Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992

Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992
Name	Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992
Enacted by	Congress of the Philippines
Signed into law	1992
Signed by	Fidel V. Ramos
Citation	Republic Act No. 7279
Status	in force

Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 The Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 was enacted to address urban housing shortages and informal settlement issues in the Philippines under the administration of Fidel V. Ramos, shaping national policy on slum upgrading, resettlement, and land tenure. The law interacted with institutions such as the National Housing Authority, the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, and the Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development, and influenced programs linked to Asian Development Bank, World Bank, and local government units like Metro Manila authorities. Its passage followed debates involving legislators from the Senate of the Philippines and the House of Representatives of the Philippines and intersected with socio-political movements including the Kilusang Mayo Uno and urban advocacy by organizations like Gawad Kalinga.

Background and Legislative History

The act emerged from a legislative process in the Congress of the Philippines that responded to urbanization trends traced to the Marcos regime era and the post-People Power Revolution policy environment, with policy inputs from the National Economic and Development Authority and studies by the Asian Development Bank and World Bank. Debates in the Senate of the Philippines involved senators influenced by crises seen in Manila, Quezon City, and Caloocan, and referenced comparative law experiences from nations such as Brazil and South Africa when addressing informal settlements after interventions by groups like United Nations Human Settlements Programme. Legislative champions negotiated provisions with stakeholders including Philippine National Police units for eviction enforcement, civil society groups such as Task Force for Urban Poor, and local chief executives from provinces like Cebu and Davao.

Key Provisions and Programs

The statute codified rights and programs such as security of tenure, community mortgage financing, and in-situ upgrading, establishing instruments like the Community Mortgage Program (CMP) administered with the Social Housing Finance Corporation and technical support from the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. It set standards for resettlement sites in coordination with agencies including the National Housing Authority and required participation by local government units like City of Manila and Pasig. The law delineated mechanisms for land acquisition and disposition with references to eminent domain processes used in prior projects like urban renewal in Intramuros and regulated rental housing vis-à-vis precedents from housing codes in Quezon City and Makati.

Institutional Framework and Implementation

Implementation relied on a network of institutions: the Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development (predecessors and successors), the National Housing Authority, the Social Housing Finance Corporation, and local government offices such as barangay councils in Barangay Bagong Silang. Coordination mechanisms drew on models from inter-agency committees similar to those convened by the National Economic and Development Authority and the Council for the Welfare of Children in other policy domains. Implementation engagements included partnerships with international agencies including the United Nations Development Programme and financiers such as the Asian Development Bank, while civil society partners like Gawad Kalinga and ShelterWatch Philippines played roles in community organizing and monitoring.

Funding and Financial Mechanisms

The act provided funding pathways through the National Housing Authority, the Social Housing Finance Corporation, and budget allocations approved by the Department of Budget and Management, often supplemented by loans and grants from the Asian Development Bank and World Bank. Financial instruments included the Community Mortgage Program, concessional lending schemes modeled on social housing funds used in Brazil and Mexico, and incentives for private developers akin to tax incentives deliberated in the Bureau of Internal Revenue policy discussions. Municipal fiscal participation involved local revenue measures enacted by city councils in jurisdictions such as Quezon City and Cebu City, and bond issuance examples mirrored practices from metropolitan authorities like the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority.

Impact, Outcomes, and Criticism

The law produced mixed outcomes: achievements in tenure regularization for many communities in Metro Manila, Cebu, and Davao contrasted with criticisms from scholars at institutions like the University of the Philippines and advocates from groups such as Kalipunan ng Damayang Mahihirap regarding implementation gaps. Evaluations by the World Bank and reports from the Asian Development Bank highlighted successes in the Community Mortgage Program alongside concerns about forced evictions, inadequate resettlement site economics, and coordination failures similar to critiques lodged in cases involving Intramuros redevelopment and slum clearance in Tondo. Legal challenges reached tribunals and invoked jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of the Philippines in disputes over land acquisition and constitutional rights, while media outlets including the Philippine Daily Inquirer and The Philippine Star documented on-the-ground impacts.

Amendments and Subsequent Reforms

Subsequent reforms and administrative changes involved legislative and executive actions affecting implementing bodies like the National Housing Authority and the later creation of the Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development, and drew on programmatic lessons from projects funded by the Asian Development Bank and World Bank. Amendments incorporated inputs from international frameworks such as the Millennium Development Goals and Sustainable Development Goals, and spurred policy responses from local governments in Metro Manila and regional administrations in Central Visayas. Civil society movements including Gawad Kalinga and legal interventions by groups like Urban Poor Associates continued to shape reforms through litigation, advocacy, and pilot initiatives that informed later housing laws and urban policy instruments debated in the Senate of the Philippines.

Category:Philippine legislation