PROPOSED AMENDMENTS of REPUBLIC ACT 7279

After 15 years the Urban Development and Housing Act (RA 7279) has failed to provide for “a comprehensive and continuing urban development and housing program, establish the mechanism for its implementation, and for other purposes.” (From R.A. 7279 Title)

Thousands of families are literally evicted and left in the streets without relocation. Of the 2,781 families evicted this year in Metro Manila, excluding railroad evictions, only 9% received relocation. Relocation sites are usually far distant from places of work, and are poorly prepared. The Proclamation program of the President, while it set aside land for close to 200,000 families has failed to develop the sites and give titles to the families. There are also very few new proclamations. On the 10th anniversary of the laws enactment a panel of government, Church and civil society experts made an evaluation of the law’s implementation over the 10 years. They titled their report “A Good Law, But Terrible Implementation.” That is still an apt description. In an effort to improve implementation the following amendments are suggested.


1. PROVISION WHICH CATEGORICALLY PROVIDES FOR STRICT COMPLIANCE OF REQUIREMENTS SET IN SECTION 28, R.A. 7279 AND RELOCATION IN ALL CASES OF EVICTION.

The most debated, if not abused provision is Section 28, R. A. 7279 wherein it provides instances when eviction and demolition may be allowed:

a. when persons or entities occupy danger zones such as esteros, railroad tracks, garbage dumps, river banks, shorelines, waterways and other public places such as sidewalks, roads, parks and playgrounds;

b. when government projects with available funding are about to be implemented; and

c. when there is a court order for eviction or demolition.

This does not mean that evictions can be carried out immediately on the grounds that the urban poor are nuisances per se. The words should be qualified with the mandatory requirements provided in the same section, paragraph 2:

“In the execution of eviction or demolition orders involving under privileged and homeless citizens, the following shall be mandatory:

a. Notice upon affected persons and entities at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of eviction;

b. Adequate consultations on the matter of resettlement;

c. Presence of local government officials or their representative during the eviction;

d. Proper identification of the persons taking part in the demolition;

e. Conduct of demolition only during regular office hours from Mondays to Fridays unless the affected consent otherwise;

f. No use of heavy equipment for demolition except for permanent structures and concrete materials; and

g. Adequate relocation with basic services and access to employment sufficient to meet the basic needs of the families. If relocation is not possible within forty-five (45) days upon the serving of the final judgment by the court, the local government unit concerned is instructed to compensate the affected families an amount equivalent to the current minimum wage multiplied by sixty (60) days.”

Thus, evictions done prior to compliance with these requirements are illegal, especially if there is no existing relocation site for the affected urban poor families.

Section 29 thereof mandates the relocation of persons living in the so-called danger areas for two (2) years from the effectivity of the law. It provides that within the two (2) years from the effectivity of this Act, the local government units, in coordination with the National Housing Authority, shall implement the relocation and resettlement of persons living in danger areas such as esteros, railroad tracks, garbage dumps, riverbanks, shorelines, waterways, and in other public places such as sidewalks, roads, parks, and playgrounds. The local government units, in coordination with the National Housing Authority, shall provide relocation sites with basic services and facilities and access to employment and livelihood opportunities sufficient to meet the basic needs of the affected families”.

We believe the mandate to relocate the families in the three groups continues beyond two years since the national government and local government units have almost all failed to do the tasks assigned them in Art. IV, that is, inventories of lands and improvements thereon within their respective localities. They were also directed to identify sites for social housing and to further acquire land for social housing.

The Constitution states: “Urban or rural poor dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwellings demolished, except in accordance with law and in a just and humane manner.” (Art. XIII, Section 10). There is no mention of cut-off dates.

The Philippines has signed international treaties and covenants that require all evicted families should be relocated. For example: “The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (UNCESCR), General Comment No. 7 (UNCESCR Document E/1998/22), Item No. 17 provides, “Evictions should not result in rendering individuals homeless or vulnerable to the violation of other human rights. Where those affected are unable to provide for themselves, the State party must take all appropriate measures, to the maximum of its available resources, to ensure that adequate alternative housing, resettlement or access to productive land, as the case may be, is available”.


PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Add a provision categorically providing that any demolition or eviction cannot be carried out if there is no already-existing concrete and adequate relocation site for the affected families.



2. STATES CATEGORICALLY THERE ARE NO SO CALLED “CUT-OFF DATES”; ALL EVICTED FAMILIES MUST BE INCLUDED IN RELOCATION PROGRAMS.

It is discriminatory to set cut-off dates for the application of R.A. 7279 to exclude those who came in after 1992 considering the growing increase of the urban poor population in urban areas. Moreover, lack of determination and registration of beneficiaries cannot be faulted to the urban poor. Secondly, it is discriminatory to say families who came after a census was made, provided it was not a very recent one, are not entitled to relocation.

As was said above, the law mandates for the registration of beneficiaries within one year from the effectivity of UDHA. Moreover, LGU’s are directed to identify and thereafter make inventories of available sites for socialized housing (Art. 29).

However, this had not been done and complied with. Failing to make the registration of beneficiaries or provide land for socialized housing should never be faulted to the urban poor.

Thus, survey or census to determine qualified beneficiaries should anew be conducted. Whenever census or survey is made, actual relocation should be effected within the year. Otherwise, a new survey or census is to be conducted to determine all qualified beneficiaries within the affected area.

So as not to defeat the purpose of the law, what should be followed is the minimum qualifications set out by UDHA under Section 16 for the beneficiary which are:

a. Must be a Filipino citizen;
b. Must be an underprivileged and homeless citizen;
c. Must not own any real property whether in the urban or rural areas; and
d. Must not be a professional squatter or a member of squatting syndicate.

Thus, as long as they complied with these qualifications, as a matter of right, they should be entitled to the benefits set out by law particularly to relocation. Otherwise, to set cut-off of dates, would be a violation against the equal protection clause.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Add a provision categorically eliminating the cut-off period to be eligible as beneficiary under R.A. 7279.


3. SCOPE OF CONSULTATION. THE CONSULTATION PROCESS GIVES BENEFICIARIES THE RIGHT TO DIALOG WITH GOVERNMENT OVER THE TERMS OF RELOCATION AND TO CHOOSE THEIR RELOCATION SITE IF ALTERNATIVES ARE AVAILABLE.


Prior consultation with the affected families as required by R.A. 7279 plays an important role but is almost totally disregarded by the government agencies. Consultation with the affected families before demolitions and evictions are made out to forestall economic dislocation, chaos, confusion and violence and to ensure that their relocation sites are provided with basic services.

As defined in Section 3(d), consultation refers to “the constitutionally mandated process whereby the public on their own or through people’s organizations, is provided an opportunity to be heard and to participate in the decision-making process on matters involving the protection and promotion of its legitimate collective interests, which shall include appropriate documentation and feedback mechanisms”.

The affected families should be heard. So as not to put at naught this constitutional mandate, the people should be given the opportunity to decide on the location of the relocation sites, to make an offer or counter-offer, and to have the same be heeded when reasonable and allowable.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Provide categorical provision defining the scope of the required consultation giving right to the affected families to look at the proposed site, propose others and choose the preferred site, among others.


4. DEFINING THE PENALTIES FOR ANY GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY THAT VIOLATES ANY PROVISION OF R.A. 7279, ESPECIALLY CARRYING OUT EVICTIONS/DEMOLITIONS IN THE ABSENCE OF ACTUAL RELOCATION SITES.

R.A. 7279, although it sets out penalties for professional squatters and a general penalty for anyone who violates provisions of the Act, it lacks a specific provision defining specific penalties for the government officials or agency/ies violating the procedures and requirements before carrying out evictions or demolitions. Carrying out evictions and demolitions in the absence of actual relocation sites for the affected families should be criminalized and the penalty thereon should be defined. In a way, this gives teeth to this Act.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Provide specific provision making demolitions or evictions without actual relocation sites and non-compliance with the requirements set out under Section 28 (par.2) as a criminal act and providing penalties thereon at least equal to the penalties assigned to professional squatters.




5. MAKING IN-CITY OR NEAR-CITY RELOCATION MANDATORY.

One of the considerations in providing relocation sites is the livelihood component. Relocation sites should be near employment opportunities. Section 22 provides that, “To the extent feasible, socialized housing and resettlement projects shall be located near areas where employment opportunities are accessible. The government agencies dealing with the development of livelihood programs and grant of livelihood loans shall give priority to the beneficiaries of the Program”.

It is undeniable that relocatees have their source of livelihood in the area where they come from. There are far better chances of finding employment in cities than in distant areas. This is where the importance of near-city or in-city relocation comes in. Distant relocation causes the wage earners either to lose their jobs, since commuting is too expensive, or to live separate from their families. Further in distant relocation sites there are no part-time jobs for mothers and older children as there were in the city. Families relocated to distant sites suffer a decline in income since they now support two households—the wage earner(s) in the city and the mother and children in the relocation site. Also there is the lack of part time work for other family members. In many instances income drops by 25%. This results in poorer diets, health care and school expenses.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Provide specific provision making in-city or near-city relocation as mandatory and defining what constitutes in-city or near-city relocation.


6. Land Proclamations. The president has the right to proclaim land for social housing through Executive Orders. It is the easiest way of converting government land to social housing purpose. In the years 2001-2004 President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued over 90 proclamations benefiting close to 200,000 families. It was seen as a good program for many reasons: (1) it benefited all residents in the proclaimed area including the poorest; (2) it didn’t cost the poor any money; (3) the proclamations, whatever their limitations, did stop nearly all evictions on proclaimed land; (4) the program was to lead to upgrading and actual subdivision and titling, in which process affordability would be a key factor since the exact work to be done or in any area would be democratically decided up on between government and people on LIAC or PIAC (Local Interagency Committee or Project Interagency Committee); (5) it was a program that could be replicated fairly easily.

However there have been two sets of problems: (1) the upgrading and titling work has not been done in nearly all proclaimed areas; (2) some proclamations have been amended or changed radically, leading people to ask, “What is the value of the proclamations (Baseco, Parola)?” The issuance of proclamations has practically stopped.

We therefore propose:

1. That the proclamation program be continued. President Macapagal-Arroyo at her 2001 State of the Nation Address said she would proclaim land for 150,000 families a year.

2. That time limit of one year be given for the upgrading and titling processes to get underway and one billion pesos be set aside annually for upgrading and titling proclaimed lands.

3. It should be stated land proclamations cannot be changed or annulled except in a legal process which allows the beneficiaries to present their arguments against change or annulment.

The legal value of the proclamations should be spelled out in the law.


7. R.A. 7279 SHOULD ALSO BE MADE APPLICABLE IN DEMOLITIONS OR EVICTIONS INVOLVING PRIVATE PROPERTY.

In cases where urban poor families occupied idle land and later on a private person claims to own the property, still, even if it was found out that indeed the property is private, the procedural guarantees laid down under R.A.7279 should be followed. Demolitions and/or evictions should not be carried out without existing adequate relocation site provided for the affected families.

The Constitution does not qualify the mandate to the government to continuously provide the basic right to shelter to the urban poor whether they are occupying a private or government land.


PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Provide specific provision making the requisites set out in R.A. 7279 mandatorily applicable before demolition or eviction is carried out on private as well as public land.

MEDIA ADVISORY: Human Rights and Access to Justice for the Poor

Attention: News Editor, News Desk, Reporters and Photojournalists

MEDIA ADVISORY

Human Rights and Access to Justice for the Poor

It is our distinct honor to invite you to attend a special seminar entitled, “Amending UDHA: Human Rights and Access to Justice for the Poor.” Commission on Human Rights Chairperson Leila de Lima, Senator Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino, Supreme Court Spokesman Jose Midas Marquez and Naga City Mayor Jesse Robredo will be the main speakers.

The seminar will be held August 4, 2008 (Monday) at the Audio Visual Room, Social Development Complex of the Ateneo de Manila University. It will begin at 9:00AM and end at 1:00PM. A modest lunch will follow.

The seminar brings together initiatives that promise improvement in the manner in which urban poor people are treated, especially in matters of evictions and relocation. Senator Aquino as chairperson of the Senate Committee on Local Government has already begun hearings on amending UDHA.

Chairperson de Lima took up the issues of evictions and relocation with a special emphasis on the human rights of the people involved in such activities contained in the country’s Constitution and laws and the International Covenants the country has signed.

The seminar is also our effort to follow through the highly successful "Forum on Increasing Access to Justice: Bridging Gaps and Removing Roadblocks" which the Supreme Court Chief Justice has initiated.

Naga City has been awarded the 2007 Housing Rights Protector Award for its Kaantabay sa Kauswagan Programme, an initiative providing security of tenure and improved living conditions for thousands of its residents.

After the speakers make their opening statements, urban poor people will have a chance to tell stories of how they have suffered in recent evictions, for example, the absence of consultation, legal notice and relocation. Government agencies will have time to make their comments on what has been said by the speakers and the poor. Then there will be an open forum.

At the end, the speakers will share their final thoughts on the subjects discussed. There will be a large poster-size statement of purpose that the participants will be asked to sign.

Date: August 4, 2008 (Monday) / 9:00AM - 1:00PM

Venue: Audio Visual Room, Social Development Complex, Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights, Quezon City

Bishops, Urban Poor Groups To Discuss Housing Rescue Plan with PGMA

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

Bishops, Urban Poor Groups To Discuss Housing Rescue Plan with PGMA

31 July 2008. With the help of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, urban poor groups will meet President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo tomorrow (August 1) in Malacañang to discuss the looming housing problems in Metro Manila.

Archbishop Diosdado Talamayan of Tuguegarao, Bishop Ramon Villena of Bayombong and some leaders belonging to the Task Force Anti-Eviction will meet President Arroyo for the second time this year to tackle a housing rescue plan that will help thousands of urban poor families.

Task Force Anti-Eviction is composed of people’s organizations such as Market 3 Fishport of Navotas Neighborhood Association, Samahang Pinagbuklod ng Pagkakaisa, Samahang taga-Estero sa Pasay, Bacood Ilaya Looban Homeowners Association, Pinagbuklod – Ugnayang Lakas ng mga Apektadong Pamilya sa Baybaying Ilog Pasig, Samahang Magkakapitbahay ng Valderrama, Samahan ng mga Pamilyang Apektado sa Riles, Kabalikat sa Pagpapaunlad ng Baseco, and non-government organizations namely Community Organization of the Philippine Enterprise, Community Organizers Multiversity and Urban Poor Associates (UPA).

The group wants a halt to forced evictions without relocation and the preparation of adequate relocation sites for those who are evicted.

In a meeting hosted by the President January 31, the government assured urban poor communities that demolitions would no longer be allowed unless there is a relocation site ready for affected families. President Arroyo instructed government agencies that there should be a social preparation period of 45 days for those who will be relocated. She agreed that in-city or near-city relocation sites should be considered a better option than distant relocation. Montalban, for example, which has been suggested by the poor as a relocation site, is willing to accept up to 100,000 urban poor families. An additional P4 billion pesos for socialized housing was also announced.

However, most of what have been promised never materialize, the group said in a letter to the President. “Pagkatapos ng pulong noong ika 31 ng Enero 2008, kami’y nakipag-ugnayan sa mga ahensya ng pamahalaan tulad ng NHA, MMDA, HUDCC, PCUP, DA/PFDA upang maipatupad ang mga napagkasunduan. Masakit pong sabihin, sa aming pagtatasa halos lahat ng mga nabanggit sa itaas ay hindi po naganap.”

According to the eviction monitor done by UPA, for the past 6 months some 2,097 families have lost their homes due to demolitions. Out of the 2,097 families, only 741 families were relocated.

For the security of tenure of some 200,000 families in proclaimed areas, the president must also order for the Post-Proclamation Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), the group said.

To ensure a low-cost housing, the group suggested that the government must adopt a method introduced by Gawad Kalinga and Habitat for Humanity – sweat equity or bayanihan. A tripartite body composed of government agencies, people’s organizations and parish-based groups will help implement the project. -30-

MMDA goes after illegal vendors in Taguig

Karamihan ng vendors, nakipag-agawan ng paninda sa clearing ops ng MMDA
07/30/2008 | 02:45 PM

Baseco worries

29 July 2008. Some 6,000-10,000 poor families have been living in Baseco since 2001. Baseco is 56 hectares in extent. As late as 2001 most of the 56 hectares was underwater. Since 2002 the land has been gradually reclaimed.

In February 2002 President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo proclaimed the area, all 56 hectares for the homes of the people. That same year the first of four major fires hit the area which initiated the reclamation of land. Some five hectares were reclaimed and divided into lots which were assigned to about 1,000 families.

In 2004, PGMA introduced Gawad Kalinga (GK) and Habitat for Humanity (HfH). They have built together nearly 2,000 row houses since then. The people like the housing. Most families wish for a similar type house. A soil test was made that found much of Baseco would be at risk if there were a very strong (8 on the Richter scale) earthquake. The soil might turn to mud, it is said.

In 2007, the 2004 soil test was resurrected to show that building even one storey houses in Baseco because of the poor soil was not a good idea. Mayor Alfredo Lim asked Gawad Kalinga (GK) and Habitat for Humanity (HfH) to stop building.

The Philippine Reclamation Authority announced it would reclaim another 10 hectares of land just west of Baseco. At first PRA said it knew nothing about the future of the 56 hectares.

After the people had more meetings with PRA, a visit (May 14) from PGMA and a meeting with the National Housing Authority, the following seems to be the government’s plan:

· Government will reclaim the 10 hectares as proposed, an island just off the 56 hectares.
· It will move families there from the 56 hectares. It plans on housing 3,000 families on the 10 hectares. There will also be a mini-fish port there, PGMA said on her visit.
· The government will then develop 35 hectares of the 56 hectares proclaimed for commercial purpose.

The residents are afraid of this plan for the following reason:

1) No clear black and white detailed description of the plan has yet been shown to the people.

2) There are at least 6,000 families in Baseco and maybe as many as 10,000.
· There are plans for 3,000. What will happen to all the other families?
· It is not clear who the beneficiaries are. Will it be only families censused in 2001? What of the other hundreds, maybe thousands of families living there now?
· Will the 3,000 units be affordable? A survey made by the Institute of Philippine Culture of the Ateneo de Manila found the average family income per month to be between P6,000 to P7,000 in 2002. It is not much higher now. At most, the people can afford P150 per month, they say.
· Will the 2,000 houses of GK and HfH remain or will they be removed?
· Who is the main stakeholder in this huge venture? Where will financing come from?
· Does the fact that the land is proclaimed limit what uses can be made of it? If it was proclaimed for homes, can it be used for commerce?

3) What People Want: The people of Baseco want a house like those built by GK and HfH. These houses encourage the formation of peaceful, neighborly communities. They like some open space for the children’s play, churches, day care centers, clinics and job training institutions. The people want to build working family communities with basic services, playgrounds, lawns and flowers, where old people can sit in front of their houses and watch the children play, where people engage actively in public affairs and politics. -30-

MEDIA ADVISORY: Running Priest in Baseco for U.N. Run

Attention: News Editor, News Desk, Reporters and Photojournalists

MEDIA ADVISORY

Running Priest in Baseco for U.N. Run

Fr. Robert Reyes, the running priest, will stage a run in Baseco, Port Area in Manila tomorrow (Tuesday) morning 10:00 AM starting at the Herminigildo Atienza Elementary School to publicise a petition which the people will send to the United Nations (UN). The petition will concern the eviction of 7,000 to 10,000 families living in Baseco.

The land was proclaimed by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo in 2002. On the basis of that proclamation, aided by the Gawad Kalinga (GK) and Habitat for Humanity (HfH), the people invested in their homes. But now they are told to vacate the 56 hectares because the reclamation done by the government between 2002 and 2004 was poorly done. With the result, the land will liquify if there is a strong earthquake, the government says.

It is estimated well over a hundred million pesos was spent for the reclamation, according to Urban Poor Associates (UPA), a housing rights NGO.

After the run, there will be a brief prayer service. The people of Baseco will also sign a banner with the words “United Nations Housing Rights, please help us. We want to stay here in our homes. We don’t want to move out.”

Date: July 29, 2008 (Tuesday)

Time: 10:00 AM

Venue: Baseco, Port Area, Manila

If the bishops wrote to the poor

Commentary : If the bishops wrote to the poor

By Denis Murphy
Philippine Daily Inquirer

Posted date: July 21, 2008

MANILA, Philippines - There has been a long debate in the church over its social teaching, not so much with the content, the “what” of the teaching, but about the most effective way to get it implemented, the “how” of the matter.

It is a matter of audiences. Ordinarily the papal encyclicals and the letters of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines address the government and influential private citizens, asking them to protect workers’ rights, implement land reform or extend it, stop illegal forced evictions, ban trawlers from offshore waters and take care of other problems. This approach sees the elite as the agents of change.

Another audience for the letters and encyclicals might be the workers, farmers, urban poor and fishermen of the world and the Philippines. The hierarchy might explain the Church’s teaching as it relates to the poor sectors, explain their human rights and urge them to take organized action to achieve their rights and reform the situation. This approach is far rarer than the first, though some popes, including Pope John Paul II, had encouraged workers to act through their unions. Think of Poland’s Solidarity, for example. This approach sees the poor as the agents of change. In the end it’s a matter of emphasis: both government and the organized poor are needed.

It wouldn’t be surprising if some of our bishops began to wonder if it is useful any longer to keep appealing to Philippine government leaders and the powerful to take up reform. The bishops over the years have given more support to land reform than any other social problem, and yet they can’t even get a very ordinary law extended. The Philippines is the first democracy to drop its land reform program before it is finished.

Maybe, the bishops will soon come to believe it is more useful to talk directly to the poor than to continue engaging with officials who politely nod in agreement with the Church’s suggestions and then continue with business as usual. In the concrete situation existing in the country with the officials and growing problems the people face, it seems the right time to speak to the poor.

If they ever write such a letter it might go like this:

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Our past letters on social problems don’t seem to have done much good. Many times, for example, we appealed to our leaders for effective land reform, but to no avail. Congress failed to extend it. We’ve talked of workers’ problems, mining and the problems tribal people face, but those letters, too, have had little effect. It’s time to talk directly to you.

Before going further, we wish to ask about something that puzzles us and many other people, namely, why are you so patient? There are food and oil price riots in many countries; in South Korea 50,000 people go into the streets each night to protest the importation of American beef, yet here in the Philippines, which is as poor and as hard hit as any other country by the soaring prices, there seems to be only passive acceptance. This is not our history. Look at the peasant uprisings of the past, look at Edsa I. What has caused this recent passivity?

Have you lost hope in life and the possibility of change? Have you lost faith in government, the elite, the Church? We can imagine your pain with the way things have become worse and worse, but don’t give up for the sake of your children and for the good of the whole country.

What is your perception of the Church? Do you feel it is on your side in the justice struggles that will fashion the Philippines of tomorrow? Do you feel you are in the Church of the Poor that we vowed to become at the Second Plenary Council in 1991? We hope so and we sincerely hope you haven’t lost your willingness to “hunger and thirst for justice.” You well know that no major social change will come about in our country without organized popular pressure from below. Also, no serious thrust to become the Church of the Poor will take place unless you push us in that direction.

What will it take to organize this popular pressure from below? To organize farmers into a large democratic, non-violent movement for a truly valuable land reform, for example. How many farmers must be organized? One million? Why not? The Federation of Free Farmers on the eve of the declaration of martial law had some 300,000 members and was growing rapidly. There are many more farmers now and just as much suffering.

We ask the same question of all downtrodden groups—tribal people, fishermen, workers, urban poor, farmers: What will it take to organize yourselves?

We will give whatever is in our power to give in terms of moral support, funds and training resources. We will recruit idealistic young people and professionals to work alongside you. We will lobby for you as we always have, and we will not hesitate to break with the powerful who resist your efforts to secure your human rights. We will preach the Gospel in the liberating way Jesus did in Luke 4:18-19: “The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to free the oppressed and to proclaim the Lord’s year of mercy.”

May the Lord bless all of us.

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

©Copyright 2001-2008 INQUIRER.net, An Inquirer Company