With the dawn of each new year, we become excited by the prospect of starting anew. New year’s resolutions are sprinkled all over social media — new projects to start, habits to change, and for the Philippines — a new set of officials this coming May.
While the official campaign period for the midterm elections will only start in February, candidates have already plastered images of themselves on billboards, television advertisements, and social media campaigns. With each year and election, we often hear the promise of change — but do things ever really change?
For the urban poor, their call for security of tenure is one that has rung unanswered for the longest time despite the “refresh” that a new year promises, and regardless of the promise of a new set of government officials.
CHALLENGES TO HOUSING FOR THE URBAN POORWhile legislation such as the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 (UDHA) supposedly frames the issue of housing and urban development as a collaborative and participatory process — socialized housing developed through public-private partnerships (PPPs) have produced housing that target beneficiaries refuse to occupy because of its subpar quality and distance from the center, resulting in limited access to social services, transportation, and livelihood opportunities.
The PPP model inadvertently prioritizes private interests — as private sector partners often have real estate driven interests and tend to prioritize land unattractive to real estate profits for housing. A 2013 Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) study found that developers for socialized housing are bound only to fulfilling environmental requirements in site selection rather than the socio-economic feasibility and potential of living in the resettlement area.
The urban poor, as well as their allies, have further criticized socialized housing for its lack of affordability — with previous National Housing Authority (NHA) housing projects costing P600 to P1,200 in monthly amortization, amounts which aren’t easily affordable for daily wage earners.
SAME OLD PROBLEMS?While the Marcos Jr. administration’s flagship Pambansang Pabahay Para sa Pilipino (4PH) Housing Program is underway, issues of affordability remain. In fact, the current price ceiling for socialized housing was increased to incentivize private sector participation in socialized housing — highlighting how the housing program remains contingent on private sector cooperation.
Worse yet, Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development (DHSUD) Secretary Jerry Acuzar made headlines in 2023 as he was quoted as saying “iyon pong hindi nagtratrabaho, malamang hindi magkakabahay (those who really do not work, are not going to have houses),” calling those who cannot afford housing lazy — underscoring a glaring gap in how the government frames housing issues.
WHAT ABOUT THE VOICES OF THE URBAN POOR?The historical challenges of socialized housing bring a key issue to the surface: that housing and urban development should not just be about addressing backlogs and providing houses unilaterally but consider the voices and realities of the people who will live in these communities.
Last December, the urban poor held their yearly Panunuluyan (a Christmas tradition) with the theme “Pista ng Pag-asa: Panunuluyan ng Nagkakaisang Himig para sa Maralita” (Feast of Hope: Shelter of the United Song for the Poor) and in coordination with the Urban Poor Action Committee (UPAC), Community Organizers Multiversity (COM), Urban Poor Associates (UPA), and the Philippine Educational Theater Association (PETA). Following the Filipino tradition of reenacting Joseph and Mary’s search for a place to give birth to Jesus, informal settlers from Metro Manila, Rizal, Laguna, and Bulacan staged the Panunuluyan to symbolize the urban poor’s struggle for basic services, affordable housing, and poverty alleviation.
The exercise was a reminder that in issues of urban development, a key factor often overlooked is people’s participation. The urban poor should not be treated as passive recipients of government programs but should be actively included in questions of their welfare. Discussions on housing programs often fail to highlight the agency and longstanding community organizing present in urban poor communities. The urban poor, usually organized into people’s organizations (POs), have continuously engaged government and non-government stakeholders in improving their access to basic services, upscaling their communities, and amplifying their issues for public knowledge.
One key advocacy of the urban poor is the integration of their people’s plan into the 4PH program. The people’s plan strategy (introduced in 2014 by the Aquino administration as part of Oplan LIKAS) highlighted a shift from “supply driven” to “demand driven” approaches to addressing homelessness and housing issues — highlighting people’s participation in choosing where they would like to be live, how they would like their houses to be designed, and assurances of accessible social services within their community. Such strategies emphasize the active role that the urban poor can play in determining their living conditions.
PARTICIPATION IS POSSIBLEWhat can participation look like? The Alliance of People’s Organizations along the Manggahan Floodway (APOAMF) in Pasig City organized their people’s plan in 2010 for resettlement and housing to protect themselves from the threat of demolition post-Typhoon Ondoy. APOAMF, through organizing their people’s plan, was able to propose an alternative in-city resettlement site that satisfied government specifications while also fulfilling community needs like distance from schools and livelihood. After a series of dialogues within the community and with the government, APOAMF saw the inauguration and blessing of the Manggahan Residences in 2015. Their experience is a testament to the importance and power of shared responsibility and people’s participation in community development.
KAYO NA BA ANG AMING TALA?Even with the dawn of the new year and even with the “promise” of a new set of government officials, these issues remain present. During Panunuluyan 2024, the urban poor actors engaged audience members in their search for true hope. As we reflect on the incoming year, this is a stark reminder that true hope and resolution to issues of poverty and housing does not originate in top-down solutions, but in standing in solidarity with the causes of the urban poor. The urban poor look to each other, and to the rest of society as their allies in calling for improved basic services, livable wages, and their people’s plan for their communities. The question is: are we willing to listen?
Key in the new year and in the coming elections is a change — not in the introduction of new programs, or even new leaders, but rather a renewed commitment to platforming urban poor advocacies and holding government officials accountable to their promises. With the midterm elections coming up, these issues of access, quality, and participation will remain at the forefront of the urban poor agenda.
The resolution for 2025 (not just for us, but especially for those in government) is perhaps to firstly listen as the call of the urban poor remains loud and clear — as articulated in the words of youth leader Aldrian Villacorta “na hindi lamang salita sa papel ang human rights at social justice” (that human rights and social justice not remain just words on paper).
Beatriz “Trixie” Beato lectures at the Department of Political Science, Ateneo de Manila University. She is also a research associate at the Institute of Philippine Culture at the same university.
