Combating professional squatters and debunking UDHA misconceptions
Afront-page news article in the Manila Bulletin last week ought to boost the National Drive Against Professional Squatters and Squatting Syndicates (NDAPSSS). The article said “there is no legal impediment to the public identification of professional squatters and squatting syndicates by the NDAPSSS,” as contained in a legal opinion issued by Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla and addressed to Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development Asst. Sec. Melissa Ardanas who leads the NDAPSSS.
Ardanas earlier sought the official position of the Department of Justice (DOJ) “to ensure that the proposed NDAPSSS flyers/pamphlets, which intend to promote awareness as part of its nationwide campaign against professional squatters and squatting syndicates (PSSS), do not contravene RA 10173 or the Data Privacy Act of 2012.”
In response, the DOJ opined: “Considering that the NDAPSSS flyer/pamphlet aims to promote awareness against PSSS to protect the transacting public, Data Privacy Act of 2012 will not apply.”
It explained that while the law protecting individual personal information applies to the processing of all types of personal information, “it admits certain exceptions, including any information necessary in order to carry out the functions of public authority, in accordance with its constitutionality and statutorily mandated functions.”
Indeed, among such functions is to “identify and effectively curtail the nefarious and illegal activities of professional squatters and squatting syndicates” which is mandated under RA 7279 or the Urban Development and Housing Act (UDHA) of 1992 that I principally authored when I was senator.
UDHA, often called the Lina Law, tasked local government units with the function of identifying and curtailing illegal activities of PSSS, in cooperation with police forces and the Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor and its accredited urban poor organizations.
The law defines professional squatters as “individuals or groups who occupy lands without the express consent of the landowner and who have sufficient income for legitimate housing,” and squatter syndicates refer to “groups of persons engaged in the business of squatting housing for profit or gain.”
RA 7279 further said: “The term (professional squatters) shall also apply to persons who have previously been awarded home lots or housing units by the government but who sold, leased or transferred the same to settle illegally in the same place or in another urban area, and non-bona fide occupants and intruders of lands reserved for socialized housing. The term shall not apply to individuals or groups who simply rent land and housing from professional squatters or squatting syndicates.”
The proposed NDAPSSS flyer/pamphlet is expected to focus on an updated primer on the eradication of PSSS. Similar to the primer done by the NDAPSSS in 2014, it would serve as a guide for LGUS in implementing provisions of UDHA and other pertinent executive orders and memorandum circulars on dealing with PSSS.
Along with assisting LGUS in adopting measures to identify and curtail illegal activities of PSSS, the 2014 primer also contained guidelines and procedures in the conduct of surveillance and investigations of complaints against PSSS, including their apprehension and prosecution.
An updated primer would be very helpful if it also debunks common misconceptions about UDHA which, unfortunately, remains one of the most misunderstood laws. Some of those in media have wrongly interpreted it, resulting in erroneous commentary that led to more misunderstanding.
Even some national and local government officials have failed to understand its philosophy. Some
politicians even twisted UDHA to suit the interests of informal settlers, professional squatters and syndicates.
Among the most common misconceptions about UDHA are:
* That under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, informal settlers shall own the land after squatting on it for more than 10 years. This is simply not true and has no basis in law.
* That private landowners are legally required to pay informal settlers “disturbance compensation” prior to eviction. Private landowners are not legally required to pay informal settlers any form of compensation, nor are they required to oversee the informal settler’s relocation. But there’s nothing wrong if private landowners voluntarily give some financial help to squatters when they are evicted and their dwellings demolished.
* That consent of squatters or informal settlers is needed regarding relocation site. The law requires government to consult squatters on their eviction and relocation, but consultation does not mean consent. It’s still government that finally decides where the relocation site shall be, but government must exhaust all alternatives to relocate informal settlers near their jobs before moving them out.
* That government has to provide free housing to squatters or that squatters are entitled, as a matter of right, to free housing. This has no basis under the Constitution or RA 7279. And I am not aware of any country that provides absolutely free housing to its citizens.
Many misconceptions about provisions of UDHA and its intent have apparently contributed to failure to abate squatting. But let it not be said that UDHA caused the proliferation of illegal settlers. To say so would be the greatest misconception.