Patched Houses by Roy Aguilar

Written by Mico Maestro

I. Abstract

In 2018, about 4.5 million Filipinos out of the 106 million total population are homeless or dwells in informal settlements. To respond to problems brought by rapid urbanization, the balanced housing principle of the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 procured strategic measures to respond to the rapid increase of the demand of socialized housing.

This paper aims to analyze the implementation of the provisions of Article 5 Section 18 between the government agencies involved and the private sector. Assess the current mechanisms on the compliance of the policy, as well include commentaries from interest groups regarding the implementation of the provision of the law. Ultimately, this paper seeks to provide recommendations for the efficient implementation and compliance of the balanced housing development policy.

II. Introduction

The recurring housing shortage in the Philippines brought by persistence of poverty especially in the urban area has become a tenacious problem in the last 3 decades.

Prior the 1992 passage of Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992, the national government monopolizes the production of the housing requirement under the shelter framework of the country. That said, one of the causes of urban poverty is the restricted access of lower income urban households to housing (Carino and Corpuz, 2009). To respond to the increasing need of housing across urban communities especially in the urban poor sector, the national government continuously exerts efforts in the socialized housing market.

Major factors that affected the government’s shelter program  are increasingly high urban population growth, the lack of urban space for detached housing units, lack of government funds to break in housing backlog are among cited by Carino and Corpuz (2009). Moreover, the prohibitive price of land in urban areas limits the development of socialized housing.

The public housing reform in the Philippines began in 1992 through the Urban Development and Housing Act (UDHA) or Republic Act 7279 as a major component of the country’s overall design for economic reform. 

It was viewed to alleviate the homelessness and legitimize the rights of the urban poor to housing (PHILSSA, 1998). UDHA was to harness economic activity and establish mechanisms for a unified delivery of housing needs through the participation of the national and local government agencies and the private sector. 

The Act has devolved some functions of the national to local government units (LGUs) on the implementation of socialized housing projects, a mass housing intended for the underprivileged and urban homeless households. LGUs identify locations for socialized housing and qualified urban poor beneficiaries in their respective territory. The private sector participates in the financing and construction leveraged with various tax and non-tax incentives extended by the local and central governments. 

III. Objectives 

The objectives of this policy review are as follows:

  1. To determine the effectivity and the impact of the current implementation of the provisions of Article 5 Section 18 between the government agencies involved and the private sector. 
  2. Assess the current mechanisms on the compliance and monitoring of the policy and if it serves to its purpose.
  3. Perceive its intended role in minimizing the current housing backlog in the country
  4. Identify factors in the success or failure of the current amendments and implementing rules on balanced housing in LGUs. 
  5. Provide critical points to address the gaps in the implementation of Article 5 Section 18. 

Before we delve into the law itself, let us first take a look at relevant theories on socialized urban development in the West and Developing countries in order cross reference the existing laws, Policies and phenomena on socialized housing in other nations.  

IV. Relevant Literature in the Implementation of Socialized Housing Programs

Theories for Socialized Urban Development Vis-a-vis Urban Poverty in Western and Asian Developing Countries

Urban Land Nexus Theory 

The urban land nexus theory developed by Serote (1992) annexes the informal settlers as one of the main players in a built environment. Public sector governance is divided into national and local government; “the former to devolve its powers and resources to the latter, while the latter intervenes in the private economic activities in the form of urban planning and management”, (Serote, 1992). 

This phenomenon involves the following: (a) private firms and households which develop, exchange and utilize urban space according to their own private motives and beneficial calculations, and (b) the State which provides an elaborate network of material infrastructure underpinning the general processes of production and reproduction in accordance with political calculations, including social costs and benefits. 

Early Theories of Urban Poverty linked to homelessness

Public Housing Policies 

In the 1930s and 1940s, Public housing in the United States in the 1930s and 1940s was constructed to house working families. By the 1960s, the targeted recipients of public housing had shifted to those most in need of housing assistance. As this shift occurred, many working, lower middle class to middles class families moved out of public housing and the stigma of living in “the projects” grew (Vale, 2002). Following that phenomenon, public housing has been seen as “housing of last resort.”

Since then, the housing policy has been criticized for “contributing” to the concentration of poverty, race, and social problems in urban communities in the West.

In the early 1990s, a report was issued in which it recognized the critical need for a paradigm shift in public housing policy. It noted that “high unemployment and limited opportunities for the meaningful employment of residents” was a significant problem facing residents of these projects (Van Ryzin et al., 2001, p.2). It suggested that public housing can attend to more than basic housing needs by providing more social services and resident initiatives that lead to better shaping of environments. 

These recommendations were praised by many, as the deficit-focused public housing policies of the past had long been criticized for contributing to the perpetuation of poverty by focusing on “housing of last resort” and discouraging employment and asset-building. However, it also received criticism for not addressing residents’ need to access jobs, which was found to be one of the most pressing problems (Spence, 1993).

Formulation Of Socialized Housing Policy Mechanisms And The Paradigm Shift In Developing Countries

Here is a review of the strategic mechanisms by which low-income urban households and communities house themselves informally using their own resources. 

Broadly, there are two basic approaches on Informal development of vacant land:

  1. The appropriation and/or illegal sub-division of undeveloped land followed by the construction of affordable shelter and installation of basic infrastructure, all with no explicit official approval governing standards of health and safety.
  2. The unauthorized occupation (squatting) of vacant or under-used central area urban properties.

In many countries, housing as been perceived as the construction of infrastructures generally at national government level, rather than at local government level.

V. Overview of the Housing Development Act Of 1992

Republic Act No. 7279 Also Known As An Act To Provide For A Comprehensive And Continuing Urban Development And Housing Program, Establish The Mechanism For Its Implementation, And For Other Purposes aims to provide a comprehensive and continuing urban development and housing program with the establishment of mechanisms for its implementation and monitoring.

In Jalasco’s (2015) study, It primarily states the following principles governing the urban development and housing program

  1.  The state shall ensure the rational use of land, provide affordable housing for lower income groups. 
  2. The Housing Development Act of 1992 also requires the state to create an inventory of lands and the identification of the sites for socialized housing thus, setting out rules on land acquisition and disposition.
  3. Creation of strategies and requirements for the socialized housing programs. 
  4. A provision of the law also sets out procedural safeguards on eviction and resettlement. 
  5. To establish a framework for the implementation of programs.

In order to achieve the objectives above, the act sought to promote the following strategies for land acquisition, balanced housing, private sector participation, consultation and rural development. 


It identified the main actors with the following main functions to perform under the National Shelter Program. [1]

The key housing agencies in the country are: 

• The Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC) as the lead housing agency to undertake planning and to provide technical assistance. 

• The National Housing Authority (NHA) tasked to augment and enhance local governments’ capabilities in the provision of housing benefits to their constituents. 

• The Home Insurance Guaranty Corporation (HIGC) is tasked to design an appropriate guarantee scheme to encourage financial institutions to go into direct lending for housing. 

The Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) assigned to develop a comprehensive plan for urban and urbanizable areas, and to review existing town and land use plans and housing programs. 

The National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC) assigned to administer the Community Mortgage Program. 

  • The local government units (LGUs) were assigned with the preparation of the comprehensive land use plans while the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) are to provide the data and information for forward planning. 
  • The private sector, non-government organizations who will be granted incentives to invest their resources in socialized housing 
  • The project beneficiaries who should also be involved in the housing programs. 

After identifying and determining the crucial points and the intent of the law, the following chapter follows the history and timeline of its creation.

VI. Timeline and History of the Creation and Passage of The Urban Development And Housing Act of 1992 

This chapter traces back the history of the creation of the Urban Development Act in order to point out the intent of the law and the primary factors and social forces in shaping the current housing law. 

This section examines the critical narrative from the study The Importance Of Political Empowerment In Urban Planning: A Case Study Analysis On The Passage Of The Urban Development And Housing Act Of 1992 In The Philippines [2]

Urban Land Reform During Martial Law

Urban Land Reform made way for the creation of The Urban Development and Housing Act in correspondence to the crucial urban land reform issue in 1970s during martial law. Urban land reform became a formal policy focus during the Marcos administration in order to address the increasing urban poverty rates in the country.

Presidential Decree 1517 (PD 1517), enacted on June 11, 1978, sought to solve the issue of urban poverty by declaring Metro Manila as an “urban land reform zone.” Such declaration made way for the national government, through the Ministry of Human Settlements,(8 )to monopolize parcels of land within Metro Manila. 

Due to insufficient guidelines on the implementation of urban land reform, the public, especially the urban poor deemed PD 1517 as a sham. Reform initiatives for PD 1517 were barely pursued due to the existence of martial law. (Karaos, Gatpatan, & Hotz, 1995).

Discussions about pursuing urban land reform carried over in the Aquino Administration in 1986. “Urban poor groups united under the banner of the National Congress of Urban Poor Organizations (NACUPO) continued to advocate for urban land reform, albeit still making it a secondary concern to more pressing issues such as moratorium on demolitions, moratorium on amortization payments, and the creation of the Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor (PCUP) (Karaos et al., 1995, p.20).”

Shifting the Main Policy Focus to Urban Land Reform

During the Aquino administration, urban land reform became a main policy focus for various social advocacy groups. The growing recognition of the importance of urban land reform is best exemplified by the incorporation of an “Urban Land Reform and Housing” provision under Article XIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution (Karaos et al., 1995, pp.20-21).9 

The Role of NGOs and Social Groups

It was rightful to acknowledge the efforts of various NGOs, especially the Institute on Church and Social Concerns (ICSI)10 and the Foundation for Development Alternatives (FDA) on making urban land reform a main policy concern in the country.

During that time, ICSI and FDA’s advocacy works for urban land reform focused on retention limits, forms of land ownership, and modes of taxation (Karaos et al., 1995, p.20-1). Their efforts were a big thrust to the urban land reform campaign. 

Various social and political groups started hosting discussions specifically centering on policy agenda for urban land reform. A group called the “Bishop-Businessmen’s Conference” (BBC) would significantly contribute towards the urban land reform campaign. The BBC, through its Committee on Urban Land Reform and Housing (BBC-ULRH), organized series of conferences on urban land reform. 

These conferences, invited participants from different public housing agencies, NGOs and UPOs, and the grassroots community allowed the exchange of ideas and formulation of concrete legislative proposals from policy-makers and the grassroots.

This conference resulted to the a proposal for an urban land reform bill which included a section on the creation of a Department of Housing, and other draft bills on relocation and employment (Karaos et al., 1995, pp.21-22). 

Aside from the legislative branch, the BBC made its way to connect with the executive branch through the Cabinet. The BBC was able to make a formal request to the Office of the President, to come up with an administration bill on urban land reform which is to be certified as urgent.[3]

The Office of the President responded by creating the ad hoc working group on the urban land reform draft bill in January 1989, which worked on a legislative proposal later transmitted to Congress. Despite the various efforts undertaken by the BBC from the ground up, conflicting perspectives between the BBC and the UPOs still occurred. (Karaos et al., 1995, p.26). 

The Betania Consultation and PAKSA-LUPA 

The second group of NGOs and UPOs to majorly influence the urban land reform campaign came together through what is known as the “Betania Consultation” in 1987.

The Betania Consultation were mainly attended by representatives of 28 UPO alliances coming from 12 cities and municipalities within Metro Manila (Karaos et al., 1995, p.22). 

The four-day consultation was held in order to: 

1) Review the urban poor position regarding the urban land reform previously articulated in the context of NACUPO;

2) Review existing urban land reform legislation; 

3) Gain understanding of the meaning of urban land reform and its elements; 

4) Assess the proposed BBC-PCUP bill; 

5) And come up with a draft urban land reform proposal along with an action plan for lobbying

 In order to ensure the sustained urban land reform campaign discussed and agreed upon during the Betania consultations, a coalition of UPOs who attended the said event was formed. 

In June 1988, a coalition of UPOs who attended the Betania consultation was formally launched as the Pambansang Kilusan ng mga Samahang maralita para sa Panlunsod na Reporma sa Lupa (translated as “National Urban Poor Movement for Urban Land Reform”), or otherwise known as “PAKSA-LUPA.” PAKSA-LUPA’s started on lobbying their own draft of an urban land reform bill which later became the PAKSA-LUPA bill. 

PAKSA-LUPA also reached the legislative for support. The PAKSA-LUPA bill was formally filed in the Lower House in March 1989 as House Bill No.25018 (Karaos et al., 1995, p.24).

Renewed Emphasis for the Urban Land Reform Campaign 

Two major events occurred in September 1990 which contributed to the revival of the ULR campaign in the 1990s. The first was the official confirmation of the two urban poor sectoral representatives in Congress. The second (and probably the most eventful out of the two) was the unjust demolition of houses in Sitio Kumunoy, Barangay Bagong Silangan, in Quezon City.12 To better understand the overall effects of these two events to the advancement of the ULR campaign, attention should first be given to the demolition event

Coinciding the confirmation of the two urban poor sectoral representatives, hundreds of families from Sitio Kumuno, Barangay Bagong Silangan in Quezon City lost their homes and much of their belongings due to a 200-man demolition order sanctioned by the city mayor on September 14 and 15, 1990. The said demolition was undertaken without presenting any prior notice nor any proper court order to the community and 2 lives were lost following the aftermath of the demolition.

Moved by the incident, Jaime Cardinal Sin, then Archbishop of Manila, invited a group developers, real estate brokers, members of the House Committee on Urban Planning and Development, and the Bishops-Businessmen’s Conference Committee on Urban Land Reform (BBC-ULR) to his residence to discuss the Sitio Kumuno incident. During the meeting, the Cardinal reprimanded legislators to follow the constitutional mandate of passing an urban land reform law, which will provide decent housing for the poor, protect them from unjust and inhuman demolitions, and restructure urban land use in such a way that equally benefits everyone (Karaos et al., 1995, p.29).

Following this meeting, a rally was held in Plaza Roma, the front part of Manila Cathedral, in February 16, 1991 pushing also for the implementation of an urban land reform law. The rally was attended by 5,000 urban poor groups, some members of the Catholic hierarchy led by Cardinal Sin, and also congress representatives, namely Congs. Puyat-Reyes and Amado Bagatsing, and the urban poor sectoral representatives.

As a result of this effort, House Bill 34310, also known as the “Urban Development and Housing Act of 1991,” was completed in less than a month. House Bill 34310 consolidated 19 House Bills, two house resolutions, and one administration bill filed back in November 1987 (Karaos et al., 1995, p.30). 

Mass mobilizations were done at the Senate, totaling to 17 instances over the course of the five months. Initially, a minimum of 1,000 participants were mobilized daily. But as these amount of participants proved to be costly for mobilization, much of the campaign resorted to sending daily UPO contingents to the Senate session hall. 

Private organizations also expressed their support for the urban poor’s lobbying campaign. Various NGOs catering to different issues and 29 hailing from different regions including Bacolod,  sent letters to Senators to express their support for the passage of the urban land reform bill  (Karaos et al., 1995).

Passage and Enactment of the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 

The Senate finally passed SB 234 on its second reading on December 19,1991 through 25 affirmative votes. On February 3, 1992, the two houses of Congress simultaneously put their seals of approval on the Bicameral Conference Committee Report which harmonized HB 34310 and SB 234. Ad finally, on March 24, 1992, Pres. Aquino finally signed into law the Republic Act 7279, also known as the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 (Karaos et al., 1995).

Following the passage of the Urban Development and Housing Act are the current laws and executive issuances related to public housing as per the complete list from :



A Closer Look At Republic Act No. 10884

Republic Act. No. 10884, otherwise known as An Act Strengthening the Balanced Housing Development Program, amends Republic Act No. 7279 (The Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992) attempts to redefine socialized housing to include residential condominium units. It has amended the current provisions of Article Section 18 of the Republic Act 7279, also known as the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992  which is centered on the concept of balanced housing development.

  • Section 3 (r) of RA 7279 following the amendment has now defined socialized housing to refer to housing programs and projects covering houses and lots or homelots only or residential condominium units undertaken by the government or the private sector for low income groups.
  • Section 18 of RA 7279 on balanced housing also mandated developers of condominium projects. 
  • The area to be developed for socialized housing for subdivision projects was reduced from 20% to at least 15% of the total subdivision area or total subdivision project cost, while for condominium projects, the socialized housing compliance is at least 5% of the condominium area or project cost.

There are three main ways on how developers can comply according to the law:

  • Development of socialized housing in a new settlement;
  • Joint venture projects for socialized housing with either the local government units, with any of the housing agencies, with another private developer or with a nongovernmental organization engaged in the provision of socialized housing and duly accredited by the HLURB
  • Participation in a new project under the community mortgage program.

Compliance to the law will allow developers to avail of incentives for their projects including exemption from the payment of project related income taxes; capital gains tax on raw lands for the project; value-added tax for the project contractor; transfer tax for raw completed projects; and donor’s tax for lands donated for socialized housing.

A socialized housing certification issued by the HLURB is enough for the developer to avail the exemptions.

Source: Inquirer Archives, RA No. 10884 and RA No. 7279 in and

REPUBLIC ACT No. 10884 albeit formulated to reduce housing backlogs has been a debatable topic among concerned groups as presented in the following case studies on the implementation of current governing rules. 

Critique on the creation of DHSUD

According to the Urban poor group Kalipunan ng Damayang Mahihirap (Kadamay), the creation of the Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development (DHSUD) would aggravate the housing crisis in the country under these grounds:[4]

  • Kadamay said the new department would speed up the construction of housing units through the so-called one-stop processing centers. This is good for the business of developers but bad for low income groups who couldn’t afford the housing units.

The new amendments would further increase the cost of “socialized housing,” enrich real estate developers, justify, and speed up the eviction and demolition of informal settlers.

Private developers get 30% off on taxable income from its profit, which is granted when a real estate project is negotiated as part of socialized housing compliance to Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 (UDHA).

2016 reports that the NHA paid more than P15 billion to private contractors in ‘socialized housing.’

  • The bill allows revisions in ceilings for socialized housing anytime but not more than once every two years “to conform to prevailing economic conditions” resulting to higher amortization rates.
  • Under the bill, the DHSUD may “enter into contracts, joint venture agreements, public-private partnerships (PPP) and memoranda of agreement or understanding, either domestic or foreign, under such terms and conditions that the department may deem proper and reasonable and subject to existing laws.”

The proposed Charter Change will allow foreign corporations to own land, exploit and use the country’s natural resources, among others since the new department will have the mandate to enter into contracts with foreign companies, more infrastructure and other ‘urban development’ projects will push the urban poor out of their homes.

“National Housing Authority built more than 190,000 housing units from 2011 to 2016 but a 2016 report from the Commission on Audit (COA) showed that 60% of these housing units remain idle until today.”

VII. Crucial Points In the Implementation of Art. 5 Section 18 or Balanced Housing Provision

The Conduct Of Research and Data Gathering For Policy Making

One of the common problematic areas in socialized housing policies in other nations mentioned in Chapter 2 is the conduct of proper research and data gathering for the formulation of policies. 

Let’s look at Statistics for Housing Policy. Housing statistics are critical for the creation of policies which are in line with the country’s development goals. This section will explore the data gaps in the generation of statistics which are used for the estimation of housing demand and supply and how it impacts housing policy and overall industry growth vis-à-vis Section 18 of the Urban Development Housing Act.

In 2011, then Board of Investments (BOI) Managing Head Adrian Cristobal challenged the Subdivision and Housing Developers Association, Inc. (SHDA) to produce a roadmap for the housing industry in 2011. This roadmap shall serve as a tool for public and private sector collaboration, planning and coordination through the fulfilment of a clear status of the housing need in the country, current production capacity of the housing industry, its economic impact, and factors that affect housing supply. 

Since the realization of the roadmap, the industry is confronted with the following new challenges and that includes the implementation of RA 10884 (Balanced Housing Development Program Amendments) specifically on the requirement of proof of compliance with socialized housing prior to issuance of License to Sell and centralized approval of accreditation of socialized housing compliance projects to the Office of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) CEO.

These resulted into a 25% drop in residential units based on issued Licenses to Sell. There is a need to update and improve on the existing housing demand and supply estimates, which will guide public and private sector stakeholders in reformulating the strategies needed to sustain the growth of the housing industry.

Estimation of Housing Demand The Statistical Research and Training Center (SRTC), in collaboration with the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC), created a national framework which was used to estimate the housing backlog and housing needs of the country. This framework, however, according to the study lacks segmentation based on Housing Classification set by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) (n.d.). (Retrieved from:

There is a need to project housing demand based on the existing market segments. In summary, It is recommended for the PSA and the HLURB to forge a partnership that will enhance the data gathering and analysis generation of actual industry data

Implementation of Mechanisms: The Case of Davao

In a study called Assessing the Compliance of Balanced Housing Policy in the Philippines: The Case of Davao City, a structured interview was conducted to 32 housing developers, senior staff of city’s Housing and Land Use Regulatory Unit, members of the city legislative council, and the staff of the regional administrative office of the national government’s Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. 

While compliance by the private sector was met, some of the developers have tweaked the policy resulting in a considerable loss of housing units in Davao City due to the policy’s “ambiguous application” of the implementing rules. Davao City has lost 351 units to a nearby cities and municipalities because of this seemingly  ambiguous law. 

The study deems the lack of collaboration between the LGU and the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, which have caused failure in the compliance and monitoring efforts of the city. In addition, the city’s lack of knowledge on the policy’s implementing guidelines also contributed to the problem.

Also, one of the most persistent administrative weaknesses that affect the private developers’ participation in the housing program lies on the process of securing permits and licenses, and other requirements. 

On Compliance

The most common mode of compliance for socialized housing was the development of new settlement sites. However, the joint venture option of the principal developer with other private developers, with existing joint undertaking with government housing agencies on mass housing projects, adequately defeats the purpose of augmenting socialized housing requirement of the city. 

A joint venture option with private developers with existing tie-ups with the national government’s mass housing scheme precludes the production of mass housing.

Satellite Locations

The ‘satellite location’ option commonly opted by developers is the most contentious in the light of implementing and monitoring compliance projects, aside from the opportunity loss suffered by the host LGU. 

One of reasons of the LGU in the implementation and monitoring phases is the absence of any mechanism that would facilitate a successful implementation and monitoring of the socialized housing project outside of the city where the main project is located. It remained to be a major bottleneck in the effective compliance with the balanced housing policy.

Lastly, the city’s over dependency on HLURB in the implementation of socialized housing component causes a failure in the compliance and monitoring levels due to fragmented and lack of collaborative efforts between the LGU and the HLURB. 

An Assessment Of The Balanced Housing Compliance: The Case Of Cebu City

A study titled Assessment Of The Balanced Housing Compliance: The Case Of Cebu City by EnP Agusto, (2014) examines the compliance of balanced housing development program in Cebu City, its contribution in housing the poor and in urban development. 

The balanced housing compliance in Cebu was not that successful in providing affordable housing to the poor. The developer’s choice of mode of compliance was premised not only to comply, but to profit as also seen in the two previous case studies. 

“Balanced housing development was implemented in the narrow context of providing “shelter”, not in urban development.” Which supposed to inspire constituents towards sustainable communities.

VIII. Conclusion and Recommendations

By reviewing some relevant theories on urban development vis-à-vis urban poor policies on housing, tracing back the roots of the intent of the creation of Republic Act No. 7279 or “Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992”, and finally looking at the case studies of Cebu City and Davao City on the balanced housing provisions, the researcher was able to draw the following conclusions.

  • Republic Act. No. 10884, otherwise known as An Act Strengthening the Balanced Housing Development Program, amends Republic Act No. 7279 (The Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992) and its current implementation provided by the private sector as compliance to the program which aims to curb the housing backlog actually only worsens it. The continuing growth of housing backlog across the country did not only stem from includes migration and poverty in rural areas. Ambiguous application in the implementing rules was cited in the case of Davao City which resulted to the failure of the implementing and monitoring phases. In addition, the government should stop allowing developers to implement compliance projects in far flung areas through the satellite sites. In contrary, they should provide more incentives for the developers in order to encourage compliance within the LGUS. 

  • There is weak coordination among stakeholders in the monitoring and compliance. The Actors UDHA effectively complements E.O. 90 signed in 1986 delineates the roles of the participants in the National Shelter Program. As written, each key and support agencies had its own role. However, in reality, the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC) hardly acted as the umbrella organization. It sure had planning capacities but it lacked implementing powers.
  • Systematized research and development components for policy making in various housing projects have not been given much consideration by the governing bodies such as UDHA. Gaps in research and data gathering resulted to unidentified, unrectified and repeated errors in implementation and monitoring. 
  • There are no available reliable databases of completed and ongoing projects which are actually crucial for decision-making.
  • The current implementation also marginalizes the socialized housing programs to far-flung and remote areas as mentioned in the case of Davao and Cebu. It has to be seen as a complement private effort in providing affordable housing. It’s primary role should be directed to the reduction of housing backlog in the country as a whole. , national housing policy must be based upon what the national economy and the people can afford, otherwise, the policy cannot produce housing on a scale commensurate with demand and the poor will always be excluded.
  • As discussed in Chapter 2 on relevant theories wherein the issue of public housing is approached through the social development lens, the balanced housing program should not only be seen merely as a program to provide shelters but should also contribute to developing sustainable communities, promoting social sustainability and mobility. While the balanced housing program is “not tied up with any policy that has to do with provision of community facilities, amenities and economic opportunities that cater to both the 20% and 80% of the households “(Ramos, 2013).
  • Efforts should be directed to the formulation of a Comprehensive Land Use Plan. LGUS should be at the forefront in forging collaboration and cooperation with the developer in providing socialized housing to its people and in order to pursue urban and rural development, the government should provide more income and employment opportunity to the people and rationalized government development programs both in rural and urban. 
  • The national government should enjoin NGOs in the creation of campaigns for the implementation of socialized housing. We should not forget how the law was lobbied and enacted in the first place. It is through the concerned social groups which fought for the basic rights of the Filipinos to affordable and sustainable housing. NGOs along with the key informants in the grassroots level should be able to participate in all areas of the policy making process.    

IX. Footnotes and References


[2] Ramos, J. P. The Importance of Political Empowerment in Urban Planning: A Case Study Analysis on the Passage of the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 in the Philippines (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).

[3] ibid.

[4] Olea, R. (2018, February 27). Homelessness to worsen with new housing agency, Cha-cha. Retrieved January 31, 2021, from

(n.d.). Retrieved from

(n.d.). Retrieved from

(n.d.). Retrieved January 31, 2021, from

(n.d.). Retrieved from

Pampanga, D. G. (n.d.). Assessing the Compliance of Balanced Housing Policy in the Philippines: The Case of Davao City.

Mandates: Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council. (n.d.). Retrieved January 31, 2021, from

Agosto, G. (2017, March 12). ASSESSMENT OF THE BALANCED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPLIANCE IN THE PH… Retrieved January 31, 2021, from

Libraries, C. (1970, January 01). The Importance of Political Empowerment in Urban Planning: A Case Study Analysis on the Passage of the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 in the Philippines. Retrieved January 31, 2021, from

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s