

1. Preparation of the LGU’s shelter planThe shelter plan puts forward the LGU’s long-term vision and development strategy for shelterprovision. The plan does not only target delivering housing units on a piece of property but alsolooks at ensuring the sustainability of the settlement. For instance, the plan should pro-activelyconsider the impact of settlements on the environment, particularly on the use of naturalresources—water, the clearing of agricultural areas, and the cutting of trees. The municipalityof Victorias, for example, in planning its housing project, made use of environment-friendlymaterials for construction. It also factored in better land use and reclassification.

2. Provision of basic amenities in settlement development This means providing water, electricity, access to education, health services, sanitation facilities,and affordable transportation to and from employment opportunities. Dumaguete City, forexample, made sure that basic facilities and amenities were available in the resettlement sitesthey offered to the depressed community of Barangay Looc.

3. Creation or expansion of enabling mechanisms/structuresSome LGUs such as Naga City set up an Urban Poor Affairs Office (UPAO), while Bacolod set upthe Bacolod Housing Authority to oversee its housing program. The city of Muntinlupa has itsUrban Poor Affairs Office too but also opted for a multi-stakeholder mechanism, the SocializedHousing Program Committee (SHoPCom), to synchronize at the city level the various efforts ofits stakeholders in housing assistance. These mechanisms were used to enable and facilitatehousing projects in their own locales.



24

Marikina and Muntinlupa used different offices of their local governments as principalimplementers of their housing projects. Copies of the Muntinlupa order that created theSocialized Housing Project Committee; and the Memorandum of Understanding that wasentered into by NHA, Habitat, Muntinlupa Development Foundation and the Muntinlupa localgovernment are included in the Annex.

4. Working with other stakeholders, such as civil society organizationsLGUs can work with the communities in their locales, or other civil society groups to complementand supplement their own strengths and weaknesses. Naga City, as part of its strategy of“focusing on its core work and doing only what it is good at,” partnered with the CommunityOrganizing of the Philippines Enterprise (COPE) Foundation especially in the area of community-organizing work.

5. Tapping existing national housing programs Most of the LGUs that successfully implemented housing projects made use of existing housingprograms of the National Housing Authority, especially in executing a relocation and resettlementproject or in developing new communities in identified areas. Most have also used theCommunity Mortgage Program of the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation in on-siteincremental housing projects initiated by the community residents themselves.

6. Exploration of innovative local housing finance schemes Funding is a perennial problem in most housing projects. But the use of innovative financingschemes can partially, if not fully, solve this problem. Victorias of Negros Occidental brokenew ground in the use of bond flotation to finance its housing project for its employees. Thebond flotation worked on the principle of mobilizing local participation in the city’s developmentprojects. It had interested parties extend the financing themselves.

1 SHELTER


25

7. Development of appropriate packages for partner-households taking into considerationtheir needs and their capacity to pay. Providing houses for the people is not an easy task, and one of the most overlooked aspects ofmost housing programs is the incomes of target beneficiaries. With less means to pay, housingpackages for the poor should be made very affordable. San Carlos City’s “Lote Para Sa Mahirap”project provided home lots to low-income and poor squatter families with no regular income.Its payment scheme of P5 daily from Mondays to Fridays was affordable and spread over a periodof five years.

8. Mobilization of people’s organizations to participate in all facets of the housing projectmanagement cycle to ensure ownership and commitment to the undertaking. To the stakeholders of Naga and Muntinlupa, this is called community organizing. The MuntinlupaDevelopment Foundation assists community associations in formulating their version of the Deedof Restrictions, which they call the “Agreement for Community Living.” The agreement coverssite development and settlement management matters. Makati City used a different approachin the management of its Pabahay Project. A floor leader, selected and elected by the unitoccupants of a floor, assumes leadership responsibilities.

9. Strengthening the capacities of the people’s organizations to get into a housing projectand eventually manage their settlements. Marikina encouraged its constituents to deal with the various facets of their housing programsby giving them a set of tasks to follow and implement in their own communities.

10. Development and installation of corresponding management systems and proceduresof shelter programs, projects and services. This will include: the software and hardware development for the monitoring and updatingof an LGU’s registered socialized housing beneficiaries, its different housing projects, and itsland inventory for housing. This also includes on–the-job training of assigned personnel. Notmany cities or municipalities have used this strategy. Marikina’s attempt consisted of specifying



26

procedures for both informal settlers and landowners, which the Municipal Settlement Officeas well as the Mayor’s Office supervised to ensure the smooth flow of their housing projects.As for the management of data on beneficiaries, housing projects, and land inventory, only fourcities—Makati, Davao, Cebu and Naga—have an established system.

11. Effective recording and collection system of monthly amortization payments at thecity level, while at the same time establishing a mechanism of monitoring thesepayments at the community level.Naga provides an example on effective recording and collection. In one of its communities,the association treasurer is tasked to collect the payments of all beneficiaries. Those who areunable to pay are given a penalty equivalent to one (1) percent of the amount due. Thecollection is then deposited to the Land Bank Branch of Naga City. Today, majority of theassociation members have paid from 12 to 17 months of the total 24-month equivalent of theirloan. Marikina also imposed penalties for late payments and has not experienced problemsin collecting monthly payments from beneficiaries.

12. Developing an effective monitoring and evaluation system that will provide the keylocal leaders and officials with concrete feedback on the positive and negative results,or impact of their local housing assistance. Active community organizations can be a city or municipality’s channel for gathering positiveand negative feedback. Since settlement and/or urban poor affairs offices deal closely withcommunities, they can set up dialogues with these groups to gather information on theresults of their housing projects. Among the cities that have active community organizationsare Naga, Marikina, and Muntinlupa. These cities work closely with their communities andregularly hold dialogues with them.

1 SHELTER


27



Naga Housing Strategies8

National Government’s Community Mortgage ProgramSelf-help community mortgage. The local authority, instead of national governmentprovides the bulk of the financing requirement, and the urban poor communityprovides a significant amount of equity.Land sharing. The owner agrees to share land occupied by the urban poor community,and sells only a portion of the property. The owner has the right to choose which partof the land he will retain for his own use.Leveraged land sharing plus. Instead of sharing the land, an adjacent land isdeveloped for relocation. The owner gets all of the land.Land swapping. The owner agrees to exchange the land occupied by an urban poorcommunity with another property, which has the same value or size of his former land.Community-initiated purchase. In this mode, the urban poor community puts up atleast half of the total project cost.Proactive land banking. This means the purchase of raw landholdings at a cheaperprice, which will be developed into low-cost housing or resettlement areas. Idle government lots. Unutilized/underutilized properties of the national governmentor the local authority for housing are used for the housing program.Livelihood housing. Communal farming and fishing—including support services—on top of the traditional home lots for beneficiaries are provided. Eminent domain. This entails the expropriation of privately owned landholdings bythe local authority, invoking the power of eminent domain.

28

What is CMP?CMP is a mortgage-financing program of the NHMFC assisting the informal sector in buying anddeveloping a parcel of land under the concept of community ownership. It takes into considerationthe paying capacity of members of the community who want to use it as a tool for shelter tenuresecurity. It is implemented over a period of time to assist residents of depressed areas to own thelot they occupy, or a lot located in a relocation area of choice. Loan payments under CMP aretemporarily treated as rentals. The community holds the title until all payments have been made.Only then are individual titles given.

A distinct feature of this housing program is the role of the Originator. The originator is tasked toassist the community association get organized for the housing project, set up the organizationaland project management systems, and provide technical assistance in complying with thedocumentary requirements of NHMFC for as CMP loan. An LGU or a non – government organizationcan be an originator.

What are the benefits of this approach?The CMP is one of the measures that allow the poor to gain more access to land. It brings about thecollaboration of different housing stakeholders such as LGUs, national agencies, NGOs andcommunities. This facilitates consultation, thus maximizing the expertise of all stakeholders inhousing. The approach also empowers people. It helps build strong communities by making themwork toward eventual land ownership and giving them a chance to develop their own sites together,in the spirit of damayan or mutual aid and friendship. CMP has mechanisms, processes, criteria setby LGUs and community housing associations (CHAs) that require approval from stakeholders.The standards set by government such as BP 220 are also followed.

What are the disadvantages of the approach?It takes a long time for the NHMFC to process loans. Because of this, the price of the land thecommunity wants to buy could increase during the time that the loan is being processed. However,

1 SHELTER


FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT CMP

LGUs can provide interim financing schemes so the community could buy the land. The localgovernment can collect from the NHMFC at a later time through a Deed of Assignment signed bythe landowner in favor of the LGU. Another disadvantage is that loan applications may be kepthanging whenever funding is not released to the NHMFC.

What are the required capacities of the people involved?Providing shelter for the poor generally requires the political will, commitment, and creativity of LGUs.The mayor’s role is critical in getting things done or in mobilizing needed resources from otherinstitutions. LGUs should also know the real situation in their areas. They should have a “feel” for thepriority problems and issues of their community, as well as the available resources they can tap toget things done. Information, data, and documents relevant to their cities and municipalities,especially on the urban poor should also be complete.

The mayor should have a designated office such as an Urban Affairs Office or a City Housing Officeto work on this. The LGUs’ staff should have experience in organizing work, and an understandingof the CMP loan process and documentation.

How is the approach delivered?The cities and municipalities featured in this resource book took the following steps in providinghousing for their poor:

Organization of residents into CHAs.Request by CHAs for assistance in housing provision.Screening by the city of beneficiaries (Each city and/or municipality may have different criteriafor eligibility).Consultation by the city government with the people and the landowners.Purchase of the land by the city through interim financing or from a loan released by theNHMFC.

29



Turnover of the land title to the city government or to the community.Payment by the community for the land on a monthly basis.

There are some cities, such as Bacolod, which used a slightly different approach to CMP.A group of squatters applied for assistance with the local government to acquire a piece of land.The housing office helped the group organize themselves into a housing association byconducting seminars on community organizing.The group then organized themselves into a CHA, with a set of officers, and requested forhousing assistance.The LGU started critical activities for land acquisition.

Is the approach acceptable to LGUs?Judging from the growing number of LGUs adopting the CMP, yes, it is acceptable to LGUs. The CMPnot only decreases the number of slum settlements within their boundaries, it also raises thequality of life of their constituents as well. The CMP ultimately increases the LGU’s real property taxcollection.

What are the required resources? LGUs need funding to help the poor in this area since CMP procedures entail costs. Seminars for thecommunities would have to be conducted, and coordination with housing agencies would requiremoney, too. When loans take a long time to be released, LGUs will need money to be able to pay forthe price of land during the waiting period under an interim financing arrangement with thecommunity association and the landowner. Another needed resource is competent manpower forconsultations with communities and housing agencies, and for the provision of housing shelter. Landis also needed. In off-site relocation programs, LGUs need to choose land that is suitable forhabitation yet still affordable for their poor constituents.

30

1 SHELTER


Who are the champions of this approach?Because numerous LGUs have become champions of the CMP, it has been widely adopted in the wholecountry. Experts on housing issues also see the CMP as an advantage for the underprivileged sinceit has worked well for the urban poor sector as far as financing is concerned. For the poor, this is themost accessible tool they can use to own houses.

What are the indications of the sustainability or the replicability of this approach?The growing number of CMP beneficiaries in the whole country and the rise in their quality of lifeare some of the indications of its sustainability. The number of LGUs all over the country adoptingCMP for their housing projects also shows that different cities and municipalities use CMP. SriLanka has also looked into some successful housing projects here in the hope of replicating them.

31



LGU MANDATESCHAPTER 2


CHAPTER 2❙❙ NATIONAL HOUSING LAWS

◗ MAJOR LEGISLATION

The past years have seen various changes in policies regulating the housing sector. These wereenvisioned to rid the country of poverty, ensure each citizen easier access to decent housing andproper development of land, and encourage people from all walks of life to actively participate inthe country’s development. Laws relevant to the housing sector have a special significance to localgovernments as these laws are also meant to improve the capability of local government units toimplement urban development and housing projects.

The Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991 (RA 7160)

The LGC of 1991 identifies and states, among other things, the roles and responsibilities of all localgovernment units from the province down to the barangay. It specifies that LGUs should protectthe general welfare of the citizenry through the delivery of basic services and facilities. Shelter, beingone of the basic needs, is mentioned specifically in the Code. Article 25 says that one of the majorfunctions of LGUs—especially municipalities, cities, and provinces—is the “planning andimplementation of the programs and projects for low-cost housing and other mass dwellings.”9

Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 (RA 7279)

In 1992, a landmark legislation that favors the poor was passed. The Urban Development and HousingAct (UDHA) of 1992 recognizes the legal rights of the underprivileged and guarantees that people,most specifically the beneficiaries of socialized housing, will be secure in their own lands. It alsoprovides more people the chance for better shelter.

LGU MANDATES

36

The UDHA, besides aiding the urban poor sector also encourages the private sector to participatein the development of national shelter programs. It gives incentives to developers who are willingto share their resources.

The UDHA likewise gives importance to LGUs, giving them a significant role by mandating themto take on urban development and housing programs and projects on their own for the benefitof their own constituents.

The UDHA is the law often referred to on matters pertaining to homelessness and squatting. It isthe principal legal framework governing public policy on the urban poor and the provisions ofsocialized housing.

The Comprehensive and Integrated Shelter Financing Act (CISFA) of 1994 (RA 7835)

The CISFA directs the national government to provide budgetary support to the country’s varioushousing programs. It seeks to strengthen housing programs by vigorously implementing thegovernment’s programs for urban and rural housing, resettlement, the development of sites andservices, and the renewal of blighted areas.

Batas Pambansa 220

This is an act authorizing the Ministry of Human Settlements to establish and promulgate differentlevels of standards and technical requirements for economic and socialized housing projects in urbanand rural areas from those provided under the Presidential Decree Nos. 1957, 1216, 1096, and 1185.This was approved on March 25, 1982.

The Rules and Standards for Economic and Socialized Housing Projects to Implement BatasPambansa Blg. 220 was amended through a Board Resolution No. 579 of the Housing and UrbanDevelopment Coordinating Council (HUDCC) and the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board(HLURB) in October 1995.

2 SHELTER


37

This amended law led to a revised set of rules and standards for “Economic and Socialized HousingProjects” to implement Batas Pambansa Blg. 220. This became the reference of developers andhomeowners associations in the preparation of their respective “Deeds of Restrictions.”And for somecommunity-based associations that pursued socialized housing concerns, this served as a basis forthe formulation of their collective “Agreement for Community Living” or “Kasunduan ngPampamayanang Pamumuhay.”

◗ LEGISLATION ON POSSIBLE SOURCES OF HOUSING FUNDS

There are also national policies identifying the possible sources of housing funds such as those thatcan be generated by the LGUs themselves. These windows of opportunities are:

The Idle Land Tax (Art. 236 of the LGC)

This states, “A province or city, or a municipality within the Metropolitan area may levy an annualtax on idle lands at a rate not exceeding 5 percent of the assessed value of the property which shallbe in addition to the basic real property tax.”

Taxation on Assessed Value of Lands (Sec. 43 of the UDHA)

This section states that all LGUs are authorized to impose an additional one-half percent tax on theassessed value of all lands in urban areas in excess of P50,000. Proceeds of this tax can be used forhousing funds.

However, the Proposed Implementing Rules and Regulations of Section 43 have not been enacted.HUDCC has put forward the rules to mandate the DILG to identify urban areas authorized toassess and collect the socialized housing tax and individually inform the concerned cities andmunicipalities of the same. The DILG shall publish the list of identified urban areas to assess andcollect the tax and individually inform the concerned cities/municipalities of the same.

LGU MANDATES 2


38

In turn, identified LGUs shall, within 30 days from receipt of a DILG notice, inform the DILG and theHUDCC of their intended action. If the LGU decides to assess and collect the tax, it shall specify inits response the commencement of its implementation, the projected generated income, and theprospective projects to be funded by the tax. If the LGU does not implement the tax, it shallspecify the reasons for the same.

The refusing LGU shall also state the measures taken to remove current impediments, the timeframewithin which identified impediments will be resolved and the appropriate time of theimplementation of the tax.

Art. 397 of Rule XXXIII on Local Government Credit Financing on Bonds and Other Long-Term Securities (from the LGC)

A significant number of LGUs have made use of various financing schemes for their respective localhousing projects as specified in the Local Government Code. These funds may be sourced from the20 percent allocation for development projects from the LGU’s Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA),bond flotation, 80 percent of the LGU’s regular IRA share or the regular budget, or bank loans. Otherstrategies of LGUs include: partnership with international donor organizations or with a nationalhousing agency, or other income generated by the LGU.

The city of Muntinlupa allocates a minimum of P10 million annually from its City Development Fundfor land banking purposes—not necessarily for socialized housing alone but for other socialservice facilities. The city government in extending interim financing assistance to communityassociations pursuing socialized housing efforts also uses this Fund. The City Development Fundis sourced from the 20 percent share from the LGU’s annual Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA).

The municipality of Victorias was the first among the LGUs to embark on bond flotation for a low-cost housing project for its employees. The municipal government initially explored two financingalternatives: bank loan and credit financing before deciding on municipal bond flotation.

2 SHELTER


39

The city of Naga has developed various innovative financing schemes for the specific housingapproach identified together with their partner community associations. It has tapped its CityInfrastructure Fund, and other lending institutions such as Land Bank of the Philippines, GovernmentService Insurance System (GSIS), the Community Mortgage Program of the NHMFC, as well as theNational Housing Authority. It has also entered into partnership with international donororganizations such as the Asian Development Bank to initially provide technical assistance to itscity housing program.10

There are several national housing finance agencies, local and international banks that provide creditfinancing and loans to LGUs for their respective housing programs or to the end-buyers directly.These are the Philippine National Bank, the Home Insurance Guarantee Corporation (HIGC), andthe NHMFC’s Community Mortgage Program.

❙❙ UDHA-DEFINED LGU SHELTER-RELATED RESPONSIBILITIES

While the national laws spelled out the responsibilities of key national shelter agencies and thevarious possible sources of funding, the Urban Development and Housing Act (UDHA) defined thefollowing duties of LGUs:

1. Prepare a comprehensive land use plan aimed at achieving the objectives of the UDHA (Sec.6 and 39).

2. Conduct an inventory of all lands and improvements thereon within their respective localitiesin coordination with the HLURB and with the assistance of the appropriate governmentagencies (Sec.7). Update the inventory every three years and furnish the Housing and UrbanDevelopment Coordinating Council (HUDCC) a copy of its inventory including updated onesfor planning purposes (Sec. 7).

LGU MANDATES 2


40

3. Identify, in coordination with the National Housing Authority (NHA), the HLURB, the NationalMapping and Resources Information Authority (NAMRIA), and the Land Management Bureau(LMB) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) lands for socializedhousing and resettlement for the immediate and future needs of the underprivileged andhomeless in urban areas (Sec. 8).

4. Certify as to the blighted status of lands, which shall be considered as one of the factors in theevaluation of the market value of land for socialized housing (Sec. 13).

5. Identify and register all qualified socialized housing beneficiaries within their respectivelocalities (Sec. 17).

6. In pursuit of balanced housing development, enter into joint venture projects with privatedeveloper (Sec. 18).

7. Provide basic services and facilities (potable water, power/electricity, adequate solid wastedisposal system, and access to primary roads and transformation facility) in the socialized housingor resettlement areas in cooperation with the private sector and concerned agencies (Sec. 21).

8. Provide the program beneficiaries of their duly designated representatives, in coordination withthe Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor (PCUP) and concerned government agencies,the opportunity to be heard and to participate in the decision-making process over mattersinvolving the protection and promotion of their legitimate collective interests (Sec. 23).

9. In cooperation with the Philippine National Police (PNP), the PCUP and PCUP-accreditedurban poor organizations in the area, adopt measures to identify and effectively curtail the illegalactivities of professional squatters and squatting syndicates (Sec. 27).

10. In coordination with the NHA, implement the relocation and resettlement of persons living indanger areas such as esteros, railroad tracks, garbage dumps, riverbanks, shorelines, waterwaysand in other public places such as sidewalks, roads, parks and playgrounds (Sec. 29).

11. Provide, in coordination with the NHA, relocation or resettlement sites with basic services andfacilities, and access to employment and livelihood opportunities sufficient to meet the basicneeds of affected families (Sec. 30).

2 SHELTER


41

12. Assist the NHMFC in initiating the organization of Community Mortgage Program (CMP)beneficiaries (Sec. 33).

13. Promote, in coordination with the HUDCC, NHA, the Technology Livelihood Resource Center(TLRC), Department of Science and Technology (DOST), and other concerned agencies in theproduction and use of indigenous, alternative, and low-cost construction materials andtechnologies for socialized housing (Sec. 34).

14. Submit a detailed annual report, with respect to the implementation of the Act, to thePresident and House of Representatives (Sec. 41).

15. May impose an additional one-half percent tax on the assessed value of all lands in urban areasin excess of P50,000 (Sec. 43).

LGU MANDATES 2


CHAPTER IMPLEMENTATION & POLICY ISSUES

AND RECOMMENDATIONS3


CHAPTER 3❙❙ National Level

The Government’s Performance

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo promised security of tenure to at least 150,000 households, butas of 2002 was able to assist 183,000, or 22 percent more than her promised target.

The national government also went beyond its goal of extending housing assistance to 50,000 urbanpoor households. It gave assistance to a total of 83,457 households through the National HousingAuthority, the assistance coming in the form of resettlement and slum upgrading.

Despite these positive changes, the housing sector remains beset with problems. Though there havebeen improvements, these do not come close to solving the immense housing problem in the country.

Low Government Targets

Although it was able to help urban poor households, the national government was unable to fullyassist the salaried workers. Only 72,375 out of the 100,000-target number of salaried workersreceived housing assistance from the government.

Population densities, rapid urbanization, steep market value of lands, and very low incomes alsocontributed to a rather shaky housing sector. The country now has 80 million people, and 40 millionare classified as poor. HUDCC declared that the housing backlog has reached 3.362 million, withthe bulk of the housing need concentrated in the National Capital Region (.06 million), followedby Region 4 (0.6 million) then Region 3 (0.3 million).

IMPLEMENTATION & POLICY ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

46

The target set by the government—the provision of at least 1.2 million houses to its people—issimply too small compared to our housing backlog. Thus government needs to set plans on a biggerscale to benefit the most number of homeless households and respond better to the housing needsof its people.

◗ PROGRAM-SPECIFIC ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

NHMFC-Community Mortgage Program

Issues:Drastic cuts in CMP budgetAlthough CMP funding was institutionalized in the government system in 1995 through the CISFA(Comprehensive and Integrated Shelter Finance Act), it still has experienced drastic cuts in the budget.In 1999, P427 million was partially released to the program, but no budget was given the followingyear. This, despite the issuance of a Special Allocation and Release Order (SARO) of P1.07 billion anda signed subsidy of P1.78 billion. In 2001, despite the legislated subsidy of P1.07 billion, not evenone percent of the whole amount was released. In 2002, only P300 million was given to theprogram.

Slow processing of CMP loan applications and low performance rate in lending The CMP performance rate as a lending facility also needs a lot of perking up. Based on NHMFC’sreport, the CMP averages only 70 projects that benefit 8,839 households a year. NHMFC’s averageprocessing time of CMP loan applications takes from eight to 14 months. Although this is the onlyongoing flagship project of NHMFC, processing takes a very long time. This could be due to theinadequate organizational capacity of NHMFC to carry out CMP-related functions.

Collection schemes within beneficiary communities should also be improvedThere have been numerous cases when households have failed to pay their monthly amortizationssince assigned collectors do not have an effective system in collecting monthly amortizations.

3 SHELTER


47

Limited reach of CMP and the need to fast track applications and projectsCMP has also failed to reach provinces. This is due to the slow processing time of loan applicationsand the priority that NHMFC puts on on-site rather than off-site projects. In addition, there are alsomore active and credible originators in the NCR, as well as a lack of information on programs suchas CMP. As of June 30, 2002, there were 188 CMP projects in the Regional Distribution of ApprovedPCL (Purchase Commitment Line) and Taken Out Projects. Fifty-five percent or 104 projects werelocated in the NCR while the rest were in other regions of the country.

Recommendations:There is a need to look into the efficiency of the NHMFC structure, to determine which area iscausing the delay in loan processing. Aside from hastening the process of loan applications, one way to fast-track housing projectsis for the President to issue land proclamations. This allows occupants of idle governmentlands to legitimately own the lands their houses stand on. However, the turnover of theseproclaimed lands should be done rapidly through CMP, which would mean lower costscompared to regular mortgage plans, since government land would be priced lower thanthose owned by private entities. Government should disseminate information about CMP in the provinces, to give communitiesa chance for shelter security. It could provide LGUs with a list of other local governmentsalready involved in CMP, along with a list of accredited originators. They must encourage LGUsto initiate housing projects and provide CMP as a viable option.Local governments, as discussed in the previous section, can explore alternative schemes offinancing to fund their own CMP projects. They could also partner with private agencies andNGOs who can help them respond to housing finance problems and other areas of CMPorigination. Most LGUs with successful housing projects have partnered with other institutions.The city of San Carlos, for example, partnered with Consuelo de Alger Foundation, whichsubsidized part of the cost of its housing project.

IMPLEMENTATION & POLICY ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3


48

National Housing Authority

Land Tenure Assistance Program

Issues:NHA has experienced collection problems in this program because of the following:

Weak leadership of the homeowners’ associationNon-implementation of sanctions imposed by NHA on delinquent payersLack of basic facilities in some LTAP sites since site development is incrementalInsufficient knowledge about the programNo approved subdivision causing members anxiety about their security of tenure

Recommendations:Although LTAP has been suspended, the problems it encountered can serve as lessons both for LGUsand the national government. The problems could have been easily remedied by various measures.Value formation sessions can be done in areas with weak community leaders. Naga City andMarikina have done these in their own areas. National agencies and local governments can alsomake sure that basic facilities and amenities are available in resettlement sites before they movepeople. Victorias and Dumaguete City did this in their respective relocation sites.

Medium-Rise Buildings

Issues:Balancing Production Costs and Affordability Another area of concern is the NHA’s program on medium-rise buildings or housing. This is therecommended strategy of urban poor housing by government and urban planners, but there stilla need to look at its production cost versus the capacity to pay of the poor.

3 SHELTER


49

Recommendations: The national government and LGUs, when undertaking housing projects, should not just limitthemselves to maximizing the use of land and relocating the most number of informal settlers.They should also take into consideration the paying capacity of their target beneficiaries. The city of Muntinlupa, as an example, entered into a joint venture agreement with NHA torespond to the need of an organized urban poor group to develop a piece of property and providecore housing. They designed a medium-rise building to maximize the size of the property andensure that the housing project could accommodate more households. The urban poor group,however, officially withdrew from the project since the monthly amortization was P1,500 asagainst the CMP’s amortization of P400 to P500. It further required each member of the groupto raise equity within a short period of time, over and above the monthly amortization.

Resettlement Assistance Program with LGUs

Issues: Although no major issues regarding this program have been reported, previous experiencesshow that there are still areas for improvement.

Recommendations:Resettlement programs need to be undertaken by LGUs themselves. This is more feasible sincethis eliminates the need for an NHA project team in every resettlement area. Consisting of anengineer, a Community Relations Officer, and field staff, the NHA team handles estatemanagement. The LGU’s local office can take on this function instead. LGUs should also consider the density of a city’s population and speculation on land prices.Previous experiences of other LGUs show that these factors have hindered the identification ofsuitable lands for socialized housing in some cities and municipalities.



50

◗ PRIORITY AREAS

Financing

Issues: The Need for Funds

The biggest problem facing the housing sector is the lack of money to sustain all its shelterprograms. The CMP for instance, regularly lacks funds for loan applications. At one time, nofunding was released to the program at all. The government has become overly dependent on pension funds such as the SSS, GSIS, and Pag-IBIG. This over-reliance may have led to its failure to develop other alternatives to finance itshousing programs. The government has also been making drastic cuts in the budget allocated for housing, mostespecially in the CMP. This further hinders the homeless from acquiring houses of their own sincethere are no other available lending programs for them.

Recommendations: It is thus highly recommended that the government look for other sources of funds otherthan those from pension funds such as the SSS or GSIS. The municipality of Victorias could serveas an example. This small municipality ventured into bond flotation to finance its housingprograms. The national government could look into such schemes to support its own housingprograms, and see if they would be feasible for national housing projects. They could also supportand entice other LGUs to do the same.The government should think twice before cutting budgets intended for housing projects. Theyshould actually increase them, since there are no other lending programs that cater to the poor.As it is, the amount of loans extended to families has been relatively small. According to the June2002 Monthly Status Report of CMP Projects Taken Out, the program had 50 projects with 7,030beneficiary families. The equivalent mortgage value of these 50 projects is P213,866,580.59. Thismeans that loans taken out by each family amounts to an average of only P30,379.31. These

3 SHELTER


51

figures underscore the argument that the shelter challenge is not insurmountable, that withappropriate investments and support though modest, poor families can be helped in securingtheir shelter requirements. There is also a need for the government to improve the credibility, efficiency and transparencyof institutions that administer the lending and subsidy programs. LGUs, for their part, can work their way around these concerns. They can explore alternativesfor sourcing funds when NHMFC cannot immediately provide the funding they need. Thelocal government of Victorias, for example, used bond flotations to finance its housing program. When the national government makes drastic cuts in the CMP budget, LGUs can lessen theirimpact by allocating a percentage of their own budget for their housing projects. They couldsource this through their IRAs or from income derived from land taxes. For example, Muntinlupaand Mandaluyong provided interim financing for their housing projects. The city of Muntinlupaallocated a minimum of P10 million annually from its City Development Fund, and part of thisfund goes to its housing project. The City Development Fund is sourced from the 20 percentshare of the LGU’s annual IRA. Mandaluyong, on the other hand, allocated P21 million for theCMP in 1994, equivalent to 4.7 percent of the city budget.

Capacity Building

Issues:The need to improve LGU capacity in shelter provisionSome LGUs still lack the tools and skills they need to improve shelter provision in their own areas.For instance, some cities may have little resources to effectively appraise the informal settlers withintheir jurisdiction. Others may be able to rapidly appraise their areas, but they may not have thenecessary tools to accurately analyze the data they collected. Some LGUs may have all the toolsat hand but lack the necessary knowledge and skills to use the data to make sound decisions indeveloping their cities or municipalities. These are just some areas that LGUs need to consider tofurther develop their capacity to provide shelter to their homeless constituents. But the responsibilitydoes not lie on their shoulders alone. The national government and other resource institutions canhelp LGUs improve their capabilities in shelter provision.



52

Recommendations for both national government agencies and resource institutions:Develop tools that will assist LGUs in doing rapid appraisal of the informal settlers in their midstspecially in determining the latter’s affordability level for housing assistance.Provide tools to facilitate analysis of community data into meaningful facts and figures that willbe used for decision-making and planning. Although most cities have the Minimum Basic Needs(MBN) Results and the Integrated Rural Accessibility Planning (IRAP) Survey Results, it hasbeen observed that only a handful of cities analyze and make use of these data for planningpurposes. For most, these are tasks mandated by national agencies that LGUs have no optionbut to comply.Provide technical and training assistance to LGUs in doing cost-benefit analysis of housingdevelopment projects.Pilot-test on an LGU an innovative scheme of financing low cost housing projects benefitingfarmers, fisherfolk, or others whose source of income is on a seasonal, not monthly, basis. Thepilot test includes the development, implementation and evaluation of this kind of a project.

Philippine Urban Forum-Identified Key Areas for Development

The Philippine Urban Forum recommended four other areas that needed more study to improvethe housing situation in the country.11 The Forum is a mechanism for continuing consultation,sharing of information, discussion, and coordination. The Forum identified the following priorityareas below. Policy development and legislation can be pursued in partnership with the differentLGU Leagues (i.e., of Municipalities, of Cities and of Provinces).

Policy Issues and LegislationOperationalization of the National Urban and Housing Development FrameworkPassage of a consensus version of the National Land Use ActPassage of legislation to support the development of viable and sustainable sources of housingfinancePassage of legislation to improve institutional arrangement in housing and land use deliverysystem

3 SHELTER


53

Amendments to the 1991 Local Government Code to include the creation of Local Housing Boardsas one of the local special bodies – In a Security of Tenure-related campaign activity withLGUs, NGOs and POs, the DILG made a commitment to work on the creation of local housingboards by issuing a memo circular on the policy and mechanics of Local Housing Boards (LHB).

Research Creation of a Social Housing Fund. ADB is currently implementing a Technical AssistanceProject on the creation of a social housing fundState-of-the-art methods in land titling in the PhilippinesBenchmarking the success of UDHA implementation

Localization LGUs can pursue the following recommendations themselves. They can also opt to collaborate withnational line agencies to work on the following suggestions:

Drawing from the experience of the 31 cities implementing the City Development Strategy 2(CDS-2)Follow through on the roundtable discussion on “Fighting Poverty with Passion” throughImproved Urban Governance organized by the League of CitiesFormulation of Comprehensive Land Use PlansFormulation of model city action plans for urban governance and secure tenure

Awards and Incentives An awards and recognition component to provide incentives to local governments that havesuccessfully implemented anti-poverty projects using the norms of good urban governance willreinforce good practices among LGUs.



54

❙❙ Local Level

◗ LGUS AND THE UDHA

Issue:Quality of CLUPs of Local Government Units Although most LGUs comply with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP), they still have to ensurethat the plans they have put forward are sound and of good quality. This is highly necessary sincethe CLUP “is the primary and dominant basis for future use of local resources and for reclassificationof agricultural lands.”Furthermore, it is mandated by The Urban Development and Housing Act andis stated in the Local Government Code.

Based on the HLURB June 30, 2002 report, there are 111 out of the 112 cities that have an approvedCLUP. Of the 1,496 municipalities, 1,151 have an approved CLUP. Three cities and 56 municipalitieshave just prepared their respective new CLUP, while 56 cities and 328 municipalities have updatedtheir CLUP. 12

Recommendations:One way to ensure the quality of the LGUs’ CLUP is to elicit all the stakeholders’ participation andinputs, and to make sure that all needs are taken into consideration. LGUs need to be creative inmobilizing stakeholders to be part of the whole planning process. One example of successfulmobilization is Tangub City in Misamis Occidental, which was able to balance the interests of itsother stakeholders. They helped draw up a comprehensive land use plan that provided for the useand allocation of the city’s natural resources for food production, human settlements, institutionaluse, and industrial expansion.

3 SHELTER


55

Issue: LGU Compliance with UDHA provisionsGenerally, most LGUs do not have the competence and the tools needed to comply with UDHAprovisions. This was determined by the Urban Poor Associates and PHILSSA in a study theyconducted in March 2000 on the compliance of selected LGUs on UDHA provisions in the NCR. Thestudy covered 13 cities and/or municipalities, namely, Valenzuela, Navotas, Caloocan, QuezonCity, Marikina, Manila, Mandaluyong, Pasig, Pasay, Pateros, Taguig, Makati and Muntinlupa. OtherLGUs included in the study were: three cities in the Bicol Region—Naga, Iriga, and Legazpi; threecities of Metro Cebu—Cebu, Lapulapu and Mandaue; and six cities of Mindanao. These wereSurigao, Butuan, Cagayan de Oro, Davao, General Santos and Zamboanga.

Recommendations:The following are areas for improvement for local governments to be able to provide shelter withthe most impact:

Preparation of an updated land inventory and maintenance of a master list of identified andpotential sites for socialized housing. Maintenance and monitoring system. LGUs were unable to monitor access of socialized housingbeneficiaries to housing opportunities and compliance by subdivision developers with the 20percent balanced housing requirement. There were also cases of demolitions in their respectivejurisdictions. Monitoring the development of new subdivisions. Only three LGUs—Naga City, Davao City, andCebu City do this type of monitoring. Collection and preparation of data on land use, beneficiaries, and site for potential housing. Onlya handful of LGUs had available data on all of the above concerns and an established systemto document and retrieve the required data. These are: Makati, Naga, Cebu, and Davao. Preparation of a land inventory based on the HUDCC-prescribed format. These LGUs mostoften than not have the existing and proposed land use, and assessment reports. Two LGUs,Navotas and Caloocan, have listings of government-owned sites within their jurisdiction, 90 and166 sites respectively. Makati has defined uses of its total area to include classifications of



56

areas for priority development. Of socialized housing sites identified, all the NCR-based LGUshave classified areas as either “identified” or “potential.”Almost all of the 13 LGUs have the necessary support mechanism and/or programs to attendto housing-related concerns: an Urban Poor Affairs or Settlement Office, or a committee ofequivalent structure. LGUs could activate these support mechanisms to close the gaps inUDHA compliance.

Issue:LGU officials’ unfamiliarity with the rules and regulation pertaining to economic and socializedhousingIt has been observed that there is a lack of knowledge between city and municipal engineersregarding the rules and regulations of socialized and economic programs. This has resulted to variousstructure violations in their own housing programs ranging from the lack of easements aroundstructures to deficient or no ventilations at all.

Recommendation:Local governments should keep in mind that pertinent information regarding the building of housingunits and relocation sites must clearly be given to city or municipal engineers. LGUs that areunfamiliar with the regulations pertaining to economic and socialized housing may well review BatasPambansa 220 and the HUDCC and HLURB Board Resolution No. 579. There is a need to translatethe rules and regulations of socialized housing and economic programs into actual applicationsto avoid structure evaluations that could adversely affect not just the site, but the residents as well.

3 SHELTER


GOOD PRACTICESCHAPTER 4


CHAPTER 4This section features the experiences of some LGUs that have initiated housing programs all overthe country, sourced from case studies made by both NGOs and the government.

These can provide other local offices helpful information on how to go about their own shelterprograms in their own locales.

GOOD PRACTICES

60

BACOLOD CITY

ProblemBacolod City’s squatter problem seemed insurmountable at first. Forty percentof its population is made up of informal settlers. The rest are migrant families fromnearby provinces forced out by frequent military operations.

SolutionThe city, meeting this issue head on, created a policy climate that aimed to provideaffordable and decent housing to it constituents. The local government, determined

to pursue its own policy, designed a housing assistance package that included land acquisition,relocation of squatters, slum upgrading, resettlement site development, and socializedhousing. The project was implemented and supervised by the Bacolod Housing Authority(BHA), which adopted and started the implementation of CMP in 1989.

BenefitsBHA started CMP during the last quarter of 1989. It has 22 ongoing projects, four of whichreached the “take out”stage which means the community may get the loan they appliedfor. Beneficiaries of these projects are those belonging to the low-income bracket andearning not more than P2,000 to P3,000 a month. These include a few government and NGOemployees, informal contract workers, vendors, fisherfolk, laborers, and drivers.

Strategies

Allocation of land The city first allocated land for resettlement sites with low-cost housing and socializedhousing. Ninety seven (97) hectares were allotted, and they negotiated with the

4 SHELTER


LGU-ORIGINATED COMMUNITY MORTGAGE PROGRAM

Bacolod CityContact InformationCity GovernmentDepartment Head IIBacolod HousingAuthority(034) 434-4051

61

Development Bank of the Philippines and the Philippine National Bank for 49 hectares of foreclosedproperties. The City funded the allocation of 95.4 hectares for a resettlement area and another 45hectares that was set aside. Both properties were under partnership terms with developers.Recovery of expenses from land acquisition through CMP and other financing schemes. To recoverthe cost of land acquisition, the city used the CMP to pay landowners. The city also set aside 10 percentof its budget for LGU-originated housing projects, and explored bridge financing to avoid waitingfor long processing at the NHMFC.

Use of a structure to oversee the housing program .The city set up the Bacolod Housing Authority to implement housing policies and carry out housingactivities. Some of its activities included socialized housing, relocation, resettlement development,and slum upgrading.

Use of typical CMP processThe city followed the steps provided for in the CMP process. First, informal settlers applied for assistancefrom the local government in acquiring a piece of land. The BHA then conducted seminars on communityorganizing among target beneficiaries. The informal settlers then organized themselves into a CHA forthe purpose of land acquisition and owning their own houses. The LGU then pursued activities on landacquisition, using the checklist of requirements at every step.

Issues EncounteredAlthough the process appears simple, it was not without problems. In fact, the different CHAs and the cityhousing authority faced issues that, in one way or another, directly affected the effective and speedyimplementation of CMP. One was the lack of manpower at the city housing office. Another pertained tothe NHMFC requirements, processing, and approval of payment, which caused landowners to back outin favor of better offers and better selling prices elsewhere. Problems were also encountered in letters ofintent to sell from banks. Despite these problems, the city was able to achieve part of its goal. This is due

GOOD PRACTICES 4


LGU-ORIGINATED COMMUNITY MORTGAGE PROGRAM Bacolod City

62

4 SHELTER


to the determination of key officials of Bacolod City and the housing staff to pursue CMP despite theseobstacles. They believed that CMP, even with its flaws, was an appropriate program for poor squatter families.

Some Examples of How Communities RespondedOne of the community housing associations (CHAs) that applied for CMP was the Bata Amity CommunityAssociation composed of urban poor families from the city proper and nearby towns. This off-sitehousing project has 7,188 square meters, with six to 14 square meters of these allocated for housing,and 1,174 square meters for open space. The community through the NHMFC purchased a lot from theCristina Agricultural and Development Corporation at P190 per square meter. However, the project wasadversely affected when the community leader duped the families into paying more, and then ran awaywith the money. The beneficiaries requested government agencies to help them out. The NHA, PCUP,and the NHMFC helped them reorganize the association and process their documents. The communityeventually obtained the approval for their plans and met all the needed requirements.

Another CHA that applied for CMP was the Purok Sunflower Squatters Homeowners and LivelihoodAssociation, Inc. (PSSHLAI). The CMP was an off-site housing project with a total land area of 17,408 squaremeters divided among 161 beneficiaries. The members of the association used to live in a foreclosed lotowned by Union Bank. When the owner decided to redeem the property, the association sought the helpof the mayor. When they finally found a suitable area, they immediately processed the requirements thecommunity needed. The association is now waiting for NHMFC’s Letter of Guarantee that will signal “takeout.”The beneficiaries said their success was due in part to their leader, and the members’ cooperationand willingness. The affordability of the amortization, as well as the efficient and speedy processing ofdocuments, also contributed to its success.

Source: Case Feature in the Local Government Originated Community Mortgage Program – Processes and Cases in theImplementation of a Socialized Housing Program by Ma. Lourdes G. Rebullida D.P.A., A Publication of the Philippine Business forSocial Progress. October 1998

Bacolod City LGU-ORIGINATED COMMUNITY MORTGAGE PROGRAM

MANDALUYONG CITY

ProblemThe relatively small city of Mandaluyong had a rapidly increasing squatterpopulation. This alarmed city officials, especially its former mayor, BenjaminS. Abalos. He had a dream and vision for each Mandaluyong family toeventually own their lands and houses. Upon his election in 1986, the cityhad 5,000 squatter families, a number that increased to almost 9,000 in 1990.

SolutionThe Land for the Landless Program, which sought to make Mandaluyongsquatter-free through mass housing, had two main strategies—buying land and allocatingthese to the informal settlers, and the CMP. The program also included low-cost marginalhousing for government employees and medium-rise housing projects.

BenefitsBecause of the determination showed by the city government, it was awarded the GalingPook Award in 1994-1995. It succeeded in minimizing the squatter problem where manyhave failed. The city’s budget allocation to avoid the delays by NHMFC and the way itorganized residents are the most outstanding facets of its Land for the Landless Program.

Nine thousand (9,000) families have already benefited from the program, among theminformal settlers, policemen, firemen, teachers and government employees. The city alsopioneered in the use of CMP, thereby making it a model for both local and international LGUs.Mandaluyong’s direct land purchase expedited the CMP process. Communities moved onto the “take out” stage within three to six months instead of the NHMFC’s usually longerprocess of about three to four years.


63

GOOD PRACTICES 4


Mandaluyong CityContact InformationMandaluyong Housingand DevelopmentAuthorityMaysilo Circle,Mandaluyong City(02) 535-4380

64

4 SHELTER


Strategies

A strategic approach to shelter provision A housing policy and program framework guided Mandaluyong City. It appropriated funds anddesignated a specific administrative unit for implementation. Four offices of the city government weredirectly involved in the housing program implementation. These were the Mayor’s Office; the EstateManagement Development Office (EMDO); Planning Office; and the Sangguniang Panglunsod. The mayoralso personally opened his door to listen to the needs of his constituents and negotiated with landownersfor the lowest possible purchase cost.

Allocation of budgetThe city allocated a budget for the CMP, which helped the people organize themselves to apply for thehousing loan with the NHMFC. Its 1994 budget of P21 million for CMP was equivalent to 4.7% of the citybudget.

Securing affordable land The city government convinced landowners within their jurisdiction to sell properties at prices affordableto low income communities. They allocated these to illegal occupants who were made to pay at a low amortization rate directly to the government.

Mandaluyong pioneered the LGU Originated CMP Project Mandaluyong pioneered the use of the LGU as the originator for the CMP. It devised the alternative schemeof direct purchase so that the landowner got paid for the property without the usual processing delays.The city recovered the amount from the NHMFC. Mandaluyong also followed the standard CMPprocess. First, the people organized themselves and registered with the HIGC accreditation. Then theyasked the city government to make them CMP beneficiaries, following a certain process. The cityscreened the members and consulted them on the type of housing they preferred and other related

Mandaluyong City LGU-ORIGINATED COMMUNITY MORTGAGE PROGRAM

65

matters. Mandaluyong then bought the land for them, and the Sangguniang Panglunsod approved theaward of the land to the beneficiaries. The community then paid for the land. Ideally, the LGU isexpected to complete all three phases of the CMP—land acquisition, house construction, and sitedevelopment. However, Mandaluyong only covered Phase 1—the title was transferred from thelandowner to the city government—which took about three to six months. The beneficiaries constructedtheir houses and developed the site on their own effort and personal funds.

Provision of low-cost marginal housing projects not just to the informal sector, but to low paidregular government workers tooThe Land for the Landless Program also included low-cost marginal housing projects for policemen,firemen, teachers, and government employees. They were offered 250 units at P800 in monthlyamortization. Medium-rise housing projects or condominiums were constructed to resolve the problemsof space, maximize land use, and accommodate more families.

Issues EncounteredAlthough the program was a success, the city encountered some hitches along the way. Some of theseproblems include the beneficiaries’indifference to their monthly amortizations, lack of penalties for arrears,and fears of some residents on being displaced by future government projects.

Some Examples of How Communities RespondedThe beneficiaries of the program constructed their own houses and developed the site through theirown efforts and money. They owed the city government only the cost of land, which they paid back withan annual interest rate of 12 percent. The residents of Buayang Bato Estate have lived there since the1960s and 1970s. Household heads generally worked as drivers or construction workers and individualfamily income ranged from P5,000 to P10,000. The Mandaluyong city government bought the land andawarded lots to beneficiaries at P713 per square meter. The size and location of the awarded lot

GOOD PRACTICES 4


LGU-ORIGINATED COMMUNITY MORTGAGE PROGRAM Mandaluyong City

66

4 SHELTER


depended on the area already occupied by the beneficiaries, varying mostly between 11 to 50 squaremeters. The families built their houses where they first squatted and improved on them, step by step,as funds and materials were available.

Residents paid their monthly amortization through the treasurer of the association who gave thepayment to the city government. With almost completed amortization payments, community memberscan get their land title from the local government. The community, when awarded the land title, willeventually transfer this to the beneficiaries.

Another community also sought the help of the city government. Informal settlers in Barangay Vergarawanted to acquire the land they were living on, but their monthly income only ranged from P1,000 toP10,000. They organized themselves into a housing association, after which the city bought the land fromthe owner at P500 per square meter. Most of the beneficiaries paid a monthly amortization of P151 toP300 to the association treasurer who remitted the money to the LGU.

Source: Case Feature in the Local Government Originated Community Mortgage Program – Processes and Cases in the Implementationof a Socialized Housing Program by Ma. Lourdes G. Rebullida D.P.A., A Publication of the Philippine Business for Social Progress. October1998

Mandaluyong City LGU-ORIGINATED COMMUNITY MORTGAGE PROGRAM

NAGA CITY

ProblemNaga City had 5,000 urban poor families in 1995. This was partly blamed onthe influx of people who came to work in Camarines Sur, since it is the area’strading and financial center. Mayor Jesse Robredo aimed to eliminate theirtenure problems through an innovative housing program that won for hiscity the Galing Pook Award.

SolutionThe implementation of the Kaantabay sa Kauswagan Program, which featured thecollaboration of the government, private landowners, NGOs, the urban poor federation,and the community. The program also looked at new modes of land acquisition andsought to improve the living conditions of slum dwellers and empower them as activepartners of the local government

BenefitsAs of May 31, 2002, the Kaantabay sa Kauswagan Program has covered a total of 7,301 urbanpoor households through 44 on-site and off-site development projects. The figure is only100 families shy of the 7,400 low-income Naga households, which, according to ADBestimates, live below the poverty line. Another benefit of the program is the partnershipsforged among different groups that collaborated in the program.

Strategies

Setting up of a special office to benefit the poorThe city set up an Urban Poor Affairs Office to oversee the housing projects of Naga.


67

GOOD PRACTICES 4


Naga CityContact InformationUPAO Chief, UrbanPoor Affairs OfficeNaga City Hall(054) 472-9219

68

4 SHELTER


A sound housing policy was formulatedThe city then drew up a housing policy using new modes of land acquisition. Naga also set short-termgoals that entailed the participation of the poor in LGU short-term housing activities. The poor took partin improving living conditions, minimizing eviction/demolition, and acquiring lands. The city also setlong-term goals, which included the provision of dwelling places for the homeless, the construction ofbasic infrastructure, and provision of life support services.

The CMP was adopted by the city governmentThe city adopted the CMP to meet its goals. They started implementing their first two projects withintwo years’ time. However, project implementation took longer than expected.

Allocation of budgetThe city council allocated a budget of P5 million for land acquisition projects.

Preparation of a program of support servicesThe city provided a program of support services for land surveys, legal research, and land disputemediation. It also gave comprehensive livelihood programs and established an urban poor trust fundfor socialized housing and resettlement. The city also conducted capacity-building activities for the poor.These included social preparation, community organizing, leadership training, and values reorientation.

Involving Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) in the implementation The LGU worked with NGOs such as the Community Organization of the Philippines Enterprise (COPE)Foundation in the implementation of the Program. For instance, the parties identified and defined thestructure of UPAO, and helped set up as well as define the role and functions of the Naga City Urban PoorFederation (NC-UPC).

Naga City LGU-ORIGINATED COMMUNITY MORTGAGE PROGRAM

69

Alternative Land Acquisition StrategiesThe program used various modes to fast track land acquisition. These were: direct purchase by the localgovernment, which entailed the city government buying the land and the community amortizing thecost of individual lots to the government; land swapping between the LGU and other entities, where theland occupied by the poor was exchanged for another which, in turn, was paid for by the urban poor;and land sharing between the LGU and other entities, where the landowner used the property but agreedto allow the urban poor to occupy part of the land. These schemes were used for the city’s off-sitedevelopment of relocation areas and on-site development of communities.

Issues EncounteredNaga City experienced a number of problems, such as difficulties encountered by CHAs in complyingwith NHMFC requirements and the agency’s delayed payments to landowners. Other snags were thedistance between Naga City and the NHMFC’s headquarters in Manila, and the reorganization of theNHMFC that delayed the processing of documents. However, the city overcame these obstacles by usingnew modes of land acquisition.

Some Examples of How Communities RespondedIn Igualidad Interior, one of the city’s assisted communities, families have lived on the site for close to40 years, and have been dreaming of owning the properties they have long occupied. To avoid eviction,community members formed an association, The Barangay Igualdad (Zone 5) Homeowners Association,Inc., and sought the assistance of UPAO. The office submitted all necessary papers and facilitated thepurchase of the land by directly negotiating with the landowner on behalf of the community.

The Community and UPAO staff worked together to comply with all the steps of CMP applications. Theysaw inconsistencies in the signatures of beneficiaries, but eventually, funding commitment was grantedin the amount of P959,994. This was still short by P411,426 to cover the equity needed for 63 families.The UPAO made representations with NHMFC for reappraisal of the land. The NHMFC president then

GOOD PRACTICES 4


LGU-ORIGINATED COMMUNITY MORTGAGE PROGRAM Naga City

70

4 SHELTER


inspected the site and approved the project cost of P1,371,420. The deed of absolute sale was finallyexecuted after the beneficiaries shouldered all the arrears and penalties in realty taxes.

The UPAO served as originator of the on-site CMP project. The beneficiaries undertook the constructionof houses. The association and UPAO jointly undertook the development of roads, water supply, lightingfacilities, and electricity.

Majority of association members have paid between 12 to 17 months of the total 24 months. Their monthlyamortizations were either collected or paid to the association treasurer, or deposited directly with theLand Bank branch in Naga City.


Naga City LGU-ORIGINATED COMMUNITY MORTGAGE PROGRAM

MARIKINA CITY

ProblemMarikina used to be the home of 21,887 squatter families, 1,142 of them livingin danger zones. After the Local Government Code and UDHA took effect, thelocal government targeted elimination of the squatter problem by 1997. Atpresent, the informal settlers have been relocated to different sites.

SolutionThe implementation and operationalization of the provisions of the UrbanDevelopment and Housing Act

Benefits21,887 families of informal settlers were either relocated or resettled in various resettlement sites.

Strategies

Use of a structure/mechanism to oversee housing programsThe Municipal Settlement Office (MSO) led the implementation of the city’s housing programwhile the mayor’s office directed the Sanggunian-approved resettlement program under CMP.

Implementation of CMP housing projects with the direct involvement of the citygovernmentAs originator, the LGU concentrated on the provision of technical assistance in landacquisition, beneficiary selection, lot allocation, livelihood program, physical upgrading,estate management and cost recovery. The LGU also provided livelihood and basicservices and ensured the sanitation of relocation sites. The LGU followed the steps in the


71

GOOD PRACTICES 4


Marikina CityContact InformationOfficer In ChargeMarikina SettlementsOfficeMarikina City Hall(02) 646-2317

72

4 SHELTER


process of CMP. Communities that wish to avail of CMP must request assistance from the LGU. Beforetheir requests can be approved, the communities must meet a set of criteria (minimum monthlyincome, minimum length of stay, and age limit). The city then instructs communities to organizethemselves into CHAs. Technical assistance is given to them, as well as livelihood programs, along withtasks such as estate management and cost recovery.

Allocation of budgetThe city did not allocate a budget for land acquisition; it banked on NHMFC funding to pay thelandowner for the site cost. However, the LGU set aside 10 percent of its budget for CMP operations.The expenses included office facilities, communication, coordination, subdivision planning, site planningand development, surveys, travel to the NHMFC Manila office, monitoring and livelihood projects.

Making land affordable The city pegged the land price at P1,500 per square meter for the low-income groups, instead of P2,500to as much as P3,500 per square meter at market prices.

Dialogues and seminars with communities and landownersThe city, through the MSO, also conducted seminars to teach people the value of paying their debtsregularly. The office likewise worked hard to develop unity among members of the association bymeeting and threshing out differences among them. The LGU, for its part, explained to the landownerthe nature of CMP and the reason for delays that have plagued the program since about a year and ahalf since its inception.

Assigning responsibilities to communitiesThe communities were given a set of assignments to ensure the smooth flow of the CMP process inMarikina. They were first asked to organize themselves into CHAs for CMP then to inform all theirmembers about the details of the occupancy, terms of the lot allocation, and the mortgage take-out

Marikina City LGU-ORIGINATED COMMUNITY MORTGAGE PROGRAM

73

contracts. They were also tasked to prepare the overall development plan for the approval of agenciesconcerned. Communities were required to assist in property development. First, they were asked to helpin the survey of the property then to reblock their communities, dismantle illegally constructedstructures, and remove or move them in accordance with the approved development plan. The CHAsalso had to deal with estate management and project maintenance. They were tasked to plan andimplement recovery of all the cost they incurred while undergoing CMP, and to make sure that their loanwould be paid. After payment of the loan, the CHAs awarded lot titles, including legal documentationnecessary to support the use, possession, and ownership of the lot. They were expected to keep andmaintain the project. Members had to comply with the association’s Code of Policies and By-Laws andwere required to secure mortgage financing from NHMFC with the assistance of the city governmentto fund the purchase of the land from landowners.

Assigning responsibilities to landownersThe landowners were also given a set of assignments to facilitate the flow of the CMP. They wereobliged to sell the property to the CHA at an amount agreed upon by both parties. They were asked toclear the property of any encumbrances and to update payments of real estate taxes on land transfertax/capital gain tax if any are necessary before the property is transferred to the name of the association.

Issues EncounteredMarikina encountered delays in NHMFC payments to landowners. However, they were able to getaround this by explaining to the landowners the process involved in CMP.

Some Examples of How Communities RespondedThe first project of the MSO in Marikina was in the community along Apitong Street. The communityassociation, called the Damayang Magkakapitbahay Homeowners’Association, Inc., had members withindividual family incomes ranging from P5,000 or less, and up to P10,000. Damayan sought the help ofthe LGU to purchase a property with a total land area of 1,349.96 square meters.

GOOD PRACTICES 4


LGU-ORIGINATED COMMUNITY MORTGAGE PROGRAM Marikina City

74

4 SHELTER


MSO and the community then started with the procedures, requirements and processes of the CMP.Orientation sessions were held, as well as survey processing and documentation. Negotiations with thelandowner were conducted until Damayan was eventually given the land at the cost of P1,349,960 payablein 25 years. Lot sizes ranged from 30 to 32 square meters and monthly amortizations ranging from P251to P300. The families constructed houses on their own means.

According to members of the community, the project became successful because of their communityleader, who persistently worked on the requirements. The project was taken out on Nov. 15, 1995, andthey did not encounter any problems in the monthly amortizations.

Another community that availed of the CMP was the Bisig ng Mamamayan in Marikina Heights. This isan off-site housing project of the MSO. The lot covers an area of 1,721 square meters, and the communityassociation was able to negotiate with the owner for the lowest possible price. The joint efforts of thecommunity and the local government have given the project a boost. The lot was subdivided among52 beneficiaries ranging from 30 to 50 square meters. Monthly amortization ranges from P250 to P300depending on land area.


Marikina City LGU-ORIGINATED COMMUNITY MORTGAGE PROGRAM

MUNTINLUPA CITY

ProblemMuntinlupa, like other cities in Metro Manila, also experienced problems insecurity of shelter tenure. The city government wanted to respond to thisproblem in a way that would allow all stakeholders to participate in thesolution of this problem.

SolutionThe city used a multi-sectoral mechanism called “Socialized Housing ProgramCommittee” (SHoPCom) to synchronize at the city level the various effortsof its stakeholders involved in housing assistance. It availed of the assistance of twoNGOs, Muntinlupa Development Foundation (MDF) and Habitat for Humanity. It alsoprovided interim financing to communities who formally requested for it.

BenefitsAs of September 2002, the city government has assisted 714 families address their securityof shelter problem. An additional 350 families were helped through the provision ofinterim financing assistance.

Strategies

Tapping the expertise of different groups to collaborate on the city’s housing programthrough the SHoPCom.The city sought the assistance of NGOs, namely MDF, because it has technical competenceon estate or settlement management concerns, CMP origination work, and micro creditassistance; and Habitat for Humanity because it is an expert on house construction. The


75

GOOD PRACTICES 4


Muntinlupa CityContact InformationUPAO Head3rd Flr. Annex Bldg.,Muntinlupa City Hall, Muntinlupa City (02) 543-0816

76

4 SHELTER


city also used NHA’s expertise in engineering work as well as planning and construction of horizontalstructures like medium-rise housing. The SHoPCom includes subgroups that facilitate progress ofhousing projects. One of these subgroups is settlement development. This group assesses a communityhousing association’s (CHA) request for LGU assistance for interim financing. This group visits the site andconducts dialogues with the community to determine the feasibility of the request. It also looks into theassociation’s organizational management capacity to handle a socialized housing project.

Use of the CMP : CMP was used by the city through the SHoPCom, with the participation of CHAs. In several communities, the LGU, Habitat, MDF and the CHA joined forces in improving the livingconditions of the community residents and in changing the status of the residents from being squattersto legitimate home lot owners. The CHA, with the help of MDF, strengthened its organization and workedon the documentary requirements of its CMP loan application. When needed, it also worked on therealignment of housing structures based on the approved subdivision plan; then tapped the LGU forassistance in construction of the road network, canals, and utilities. If the members needed help in buildinghomes, the CHAs submitted to Habitat their application for housing assistance on behalf of theirinterested members.

Use of interim financingThe city provided interim financing to assist the informal settlers in buying the lot they wanted tolegitimately occupy.

How Communities RespondedHand in hand with the local government, various organized communities in the city dealt with mattersconcerning site development-undertaking or settlement management matters. The communities alsoformulated their own version of the “Agreement for Community Living” with the help of the NGOpartner MDF.

Muntinlupa City LGU-ORIGINATED COMMUNITY MORTGAGE PROGRAM

Innovations in Financing and Partnership Arrangements

77

GOOD PRACTICES 4


VICTORIAS BOND FLOTATION

VisionThe municipality of Victorias had many informal settlers, and worse, 30percent of its local government employees were without homes themselves.When engineer Severo Palanca became mayor, he was faced with thisproblem that was worsened by the lack of resources for low cost socializedhousing. Nevertheless, this did not dampen his spirits. He looked for variousfinancing alternatives to solve the problem of squatting and homelessnessin Victorias. The municipality envisioned a housing project for its informalsettlers in an area not too far from the main office and business district. Theyselected a site located in Barangay VII, a 10-minute tricycle ride from the municipal hall. It covered 146housing units and 235 prime lots. The biggest was 198 square meters (one lot only) and the smallest was89 square meters (10 lots only). The rest of the lots were between 100 to 140 square meters. Thebeneficiaries included 88 municipal employees, 35 national government employees, and 23 employeesfrom the water district, VRESCO (Victorias Rural Electrification Service Company), and Victorias MillingCompany. The housing program would also generate local employment for carpenters, masons, and otherskilled manpower in Victorias. However, they needed money to make this dream a reality.

Innovation: Bond flotation as a financing alternative to fund the projectUpon the recommendation of Ms. Margie Matheu of the HIGC, the LGU made use of bond flotation toraise funds to develop the acquired lots and to construct the housing units. A municipal bond is aninstrument of indebtedness of the LGU. It is backed up by a pool of real estate properties issued by theLGU and conveyed to a trustee. The proceeds of the issues are used for the development and/ordisposition of the property. The flotation of municipal bonds for the program was designed for a periodof two years. They were issued on July 18, 1994 with a maturity date of July 18, 1996. The interest wasfixed on the issue date and every anniversary date based on the 364-day average T-Bill rate of the Central

Municipality of Victorias Contact InformationHousing OfficerHousing and Home SiteOfficeVictorias City Hall Victorias, NegrosOccidental

78

4 SHELTER


Bank of the Philippines. The bonds were issued to generate funds to finance not only the constructionand development of the housing project, but also its livelihood facilities, which were to be managed bya multipurpose cooperative among the homeowners. The HIGC guarantee fund for the PabahayMunicipal Bonds is a facility aimed at ensuring the face value of the bonds and the interest of as muchas 8.5 percent per annum. HIGC encouraged the housing project following a market survey andfeasibility study. The market survey focused on determining two concerns – the demand for housingand the buying capacity of the target market. The LGU explored two other financing alternatives:bank loan and credit financing before deciding to float bonds for the housing project. Victorias wasconfident in exploring bond flotation since the Local Government Code allows any LGU to createindebtedness and avail of credit facilities to fund local infrastructure and socio-economic programs. Tomaximize this provision, Victorias City, then a municipality, passed Municipal Ordinance in 1993 toauthorize the flotation of bonds secured by RE Properties, owned by the LGU itself.

Strategies used to implement the housing project

The collaboration of different agencies which represented various responsibilities and capacitiesPartnership and coordination between the municipal government, the Municipal Engineering Office,the provincial government, the Negros Economic Development Foundation (NEDF), the HomeDevelopment and Guarantee Corporation, and the Philippine National Bank (PNB).

Clarity of procedures that aided beneficiary applications The process started with the submission of application forms of interested applicants to the Pabahay(Housing) Project. Eligible applicants consisted of the municipal employees as first priority and employeesof water district, VRESCO, Victorias Milling Company and other private companies as last priority. Therequirements for application included the following: certificate and/or residence certificate; assessor’scertificate stating that the applicant did not own any real property; certificate of net pay from employer;picture and income tax receipt for two years, and a certificate of loan and eligibility which required

Victorias Bond Flotation INNOVATIONS IN FINANCING & PARTNERSHIP ARRANGEMENTS

79

applicants to attend a seminar on the Pabahay. Of the 212 applicants, only 146 were approved. Otherswere disapproved mainly due to inability to pay the processing fee on time. Approved applications weresubmitted to the NEDF for further evaluation. These were forwarded to PAG-IBIG for funding. Once fundingwas approved, PNB was then instructed to release the funds. With the release of P8 million, theconstruction of the houses began.

LGU effort to make housing project environment friendlyThe city government ensured that the project would be environment friendly, and encouraged membersof the community to help. Steel trusses, instead of wood, were used for the framework supporting the roof.Students and civic groups planted trees and other plants along the pathways of the area. The homeowners’association coordinated and mobilized the Sangguniang Kabataan and other civic groups in the localityto join the students and civic groups in tree planting. Open canals were dug and drainage systems wereconstructed to avoid clogging. The water system was installed with distribution pipes servicing everyhousehold, thereby reducing the possibility of water-borne diseases.

Development of the resettlement siteThe selected project site was adjacent to the national highway, yet not attractive at the time of its selectionsince there were sugarcane plantations in the surrounding areas. With the housing project in place,however, the LGU was able to reclassify real properties, thereby effecting better land use and landreclassification. After the project site was chosen, the LGU sought the services of NEDF, an NGO, to actas the developer of the housing project.

Key Success FactorsCredibility of LGU. Bondholders were readily open to the idea of LGU-initiated bond flotation, evenif it was the first time such a measure was implemented. They trusted the municipality enough to investmoney in a novel financing scheme.

GOOD PRACTICES 4


INNOVATIONS IN FINANCING & PARTNERSHIP ARRANGEMENTS Victorias Bond Flotation

80

4 SHELTER


Support provided by HIGC. HIGC’s technical assistance prepared Victorias for the bond flotation. Asidefrom this assistance, the agency also guaranteed the bonds, thus enhancing investor support. Efficient Management. A specific office, the Project Governing Board (PGB), led the project, and twoother offices—the Commission on Audit (COA) and the Provincial Treasurer—monitored the wholeprocess. Multisectoral collaboration – Each stakeholder in the project had distinct resources that they openlyshared with other members to make the program a success.

BenefitsEnthusiastic bond subscription. The bond flotation scheme was welcomed by both the privatesector and some NGOs. PAG-IBIG even offered to buy all the bonds, but then Mayor Palanca optedto sell the bonds to ten local investors. Overflowing of patronage funds. Numerous applicants applied for the housing project, that therecame a time when the number of applicants exceeded the number of units built. This implied thatthe cost of the houses was so low, making it affordable for more people. Cost sharing by other service providers. Offices involved with the project shouldered the expensesof some aspects of the housing program. For example, VRESCO provided electrical materials neededwithout charge, the Victorias Water District provided materials for water installation for free. Empowerment of beneficiaries. Beneficiaries were also able to organize themselves into communityassociations, which took part in monitoring the project right form the start. Enhanced local economy. Construction businesses thrived in the area since all materials werepurchased locally. The unemployed also benefited since local workers were hired for the project. Redemption of bonds as scheduled. The bonds were also redeemed as scheduled, and a total of P1.9million was paid as interest to the bondholders.

Source: Department of Interior and Local Government – Local Government Academy Publication, 1999

Victorias Bond Flotation INNOVATIONS IN FINANCING & PARTNERSHIP ARRANGEMENTS


81

GOOD PRACTICES 4


SAN CARLOS COMMUNITY BUILDING PROGRAM

VisionThe city had its share of housing problems as squatter settlements occupiedboth private and public property. Approximately 3,233 households (10% ofthe total household population) fall into the urban poor category. Twentypercent of the population is unemployed, while the rest work as stevedoresfor shipping, sugar plantation workers, vendors, pedicab drivers or operators,or government employees.

Mayor Rogelio Debulgado initiated a resettlement program, “Lote Para saMahihirap,”for the very poor residents of San Carlos City. It was patterned aftera housing program he initiated while he was in the private sector.

On March 2,1993, the city government purchased land situated between Greenville and BarangayRizal of San Carlos City. In June 1993 the government started to develop the site by providing basic facilitiessuch as roads, water, light, drainage, and school buildings.

Innovation: A targeted and affordable payment scheme for the poorest of the poorSince the program was targeted for the poorest of the poor, it called for an affordable payment scheme.To do this, the LGU used a beneficiary profile to identify the poorest of the poor. They sold the lots basedon the initial investment (land acquisition and development). Profit was not a prime consideration, sodown payment was not needed and interest was not charged. For Phase 1, buyers paid either a dailyfee of P5 five times a week, or a weekly P25 for a period of five years.

San Carlos CityContact InformationCity AdministratorSan Carlos City HallSan Carlos City, NegrosOccidental(034) 312-5112 Managing DirectorSan Carlos DevelopmentBoard

82

4 SHELTER


Partnership with Different StakeholdersThe city sought the help of the national government and a private organization to help them financesite development. National government funds from the NHA and the national government calamity fundwere used for road work, drainage, water pump installation, and electrical work. The Consuelo AlgerFoundation also pitched in to support community development and house construction.

The city also generated the support of various sectors. It sought assistance from the San Julio Realty, Inc.,a private land developer, in developing the scheme and subdivision of the area. It also asked the helpof the Julio and Florentina Ledesma Foundation, Inc. to teach livelihood skills and provide capital. At thesame time, it conducted a value formation seminar for commitment building and organizationalenlistment.

Strategies used to implement the housing project

Development and division of land into phasesThe city provided basic facilities such as roads, water, light, drainage, and school buildings. It divided theland into residential lots with an average area of 54 square meters. The project site had four phases. Phase1 was intended for informal settlers and low-income families. Phase 2 was for low-income landlessgovernment employees. Phase 3 catered to the urban poor segments of the city. Phase 4 was for a mixedlow-income and upgraded urban population.

The city’s facilitation of various stages of the projectThe city consulted with target beneficiaries during the planning process. Briefing sessions for beneficiarieswere also held before the relocation. An ordinance integrated the project into the city’s Thirty-YearComprehensive Development Plan to protect it in the event of a change in administration or leadership.Proceeds from the sale of home lots are kept in a trust fund especially created for the purpose and revertedto the program for the acquisition of more raw land and development of home lots.

San Carlos Community Building Program INNOVATIONS IN FINANCING & PARTNERSHIP ARRANGEMENTS

83

Key Success FactorsActive involvement of the mayor in the planning and implementation of the programCity government’s facilitation on the stages of the projectAffordable housing ratesGathering the support of various sectors

BenefitsRecognition for a successful housing project. The LGU received the 1996 Galing Pook Award, a yearlynational award by the Asian Institute of Management for the best local government projects.National and international guests have visited the project as a model for replication. The mayor hasbeen a guest speaker at forums, seminars, and talk shows to explain about the projects.Land formerly occupied by informal settlers was cleared and developed into roads, cemetery, and/orfor commercial use. Provision of homes to the poorest of the poor and renewed hopes to beneficiaries. The initialbeneficiaries of Phase I were 436 families who squatted on government lands and who were victimsof a fire in 1992. The beneficiaries were mainly pedicab drivers, fish and vegetable vendors,construction workers, and dockworkers.

Source: An Article on the San Carlos Community Building Program by Daniel Z. Urquico of Consuelo Zobel Alger Foundationfeatured in the SELAVIP Newsletter October 1998 (Journal of Low-Income Housing in Asia and the World of Eduardo JorgeAnzorena, S.J.) Prepared in partnership with Pagtambayayong Foundation, Inc.

GOOD PRACTICES 4


INNOVATIONS IN FINANCING & PARTNERSHIP ARRANGEMENTS San Carlos Community Building Program

84

DUMAGUETE CITY LOW COST HOUSING: THE LOOC/CADAWINONANRESETTLEMENT PROJECT

VisionDumaguete City, the capital of Negros Oriental, has a small land area withrelatively high population. As of 1995, the population density of the city is2,700 per square meter. The city has 1,100 squatter households, 33 percentof them living in Zones 2 and 4 in Barangay Looc, a depressed community.The community occupies government land that the city needed forexpansion.

Mayor Agustin Perdices envisioned a low-cost housing program to house the squatterslocated in Barangay Looc. He sought the help of government agencies (the NationalHousing Authority and the Philippine Ports Authority or PPA) and private foundations(Consuelo Zobel Alger Foundation and Mother Rita Barcelo Foundation).

Innovation: Coordination of the activities of government agencies and privatefoundations for lower housing packagesThe collaboration of the Office of the President, NHA, Alger Foundation and the PPAenabled the city to offer affordable housing schemes to the beneficiaries of this project.The LGUs coordinated the activities of these agencies, which then subsidized part of theproject cost. NHA subsidized the cost of land. Alger Foundation shouldered the constructionof the first 150 houses and the PPA, the construction of 400 houses.

The use of social preparationA six-month social preparation phase that was made part of a feasibility study also helpedthe people, the city government, and supporting agencies to clarify alternative development

4 SHELTER



Dumaguete CityContact InformationCity Planning andDevelopment OfficeDumaguete City Hall (035) 225-2640

85

schemes. It enabled beneficiaries to see the advantages and disadvantages of various schemes, until theyeventually opted for relocation.

Steps used to implement the housing project

Purchase of land for resettlement siteThe Mayor requested the President to grant financial assistance for the purchase of land. The Presidentin turn instructed the NHA to purchase a lot; a 5.5-hectare lot in Barangay Cadawinonan was eventuallyselected.

Consultation with concerned familiesA series of consultations with the concerned families was conducted to discuss the advantages anddisadvantages of the project. Target beneficiaries were also given exposure tours to the resettlementsite in Barangay Cadawinonan.

Site developmentSite development work was worth P5 million, paid by the NHA. Construction and development startedin 1996. It has water, sanitation, facilities, drainage, roads, transportation, and a school, with plans fora community center. Houses are sturdy, concrete structures on 36 meters of floor space, with an 18-squaremeter loft. Lot size is 54 square meters.

Affordable housesFamilies pay an average of P275 monthly for 30 years. The price is affordable because of subsidies.

GOOD PRACTICES 4


INNOVATIONS IN FINANCING AND PARTNERSHIP ARRANGEMENTS Dumaguete City Low Cost Housing

86

4 SHELTER


Key Success FactorsThe city’s coordination and collaboration with different agenciesResearch that included social preparationThe efforts of the city’s social workers

BenefitsThe project was able to relocate a depressed community squatting on a danger-prone government landto a resettlement project with basic amenities and facilities.

Source: An Article on the Low Cost Housing in Dumaguete by Daniel Z. Urquico, of Consuelo Zobel Alger Fdn. featured in theSELAVIP Newsletter October 1998 (Journal of Low-Income Housing in Asia and the World of Eduardo Jorge Anzorena, S.J.) –Published in partnership with Pagtambayayong Foundation. Inc.

Dumaguete City Low Cost Housing INNOVATIONS IN FINANCING AND PARTNERSHIP ARRANGEMENTS

REFERENCES AND TOOLSCHAPTER 5


CHAPTER 5❙❙ Study Tour Sites

To fully appreciate the significance of the strategies used and benefits of the successful housingprojects of some cities, it would be worthwhile for other LGUs—especially those with no experiencein providing shelter—to visit the project sites. Below is a listing of such sites that LGUs can see andlearn from.

REFERENCES AND TOOLS

BACOLOD CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL

Other LGUs can learn much from Bacolod’s experience in

housing. It has created a local housing structure to address

the shelter needs of its constituents. It has also partnered with

national government and an NGO to develop its housing

communities.

Contact Information

City GovernmentDepartment Head IIBacolod HousingAuthority (034) 434-4051

90

5 SHELTER


MANDALUYONG CITY, METRO MANILA

Mandaluyong pioneered the use of CMP in housing the

poor and has also used interim financing to advance land

payment to landowners when the release of government

funds take a long time. This city has valuable CMP experience

other LGUs can learn from.

Contact Information

Mandaluyong Housingand DevelopmentAuthorityMaysilo Circle,Mandaluyong City(02) 535-4380

DUMAGUETE CITY, NEGROS ORIENTAL

Dumaguete City has been able to generate support from

both the government and the private sector to fully

implement its housing program. This housing strategy is

worth looking into especially in carrying out relocation in

partnership with various sectors.

Contact Information

City Planning andDevelopment OfficeDumaguete City Hall(035) 225-2640

91

REFERENCES AND TOOLS 5


MAKATI CITY, METRO MANILA

Makati City has housing sites other LGUs can study. It has

a Tenement Housing or Medium-Rise Buildings under a

rent-to-lease arrangement. The first project was the Tejeros

Tenement, constructed in 1989, with 314 units. Each tenant

pays the amount of P1,000 a month as rental fee. When the

project began, the monthly rental fee was only P300. Three

units of the tenement are being utilized as an office, day

care center and a livelihood training center. The collection

efficiency rate for this housing project as of December

2002 was 85.4%.

The second housing project, the Makati Pabahay, is

composed of three five-storey buildings with a total of

480 residential units. Each building has 160 units or 32 units per floor with toilet and bath per

unit unlike the Tejeros Tenement which has common toilet and bath facilities for the occupants.

Water and electricity are provided and to avoid over-crowding, occupancy is limited to a

maximum of five persons per unit13. Failure to comply with this policy or non-payment of

the monthly rental fee of P2000 is a basis for ejection from the housing project.

This is a scheme worth looking into especially by LGUs with a big number of constituents who

have a limited capacity to pay amortizations. This scheme has also enabled communities to

elect their own leaders among the unit occupants to monitor compliance by residents with

housing policies.

Contact Information

Chief Makati SocialWelfare DepartmentMakati City

Chief Supervisor,Tenement HousingDivision 8th floor, Makati City Hall J. P Rizal, Makati(02) 899-8965 loc. 1625 and 1626

92

5 SHELTER


MUNTINLUPA CITY, METRO MANILA

Muntinlupa boasts of three mechanisms that worked for its

housing programs. These are the Urban Poor Affairs Office

(UPAO); a multisectoral mechanism called the Socialized

Housing Program Committee (composed of NGOs, three city-

level federations of urban poor groups, and city department

heads involved in housing); and interim financing to assist

urban poor groups. Muntinlupa City has worked with civil

society and has a pilot project of voluntary relocation involving

two communities along the railroad tracks. It was also able to establish mechanisms for people’s

participation and local governance in shelter provision.

Contact Information

UPAO Head3rd flr. Annex Bldg.,Muntinlupa City HallMuntinlupa City(02) 543-0816

MARIKINA CITY, METRO MANILA

Marikina also assumed the role of CMP originator to

undertake the problem of housing informal settlers. It did not

stop at merely providing lots; it also ensured that all the

houses in its resettlement areas have toilet facilities. The

city helped members of the relocated families to gain access

to employment opportunities to ensure payment of their

CMP loans. The city’s housing projects should be visited

because aside from these benefits, the relocation of

communities also improved Marikina’s environment. What used to be a squatter colony

along the riverbanks is now a park.

Contact Information

Officer-In-ChargeMarikina SettlementsOfficeMarikina City Hall (02) 646-2317

93



SAN CARLOS CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL

Other LGUs can see up close how San Carlos has developed

a housing scheme that targeted the poorest of the poor in

its area. The city prides itself with the “Lote Para Sa Mahirap”

project wherein beneficiaries pay P5 a day for five years for

a 54-square meter lot.

Contact Information

City Administrator San Carlos City Hall(034) 312-5112 or

Managing Director San Carlos DevelopmentBoard

NAGA CITY, CAMARINES SUR

Naga City is worth visiting because aside from its “Kaantabay

sa Kauswagan” program that features the partnership of

the LGU, landowners, NGO and urban poor associations, it

also has a decade of experience in housing the poor. It is close

to reaching its target of zero squatters. Naga has also been

able to cater to the needs of the urban poor through the help

of COPE and housing schemes responsive to the poor’s

needs. These have gained national and international recognition for both the city and the mayor.

Contact Information

UPAO Chief, UrbanPoor Affairs OfficeNaga City Hall(054) 472-9219

94

5 SHELTER


TANGUB CITY, MISAMIS OCCIDENTAL

It is one of the few cities that used a participatory approach

in finalizing its land use plan. It also has an integrated

perspective in developing and housing its poor constituents.

Contact Information

Office of the MayorTangub City Hall(088) 521-0038 or395-3888

VICTORIAS CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL

Victorias has made a name for itself due to its innovative

practice of using bond flotation to finance it housing projects.

Other municipalities and cities can visit this site to learn

more from this experience and see other ways it has

generated funds for its housing projects.

Contact Information

Housing Officer,Housing and Home SiteOfficeVictorias City HallVictorias, NegrosOccidental

95

❙❙ References

◗ CASE BOOKS

Galing Pook Foundation, et. al. Book 4: Fighting Poverty Together. Kaban Galing (The Philippine CaseBank on Innovation and Exemplary Practices in Local Governance). Manila, Philippines, 2001Edition.(Features the experiences of General Santos City of South Cotabato on using different landacquisition schemes applied to house the homeless in San Carlos City of Negros Occidentalon Home Sweet Home community.)

Galing Pook Foundation, et. al. Book 3: Promoting Excellence in Urban Governance. Kaban Galing (ThePhilippine Case Bank on Innovation and Exemplary Practices in Local Governance). Manila,Philippines, 2001 Edition.(Features the house bonds of Victorias, Negros Occidental.)

Rebullida, Ma. Lourdes G. The Local Government Originated Community Mortgage Program. Processesand Cases in the Implementation of a Socialized Housing Program. Manila, Philippines:Philippine Business for Social Progress, October 1998.

◗ SOURCE BOOKS

A Place to Call Home: Working Together Towards Quality, Humane and Adequate Housing for the Urban Poor. Project SHELTER of Partnership for Philippine Support Service Agencies, Inc.,2001.

Arcega-Buenavista, Leonora and Alex Manuel SG Maaliw. Community Organizing for the CommunityMortgage Program: A Manual for Trainers and Field Workers, Volume 1. Philippine Businessfor Social Progress: Social Development Management Institute of the Philippines, 1992.



96

Department of Interior and Local Government-Local Government Academy. The Victorias Bond Flotation for Housing. 1999.

Foundation for Development Alternatives; Harnessing Self-Reliant Initiatives and Knowledge Inc.(HASIK); and Mapua Institute of Technology (MAPUA). Barefoot Architecture and SiteEngineering (A Manual on Basic Site Engineering and Architecture for Non-Technical PersonsInvolved in Socialized Housing). Project SHELTER of Partnership for Philippine SupportService Agencies, Inc., November 2001.

Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council. National Urban Development and HousingFramework for 1999-2004. Manila, 2000.

National Board and the Technical Working Group of the League of Provinces of the Philippines. PolicyHandbook on Environment, Social Welfare and Development, TESDA training functions, Health,Agriculture, Land Use, Housing, Public Works, Auditing and Education. Year 2000 Edition. Manila,Philippines: Philippine Business for Social Progress.

Small Enterprises Research and Development Foundation. “Building Houses for the Poor: A SourceBook on Low-Income Housing Programs, Strategies, Technologies and Designs.”Papers andProceedings from a Consultative-Workshop Series held in Manila, Cebu, and Davao from Oct.-Dec. 1990. Feb. 1992.

◗ LEGAL REFERENCES

General Primer of RA 7160. Republic Act 7160 (The Local Government Code), 1991.

Partnership of Philippine Support Service Agencies, Inc. (PHILSSA). Volume 1: Land Use and Acquisition. Socialized Housing in the Philippines: A Compilation of Housing Laws and OtherReference Materials. Quezon City, 1998.

5 SHELTER


97

Partnership of Philippine Support Service Agencies, Inc. (PHILSSA). Volume 2: Financing SocializedHousing. Socialized Housing in the Philippines: A Compilation of Housing Laws and Other ReferenceMaterials. Quezon City, 1998.

Partnership of Philippine Support Service Agencies, Inc. (PHILSSA). Volume 3: Socialized HousingRegulations and Beneficiaries. Socialized Housing in the Philippines: A Compilation of Housing Lawsand Other Reference Materials. Quezon City, 1998.

Partnership of Philippine Support Service Agencies, Inc. (PHILSSA). Volume 4: Eviction and Relocation.Socialized Housing in the Philippines: A Compilation of Housing Laws and Other Reference Materials.Quezon City, 1998.

Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code. Republic Act 7160 (The LocalGovernment Code), 1991.

“The Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 – Republic Act 7279 (with Filipino translation)”In: Partnership of Philippine Support Service Agencies, Inc. (PHILSSA). Socialized Housing in thePhilippines: A Compilation of Housing Laws and Other Reference Materials. Quezon City, 1998.

◗ DATABASES/STATISTICS

Partnership of Philippine Support Service Agencies, Inc. (PHILSSA). Ang Mga Maralitang Tagalungsod:Mga Datos Hinggil sa Kanila In: Socialized Housing in the Philippines: A Compilation of HousingLaws and Other Reference Materials. Quezon City, 1998.

Urban Poor Associates and Partnership of Philippine Support Service Agencies, Inc. (PHILSSA). LGU-UDHA Compliance Monitoring Report from 1992-1999. March 2000.



98

◗ TECHNICAL REPORTS/CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS

GHK International, et. al. Volume 2: Pilot Local Government and Community Sub-Projects. Draft FinalReport on the TA 3291: Development of Poor Urban Communities Project (DPUCP): Philippines for ADBand HUDCC. December 2000.

GHK International, et. al. Volume 4: Social Impact Assessment. Draft Final Report on the TA 3291:Development of Poor Urban Communities Project (DPUCP): Philippines for ADB and HUDCC. December2000.

Overseas Project Management Consultants, Ltd., et. al. Final Report of the JBIC Pilot Study onApproaches to Consensus Building among Stakeholders for Relocation and Resettlement. September2002.

Muntinlupa Development Foundation, Inc. Proceedings of Conference Workshop on SocializedHousing Initiatives. Sept. 1996.

Planning and Development Collaborative International (PADCO, INC.), et al. Final and Main Reporton the Assessment of the Community Mortgage Program. May 1993.

◗ NEWSLETTERS AND NEWS MAGAZINES

SELAVIP Newsletter, Journal of Low-Income Housing in Asia and the World. Cebu City: October 1999.



5 SHELTER


99


SELAVIP Newsletter, Journal of Low-Income Housing in Asia and the World. Cebu City: October 1995

SELAVIP Newsletter, Journal of Low-Income Housing in Asia and the World. Cebu City: April 1994.

SELAVIP Newsletter, Journal of Low-Income Housing in Asia and the World, October 1993.

Urban Poor Colloquium Newsletter. Partnership of Philippine Support Service Agencies, Inc. (PHILSSA),December-February 2002.

“Urban Development,” Salindiwa Quarterly. Publication of the Partnership of Philippine Support ServiceAgencies Inc. (PHILSSA), July-November 2001. 23 pp.

◗ PUBLISHED ARTICLES

ALTERPLAN and the Urban Poor Associates (UPA). “Are We Ready for MRBs (Medium Rise Housing)?”Quezon City, August 18, 1998. (Handout)

Asian Development Bank. Grant Assistance to the Republic of the Philippines for Supporting the Off-Site and Off-City Relocation of Vulnerable Slum Communities of Muntinlupa City Project, December 2000.

City of Makati Annual Report. Makati City, 2001.

“Civil Society Assessment of Government Performance vis-à-vis the Medium Term DevelopmentPlan 2001 – 2004.” n.p. n.d.

Couples for Christ Global Mission Foundation. A Paper on the CFC Gawad Kalinga National Build Projectsubmitted to the Presidential Management Staff. April 2002.



100

League of Cities of the Philippines, et. al. Good Urban Governance Campaign. CD ROM format,January 2000.

Handouts on the Philippine Urban Forum. n.p. n.d.

HUDCC- DILG Regional Field Offices Report. June 30, 2002.

Prilles, Willy. “A Paper on the Kaantabay Sa Kauswagan Program of Naga City.” Philippines. RoundtableDiscussion on Shelter Delivery. Grand Regal Hotel, August 7, 2002.

Salazar, Tessa R. “Rural, Mass-based Housing to Stimulate Realty Sector.” Philippine Daily Inquirer. 7January, 2003, page B-8.

Urquico, Daniel Z. “San Carlos Community Building Program.” SELAVIP Newsletter, Journal of Low-Income Housing in Asia and the World. Cebu City, October 1998.

Urquico, Daniel Z. “Low Cost Housing in Dumaguete” SELAVIP Newsletter, Journal of Low-IncomeHousing in Asia and the World. Cebu City, October 1998.

5 SHELTER



ENDNOTES

1 The National Statistics Office defines “urban areas” on the bases of modest levels of populationdensity (500 or 1,000 residents/sq. km.) and the existence of certain basic facilities (such as a church,a plaza, a market, and a public building). The urban amenities that one would expect to find insuch areas simply do not exist; in fact, service levels are frequently lower than in rural areas. Aconsequence of this rather loose definition that results in premature urbanization is that localgovernments are hard-pressed to provide the kinds of urban services that are generally expectedin cities or to raise funds to support them.

2 Housing & Urban Development Coordinating Council with the assistance of the Asian DevelopmentBank, National Urban Development & Housing Framework for 1999-2004.

3 The Community Mortgage Program (CMP) of the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation(NHMFC), and the Group Land Acquisition Development (GLAD) of the Home DevelopmentMutual Fund or commonly known as Pag-IBIG generally concentrates on socialized housing. Oftentimes, it represents the 20% Balanced Housing Program required by law to developers ofsubdivisions. Section 18 of UDHA mandates developers of proposed subdivision projects todevelop an area for socialized housing equivalent to at least twenty percent (20%) of the totalsubdivision areas or total subdivision project cost, at the option of the developer.

4 Partnership of Philippine Support Service Agencies, Inc. (PHILSSA), Vol. 2: Financing SocializedHousing, Socialized Housing in the Philippines: A Compilation of Housing Laws & Other ReferenceMaterials (October 1998).

5 Asian Development Bank, Document on the Grant Assistance to the Republic of the Philippinesfor Supporting the Off-Site & Off-City Relocation of Vulnerable Slum Communities of MuntinlupaCity Project (December 2000).

102

6 Couples for Christ Global Mission Foundation, A Paper on the CFC Gawad Kalinga National BuildProject submitted to the Presidential Management Staff (April 2002).

7 CD-Rom on Good Urban Governance Campaign Prepared by League of Cities of the Philippines,Philippine Urban Forum, United Nations Development Programme and United Nations Centrefor Human Settlements

8 Willy Prilles, “A Paper on the Kaantabay Sa Kauswagan Program of Naga City, Philippines.”Presented During the Roundtable Discussion on Shelter Delivery. Grand Regal Hotel, August 7,2002.

9 Rules & Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991. Republic Act No. 7160

10 GHK International, et. al., Volume 2: Pilot Local Government and Community Sub-Projects, DraftFinal Report on the TA 3291: Development of Poor Urban Communities Project (DPUCP):Philippines for ADB and HUDCC (December 2000).

11Hand-outs on the Philippine Urban Forum

12Urban Poor Associates and Partnership of Philippine Support Service Agencies, Inc. (PHILSSA),LGU-UDHA Compliance Monitoring Report from 1992-1999 (March 2000).

13Makati 2001 Annual Report

SHELTER



AffordabilityThe potential amount of income that could be made available for housing investment afterexcluding basic necessities such as food, clothing, education, medical expenses, transportation,income tax & recurrent costs of housing (electricity, water, garbage disposal)

BayadnihanA work-for-pay scheme to enable urban poor beneficiaries to settle their lot amortizations, currentor past due, through participation in the implementation of the city’s infrastructure projects, theirmaintenance or by rendering frontline services

Community-initiated purchaseIn this variant of self-help community mortgage, the urban poor community puts up at least halfof the total project cost.*

Community Mortgage ProgramMortgage financing program of the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation that assists legallyorganized associations of underprivileged and homeless citizens to purchase and develop a tractof land under the concept of community ownership. The primary objective of the program is toassist residents of blighted or depressed areas to own lots they occupy, or where they choose torelocate and eventually improve their neighborhood & homes to the extend of their affordability.

Cost Recoverable ProgramsUndertaken by government through NHA in cooperation with the LGUs, housing cooperatives.

GLOSSARY

104

Economic HousingPer HLURB, same standards on rules and regulations; only varies on the loanable amount/limitprovided by the key housing agencies. Based on the latest changes on the price packages ofhouse & lot, an economic housing unit is one that costs P500,000 to P2 million.

Eminent domainThe last option to push on-site development. Involves the expropriation of privately ownedlandholdings by the local authority, invoking the power of eminent domain.

HouseholdAs defined by NSO is a social unit consisting of a person or a group of persons who sleep in the samedwelling unit and have common arrangement for the preparation and consumption of food.

Idle government lotsInvolves the use of unutilized/underutilized properties of the national government or the localauthority for housing.

Land sharingOwner agrees to share landholding occupied by the urban poor community, and sells only aportion of the property. Owner gets choice portion (usually the frontage) of the property.*

Land swappingOwner agrees to swap landholding occupied by urban poor community with another propertyroughly of the same value or size preferably without occupants.*

Leveraged land sharing plusInstead of sharing landholding under a straight land sharing term, property acquired an adjoiningproperty and develops it into a relocation site. Owner gets to have all the of main landholding.*

SHELTER


105

Livelihood housingA new concept which involves the provision of communal farming and fishing, including supportservices, on top of the traditional home lots for beneficiaries.

Low-cost housingA house and lot package falling within the range of P225,000 to P500,000.

Medium-Rise Public and Private HousingEntails the construction of walk-up buildings as in-city relocation for low-income families and otherbeneficiaries as defined by R.A. 7279 residing in high density urban areas. The scheme minimizeseconomic displacement among intended beneficiaries and maximizes the use of scarce high costurban land available for socialized housing.

Proactive land bankingEssentially the acquisition of raw landholdings, especially outside the urban area, at a significantlylower cost. These landholdings are earmarked for development into low-cost housing or resettlementareas.

Self-help community mortgageThe local authority, instead of national government provides bulk of financing requirement, andthe urban poor community provides a significant amount of equity.*

Shelter Needs are 1) the new housing units needed (lot, basic services and dwelling unit), and 2) the upgradingneeds (either land tenure, some of basic services, or structural improvement of unit or combinationsof these.

gLOSSARY


106

Socialized HousingRefers to housing programs and projects covering houses and lots and home lots only undertakenby the government or private sector for the underprivileged and homeless citizens which shallinclude sites and services development, long term financing, liberalized terms of terms of interestpayments, and such other benefits in accordance of this Act.

A socialized housing unit shall not exceed P 180,000.00 or such adjusted amount as maybe lateron determined by the Housing & Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). However, based on the recentpronouncements of HUDCC, socialized housing means a house-and-lot package from P225,000 andbelow.

Socialized Housing NeedsBased on the UDHA, these are housing needs of underprivileged and homeless individuals orhouseholds residing in the urban or urbanizable areas whose income fall within the povertythreshold determined by NEDA.

*Refers to definitions made/formulated by Naga City

SHELTER


Date post:	25-Mar-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	local-governance-support-program-in-armm
View:	238 times
Download:	4 times

Shelter - SD with Impact

Documents