ASEAN Regional News

[bagel]

Originally Posted by Lili

In which case, I predict that in 2010 there will be more syndicates in the business of squatting to gain possessory rights over real properties and ask for exorbitant disturbance fees to leave those areas.

They already have those now. I don't remember which law it was but if you are a property owner and have the title to the land, but have squatters on the land, you are responsible for either finding them a relocation site, or compensating them justly. This has indeed given rise to squatter syndicates or "for-profit" squatters. I don't know if we're dealing with a syndicate, but my family has been trying to get squatters off some land in Paranaque for a long time now-- it's been my grandfather's greatest headache, which he took with him to the grave. We're still dealing with them now.

[Mango]

I think there is a Joey Lina law that is pro-squatting.

[Lili]

Originally Posted by boybaha

They already have those now. I don't remember which law it was but if you are a property owner and have the title to the land, but have squatters on the land, you are responsible for either finding them a relocation site, or compensating them justly. This has indeed given rise to squatter syndicates or "for-profit" squatters. I don't know if we're dealing with a syndicate, but my family has been trying to get squatters off some land in Paranaque for a long time now-- it's been my grandfather's greatest headache, which he took with him to the grave. We're still dealing with them now.

Something is really amiss with that law. What about the eviction process? You cannot evict them anymore but you have to offer them just compensation? It really doesn't sit well with me. I want to research more on that.

[tigidig14]

thats fucking scary if its true, I cant beleive we have such mindless law

[stephencua]

there is.. thats why people call it the stupid lina law... it rewards squatters for squatting in private property..

[bustero]

Lina was unfortunately a left leaning politician who had his day in the sun. As senator he enacted this law which basically does not respect property rights as he was very much for redistribution of assets to the poor and other crap like that. In any case this was a very disastrous law which basically negates people's property rights by priioritizing informal dwellers. Such imppractical notions made his term as an executive in Laguna untanable and he lost his governorship because basically he was not competent.

[tigidig14]

^how bout those people squatting underneath the bridges and public properties. apparently with this retarded law there's no way we can solve the manila's squatting problem then. huh

[Lili]

Originally Posted by bustero

Lina was unfortunately a left leaning politician who had his day in the sun. As senator he enacted this law which basically does not respect property rights as he was very much for redistribution of assets to the poor and other crap like that. In any case this was a very disastrous law which basically negates people's property rights by priioritizing informal dwellers. Such imppractical notions made his term as an executive in Laguna untanable and he lost his governorship because basically he was not competent.

Some interested party should be questioning the constitutionality of that law since it basically deprives a person of private property without due process and just compensation. As to public property, it may be an altogether different matter. Tsk. Tsk. How problematic.

[xDieselJockx]

Originally Posted by Lili

Some interested party should be questioning the constitutionality of that law since it basically deprives a person of private property without due process and just compensation. As to public property, it may be an altogether different matter. Tsk. Tsk. How problematic.

Holy cow!!!!There is such a law like that in the Philippines? That is just soooo wrong. Buying a property today but if you didn't build and live there right away, tomorrow when you get back someone else will live there and the worse part is, you'll have to pay them compensation to haul their arses out of your own property??? Now that's just totally Politically Incorrect. F*** that!!!

[bagel]

Being a left-leaning politician does not make a politician a bad one. But I do feel that Lina overstepped some of the boundaries as far as protecting rights to private property are concerned. For every politician who believes that private enterprise is the only way out of the Philippine economic morass, there are also those that believe that there needs to at least be some form of social safety net. Getting back to the "Lina Law" though, we have to ask why the rest of Congress approved this too? Surely somebody would have raised a ruckus about the part about compensating squatters if they are to be removed. There may have been a little pandering on the law supporters' sides (and not just Lina) to a very large VOTING populace that also happens to be squatting.

Furthermore, redistribution of land or wealth is not a bad thing either. I'm all for redistribution. But there's a difference between seizure and compensation. For me, redistribution is more about the helping hand to give people an opportunity for growth (which amounts to a whole combination of conditions-- employment/education/equal access to jobs/government services/etc.), rather than outright property seizure (which the Lina Law pretty much is). Recognizing that most of the land in the Philippines is owned by a small minority, something needs to be done to open up opportunities for more people to own land cheaply. But if land is to be redistributed, the property owners need to be justly compensated for the redistribution (and not the other way around-- compensate the squatters to get them to move off the land). There's a lot that's topsy-turvy about the Lina Law.

Now I can't find the exact text of the law on the web. Do a search for RA 7279, otherwise known as the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992. Like most republic acts, there are many sections to this law. The entire law is not all bad as it delineates certain duties of the HLURB (HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD) and also makes provisions for socialized housing as part of development projects, which I think is a duty of a responsible government. RA 7279 seems to be an equitable development law that ensures that if there is development happening, more people should be the beneficiaries of the development (even if indirectly). It seems that the part about squatters needing to be compensated is the most objectionable part of this law. I don't care about squatter decriminalization-- people should not be penalized for being homeless. Squatting SHOULD be decriminalized. But surely, property owners need to have rights to land they rightfully own.

[stephencua]

^ i remember reading an editorial some years back about this law.. the editor said that it was approved in the middle of the night or something.. to avoid the inevitable ruckus if it was passed during regular hours..

anyways, i hope that by 2010 the philippines would be on the way to recovering from this nightmare of a political situation..

[Lili]

Originally Posted by boybaha

Being a left-leaning politician does not make a politician a bad one. But I do feel that Lina overstepped some of the boundaries as far as protecting rights to private property are concerned. For every politician who believes that private enterprise is the only way out of the Philippine economic morass, there are also those that believe that there needs to at least be some form of social safety net. Getting back to the "Lina Law" though, we have to ask why the rest of Congress approved this too? Surely somebody would have raised a ruckus about the part about compensating squatters if they are to be removed. There may have been a little pandering on the law supporters' sides (and not just Lina) to a very large VOTING populace that also happens to be squatting.

Furthermore, redistribution of land or wealth is not a bad thing either. I'm all for redistribution. But there's a difference between seizure and compensation. For me, redistribution is more about the helping hand to give people an opportunity for growth (which amounts to a whole combination of conditions-- employment/education/equal access to jobs/government services/etc.), rather than outright property seizure (which the Lina Law pretty much is). Recognizing that most of the land in the Philippines is owned by a small minority, something needs to be done to open up opportunities for more people to own land cheaply. But if land is to be redistributed, the property owners need to be justly compensated for the redistribution (and not the other way around-- compensate the squatters to get them to move off the land). There's a lot that's topsy-turvy about the Lina Law.

Now I can't find the exact text of the law on the web. Do a search for RA 7279, otherwise known as the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992. Like most republic acts, there are many sections to this law. The entire law is not all bad as it delineates certain duties of the HLURB (HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD) and also makes provisions for socialized housing as part of development projects, which I think is a duty of a responsible government. RA 7279 seems to be an equitable development law that ensures that if there is development happening, more people should be the beneficiaries of the development (even if indirectly). It seems that the part about squatters needing to be compensated is the most objectionable part of this law. I don't care about squatter decriminalization-- people should not be penalized for being homeless. Squatting SHOULD be decriminalized. But surely, property owners need to have rights to land they rightfully own.

I support the social justice provisions of our law. I believe in giving more in law to those who have less in life. But I also think that this should be done without impinging on the property rights of individuals which is a fundamental right in a capitalist democratic state because that is basically what the Philippines is. I agree that there was not just pandering but also political self-interest that happened in the Congress when this law was passed. Perhaps it was even a rider clause in the Republic Act that Mike cited. And considering that it was a midnight approval as @Stephen mentioned, it seems the circumstances surrounding the passage of that law was shady. I also would look into the timing of the passage if it was right before elections. I'm surprised no one had asked for a declaratory relief on that law. It is really onerous on the part of rightful property owners. Isn't squatting a form of trespassing but of a graver nature since it is not just temporary but with intent to stay and also theft and usurpation of real property? Isn't that criminal especially if there is knowledge that the property is owned by another? I would qualify though if the property appears to be abandoned or public property.

We might as well be a socialist state if individual property ownership and the rights appurtenant thereto are not going to be protected.

Thanks for the law citation Mike (boybaha). Hopefully, I will be able to find time to read up on that.

[tigidig14]

^ very sad, when was the law made

[bagel]

Oh what I mean by "squatting should be decriminalized" means they shouldn't go to jail for setting up a house in someone else's land. They should be moved off the land but if you're trying to take care of a family and you don't have a permanent house, you shouldn't be arrested for it. Something must be done--- I know we're cash strapped and all, but I think life is hard enough for urban poor. Things shouldn't be made any harder by arresting them for putting up corrugated metal shacks on private (or public) land.

[normandb]

Originally Posted by mysaong03

yeah, mga shitty nuissance rallyists like these:


kung maghanap nalang cla ng trabajo, im sure mayaman na cila by then!!

by 2010 college pa rin ang mga ito dahil di nakagraduate dahil sa welga at marami silang back subjects or worst case senario college drop out dahil sa welga. by 2010 marerealize nila kung gaano kahalaga ang pag-aaral kaysa pag sigaw sa kalye ng "Pabagsakin si Gloria, Tuta ng Kano". by 2010, excommunicado na ng vatican ang mga pari at obispo sa pilipinas dahil sa sobrang pamumulitika. by 2010, magkapiling na si Panday at Asiong Salongga sa kabilang buhay . by 2010, sana Prime Minister si Fidel V. Ramos.

[tigidig14]

Originally Posted by boybaha

Oh what I mean by "squatting should be decriminalized" means they shouldn't go to jail for setting up a house in someone else's land. They should be moved off the land but if you're trying to take care of a family and you don't have a permanent house, you shouldn't be arrested for it. Something must be done--- I know we're cash strapped and all, but I think life is hard enough for urban poor. Things shouldn't be made any harder by arresting them for putting up corrugated metal shacks on private (or public) land.

how bout if someone just occupied ur house while ur on vacation what would u do. sa pnas ha-nde d2 sa state because i know u mite reason up that it will never happen here.

[bagel]

I think that would be breaking and entering. The difference is that while you are technically breaking and entering when you set up a shanty on open land is that you're technically breaking a padlock to get into that house. You can also argue that it's technically breaking and entering to squat in someone's private property. You may be despoiling property or something if you set up a shanty but you're not really hurting anybody or destroying something...Yung lupa-- pag pabayaan, mababago naman ni mother nature. Now if you cut down some trees in your quest to put up a shanty or decide to throw chemical waste while squatting, that's different.

May awa naman ako sa kapwa kong Pilipino eh at alam ko na mahirap ang buhay. Doesn't give them the right to set up houses anywhere, but sometimes your hand is forced. Like I said, you the property owner should have the right to kick them off your land if they squat, but arresting them makes things even harder... at least send them on their way and hopefully they'll find a job and a legal way to live.

Actually nangyayari din yan dito sa isteyt. There have been many anti-homeless laws here in my town of Santa Cruz that I've been against and go to public hearings about.

[Lili]

Notwithstanding the repeal of the Anti-Squatting Law, there are still provisions in the Revised Penal Code that address trespass and usurpation of rights in real property. So, it can be criminal still if the situation covers all the necessary elements to constitute a crime. Say, if it's a dwelling or if I enclose the property with a fence and the person still invades the property without permission or takes possession and resists leaving with the use of violence and intimidation. The only thing is enforcement does not have as much teeth as when there was the Anti-Squatting Law. Ang hirap maging maka-tao. Marami rin kasing umaabuso.

[Lili]

Originally Posted by ncbmandy

by 2010 college pa rin ang mga ito dahil di nakagraduate dahil sa welga at marami silang back subjects or worst case senario college drop out dahil sa welga. by 2010 marerealize nila kung gaano kahalaga ang pag-aaral kaysa pag sigaw sa kalye ng "Pabagsakin si Gloria, Tuta ng Kano". by 2010, excommunicado na ng vatican ang mga pari at obispo sa pilipinas dahil sa sobrang pamumulitika. by 2010, magkapiling na si Panday at Asiong Salongga sa kabilang buhay . by 2010, sana Prime Minister si Fidel V. Ramos.

Eh mukha ngang ang tatanda na niyan nasa picture para maging college students pa rin. Kapal na nga nang bigote nung isa at saka may middle age bilbil na. By 2010, baka pari at obispo na nang Pinas ang magpapatakbo sa Vatican dahil kakaunti na lang ang mga paring puti.

[paulkrps]

Originally Posted by Lili

Eh mukha ngang ang tatanda na niyan nasa picture para maging college students pa rin. Kapal na nga nang bigote nung isa at saka may middle age bilbil na. By 2010, baka pari at obispo na nang Pinas ang magpapatakbo sa Vatican dahil kakaunti na lang ang mga paring puti.

baka di rin pwede dahil di papayag yung iba dahil walang paglagyan ng last supper, malalaking kutsara at tinidor ang vatican, bawal ang mga balikbayan boxes, tsaka di sanay sila ng psst.