Blasting the slums: Rogelio, oh Rogelio!

A slum, as defined by the United Nation agency UN-HABITAT, is a run-down area of a city characterized by substandard housing and squalor and lacking in tenure security. According to the United Nations, the percentage of urban dwellers living in slums decreased from a massive 47 percent to 37 percent in the developing world between 1990 and 2005.   

Many shanty town dwellers vigorously oppose the description of their communities as ‘slums’ arguing that this results in them being stigmatized and then, often, subject to threats of forcible evictions.  

Manila slums

In the wake of last week’s torrential rains and floors in the Metropolitan Manila area, the government announced

Interior Secretary Jesse Robredo

plans to clear major waterways and other danger zones.  Interior and Local Government Secretary Jesse Robredo was reported by the Philippine Daily Inquirer to have said that shanties and other illegal structures along canals, creeks, esteros and other waterways will be dismantled so flood-mitigating systems could be built.

Robredo did not specify how the illegal structures will be dismantled.  He did not need to since everybody understood that if shanty dwellers opposed the demolition, then force can be used lawfully.

DPWH Secretary Rogelio Singson

Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Secretary Rogelio Singson is apparently clueless about this tacit language.   Singson made it very explicit and talked about “blasting” shanties and other obstructions.  For his crude “bedside manners,” Singson was blasted by urban poor groups.

With the backlash, Singson finessed his words time saying that he meant blasting illegal fish pens in the Pampanga river delta. 

Be that as it may, blasting is over-kill since most shanties are built of very-light materials’ of throwaways in fact.   Blasting could also lead to fatalities if the informal settlers resist the forcible demolition.

Demolition of illegal structures that obstruct the free flow of water is a technically correct solution to the perennial Metro-Manila floods.  While necessary, it is not enough however.  The 64-million dollar question: where will 100,000 informal settlers (or 100,000 families, Secretary Robredo?) be relocated?  

Robredo said the relocation will done over a five-year period with a funding of P10 billion. However, Robredo admitted that the government is having difficulty finding relocation areas since the law on relocations require permanent shelters.  These relocation sites must be within city limits so that the relocated informal settlers can still be near their means of livelihood.  As we discussed in earlier blog posts, if the relocation sites were too far, the informal settlers will drift back to the city center (See ‘Housing and the urban poor,’ [https://bongmendoza.wordpress.com/2012/08/12/housing-and-the-urban-poor/] and ‘Our irrational urban poor’ [https://bongmendoza.wordpress.com/2012/08/08/our-irrational-urban-poor/].

An additional requirement is the relocation sites to be free of floods.  In last week’s floods, almost a thousand families who were earlier relocated from Tondo to Rodriguez, Rizal had to be moved to higher ground.  Government officials will decide if the site is still tenable for residential purposes or should be abandoned.

Flood in Rodriguez, Rizal

In the Philippines, Republic Act No. 7279 or the Urban Development Housing Act of 1992 (UDHA), provides that certain lands owned by the government may be disposed of or utilized for socialized housing purposes. It was signed into law to address the housing shortage of the country.  It addresses the right to housing of the homeless and underprivileged Filipinos. This law seeks to provide social housing to the marginalized sector by addressing their access to land and housing, relocation, demolitions, and promoting private sector participation in housing.

Aside from clearing the waterways, perhaps the DPWH can help build the houses in the relocation sites.  In that way,  Secretary Singson can make up for his blast of a gaffe.

Property rights of the urban poor

What property rights?

Previously, the urban poor were called ‘squatters’ supposedly because they ‘squat’ on land they do not own.  The verb ‘squat’ does not give you a nice picture.  

Thus, the urban poor usurp the property rights of others and do not actually have property rights of their own.  This is especially true if the land in question is owned by a private citizen.

Nowadays, the urban poor are called ‘informal settlers’ for political correctness.  The new term implies that they ‘informally settle’ on land they do not own.

In my opinion, the term ‘informal settler’ is nothing but a euphemism.  It indicates that the informal settlers, formerly known as  squatters are doing something wrong, like violating the property rights of others.  In that sense, it does not represent any improvement over the older ‘squatter’.

One has a straightforward case if the aggrieved party is a private citizen.

The situation is more complicated when the land is owned by the state.

It is a truism that the most basic human right is the right to life.  The right to life is concretized through subsidiary rights such as rights to livelihood, domicile, etc.

Urban poor dwellings on both sides of estero (estuary)

The urban poor are rational individuals.  If state-owned land is idle (and this is true in Quezon City), they will occupy the land and build their dwellings.  Population growth and building booms, among others, have restricted the supply of ‘squattable’ land and pushed them to the frontiers including estuaries, river banks, and hill slopes.  The poor do so to be near jobs and other sources of income such as vending, hawking, and low-value added jobs (construction, service jobs) all over the city.

Charcoal making by urban poor workers

Sampaguita vendor

Should the state assert its property rights and evict the squatters?

Forcible demolition of urban poor dwellings

Or should it fulfill its obligations as duty bearer to its citizens, specially its less fortunate constituents, and ensure that the latter be afforded all the opportunities to ensure their right to life?  The city poor do not need land titles; certificates of occupancy will suffice.

It may be that the state leaders are apparently faced with a basic dilemma here.  However, it is clear that evictions are the trend.

Urban poor awaiting rescue atop their shanties

The urban poor face twin threats to the tenure over the land upon which they have built their dwellings.  When the weather is unruly, they have to deal with calamitous floods and landslides.  During sunny weather, forcible evictions may be their fare.

In the evacuation center