UPA Study Says Evictions Lessen

News Release September 12, 2011 In the first eight months of 2011 the number of urban poor families who experienced eviction lessened somewhat, according to a study of Urban Poor Associates’ (UPA). From January to August 2010, 8201 families were evicted in 29 demolition incidents. In the same period for this year, 7060 families in 14 demolition incidents lost their homes. Eight of this year’s evictions were on government lands, three were privately owned while the others were on lots along esteros. All 14 of the 2011 eviction incidents were considered illegal because they did not meet the legal requirements for evictions of the Urban Development and Housing Act. Evictions in San Juan, Navotas, Makati and Pasig turned violent. The number of cases in 2011 went down to 14, compared to 29 demolition incidents in 2010, but larger urban poor areas were demolished. UPA pointed out that if we compared President Noy-Noy Aquino’s first complete year in office, June 2010- June 2011, we find he had many more evictions than former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo had on average per year in her term. These eviction episodes are considered high because President Aquino signed a covenant with the urban poor during the election campaign at Del Pan Sports Complex, Tondo, Manila, March 6. The Covenant promised an end to illegal forced evictions and showed a bias for in-city relocation. Such in city-relocations have not been implemented yet. Instead demolitions have been increasing. The government’s reasons for demolitions were the cleaning of esteros and expansion of government facilities. Fire From January to May 2011, a total of 12 fires broke out in urban poor areas which affected 9,849 families. Three out of twelve fires were believed by the people to have been done intentionally to force them out of places where they have lived for more than 15 years. They thought the government used fire because it is the easiest way to remove people. The majority of families who lost their homes were not allowed to return. Most of the fire sites were privately owned. Five of the communities were on government land. A total of 6,114 families or 62 percent of the total number of affected families were not allowed to return to their homes while communities in Satima, Las pinas, Brgy. Culiat, Quezon City and Malabon City are now negotiating with the private owners to purchase the land they lived on before the fires through the Community Mortgage Program (CMP). Navotas, Quezon City and Makati declared fire areas as danger zones. This prevents the people from going back to the fire site. Navotas passed a Resolution No.2011-36 on March 4, 2011 that the area in that city is a danger zone. Quezon City declared an area a danger zone because of “congestion and condition of structures.” The Makati government can pronounce an area a danger zone if the area has a minimum of five fires blaze. The areas were cleared of all residents. These moves of the City governments were strongly opposed by the fire victims. In Laperal Compound, Makati, the clearing operation turned violent. Molotov bombs and rocks were thrown by residents at Task Force Laperal. Makati was criticized by residents for enforcing a demolition though the lot is privately owned and there had been no court order. A child died in the staging area because of pneumonia. Only 25% of the 2700 families who lost their homes were relocated to Montalban. Families in Navotas and Quezon City also resisted clearing operations. Most of them chose to stay in their original places than be relocated far from their jobs. Government Intervention Secretary of Interior and Local Government Jesse Robredo put holds on demolitions in San Juan and Makati, which were not respected. UPA Spiritual Director Fr. Robert Reyes said, “The president should do more to stop illegal evictions or else eviction will continue to rise.” Data gathered by UPA shows that there are 300,000 families still threatened with eviction in Metro Manila and the surrounding area. “The government must find win-win solutions that will uphold the interest and rights of the poor and allow the necessary infrastructure of the city to be built,” Fr. Reyes concluded. -30-

COMMENTARY: An offer the President can’t refuse

By Denis Murphy
Philippine Daily Inquirer

Posted date: August 30, 2010


THE ESTIMATED 370,000 families who are now threatened with eviction from their homes have an offer for President Noynoy Aquino they hope he can’t refuse. They will ask the President to declare a two- to three-month moratorium on all evictions. During this time a committee of the President’s own choosing will study how best society can meet the dangers of flooding and other disasters and still treat the poor in the “just and humane manner” the Constitution demands.
The families to be evicted include 80,000 families along the esteros; 100,000, mostly fishermen, around Laguna Lake; 60,000 on the Manggahan Floodway; 40,000 in Lupang Arenda; and others in the way of roads (C-5, R10) and other developments. With an average of five persons a family, the total population of men, women and children affected is 1.85 million, which is a little more than twice the population of Cebu City (798,000).

Eviction is one of the worst things that can happen to a family—they lose their homes, jobs, neighbors of 20 and 30 years who have helped them in all their problems, the good schooling and health services of the old neighborhoods. Children are traumatized. The old people, small children and pregnant women suffer the most. On average it takes five years more or less for a poor family to recover economically from distant relocation.

Other urban poor families who are not immediately affected live in fear of eviction and do not invest in their homes or communities. “Why should we?” they ask. “We can be evicted anytime and lose everything.” Thus, slums remain slums. Some people think the moratorium should last three to four months since the problems connected with evictions are so profound and damaging to people’s lives.

The poor hope the President’s committee will have people like Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, Social Welfare Secretary Corazon “Dinky” Soliman, Interior and Local Government Secretary Jesse Robredo, Church representatives, architect Felino Palafox, urbanologist Mary Racelis, Vice President Jejomar Binay, the chairman of the Housing and Urban Development Council and Francis Tolentino of the Metro Manila Development Authority. There will also be urban poor representatives and NGOs working with the urban poor. The committee will be assisted by the universities and special institutes in Metro Manila, including the Manila Observatory (for satellite imagery).

The committee will be asked to study:

• Are all the evictions necessary? Has government sufficient scientific evidence to justify its actions? Has it done its research in detail? It is obvious, for example, that not all people along the esteros need to move out. A short walk with architects along the Esteros de San Miguel and San Sebastian showed many people there could live alongside or over the esteros if government helped them to do so.

Perhaps the same is true of Laguna Lake, the Manggahan Floodway and even Lupang Arenda. If we search for non-eviction solutions, we may find them. A dike around Laguna Lake, as envisaged by architect Palafox and others, would allow the fishermen to continue fishing, yet protect their homes.

• Are evictions done in accord with our laws and the International Covenants on Human Rights signed by the government? Poor people complain most evictions are illegal for want of legal notice, consultation or relocation.

• Are the evictions in line with good urban planning insights, and do they foster economic growth in the cities or harm it?

• Does government have an overall vision of how it would like to see the urban poor integrated into the development of the cities in the coming decades?

Politically speaking, such large-scale evictions seem a peculiar way for a new and popular government to begin its dealings with the poor. Nearly all urban poor families say they wish to stay where they are. Do we want people thinking there is a cold heart for the poor in the administration?

While some urban poor people are critical of the well off, I am always surprised by how quietly the poor accept the inequality life has dealt them. Several times as we were walking along an estero, sometimes squeezing along in the dark, we would come to a stone wall. The people would say, that’s the wall of the Chinese school, or the wall of San Beda, or the wall of an idle property of Filinvest, or a factory. The land area of the school, etc. would be far larger than the whole community of people living on the estero. There wasn’t any bitterness in their voices when they identified the walls.

We hope the President can restore an element of compassion to government activity that has been missing.

If evictions carry on as usual, the poor may be disenchanted with government. They may tell government, “We will not move on the terms you offer.” What does a democratic government do then? A refusal by government officials to allow for people’s participation in the decision-making that affects their lives may be an obstacle to development on a par with corruption.

(Denis Murphy works with the Urban Poor Associates. His e-mail address is upa@pldtdsl.net)

A Matter of Courage

A Matter of Courage
by Denis Murphy

Development of the urban poor of our big cities requires them to have the courage of warriors. It is usually the women who provide it.

In a Tondo barangay, poor women are threatened with violence simply because they want to bring legal water services into their community. The women want the legal water (Maynilad or Manila Water) because it is four to seven times cheaper than the water they buy now, which is often controlled by mafia types. Women are threatened over the water issue even in a barangay that President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo visited and where she supported the people's efforts to get Maynilad by committing P7 million of the local congressman's development funds.

The threats can be alarming. In one barangay, a young woman community organizer received the following message: "Ginugulo nyo kami dito sa lugar namin baka imbes na tubig ay dugo ang umagos dito. Tigilan nyo na kami!" (Stop messing with our community or blood will be shed instead of water).

The threats are often from the kagawads and barangay hangers-on, the women say. They know these men and their families. It is a very emotional situation that easily leads to violence. In the area the president visited, 500 women are now dropping out of the water scheme she supported, because they have been threatened with violence if they continue.

Despite the threats, 40 women in the North Harbor gathered P15,000 and brought Maynilad water into the area, which will save each of them P500-P900 pesos a month. Families who buy water from these women will pay only a little more than the 40 women who invested in the mother meter. They, too, will have big savings. In these days of economic hardship, P500 or more a month is a godsend: perhaps the difference between a healthy child and a malnourished one.

In the beginning, only a few women displayed the courage needed, but courage is catching and the example of a few can create a brave community.

Just when the 40 women had the water problem licked, the Metro Manila Development Authority and the Department of Public Works and Highways came along to tell them they will be evicted, though no relocation will be provided. It took courage to struggle for water; they must now gather up the same courage to resist the eviction.

Such evictions were condemned as illegal by Chairperson Leila de Lima of the Commission on Human Rights. In a CHR Resolution of November 6, 2008 she ordered the MMDA, local governments and national government agencies to stop conducting evictions and demolitions of structures used for dwelling purposes unless the families are relocated according to law.

The Pope's Justice and Peace Commission offers what should be a starting point in our thinking on the urban poor, squatting and eviction: "Any person or family that, without any direct fault on his or her part, does not have suitable housing is the victim of an injustice" (1988). The poor are in the slums as a result of injustice. Evicting them and leaving them homeless compounds the injustice.

The women met the 100-plus-man demolition team of MMDA and waved the CHR order in front of them. The demolition chief talked to them for a short while, then the demolition began. Now the women will go to the mayor. At every step they are warned that they can be hurt or they can "wind up with nothing." Fear is deep in the people. In Navotas, people who have been evicted but are living alongside the demolition area, say every time they see a blue MMDA vehicle they hold onto their children in fear.

It is not just about water or other items. Resistance is the poor's way to assert that they are free persons who want to live in dignity and security. We are not charity cases or useless people. We are not here to be manipulated or humiliated. We work hard and we have the same hopes as all men and women, they say.

Poor men and women find courage deep in their hearts to do all they can about the ills that threaten their world. Can we say as much about the rest of society?

http://www.thepoc.net/index.php/Parokya-Sa-Web/Tinig-ng-Maralita/A-Matter-of-Courage.html

EVICTIONS and UNCESCR CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

This document is publicly viewable at: http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dhhqg4t6_65dq974tc8

Amputations and evictions

Commentary : Amputations and evictions

By Denis Murphy
Philippine Daily Inquirer

Posted date: March 09, 2009

METRO Manila is going to see more and more evictions in the future as two powerful forces collide over land. On one side are urban poor families seeking a place to live. On the other side are groups demanding infrastructure, business centers, luxury housing, beautification, a clean environment, parks, recreation centers and malls. Between 1996 and 2008, some 85,000 families were evicted in Metro Manila. The numbers will increase.

Evictions are like physical amputation; they are traumatic events that tear apart a person’s world. There are no good amputations, and there are no good evictions. The most people can hope for in the case of amputation is good medical care and a helpful prosthetic. The hope in evictions is for the humane and just care promised by the Constitution (Article XIII, Section 28) and a decent relocation. They never make up for the lost limb or home.

As a way of making evictions palatable, the Charter of the Urban Poor asks that before infrastructure is approved for funding it must be studied in a public transparent fashion to make sure it truly serves the common good and not the narrow interests of a few powerful persons, and that the housing rights of the poor are ensured.

Is, for example, the extension of the C-5 from Old Balara to the North Luzon Expressway so intrinsic to the common good that 30,000 families have to be evicted? Are there no alternate ways to speed up traffic? If it is necessary, can the number of families evicted be limited by passing the road through the Capitol Hills Golf Course and not through the densely crowded urban poor areas of the University of the Philippines? Are there plans for quality relocation? Does the government have the P4.5 billion cost of relocating 30,000 families (NHA allots P150,000 for every relocated family)?

If the answer to any of the questions is negative, the infrastructure should be rejected or at least reworked.

The clean-up of Manila Bay and the river systems feeding into it, which was ordered by the Supreme Court recently, is another example. As soon as the decision was made public, some government agencies targeted the 70,000 families living along the banks of the waterways as the culprits and planned their eviction.

A public examination of the project would reveal that the main causes of pollution in the waters are the industries along the banks and the human waste of a million toilets flowing into the rivers and esteros. The major polluters are not the urban poor who cause only a small fraction of pollution, which can be controlled as Amelita Ramos showed in her Clean and Green Program. Those who want to clean up the waterways should begin with human waste treatment plants and disciplinary measures for industry. To do that, very few poor families have to be moved. Relocation of the 70,000 families will cost up to P10.5 billion. If there is no funding for relocation which is a basic human right, there should be no evictions.

The NorthRail-SouthRail project is the champion example for the need to examine proposed infrastructure publicly and intensely before committing funds. The project is now six years old. Billions of pesos have been spent. Some 49,000 families (as of October 2008) were evicted and relocated. In return for all this there is a 125-kilometer gray scar of crushed concrete running from Clark Field to Calamba, Laguna. Maybe, like the Great Wall of China, it is visible from space. In the North not a shovelful of earth has been moved. In the South some old tracks have been replaced with new ones, but there is no sign they are for the modern high speed trains that were once envisioned, which required a 30-meter wide right of way. The government has refused to put new money into the NorthRail (Business World, February 23).

It’s not just errors in implementation. Some planners say the NorthRail should have gone East of Mt. Arayat into Nueva Ecija and the provinces there where a train would have made great sense in carrying farm produce to market and opening up areas for development. On the West side of Arayat the train wasn’t really needed. The West Side is already developed. The choice of going West of Arayat only served to enhance the value of properties of some powerful persons, the planner said.

Finally, is there any need to evict poor people for the Metro Gwapo Program? It doesn’t attract investment: among all the reasons given by investors for the lack of investment in the Philippines, beautification is never mentioned. Far ahead in investor’s concerns are corruption, inadequate infrastructure, high costs of electric power and similar reasons. Investors don’t care if there are poor people living under bridges.

If the urban poor community, the Church and other civil society leaders see the government is doing its best to limit evictions and spend government money wisely for its infrastructure, there will be more willingness to accept some evictions. Otherwise it will be confrontation pure and simple.


Denis Murphy works with the Urban Poor Associates. His email address is upa@pldtdsl.net.

©Copyright 2001-2009 INQUIRER.net, An Inquirer Company

MEDIA ADVISORY: CONFRONTATION - CHR vs. MMDA

Residents along R-10 in Tondo, Manila look on as demolition team from Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) conducts clearing operations on Feb. 3.

Attention: News Editor, News Desk, Reporters and Photojournalists

MEDIA ADVISORY

CONFRONTATION
CHR vs. MMDA

On Monday February 9 the irresistible force, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) headed by Chairperson Leila de Lima, will challenge the immovable object, the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) Chairman Bayani Fernando.

On the R-10 Road before Pier 10, near Moriones Street, the local residents will hold before the eviction teams of MMDA the CHR Resolution No. A2008-052, a resolution recommending the imposition of a moratorium on all evictions and demolitions.

The CHR has ordered all evictions which do not provide decent relocation to stop immediately. The MMDA since Feb. 2 has evicted families without any relocation. The two government bodies will confront one another Monday at 8:00 AM along the R-10.

The R-10 which stretches from Velasquez Street in Tondo to Lapu Lapu Street in Navotas is scheduled to be widened. Some 3,046 families by government count are in the way. NGO workers of Urban Poor Associates (UPA) and Community Organizers of the Philippine Enterprise (COPE) say there are more than 10,000 families on the road. Neither MMDA nor the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), which commissioned the evictions, offers relocation.

The CHR has determined eviction without relocation is a violation of the country’s laws.

Please come.

Where: R-10 Tondo, before Pier 10, near Moriones Street

Date: February 9, 2009 (Monday) / 8:00 AM