‘No build’ and ‘no dwelling’ zones

The public servant’s reply that they in government are themselves confused is frustrating for the public, whose taxes are paying for their salaries, to hear.

Giving this excuse is disrespectful not just of the boss but also yourself. It dishonors your capabilties. It spits on the trust that your boss places on you. So I’d think of a cleverer excuse. Not that knowing and doing nothing merit justification.

Rights of Homeowners

Locals who continue to reside in the shoreline – a protected area – of Tacloban City appeared to be OK with giving up residence there if ‘the price is right”. Their practicality directs us to applicable laws,one of which is Republic Act 8974 (‘An Act to Facilitate the Acquisition of Right-of-Way, Site or Location for National Government Infrastructure Projects and For Other Purposes’).

Article III, Section 9 of the Constitution states that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Towards this end, the State shall ensure that owners of real property acquired for national government infrastructure projects are promptly paid just compensation.

In case the completion of a government infrastructure project is of utmost urgency and importance, and there is no existing valuation of the area concerned, the implementing agency shall immediately pay the owner of the property its proffered value taking into consideration the standards prescribed in Section 5 hereof.

The government through the National Housing Authority, in coordination with the local government units and implementing agencies concerned, shall establish and develop squatter relocation sites, including the provision of adequate utilities and services, in anticipation of squatters that have to be removed from the right-of-way or site of future infrastructure projects.

In case the expropriated land is occupied by squatters, the court shall issue the necessary “Writ of Demolition” for the purpose of dismantling any and all structures found within the subject property. The implementing agency shall take into account and observe diligently the procedure provided for in […] Republic Act No. 7279, otherwise known as the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992.

Private Ownership of Shoreland

It is disturbing on one hand to hear that the City’s shoreland are privately owned! Shore land are protected areas and therefore government land. Hence how did private individuals come to own shoreland?

A diagrammatic representation of the foreshore area and other features of the coastal zone. Land Management Bureau

Government Regulations

DENR’s The Emerging Challenges of Foreshore Management: A Review of Foreshore Laws and Policies, Institutional Arrangements and Issues report cited the legal bases of coastal management issues:

The case of Republic vs. CA & Republic Real Estate Corporation, Nov. 25, 1998 in which the Supreme Court Supreme Court said that foreshore lands normally extend only from 10 to 20 meters along the coast.

Under the Philippine Fisheries Code (or Republic Act No. 8550), foreshore lands are identified as among those areas which cannot be disposed and alienated.

Riparian or littoral owners of lands adjoining the shore have no right to own the lands deposited by the movements of the sea or possessory right unless upon application, the government, through the then Bureau of Lands (now LMB), had granted them a permit (SPS PelagioGulla vs. Heirs of Alejandro Labrador, July 27, 2006).

They do not even have greater rights than any other individual in regard to the use of the shore (Kock Wing vs. Phil. Railway Co. February 14, 1930).

Under CA 141, the Secretary of Agricultural and Commerce (now the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources) may grant temporary permission to qualified persons the use of foreshore areas, upon payment of a reasonable charge, for any lawful private purpose, subject to revocation at any time when, in his judgment, the public interest shall require it.

The issuance of titles over alienable and disposable public lands is a function of the executive branch of government, specifically the Director of Lands (now the Land Management Bureau or LMB). The decision of such Director, when approved by the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)as to questions of fact, is conclusive upon the court. (RP vs Felix Emperial, Feb 11, 1999)

In an administrative order in 2004, then DENR Secretary declared that,

a strip of fifty (50) meters in wide fronting the sea, ocean or other bodies of water and twenty (20) meters wide on both sides of river or creek are reserved as forestlands and must be maintained under permanent forest cover in line with the government’s environment protection and natural resources conservation program. (DAO 2004-44)

In the same year, LGUs, were purported to have been provided with the handbook, Managing the Philippine Foreshore: A Guide for Local Governments, a publication of the DENR-USAID EcoGovernance Project.

More recently, DENR reiterated national government’s regulatory mandate over the coasts especially the foreshore, and enjoined LGUs particularly in Cebu to help the agency enforce its laws on the ground. The agency had gone further in drafting a foreshore area master plan with local governments in the region.

On the matter of buildings, the National Building Code standards applies. The introductory paragraphs of the law clarify matters pertaining to minimum quality standards:

The design and construction requirements of this Code shall not apply to any traditional indigenous family dwelling costing not more than five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) and intended for use and occupancy of the family of the owner only. The traditional type of family dwellings are those that are constructed of native materials such as bamboo, nipa, logs, or lumber, wherein the distance between vertical supports or suportales does not exceed 3.00 meters (10 feet); and if masonry walls or socalos are used, such shall not be more than 1.00 meter (3 feet, 3 inches) from the ground: Provided, however, That such traditional indigenous family dwelling will not constitute a danger to life or limb of its occupants or of the public; will not be fire hazard or an eyesore to the community; and does not contravene any fire zoning regulation of the city or municipality in which it is located.

The land or site upon which will be constructed any building or structure, or any ancillary or auxillary facility thereto, shall be sanitary , hygienic or safe. Where the land or site is polluted, insanitary, unhygienic, unsafe, or hazardous, conditions contributing to or causing its being polluted, insanitary, unhygienic, unsafe, or hazardous shall be reasonably improved or corrected, or proper remedial measures shall be prescribed or incorporated in the design or construction of the building or structure in accordance with the provisions of this Code.

The land or site upon which be constructed a building of structure or any ancillary or accessory facility thereto, for use of human habitation or abode, shall be at a safe distance from streamers or bodies of water and/source of air considered to be polluted, volcano or volcanic site, and building or structure considered to be a potential source of fire or explosion, such as ammunitions factory or dump and storage place for highly inflammable material.

The provisions of this Code shall apply to all dangerous buildings, as herein defined, which are now in existence or which may hereafter be constructed, as well as to ruinous buildings as defined in Article 482 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

Dangerous buildings are those which are structurally unsafe or not provided with safe egress, or which constitute a fire hazard, or are otherwise dangerous to human life, or which in relation to existing use constitute a hazard to safety or health or public welfare, by reason of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, obsolescence, fire hazard, or abandonment; or which otherwise contribute to the pollution of the site or the community to an intolerable degree.

Civil Society Response

The Inter-Cluster Advisory to the HCT’s report on February 13 in the matter of aid to residents in ‘no dwelling zones’ noted,

Concern has been raised by communities that if they are residing in a proposed no dwelling zone and do not get relocated to a bunkhouse then they will no longer be eligible for any further shelter assistance. 198 bunkhouses have been completed by DPWH of a possible 242 (including approx. 20 in Region VI) and there is a current estimate of approximately 60,000 families residing in no dwelling zones in Region VI, VII and VIII for whom municipalities are considering relocation (including approximately 28,000 in Region VII), consequently there is a need for the Government to communicate its strategy to the affected population to avoid misinformed resettlement and conflict amongst the affected population.

Furthermore, with only three sites identified for permanent relocation, accommodating approximately 12,000 families, what is proposed for the remaining 18,000 families in Region VIII let alone other Regions who are saying that there is not enough available land to accommodate such plans. The HCT should work with the Government to establish a durable relocation plan for each Region.

Furthermore a number of issues are arising in Region VI and VII whereby people who are residing in proposed no dwelling zones and who have either not been affected by the Typhoon or at risk are being relocated for reasons other than their safety. These concerns should be investigated further with the LGUs and if required raised at the national level.

Innovative planning and mapping abound and the challenge is in the transfer of these to all cities across the country in order that city governments could start parallel work (the majority if not all the CLUPs and CDPs need an overdue revision that account for local disaster and climate risks and their corresponding address). But who’s to facilitate the transfer?

Vision for the City

Tacloban City is an important regional center. It attracts trade and tourism in a region that remains the poorest in the country. Its port and airport are barely functional now. Roads, which have been cleared most of the way, badly need repairs. If the City and region are persons, they would still be in critical emergency care.

Urban planning experts like Palafox envisions the City as one that models adaptation technologies. I agree. Holland built the Maeslantkering to protect it’s shoreline as well as communities.

Perhaps the most important take away from Haiyan is that a similar (or maybe an even worse) event would strike again anytime. By then we should’ve already agreed as to what ‘no build and ‘no dwelling zones’ are and made considerable progress.

————————————–

This post was first published on 14 May 2014.