Speech delivered by Atty Leila de Lima, CHR Chairperson, on the Forum on Right to Adequate Housing (March 10, 2009)

COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Speech on the occasion of the Shadow Report on the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Quezon City, Philippines
10 March 2009

delivered by
LEILA M. DE LIMA
Chairperson, Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines


Good morning.

The opportunity for the Commission on Human Rights to appear before the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights November of last year is what we hope to look back upon as the seminal moment in our common quest to promote and protect housing rights in the context of the State's international obligations under the UNCESR. There had never been another National Human Rights Commission invited to speak before the Committee. To be the first, I had been told, places the efforts of the Philippine human rights community on the struggle to uphold housing-related rights within the consciousness of the members of the Committee.

To be invited bears two contrasting distinctions. First, our country as one among many with severely impaired housing rights. To be invited lends to the idea that we share in the ignominious reputation of being a country that struggles to deliver to our people the right to adequate housing and security of tenure. Yet, the second distinction reveals that the Committee has recognized and taken up a fascination with the efforts of the CHR and the local human rights community in the field of housing-related rights. Their interest in the progress of the promotion and protection of these rights is a prelude that no other country investigated by the Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing ever had – an initial audience with the Committee. It seems that we have gained not only a notoriety for our government’s inadequacies in promoting these rights on one hand, but a reputation as well of having strong civic consciousness in overcoming these inadequacies on the other hand.

OMNIBUS RESOLUTION
During our audience with the Committee, we had had the opportunity to report on the major advances made over the recent months since the start of the Fourth Commission. The CHR November 6, 2008 Omnibus Resolution calling for a moratorium on forced evictions and demolitions was presented to the Committee remains our hopeful first step in the field of adequate housing. The report on the Resolution elicited much praise from some members of the Committee and stood as an assurance that the human rights community of the Philippines has not wilted by the wayside despite the weaknesses of our institutions.

Perhaps to our international partners, the Omnibus Resolution in itself would have been monumental in itself, considering that in the context of developed nations, such an issuance would have the coercive force necessary to secure the right to adequate housing. The strength of government institutions, however, is the normal pre-requisite to the effectiveness of such an issuance. Before all of us present here today, there is no illusion however. The call for a moratorium is only a spectre, until the local governments draft guidelines governing the conduct of forced evictions and demolitions. Such guidelines must be within the parameters set by statute, particularly the Urban Housing and Development Act (UDHA). Without the appropriate, corresponding action from the local governments, we will continue to object to future forced evictions or illegal demolitions, just as we always have.

Yet, continually objecting to forced evictions and demolitions is not the progress we seek. We have been moored to this for several years now. A careful reading of the Omnibus Resolution reveals that the goal is not to secure a blanket moratorium. Preventing demolitions is not the end-goal of protecting and promoting the right to housing. To stop at a moratorium is to settle for the less-than-dignified conditions that many of the poor live in. The moratorium itself is only an intermediate step. What remains significantly more important is to secure the commitment of both local governments and the national government to abide by the pre-requisites to valid evictions – namely, the duty to conduct a census of all beneficiaries of a low-cost housing program, to allocate land for the purpose of relocation, to devise affordable means for the poor to obtain security over the land allotted to them, and to provide the necessary infrastructure to relocation sites making them habitable, among other duties.

The recent efforts of certain local governments to abide by the Omnibus Resolution by way of local ordinances reveals the shortfall of our institutions. To enforce the moratorium without defining a concrete timetable for the local governments to fulfill their subsequent duties on housing defeats the purpose of the law and the Omnibus Resolution. We must now center our efforts on this shortfall. We cannot accept a moratorium that only perpetuates the decrepit conditions of urban poor settlements. It must be a moratorium with the end goal of decent and habitable housing in mind.

INVITATION OF THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR
One of the next logical steps to be taken in relation to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is the invitation of National Government to the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Adequate Housing. We had seen the effect of the issuance of the Report of the Special Rapporteur on Arbitrary and Summary Killings and Executions. The stinging report of Professor Philip Alston had led to the mobilization of all concerned components of the Government bureaucracy and has made a heavy impact on the threat of Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances. The success, however, of this mobilization is the subject of another lengthy reflection, which I will not discuss here today.

Needless to say, to continue to engage the international community on the issue of adequate housing is one of the surest methods by which we can force government compliance. The monstrous task of relocating millions of urban poor in Metro Manila alone requires more than just a hopeful prayer that the State will come around and make housing and the security of tenure a priority. We must continue to generate enormous pressure on government that is equal to the enormity of the housing challenges we face. One of our strongest allies in human rights protection is the international community.

At the moment, the visit by the Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing cannot materialize without the action of the President and the Department of Foreign Affairs. This is where we must now place another set of cross-hairs. All our efforts to generate support from the local governments and Congress will be served by the force-multiplier that the international community can bring to the table. We have the attention of the Committee. Now is the time for the Committee to have the attention of our National Government.

MMIAC
The creation of the MMIAC by executive order is a shocking development. Not that our goals for adequate housing will be undone by the MMIAC, but that it is extraordinarily belated in its creation, as if to imply that since the passage of the UDHA, or even the creation of the PCUP, the idea that a massive, complex coordination of various agencies and stakeholders had only occurred to us only now. We had always known this. The previous inter-agency collaboration had always been at the heels of evictions and demolitions. However, the critical issue of relocation had always been an afterthought to actual demolitions.

There are, as many of you are well-aware of, grave errors in the formulation of the MMIAC, especially with the primary agency responsible for demolitions sitting as the chair. This is to insinuate that the primary function of the MMIAC is eviction and demolition and not housing. That is why in a letter to the Office of the President, dated 22 December 2008, the CHR expressed objection to the choice of MMDA as the Council’s Chair.

It cannot be underscored enough - adequate allocation of housing is the mandatory pre-requisite of eviction. Adequate housing must supersede eviction. Adequate housing must be the end goal of a temporary moratorium on evictions. While moratorium on demolitions without efforts to provide housing is an empty exercise, demolition without provisions for housing is a blatant violation of law.

This echoes the concern of the Committee that more families are evicted than families who are granted relocation. It has become apparent that our capacity to evict has surpassed our capacity to provide housing. What then should be the primary task of the MMIAC? It is to equitably balance the duty to evict with the duty to provide housing.

The restlessness within the MMIAC should not dissuade us from our participation. We need the cooperation of everyone in this complex task of providing adequte housing for everyone.

PROPOSED CHR CHARTER
The concern of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on the vague status of enforceability of housing-related rights will be met by the pending draft bill on the CHR Charter. I invite all of you to share in the excitement we, at the CHR, feel with the looming passage of the charter.

Among the crucial provisions embodied by the proposed charter is the expanded power of the CHR to investigate possible violations of economic, social and cultural rights. Now, by itself, this does not add anything to the scope of investigations covered by the CHR, as we already investigate evictions and forced demolitions. But certainly it adds statutory basis for our investigations.

More importantly, however, is the repercussions that it may have on the justiciability of rights embodied in the UNCESCR. In addition to the expanded power of the CHR to investigate violations of these kinds of rights, Congress is currently ironing out provisions that will give more teeth to the CHR through the grant of certain quasi-judicial powers in aid of the Commission’s investigative mandate. Express and well-defined powers, such as issuance of cease and desist orders and mandatory powers will come a long way in affording concrete remedies to ESCR violations as forced evictions or illegal demolitions. If all goes well, and the possible conflicts with existing laws and jurisdictions resolved, then the justiciability of the Covenant will be without question.

The slow progress or development of jurisprudence on these rights has placed a long shadow over efforts on protection and enforceability of housing-related rights. With an express grant to CHR of expanded powers to investigative not only violations of civil and political rights but ESCR violations, with concomitant auxiliary powers to effectively discharge such mandate, the tipping point is nearing, and a drastic change is coming. The significance of this development, I can barely convey in words.

POSTSCRIPT
No one will disagree that the situation of the urban poor has barely moved forward over the years since the implementation of the UDHA. However, while compliance with statute and the Covenant has been intermittent at best, there is good reason to believe that all our efforts, especially the efforts of civil society involved in the upliftment of informal settlers, are paying off. We have set the stage for our success. While it remains a daunting task to compel the government to consistently implement housing policy, the tools available are known to us.

Against the backdrop of the coming 2010 elections, we can further create an impetus for prospective elective officials to seriously undertake the promise of the UDHA and the UNCESCR. By far, the largest voting bloc in urban areas are the very people who have the largest stake in adequate housing. It is up to all of us to ensure that part of the campaign to push housing reforms includes informing the stakeholders, the communities of informal settlers, that moratorium on evictions is not enough. We must educate communities – to teach them about their right not just to the shanty-dwellings they occupy, but their right to decent, hygienic, habitable, structurally-sound homes. We must teach our clientele that there is no long-term protection in voting for officials who promise not to evict, but impliedly never promise to provide decent shelter either. There is no security in having no title. There is no opportunity to access to substantial wealth without collateral. There is no place to raise a family without a home.

Indeed there is so much to be done – by those present here today, the organizations we represent, by the government and the agencies concerned, and most importantly, much can still be done by the informal settlers themselves to further our cause. Let us not waver now because as many of you have suspected, we are making our mark and we are making progress. Foreign partners have noticed. Media has noticed. The public at large is aware. All it takes is our patient resolve.

Thank you.

EVICTIONS and UNCESCR CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

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

UN regret about Philippines housing rights situation

** NEWS RELEASE *** NEWS RELEASE *** NEWS RELEASE **

UN regret about Philippines housing rights situation
Committee calls for changes in housing rights policies

27 November 2008. The key United Nations body on economic, social and cultural rights has criticized the human rights performance of the government of the Philippines and recommended significant policy changes.

The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) on Nov. 24 issued its Concluding Observations, after reviewing the Philippines’ record concerning implementation of international human rights law in the field of economic, social and cultural rights during the past twelve years, since the Committee last reviewed the Philippines.

The Committee regrets that most of its previous recommendations relating to the prevention of illegal forced evictions have not been acted upon by the State party, and remains deeply concerned about the large scale forced eviction of urban families carried out for the purpose of urban renewal and beautification, which has reportedly affected over 1.2 million people in the period between 1995 and 2008.

“We are happy that the Committee’s findings on illegal, forced evictions ratify our own findings. People cannot be thrown out in the streets like rubbish as has happened so often here,” said Ted Añana, deputy coordinator of Urban Poor Associates (UPA).

Although diplomatically worded, the finding on housing rights and evictions represent a stinging rebuke to the record of successive governments in addressing the living conditions of the urban poor, according to the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE), an international human rights organisation that has been heavily involved in the UN process, along with a coalition of Philippine groups.

“These findings show how little progress has been made in past twelve years to improve the life of the urban poor”, said Dan Nicholson, Asia and Pacific Programme Coordinator of COHRE. “It’s time for the government to take clear action to remedy the wrongs of the past twelve years.”

“Philippines laws and international standards continue to be violated as forced evictions take place. We call on the government to impose a moratorium on forced evictions until the recommendations made by the UN Committee can be implemented. This means reinstating the Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor or another body with real, legally binding powers to enforce laws such as UDHA,” continued Nicholson, in reference to the widely flouted Urban Development and Housing Act (UDHA) of 1992 (Republic Act No. 7279). “Local governments that violate the law should be prosecuted, as UDHA allows.”

“It’s time for a whole new approach to relocation – which involves real consultation with and involvement of communities, to ensure that relocation sites are close to livelihoods, schools and healthcare facilities, and have power and water before relocation takes place,” said Nicholson.

“Meanwhile, the current budgetary allocation for housing, and particularly for important projects such as the Community Mortgage Programme, is inadequate. We call on the government to increase spending on housing from 0.5% of the budget to 2%, including a real increase for the CMP,” continued Nicholson.

“Some governments in Philippines are complying with their obligations, such as the government in Naga City”, said Nicholson, referring to Mayor Jesse Robredo and the Naga City government, who last year won a prestigious COHRE global Housing Rights Protector Award. “Others – and I must single out MMDA one of the worst offenders – must be reined in by the national government and courts of the Philippines”.

COHRE and local partners, including the UPA, will be organizing a series of events to publicize the Concluding Observations in coming months.

“We look forward to working with government, civil society and the UN to implement these recommendations”, concluded Nicholson. “We don’t want to go back to the Committee again in five years to find out that the situation still hasn’t improved. The people of the Philippines deserve better”.

In its concluding observations, the Committee:
• “Notes with concern that an estimated 16.5 million, roughly 30 percent, of the urban population continue to live in informal settlements and slums, sometimes built on riverbanks, railroad tracks and other high-risk areas, with no or limited basic infrastructures and services, without legal security of tenure and under constant threat of eviction.”

• “notes with concern that the percentage of the national budget allocated to the realisation of housing programmes ... is not sufficient to increase the supply of social housing units for members of the most disadvantaged and marginalised groups.”

• “remains deeply concerned about the large-scale forced eviction of urban families carried out for the purpose of urban renewal and beautification” which have affected more than 1.2 million people since 1995

• notes with concern “the inadequate measures to provide sufficient compensation or adequate relocation sites” for evicted families.

The Committee urges the government to:
• “allocate sufficient funds for the realisation of programmes aimed at providing security of tenure and affordable housing”

• “ensure the effective implementation of ... laws and regulations prohibiting illegal forced evictions and demolitions”

• “reinforce the mandate of the Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor (PCUP)”

• “undertake open, participatory and meaningful consultations with affected residents and communities prior to implementing development and urban renewal projects”;

• “ensure that persons forcibly evicted from their properties be provided with adequate compensation and/or offered relocation” in accordance with domestic law and international human rights standards; and

• “guarantee that relocation sites are provided with basic services ... and adequate facilities ... at the time the resettlement takes place”.

The full text of the UNCESCR Concluding Observations can be found at:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cescr/docs/E.C.12.PHL.CO.4_EN.pdf

For more information, contact:

Dan Nicholson, COHRE Asia and Pacific Programme Coordinator, at dan@cohre.org, +855 17 523274.
John Lagman, UPA Media Advocacy Officer, at jlagman17@gmail.com, +632 4267615

END

Group seeks UN’s help vs gov’t human rights violations

** NEWS RELEASE *** NEWS RELEASE *** NEWS RELEASE **

13 November 2008. In her speech during the UN Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (UNCESCR) review in Geneva, Switzerland, Chairperson Leila de Lima of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) urged the Philippine government to impose a moratorium on demolitions and forced evictions until consultation and resettlement provisions are implemented.

CHR’s appeal was made during the 41st session of the UNCESCR on November 11-12 which reviewed government compliance with its economic and social obligations including providing adequate and accessible shelter to its constituents especially to the homeless.

De lima also asserted that the country’s housing law, Urban Development Housing Act (UDHA) of 1992 should be amended to extend its protection against summary evictions to people living along railroad tracks, rivers and other areas considered danger zones.

Judge Ariranga Pillay of Mauritius, a member of said UN body, noted the unusually high number of Filipino families forcibly evicted from their homes indicating that these incidents had not abated since the committee first raised this issue to the government back in 1995.

Presidential Human Rights Committee (PHRC) director Severo Catura who was also in the review admitted that there were indeed incidences of violations of housing rights but he assured the UN committee that these were going to be addressed.

Catura also stated that the PHRC already partnered with the CHR in the effort to investigate and monitor housing rights violations particularly forced evictions.

Civil society groups in its alternative report to the committee during the review, estimated that 85,370 families or 505,355 individuals had been evicted since 1996 to 2008 mostly due to urban beautification and infrastructure projects such as the NorthRail and SouthRail projects.

“More than half of these evicted families were displaced during the term of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and also mostly due to the clearing operations of the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) led by chairperson Bayani Fernando,” the groups, led by the Urban Poor Associates (UPA), said.

The report on the implementation of the right to adequate housing was prepared by UPA, John J. Caroll Institute on Church and Social Issues, Sentro ng Alternatibong Lingap Panligal (Saligan) and the Foundation for the Development of the Urban Poor.

Aside from the housing rights group, several non-governmental organizations also made reports on the implementation of social and economic rights such as access to food, employment, water, education, and health services.

Based on the civil society report to the UNCESCR, Filipinos' enjoyment of economic and social rights was gravely compromised by certain government priorities, policies, and practices such as the Philippine Mining Act, automatic appropriations for debt servicing, corruption, and unclear population agenda.

Furthermore, issues of concern raised by the UNCESCR back in 1995 such as lack of judicial powers of the CHR, vulnerable situation of children, non-completion and weaknesses of the agrarian reform program, and privatization of health services are still part of present realities.

The civil society report backed by more than one hundred organizations was facilitated by the Philippine Human Rights Information Center (PhilRights), research arm of the Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates and the UPA.

Major contributors to the NGO report were the Saligan, Center for Migrant Advocacy, Homenet Southeast Asia, Philippine NGO Coalition for Food Sovereignty, Medical Action Group, Freedom from Debt Coalition, and Education Network – Philippines. -30-

Hiding Behind Numbers

Press Statement

November 6, 2008


Hiding Behind Numbers

On the eve of a United Nation's (UN) review of Philippine efforts to improve the quality of life of its people, the country landed fifth (5th) among the world's most hungry nations with 40% or 4 out of 10 of Filipinos admitting they experienced hunger in the past year according to recent survey of Gallup International.

Despite this bad news, government delegates to the UN Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (UNCESCR) hearing on November 11-12 in Geneva, Switzerland are most likely to say it has implemented policies and programs to satisfy social and economic rights such as access to food, employment, housing, education, and health services.

Moreover, the government in its submission to the UNCESCR painted a rosy economic picture citing reduced poverty from 45.5% in 1988 to 30.4% in 2003 and an average 3-5% growth in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), Gross National Product (GNP) and key sectors of the economy from 2001-2004.

The official report, while acknowledging some weaknesses like lack of spending on public education, also claimed general improvements in the nutritional and health status of Filipinos based on indicators such as infant and maternal mortality rates.

However, civil society groups admonished the government not to emulate Joc-joc Bolante, a former agriculture official implicated in a P700 million fertilizer scam, who kept on evading the truth behind legal technicalities. The administration could not always hide behind statistics and jargons, glimpses of the real situation of its people would inevitably come out in the open like the results of the Gallup hunger study.

Based on the civil society report to the UNCESCR, Filipinos' enjoyment of economic and social rights was gravely compromised by certain government priorities, policies, and practices such as the Philippine Mining Act, automatic appropriations for debt servicing, corruption, and unclear population agenda.

Furthermore, issues of concern raised by the UNCESCR back in 1995 such as lack of judicial powers of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), forced evictions, vulnerable situation of children, non-completion and weaknesses of the agrarian reform program, and privatization of health services are still part of present realities.

This is not surprising since the government failed to heed most of the UNCESCR recommendations made thirteen (13) years ago including increased budget for slum upgrading and affordable housing, fast tracking of the agrarian reform program, and designating a body that would prevent forced evictions.

To put back on track its compliance with the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), civil society groups call on the government to take the following steps:

a.) enact legislations on reproductive health, social pension for the elderly, anti-prostitution, patients' rights, mandatory food labelling, Food Security Act, domestic reflection of Precautionary Principles, and Magna Carta for Women;

b.) repeal or amend Mining Act, anti-terrorism law, National Building Code;

c.) prioritize basic services and agriculture development in the national budget and not debt servicing, spending for services should be aligned with internationally and locally recommended standards such as WHO prescription of 5% of GDP for health;

d.) reform mandates of the CHR and other redress mechanisms to give them appropriate powers, make them more independent and insulated from politics, and facilitate civil society participation; and

e.) Aggressively lobby foreign creditors for debt moratorium and/or cancellation / repudiation of onerous and illegitimate liabilities.

The civil society report backed by more than one hundred organizations was facilitated by the Philippine Human Rights Information Center (PhilRights), research arm of the Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA) and the Urban Poor Associates (UPA).

Major contributors to the NGO report were the Sentro ng Alternatibong Lingap Panligal (Saligan), Center for Migrant Advocacy (CMA), Homenet Southeast Asia, Philippine NGO Coalition for Food Sovereignty (PNLC), Medical Action Group (MAG), Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC), and Education Network – Philippines (E-Net).

Philippine NGO-PO Network for Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights


Contact Persons: Nymia Pimentel-Simbulan Dr. PH (433-1714)

Renato Mabunga (436-2633)

Ted Añana (426-4118)

Read on - Philippine NGO Network Report on the Implementation of the International Covenant on
Economic, Social,and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)

Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT IS A GROSS HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATOR

PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT IS A GROSS HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATOR, IN PARTICULAR THE RIGHT TO ADEQUATE HOUSING

IN 1995 the UN issued its concerns about the Philippine government’s failure to comply with the international treaty, The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and gave a list of recommendations about housing rights, to the Philippine Government in order remedy the rampant commission of forced evictions, a prima facie violation of the right to adequate housing. A reading of the UN document shows that the Philippine Government from former Presidents Fidel Ramos and Estrada to President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo barely complied with the recommendations. Specifically on forced evictions, monitoring by NGOs has shown:

Since 1996 to June 2008 the Philippine Government has failed to stop forced evictions committed by third parties but has itself committed forced evictions considered gross violations of human rights, in particular the right to adequate housing, General Comment No. 7 on Forced Evictions and in violation of its 1997 Constitution and the Urban Development and Housing of 1992 or RA 7279.

Adequate protection and due process were not observed;Advance or prior notice was largely not complied with;Consultations with the affected families and communities were not conducted.

Nearly 50% of those evicted were not provided relocation. The government’s failure to provide relocation to nearly half of the evicted families violates the UN’s document on Forced Evictions which says “Evictions should not result in individuals being rendered homeless or vulnerable to the violation of other human rights.”

Thousands of families were rendered homeless and were made vulnerable to other human rights violations, such as the rights to work, education, health, food and water, and the right to be protected against “arbitrary or unlawful interference” with one’s home. Moreover, the government and the courts did not provide compensation to the evicted families

Nearly a fourth of the evictions carried out were violent. Many were injured and some were arrested. Vulnerable groups, namely the children, women and elderly suffered the most. Children were traumatized and many stopped attending school. Pregnant women gave premature births or lost their babies. The elderly were reduced to living without shelter, under the sun, the rain and the cold, endangering their health.

The Government attempt to correct this situation was a failure. Its Executive Order No. 152 empowering the Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor as the clearing house for the compliance of Section 28 of the UDHA was largely ignored by government agencies, such as MMDA and some LGUs. In February the clearing house function was transferred to LGUs, but its IRR has not been issued. Thus no clearing house function at present exists.

The Government tolerated or ignored national government agencies and local government units which used other laws, such as the Civil Code on nuisance, the National Building Code or PD 1096 to evict poor families without the legal protection or dues process contained in domestic and international laws. UN guidelines on Forced Evictions says: “The State itself must refrain from forced evictions and ensure that the law is enforced against its agents or third parties who carry out forced evictions.”

No court decision at the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court has as yet been rendered recognizing the right to adequate housing of poor families and thus providing them legal protection against forced evictions. Lower courts continue to issue decisions based solely on property rights, either of the government or private entities, ignoring or rejecting arguments protecting the housing rights of the affected families.

Congress, on the other hand, has not exercised its oversight function on the compliance of government agencies with the UDHA. It has not initiated efforts to plug loopholes in the UDHA.

The Philippine Government is in breach of the international treaty. It must therefore exert extra efforts to remedy this situation.


RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE UN CESCR


The Philippine Government must:

1. Prosecute all those who commit forced evictions either through the courts, ombudsman, the Commission on Human Rights, or administrative bodies

2. Establish an independent body with the power to ensure compliance with domestic and international laws against forced evictions, including the power to suspend or stop forced evictions.

3. Order all government bodies that there is only one law, the UDHA, specifically its Section 28, in conformity with General Comment No. 7 on Forced Evictions, to be followed when carrying out just and humane demolitions/evictions and that they should not use any other laws and regulations such as the National Building Code or PD 1096, the law on nuisance, including ordinances such as the MMDA Ordinances No. 03-96 and No. 02-28. Moreover, clarify and instruct all government agencies and units that there is no cut-off date in the UDHA.

4. Establish a special court on housing rights at the lower levels as well at the level of the Court of Appeals, make it obligatory for the Philippine Judicial Academy to include a course on housing rights in its curriculum for judges and a similar course in the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) for lawyers, lower or remove court fees in housing rights cases involving the urban poor, and process expeditiously court cases involving forced eviction and similar cases, extend Writ of Amparo and habeas data to economic, social and cultural rights violations, such as illegal demolitions.

5. Hold twice annually oversight hearings, separately or jointly by the two houses of Congress, on the compliance of the UDHA, in particular Section 28, by government agencies and units, amend certain provisions of the UDHA such as stiffer penalties for those who commit forced evictions.

6. Government should be asked to keep statistics on evictions.


For the UN CESCR:

1. Get commitments from the Philippine government that it will invite fact finding missions from UN Rapporteurs, including the UN Rapporteur on the Right to Adequate Housing.

2. Send letters of inquiry or concern to the Philippine government regarding reports and complaints of forced evictions by civil society organizations, as what the former CESCR chairman Philip Alston did on the report of massive forced evictions because of the 1996 APEC.

3. Persuade the officials of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government to undergo seminars on housing rights and forced evictions to be conducted by UN housing rights experts.

4. Send letters of inquiry and concern to ODA donors and foreign investors on their obligations to avoid forced evictions in their projects in the Philippines.