that Affected Social Housing in the Last Decade
by Geraldine Matabang

Much of the past decade has been under the administration of Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) and the housing sector’s accomplishments in that period have barely made a dent in improving the housing backlog. As of 2010, the total housing need stands at 3.7 million housing units. Majority of this figure consist of the housing needs of informal settlers, slum dwellers, households in danger areas, and the homeless – the marginalized sectors that TAO-Pilipinas has aimed to serve. As TAO-Pilipinas marks a decade of involvement in social housing-related programs and projects, we highlight ten local events, incidents and experiences from 2001 to 2011 that have led to changes in social housing provision/delivery  and shaped the context in which TAO-Pilipinas has responded through technical assistance for the poor.

1. The North Rail and South Rail Resettlement Program

When GMA assumed presidency in 2001, the rehabilitation of the Philippine National Railways’ (PNR) North Rail and South Rail was named as one of the flagship infrastructure projects aimed at decongesting Metro Manila and spurring new economic growth areas in Northern, Central and Southern Luzon. The project was set to evict about 100,000 informal settler-families occupying the PNR right-of-way (40,000 for the Northrail project and 60,000 for the Southrail project). The Rail Resettlement Program that was initiated became the most massive relocation project the Arroyo overnment had undertaken. By 2009 close to 70,000 families have been sent to relocation sites in San Jose Del Monte in Bulacan, Montalban in Rizal, and Cabuyao in Laguna. Some families availed of the housing financial assistance under the Balik Probinsya Program.

While government funding of the PNR project has been plagued with allegations of corruption, the relocation housing developed for displaced families (particularly the off-city resettlement sites) has likewise been criticized for substandard living conditions due to lack of basic services such as potable water, electricity, sanitation facilities, schools, and health centres. Difficulty in paying the high amortization for the lots and inadequate livelihood opportunities in the resettlement site have also forced many to come back to Metro Manila’s informal communities.

2. Issuance of land proclamations by GMA

The issuance of land proclamations was a policy introduced to provide intermediate tenure option for informal settlers occupying government lands. This became a key policy during the administration of GMA who, by far, has issued the biggest number of presidential land proclamations. Land proclamations give assurance that families squatting on public lands will not be evicted and access to social services will improve. Families are given Certificates of Entitlement for Lot Award (CELAs) as a form of tenure instrument after land proclamation. HUDCC reported that from 2001 to 2006, there were 195,475 poor households that benefited from the issuance of 94 land proclamations. It should be noted however that only 14,000 families were awarded CELAs during the same 5-year period.

GMA’s land proclamations appear to have offered improved tenure security for the urban poor and encouraged the provision of basic service infrastructure in the proclaimed areas by LGUs and NGOs. However, development of proclaimed lands into social housing projects continues to be stalled and the disposition of land titles (the ultimate form of security of tenure the poor seek) has yet to be fulfilled. It would seem that land proclamations were primarily motivated by political events and used to gain electoral votes, as the highest numbers issued by GMA were after the 2001 Malacanang siege by opposition supporters and just before the 2004 presidential elections.

3. Emergence of the Gawad Kalinga community development model

Gawad Kalinga (GK) is a private sector initiative for housing the poor that saw its begininings in themid-90s with community outreach projects of the Couples for Christ ministry. It was in 2003 that GK embarked on a social housing program called GK777 that sought to build 700,000 homes in 7,000 communities in 7 years. GK has since adopted a community development model that integrates infrastructure delivery with programs addressing the social needs of its beneficiaries (i.e., values formation, education, health care, livelihood, environmental awareness, food sufficiency). This approach has been replicated in various GK villages in different parts of the country. As of 2009 they have built over 33,000 houses in 1,400 villages. Although they have failed to achieve their GK777 targets, GK has taken on a more ambitious mission of ending poverty for 5 million Filipino by 2024.

Apart from contributing to shelter delivery, GK’s most impressive innovation lies in resource generation, in being able to harness a vast network of support from government and the private sector. It has managed to successfully create its own brand in the field of corporate social responsibility. Many CSR programs of top corporations in the country support GK projects and these partnerships receive high profile media campaigns. By effectively engaging stakeholders, GK has led the way for an innovative, private sector-led approach to social housing.

4. Creation of the SHFC and localized CMP

The Community Mortgage Program (CMP), a home lending program first introduced in the mid-80s, is considered one of the better performing housing program for the urban poor. Government offers loans to informal settlers organized as community associations to purchase land and invest in house improvements. Through the community mortgage loans, informal groups are granted formal ownership of land. Since 1989 up to 2010, CMP has assisted 217,929 households, 38 percent of which are Metro Manila communities.

The CMP was initially managed by the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC). As a result of lobbying of NGOs and POs for a more focused implementation of the program for the poor, the administration of CMP was transferred to a newly-formed subsidiary of NMHFC. The Social Housing Finance Corporation (SHFC) was created in 2004 through EO 272 as lead government agency to undertake social housing programs including the CMP and Abot-Kaya Pabahay Fund Program. The SHFC has since piloted a localized community mortgage program (LCMP) wherein lending is extended to local government units for priority social housing projects. LGUs, in turn, would be lending to the community associations and undertake loan processing and approvals. This creates a multiplier effect for CMP funds since both national and local governments now contribute to the project cost. CMP localization still needs to be tapped and maximized by LGUs and poor communities.

5. Use of alternative building materials by Habitat for Humanity

Habitat for Humanity Philippines (HFHP) is a non-profit Christian ministry that build homes for the poor. Since 1988, HFHP has been implementing social housing programs wherein beneficiaries invest by way of sweat equity and pay for the house through affordable monthly mortgage payments. Its housing program is complemented by “soft programs” on values formation, livelihood skills development and other capacitybuilding programs for its beneficiaries. It also enjoys widespread support from government and private sector groups. Habitat for Humanity targets to build 5,000 houses annually and to date, it has built over 32,000 houses across the country.

The past decade has seen the organization delve in research and development for house construction innovations in an effort to keep the houses durable yet low-cost and affordable for the poor. The use of alternative building technologies that are volunteer-friendly has become synonymous with Habitat for Humanity housing. It introduced and further developed the use of concrete interlocking blocks (CIBs), modified hollow blocks, and steel frames with fiber cement boards. With these innovations, people are gradually being familiarized with alternative technologies and thus helping change a common but misguided outlook that a strong house could only be built of conventional reinforced concrete and concrete hollow blocks. Read more »