Upload
vanquynh
View
218
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
SPECIAL ISSUE 2011
PHILSSA SEMI-ANNUAL PUBLICATION OF THE PARTNERSHIP OF PHILIPPINE SUPPORT SERVICE AGENCIES, INC. (PHILSSA)
SALIN-DIWASALIN-DIWASALIN-DIWASALIN-DIWASALIN-DIWA
PHILSSA’s Continuing Initiatives inBudget Monitoring and Advocacy
INSIDE
Salin-Diwa, which
means the “flowing of
learnings and ideas,”
has a threefold purpose:
networking, advocacy,
and capability building.
Salin-Diwa comes out
twice a year to tackle
issues relating to people
development and urban
change. It welcomes
comments and sugges-
tions from its readers.
Salin-Diwa
Monitoring of Budget and Expenditure of
National Housing Authority (NHA) 4
Revisiting Southville 3:
NHA Resettlement Project inside
National Bilibid Prison 13
Subdivision, Reblocking, and Auxiliary
Service Fund 16
Looking Back at Bicol Calamity
Assistance Rehabilitation Efforts (Bicol
Care) 19
Sacred Heart Ville Jagobiao Housing
Project
Presidential Proclamation 1772 22
NHA Kadayawan Muslim Village HOA,
Davao City 23
PHILSSA and NHA Joint Assessment of
the Budget Partnership Agreement (BPA)
and Identified Action Points 26
Arnold de VeraSALIGANChair
Sarah RedobladoALTERPLANVice Chair
Anna Marie A. KaraosJJCICSISecretary
Rodrigo Olarte Jr.KPS SEEDTreasurer
Ermin Stan Pimentel (KKP-SIP)Invictus Paradela (FORGE)Ann Gladys Ponteras (BALAYAN)Ian Clark Parcon (SICO)Isabelita Solamo-Antonio (PLRC)Jocelyn Vicente-Angeles (COPE)Trustees
Anna Marie A. KaraosJJCICSI - NCRCristina LimASSRC - LUZONCatherine RuizCPAG- VISAYASDemetrio Dawa, Jr.SALORSEDFI - MINDANAORegional Representatives
Benedict O. BalderramaNational Coordinator
EDITORIAL & PRODUCTION STAFF
PHILSSA, Inc.Publisher
Benedict O. BalderramaEditor-in-Chief
Rhea Kristine AguilarProject Coordinator
Maribeth M. AñonuevoLay-out Artist
PHILSSA SECRETARIAT
Rhea Kristine AguilarMaribeth M. AñonuevoJaypee BombalesAmaris Grace CabasonJennifer G. CruzNicasio de RosasJoel M. GonzalesAgapito Gutierrez
The Partnership of Philippine Support ServiceAgencies, Inc. is a nonstock, nonprofitnetwork of 56 social development NGOsbased in urban centers and performingsupport service or intermediate functions toprimary grassroots organizations. PHILSSAenvisions a society based on justice andequality, operated through mechanisms thatare participative and democratic. PHILSSAwas founded on 31 May 1988 by 18convenor NGOs, registered with theSecurities and Exchange Commission onFebruary 14, 1990 and accredited by theQuezon City council on May 26, 1993.
This special issue was supported by theUSAID and The Governance and Trans-parency Fund of the Department for Interna-tional Development of the United Kingdom(DFID-GTF).
PHILSSABOARD OF TRUSTEES
From the Editor
This special issue features studies made by PHILSSA members on the National Housing
Authority’s agency budget and expenditure, and on selected housing projects in different
parts of the country.
The first article is a study done by Arch. Sarah Redoblado of the Alternative Planning
Initiatives (ALTERPLAN) on the agency budget and expenditure of NHA in the past years.
Other articles are studies done by PHILSSA members on selected NHA housing projects in
different parts of the country:
• Southville 3 (National Bilibid Prison) in Muntinlupa City by Muntinlupa
Development Foundation (MDF)
• National Government Center (NGC)-Eastside in Quezon City by Foundation for the
Development of the Urban Poor (FDUP)
• Taysan Resettlement Site in Legazpi City by Community Organiztion for the
Philippines Enterprise (COPE Foundation)
• Sacred Heart Ville Jagobiao Housing Project in Mandaue City by Fellowship for
Organizing Endeavors (FORGE)
• Kadayawan Muslim Village in Davao City by San Lorenzo Ruiz Socio-Economic
Development Foundation (SALORSEDFI)
Along side these case studies, we include the NHA response and result of the PHILSSA-NHA
Joint Assessment of these case studies.
Finally, we also have an article on the general action points agreed upon in the PHILSSA-
NHA Joint Assessment of the Budget Partnership Agreement.
These articles reaffirm PHILSSA’s continuing budget monitoring and advocacy work, as
part of promoting good governance and transparency in the country.
Again, we would like to thank in a special way, the US Agency for International
Development (USAID), LINC-EG, International Center for Innovation, Transformation and
Excellence in Governance (INCITEGov), as well as the UK Department for International
Development (DFID) for supporting PHILSSA’s work on enhancing transparency,
accountability and responsiveness in government social housing agencies and
programmes.
Benedict O. Balderrama
National Coordinator
PHILSSA
Spe
cial
Issu
e
4 Salin-Diwa
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Total Amount Proposed 7,110.03 M 12,598.313 M 14,136.183 M 12,382M 11,667M
Funds Raised 3,604.56 M 3,005.512 M 16.6% decrease
6,626.143 M 120% increase
6,927M 4.5%
6,728M -2.9%
8,106M 20.5%
17,035M 110%
5.67 X 2006
NG Support 2,310.00 M
64.1% of FR
1,574.714 M 31.8% decrease
52.4% of FR
4,743.359 M 201.2%
71.6%
5,765M 21.5%
83.2%
5,049M -12.4%
75%
6,014M 19.1%
74.2%
14,136M 135%
8.98 X 2006 83%
Funds Internally
Generated 694.556 M
19.3% of FR
930.798 M
34% increase
31% of FR
1,582.784 M
70%
23.9%
1,162M
-26.6%
16.8%
1,679M
44.5%
25%
2,023M 20.5%
25%
2,860M 90.8%
4.15 X 2006 16.8%
Funds Borrowed 600 M 16.6% of FR
500 M 16.6%
300 M 4.5%
- - 69M 0.8%
39M 0.2%
Beginning Balances 2,177.07 M 2,602.326 M 1,785.572 M 3,110M 5,740M
TOTAL 5,781.53 M 5,607.838 M 8,411.715 M 10,037M 12,468M
Table 1. Total Corporate Operating Budget Proposed andl Funds Raised
Monitoring of Budget and Expenditure of National
Housing Authority (NHA)
DATA AND FINDINGSDATA AND FINDINGSDATA AND FINDINGSDATA AND FINDINGSDATA AND FINDINGS
In 2007, the difference
between Target and Actual funds
available for National Housing
Authority operations (5,724.468
M) could be traced to the
difference in the Target and Actual
National Government Support
raised (6,011.759 M). In 2005 and
2006, bulk of the difference is in
Borrowings, where the Target was
several times bigger than the
actual funds. In 2005, the variance
in Borrowings was 1,925.34 M
when the difference in Proposed
and Raised funds was 1,328.5 M.
In 2006, the variance in
Difference in Target and Actual Funds Raised
Borrowings was 6,202.244 M when
the difference in Proposed and
Raised funds was 5,724.468 M.
Increases in Funds Raised
Total Funds Raised, as well as
NG Support and Internally
Generated Funds, are generally
increasing. The 2011 Funds Raised
is more than three times the
amount in 2006, while NG Support
is more than five times 2006 levels
and Internally Generated Funds is
almost twice 2006 levels.
Higher Beginning Balances
were seen in 2008 and 2009,
increasing by 74% from 2007 to
2008, and by 85% from 2008 to
2009. This suggests a problem
with timely utilization of funds.
According to NHA officers, the
situation is caused by NG releases
being made toward the latter part
of the year, which makes it very
difficult for NHA to utilize a big
portion of the funds during the
year.
Contributions to Funds Raised
Although Internally Generated
Funds contribute a significant
amount to Funds Raised, averaging
1
1All figures in this column, except amount for Funds Internally Generated, are from the Funds Raised table on page 20 of the 2005 Annual Report of the NHA.2All figures in this column, except amount for Funds Internally Generated, are from the Funds Raised by Source table on page 15 of the NHA Annual Report 2006.3All figures in this column, except amount for Funds Internally Generated, are from the Funds Raised by Source table on Annex D1 of the 2007 Accomplishment Report of the NHA.4All figures in this column, except amount for Funds Internally Generated, are from the Budget (Annex D) table on page 10 of the 2008 Annual Report of the NHA.5All figures in this column, except amount for Funds Internally Generated, are from the table on page 10 of the 2009 Annual Report of the NHA.6From records of SARO and Corporate Operating Budget, NHA Financial Management Department.7Ibid.8Total of Corporate Receipts (667.573 M) and Trust Fund (26.983 M) from Funds Raised table on page 20 of the 2005 Annual Report of the NHA.9Total of Corporate Receipts (878.074 M) and Trust Fund (52.724 M) from Funds Raised by Source table on page 15 of the NHA Annual Report 2006.10Total of Corporate Receipts (1,498.017 M) and Trust Fund (84.767 M) from Funds Raised by Source table on Annex D1 of the 2007 Accomplishment Report of the NHA (unpublished).11Total of Corporate Receipts (984 M) and Trust Fund (178 M) from Budget (Annex D) table on page 10 of the 2008 Annual Report of the NHA.12Total of Corporate Receipts (1,228M) and Trust Fund (451 M) from the table on page 10 of the 2009 Annual Report of the NHA.
1
1. Agency Budget and Sources of Funds
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12
By Arch. Sarah Redoblado
ALTERPLAN
Table 1. Total Corporate Operating Budget Proposed and Funds Raised
Spe
cial
Issu
e
5Salin-Diwa
Table 2. NG Support
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Total Amount Proposed 1,010.00 M 1,880.546 M 10,755.118 M 7,901M 4,000M
Amount Allocated to NHA in
the GAA 1,000.00M
43.5%
1,000M (Re-enacted)
64.6%
256.775M
74.3% decrease 5.4%
3,500M
1263% increase 60.7%
3,500M
0% increase 69.3%
3,600M
2.9% increase 105%
4,375M
21.5% increase 51.6%
Unprogrammed Funds
Resettlement
GK Laguindingan
Rail NLEX CARE
Smokey Mountain MRH Ondoy response
Irosin AFP-PNP
Debt service
500M 800M
548M
5M 25.5M
2,500M 600M 500M 557M
556M (Total of above
includes amount
in GAA)
5,515M
250M
(Total of above
includes amount
in GAA)
650M
2,700M
1,399M
(Total of above
includes part of
amount in GAA)
1,567M 63.04M
(Even with
unprogrammed
releases, total of
SARO was less
than amount in
GAA)
4,200M
Total NG Support 2,300 M 1,548 M 4,743.359 M 5,765M 5,049M 3,423M 8,475M
From Republic Acts (GAAs)
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
TOTAL 1,000M 256.775M 3,500M 3,500M 3,600M 4,375M
Resettlement 940M 94%
256.775M 100%
3,500M 100%
3,200M 91.4%
3,230M 89.7%
4,275M 97.7%
North and South Rail 500M 50%
Other Resettlement 440M 44%
Medium-rise Public and
Private Housing Program 60M
6%
Local Housing Program 300M 8.6%
170M 4.7%
Slum Upgrading for Lands
Proclaimed as Housing
Sites
100M 2.8%
100M 2.3%
Aurora Special Economic
Zone Act Housing Project 100M
2.8%
Table 3. GAA, by program/project
13Funds Raised table on page 20 of the 2005 Annual Report of the NHA.14Funds Raised by Source table on page 15 of the NHA Annual Report 2006.15Funds Raised by Source table on Annex D1 of the 2007 Accomplishment Report of the NHA.16Budget (Annex D) table on page 10 of the 2008 Annual Report of the NHA.17Table on page 10 of the 2009 Annual Report of the NHA.18RA 933619RA 940120RA 949821RA 952422RA 997023RA 1014724List of Released SAROs and NCAs, NHA Financial Management Department25From Republic Acts (GAAs)
24% yearly from 2005 to 2011, NG
support is still the biggest
contributor to NHA’s operations,
with an average contribution of
70.5%. This confirms that NHA is
far from turning into a self-
supporting corporation.
Borrowings accounted for an
average of 12.6% from 2005 to
2007, but have not contributed to
NHA’s funds since 2008.
The NHA Budget in the GAA and
Other Sources of NG Support
NHA’s allocation in the GAA
saw a big jump from 2005-2007
levels to 2008, remained at the
same level until 2010, then rose
again by 21.5% in 2011.
In five of the past seven years,
the amount allocated to NHA in the
GAA accounted for only about half
of the total national government
support provided to NHA during
the year. The other half comes
from Unprogrammed Funds such
as funds that become available
for calamity response, mass
housing projects for special
groups (e.g. AFP-PNP), or
resettlement for infrastructure
projects of the national
government.
13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23
25
Spe
cial
Issu
e
6 Salin-Diwa
NHA Programs with Budgetary
Support in the GAA
From 2005 to 2011, NHA’s
Resettlement Program has been
allotted at least 90% of the NHA
budget in the GAA every year. This
indicates that as far as the
national government is
concerned, resettlement is the
main purpose of the NHA. In
2005, 50% of NHA’s allocation in
the GAA was earmarked for
resettlement of households
affected by North and South Rail
rehabilitation.
Other programs that have
been provided funding support in
the GAA are: a) the Local Housing
Program (2009 and 2010),
b) Slum Upgrading for Lands
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Corporate Receipts 667.573 M 96.1%
878.074 M 94.3%
1,498.017 M 94.6%
984M 84.7%
1,228M 73.1%
Trust Fund 26.983 M 3.9%
52.724 M 5.7%
84.767 M 5.4%
178M 15.3%
451M 26.9%
Medium Rise Housing 13M 1.1%
5M 0.3%
Local Housing 76M 6.5%
45M 2.7%
NGC 16M 1.4%
15M 0.9%
Socialized Housing Units
Participation 72M
6.2% 65M 3.9%
PAF3 1M 0.06%
North Triangle 300M 17.9%
SLEX 21M 1.2%
TOTAL 694.556 M 930.798 M 1,582.784 M 1,162M 1,679M
Table 4. Funds Internally Generated
Proclaimed as Housing Sites
(2010 and 2011), c) Aurora
Special Economic Zone Act
Housing Project (2010), and d)
Medium-rise Public and Private
Housing Program.
The figures show that few
District Representatives have
accessed funds mandated by the
Comprehensive Integrated Shelter
Finance Act (CISFA) for housing in
Congressional districts.
Also, despite the big number
of Presidential Proclamations
declaring parcels of public land
open for disposition to qualified
beneficiaries (115 Proclamations
since 2001, comprising 27,286
hectares with an estimated
270,000 beneficiaries26), funds
have been provided for Slum
Upgrading for Lands Proclaimed
as Housing Sites only in 2010 and
2011, and then comprising less
than 3% of NHA budgetary
support in the GAA each time. The
funds were mostly intended for
tenurial upgrading only (survey
and titling), not for structural or
site utilities upgrading.
The Aurora Special Economic
Zone Act Housing Project appears
to have a rare urgency, getting its
own line in the 2010 GAA.
Medium-rise Housing was
provided funds in 2005 based on
the CISFA law. Such provision in
the GAA has not been repeated
since.
Table 5. Funds Borrowed
Sources of Borrowings 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
NDC and NHMFC 600 M
Philippine Veterans Bank 500 M
Land Bank of the Philippines 300 M
Total 600 M 500M 300 M
26http://www.hudcc.gov.ph/index.php?p=15827From Funds Raised table on page 20 of the 2005 Annual Report of the NHA.28From Funds Raised by Source table on page 15 of the NHA Annual Report 2006 and documents of NHA Financial Management Department.29From Funds Raised by Source table on Annex 4.1 of the 2007 Accomplishment Report of the NHA.30From Funds Raised by Source table on Annex D1 of the 2008 Annual Report of the NHA.31From Funds Raised by Source table on Annex D1 of the 2009 Annual Report of the NHA.32NHA 2005 Annual Report, p. 1433NHA Annual Report 2006, p. 934COA Report, March 14, 2008, p. 16
27 28 29 30 31
32
33
34
Spe
cial
Issu
e
7Salin-Diwa
Sources of Internally Generated
Funds
Corporate Receipts make up
the bulk of Internally Generated
Funds, making up more than 90%
from 2005 to 2007, but has
dropped to 84.7% and 73.1% in
2008 and 2009 respectively.
The total amount in the Trust
Funds has generally increased
from 2005 to 2009 suggesting
either that a) some earmarked
funds have remained in Trust
rather than utilized during the
period for their purpose and/or
b) funds have been put in trust for
additional items. According to
NHA’s Financial Management
Department, the amount
indicated in the Trust Funds could
be a combination of collections
or interest (unless specifically
indicated interest). The North
Triangle appears as one
significant additional item under
Trust Fund in 2009. The amount of
300M is part of the funds
provided by the Ayala Group for
resettlement of the households to
be displaced from North Triangle.
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Project Development 2,034.87 M 59.9%
2,768.178 M 72%
3,252.573 M 61.4%
3,050M 71%
6,011M 82.1%
National Programs 2,906M 5,262M
Regular Programs 144M 748M
Housing Support 70.199 M 2.1%
14.750 M 0.4%
84.686 M 1.6%
19M 0.4%
32M 0.4%
Land Acquisition/Assembly 323.152 M 9.5%
34.745 M 0.9%
56.053 M 1.1%
9M 0.2%
75M 1%
Other Project-related Capital Outlay 2M 0.03%
Other Capital Outlay 1.717 M 0.05%
2.455 M 0.06%
10.789 M 0.2%
34M 0.8%
13M 0.2%
Debt Service 86.018 M 2.5%
133.250 M 3.5%
686.418 M 12.9%
74M 1.7%
60M 0.8%
COE 878.682 M 25.9%
888.958 M 23.1%
1,210.896 M 22.8%
1,110M 25.8%
1,127M 15.4%
Total Amount Disbursed 3,394.64 M 3,842.336 M 5,301.415 M 4,297M 7,319M
Table 6. Disbursements by Use
The amount for SLEX in the 2009
column is from the Alabang-Sto.
Tomas Development Inc.
According to the Financial
Management Department, the
spike in Corporate Receipts in
2007 could represent the receipt
of bulk receivables from the
DOTC.
While NG Support and
Internally Generated Funds have
generally increased from 2005 to
2011, Borrowings have generally
dropped in the same period.
Sources of Borrowings from 2005
to 2007 have been banks and
government financing
institutions.
The Financial Management
Department noted the following
on the figures from the report:
• Of the amount for 2005,
100M is from NHMFC and
500M is from NDC. NHMFC
had released another 100M
in 2004. The total loan from
NHMFC was thus 200M.
• Of the PVB loan of 500M in
2006, 300M was released in
2006 and 200M was released
in 2007.
• The whole loan amount of
300M was released by Land
Bank in 2007.
2. Agency Expenditures
Share of Project Development and
COE to Total Disbursements
As the value of total
disbursements have gone up, so
have the share of project
development to total
disbursements increased. With
the significantly higher total
disbursement in 2009 (7,319M
from 4,297M in 2008), the share
of Project Development climbed
to 82.1% from 71%, while COE
dropped to 15.4% from 25.8% in
2008. This apparent trend for
more efficient corporate
operations bears watching in the
future. Further study of Project
Development budgets would also
be useful in showing that
operating expenses were not
merely shifted to project costs.
35All figures in this column are from the Disbursements table on page 21 of the 2005 Annual Report of the NHA.36All figures in this column are from the Disbursements table on page 17 of the NHA Annual Report 2006.37All figures in this column are from the Disbursements by Use table in Annex D3 of the 2007 Accomplishment Report of the NHA (unpublished).38All figures in this column are from the Disbursements by Use table in Annex D3, page 31 of the 2008 Accomplishment Report of the NHA.39All figures in this column are from the Disbursements by Use table in Annex D3, page 37 of the 2009 Accomplishment Report of the NHA.
35 36 37 38 39
Spe
cial
Issu
e
8 Salin-Diwa
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Project Development 2,034.87M 2,768.178M 3,252.573M 3,050M 6,011M
National Programs 87.7%
92.7%
2,492.340M 76.6%
2,906M 95.3%
5,262M 87.5%
- Resettlement 2,423.211M 74.5%
2,598M 85.2%
5,261M 87.5%
NHA Administered 1,783.64M 87.7%
2,565.461M 92.7%
Rail 2,348.145M 2,498M 4,198M
NLEX 75.066M 109M 178M
SLEX 2M
- CARE 65.183M 2%
303M 10%
187M 3.1%
- Reconstruction Program 697M 11.6%
- Slum Uprgrading (PP) 3.946M 5M 1M
Regular Programs 12.3%
7.3%
760.233M 23.4%
144M 4.7%
748M 12.4%
Resettlement 23.755M 0.7%
105M 3.4%
47M 0.8%
Resettlement - Assistance to
LGUs 48.262M
2.4% 20.202M
0.7%
Slum Upgrading 9.656M 2.768M 0.759M 5M 8M
Si tes and Services 28.096M 47.515M 202.184M 16M 9M
Core Housing 15.412M 24.505M 10.975M 3M 9M
Medium Rise Housing 149.798M 7.4%
107.929M 3.9%
522.949M 16%
15M 0.5%
676M 11.2%
Table 7. Disbursements by Use (Project Development)
40All figures in this column are from the Disbursements table on p. 21 of the 2005 Annual Report of the NHA.41All figures in this column are from the Disbursements table on p. 17 of the 2006 Annual Report of the NHA.42All figures in this column are from the Disbursements by use table in Annex 4.3, page 33 of the 2007 Accomplishment Report of the NHA.43All figures in this column are from the Disbursements by Use table in Annex D3, page 31 of the 2008 Accomplishment Report of the NHA.44All figures in this column are from the Disbursements by Use table in Annex D3, page 37 of the 2009 Accomplishment Report of the NHA.
Share of Programs to total
disbursements for Project
Development
The share of National
Programs to total
disbursements for Project
Development averages 88%
from 2005 to 2009. With the
exception of the CARE
Program, the National
Programs have tended to be
located in NCR and the
adjacent Regions 3 and 4.
Nationally, Resettlement
uses up 87.12% of
disbursements for Project
Development in the same
period. Calamity Assistance
began to appear in the table in
2007, and from 2007 to 2009
averaged 8.9% of total
disbursements for Project
Development.
Of the programs with the
smaller disbursements,
Medium Rise Housing gets the
biggest share, averaging 7.8%
of total disbursements for
Project Development from
2005 to 2009. Slum Upgrading
got the smallest
disbursements from 2005 to
2009.
40 41 42 43 44
Spe
cial
Issu
e
9Salin-Diwa
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Actual Actual
National Programs 31,383 14,647 38.6%
59,296 16,474 35.7%
59,238 54,788 82.1%
30,651 73.7%
14,612 35.3%
Resettlement - Northrail 18,930 13,611 16,270 16,270 10,292 22,725 0
Resettlement – Southrail 21,814 14,547
NLEX 532 1,875
CARE 32,564 25,053 5,941
Slum Upgrading (Pres.
Proc.)
12,453 1,036 21,212 204 15,850 7,010 8,288
Regular Programs 14,449 2,524 6.7%
21,832
9,777 21.2%
12,622 9,016 13.5%
8,396 20.2%
18,751 45.4%
Resettlement – NHA
Administered
1,071 292 1,130 208 702
Resettlement –
Assistance to LGUs
2,524 62 5,374 2,481 1,442
Slum Upgrading 3,498 1,274 8,999 3,452 8,728 5,225 5,751
Sites and Services 4,789 512 4,578 3,061 2,935 1,819 957
Core Housing 1,931 384 815 575 869 1,120 246
Medium-Rise Housing 636 936 90 150
Other Housing Assistance 4,270 20,733 54.7%
6,255 19,894 43.1%
7,045 2,902 4.4%
2,531 6.1%
7,982 19.3%
Total 50,102 37,904 75.7%
87,383 46,145 52.8%
78,905 66,706 84.5%
41,578 41,345
Table 8. Housing Starts
3. Agency Targets and Performance
45All figures in this column are from NHA 2005 Annual Report, Housing Starts table, p. 16.46All figures in this column are from NHA Annual Report 2006, Housing Starts table, p. 11.47All figures in this column are from NHA 2007 Accomplishment Report (unpublished), Production Starts by Program table, Annex A1.482008 Accomplishment on Production table, pp. 32-38, 2008 NHA Annual Report49List of Projects Implemented in 2009 table, pp. 38-44, 2009 NHA Annual Report50All figures in this column are from NHA 2005 Annual Report, Housing Completions/Assistance table, p. 17.51All figures in this column are from NHA Annual Report 2006, Housing Completions/Assistance table, p. 12.52All figures in this column are from NHA 2007 Accomplishment Report (unpublished), Production Completions by Program table, Annex A2.532008 Accomplishment on Production table, pp. 32-38, 2008 NHA Annual Report54List of Projects Implemented in 2009 table, pp. 38-44, 2009 NHA Annual Report
Biggest Contributors to Actual Starts
The biggest contributors to actual starts in 2005 and 2006 are Other Housing Assistance (tenurialassistance, technical assistance, housing financial assistance, housing materials assistance, provision ofhousing facilities, and other local housing projects), National Programs in 2007 and 2008, and Regular
Programs in 2009.
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Actual Actual
National Programs 21,794 16,784 38.8%
32,384 14,513 35.6%
51,647 28,560 67.1%
35,076 72.7%
23,637 76.9%
Resettlement – Northline 15,828 15,788 16,270 14,513 11,200 16,291 730
Resettlement – Southline 13,814 14,195
NLEX 532 1,620
CARE 32,564 12,087 18,156
Slum Upgrading (Pres. Proc.) 5,966 996 2,300 7,351 182 375
Regular Programs 21,425 7,533 17.4%
15,811 5,308 13%
18,513 8,801 20.7%
9,762 20.2%
2,948 9.6%
Resettlement – NHA Administered 122 292 237 5,535 277
Resettlement – Assistance
to LGUs
4,475 880 2,579 877 2,129
Slum Upgrading 7,998 4,136 6,562 1,338 7,891 3,707 6,231
Sites and Services 5,478 1,192 4,432 2,061 4,658 4,036 1,361
Core Housing 3,247 1,033 1,896 927 429 721 41
Medium-Rise Housing 105 105 105 60
Other Housing Assistance 3,796 18,982 43.8%
8,511 20,987 51.4%
7,655 5,190 12.2%
3,442 7.1%
4,144 13.5%
Total 47,015 43,299 92.1%
56,706 40,808 72%
77,815 42,551 54.7%
48,280 30,729
Table 9. Housing Completions
Biggest Contributors to Actual Completions
The biggest contributors to actual completions are Other Housing Assistance in 2005 and 2006, and
National Programs from 2007 to 2009.
45 46 47
48 49
50 51 52
53 54
Spe
cial
Issu
e
10 Salin-Diwa
Area 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Housing Need (2010)
NCR
16.8%
11,055
25.5%
2,247
5.5%
6,908
16.2%
10,657
22.1%
4,421
14.6%
496,928
13.2%
NCL
32.1%
18,601
43%
24,761
60.7%
11,924
28%
5,161
10.7%
5,480
18.1%
769,504
20.5%
SLB
38.18%
6,928
16%
8,069
19.8%
19,344
45.5%
26,571
55%
16,541
54.6%
1,002,103
26.7%
Visayas
5.78%
2,931
6.8%
2,905
7.1%
2,226
5.2%
1,805
3.7%
1,837
6.1%
632,323
16.8%
Mindanao
7.18%
3,784
8.7%
2,826
6.9%
2,149
5.1%
4,086
8.5%
2,015
6.7%
855,214
22.8%
TOTAL 43,299 40,808 42,551 48,280 30,294 3,756,072
Table 10. Housing Production by Geographical Distribution
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
COB 5,781.53 M 5,607.838 M 8,411.715 M 10,037M 12,468M
Completions 43,299 40,808 42,551 48,280 30,294
Cost per completed unit 133,525.72 137,420.06 2.9% increase
197,685.48 43.8% increase
207,891.47 5.2% increase
411,566.65 98% increase
Table 11. Production vs. COB
Table 12. Production vs. COE Cost per completed unit
The cost per completed unit has increased, sometimes in small, sometimes in big increments, in the period
from 2005 to 2009. The cost per completed unit in 2009 is three times the cost for 2005.
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
COE 878.682 M 888.958 M 1,210.896 M 1,110M 1,127M
Completions 43,299 40,808 42,551 48,280 30,294
COE per completed unit 20,293.36 21,783.91 7.3% increase
28,457.52 30.6% increase
22,990.89 19.2% decrease
37,202 61.8% increase
Table 12. Production vs. COE
Table 13. Collection EfficiencyCOE per completed unit
Like the cost per completed unit, the figures for COE per completed unit show a general upward trend, but
the percentage of increments vary a lot from year to year. COE per completed unit in 2009 is 1.8 times the figure
in 2005.
Housing production by region compared to housing need
The order of regions from most to least production is the same as the order of regions with most to least
housing need. However, the proportion of production in NCL and SLB are each about 12 percentage points above
their proportion of housing need, while the proportion of production in Visayas and Mindanao are 5 to 10
percentage points below their proportion of housing need.
The focus on Resettlement programs seen in earlier tables also raises the question of what proportion of
local housing need the housing production figures actually address, especially in NCL and SLB, which might have
big production only because they serve as receiving localities of resettlers from NCR.
55Housing Completions/Assistance, by Region, page 17, 2005 NHA Annual Report56Housing Completions/Assistance, by Region, page 12, 2006 NHA Annual Report57Housing Production and Capital Outlay by AMO, page 26, 2007 NHA Annual Report582008 Housing Production by Geographical Distribution table, page 7, 2008 NHA Annual Report.592009 Housing Production Assistance by Geographical Distribution table, page 8, 2009 NHA Annual Report.60Table 2.11. Housing need per region, 2005-2010, National Urban Development and Housing Framework 2009-2016.
55 56 57 58 59 60
Spe
cial
Issu
e
11Salin-Diwa
61All figures in this column are from NHA 2005 Annual Report, p. 13. Collection efficiency for 2005 is cited as 29% in p. 9 of the NHA Annual Report 2006.62All figures in this column are from NHA Annual Report 2006, pp. 8-9. Collection efficiency for 2006 is cited as 12% in p. 5 of the NHA 2007 Accomplishment Report (unpublished).63All figures in this column are from NHA Annual Report 2008, pp. 8-9.64All figures in this column are from NHA Annual Report 2009, p. 9.65NHA Annual Report 2007, p. 30. Collection by program table.66Ibid.
61 62 63 64
Recommendations
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Total Collections
Installment Contracts Rental / Lease
683.67 M
96% 4%
693.897 M
94% 6%
1,458.451M
47% 53%
1,078 M
76% 24%
1,049M
77% 23%
Collection Efficiency
Residential accounts Non-residential
accounts
33%
68% 11%
26% 33% 33%
Table 13. Collection Efficiency
61 62 63 64
65
66
RECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONS
Findings: Beginning Balances were
seen in 2008 and 2009, increasing by
74% from 2007 to 2008, and by 85%
from 2008 to 2009. This suggests a
problem with timely utilization of
funds. According to NHA officers, the
situation is caused by NG releases
being made toward the latter part of
the year, which makes it very difficult
for NHA to utilize a big portion of the
funds during the year.
Recommendation: For CSOs to probe
the cause(s) for releases to NHA
being made in the latter part of
the year. Determine if CSOs can
contribute to alleviating this
problem through CSO participation
in budget execution.
Findings: In five of the past seven
years, the amount allocated to NHA in
the GAA accounted for only about half
of the total National Government
support provided to NHA during the
year. The other half comes from
Unprogrammed Funds such as funds
that become available for calamity
response, mass housing projects for
special groups (e.g. AFP-PNP), or
resettlement caused by infrastructure
projects of the national government.
Recommendation: For budget
monitoring teams to be alert to
projects that are quickly prepared
during the year and receive big
amounts from Unprogrammed
Funds.
Findings: From 2005 to 2011, NHA’s
Resettlement Program has been
allotted at least 90% of the NHA
budget in the GAA every year. This
indicates that as far as the national
government is concerned, resettlement
is the main purpose of the NHA. In
2005, 50% of NHA’s allocation in the
GAA was earmarked for resettlement
of households affected by North and
South Rail rehabilitation.
Recommendations 1: The big blocks
of funds provided for Resettlement
in the NHA budget highlight the
need for budget advocates to keep
on studying how Resettlement is
being done, and to keep on
advocating how Resettlement
could be better planned and
implemented to succeed. Safe
location and sufficient social and
economic infrastructure are all
necessary components of planned
settlements and lessen the risk of
projects turning out to be
unacceptable to beneficiaries.
2: That the livelihood concern of
NHA in resettlement projects not
be limited to promoting home-
based micro-businesses but
should take into consideration the
directions of local economic
development.
3: That NHA give more thought to
projects that are centrally located
(‘in-city’) before turning to projects
located in urban peripheries
where social and economic
infrastructure are not well-
developed and give reason for
beneficiaries to return to informal
housing arrangements in the city.
Findings: The figures show that few
District Representatives have accessed
funds mandated by the Comprehensive
Integrated Shelter Finance Act (CISFA)
for housing in Congressional districts.
Despite the a number of Presidential
Proclamations declaring parcels of
public land open for disposition to
qualified beneficiaries (115
Proclamations since 2001, comprising
27,286 hectares with an estimated
270,000 beneficiaries1), funds have
been provided for Slum Upgrading for
Lands Proclaimed as Housing Sites
only in 2010 and 2011, and then
comprising less than 3% of NHA
budgetary support in the GAA each
time. The funds were mostly intended
for tenurial upgrading only (survey and
titling), not for structural or site
utilities upgrading. Medium-rise
Housing was provided funds in 2005
based on the CISFA law. Such provision
in the GAA has not been repeated
since.
Recommendation 1: That CSOs urge
their respective Representatives to
cause the release of more Local
Housing Program funds by
equipping the Representatives
with information and concrete
options to address local housing
need.
2: That Slum Upgrading programs
and funds not be limited to
tenurial upgrading but should
include improvements to
sanitation, safe water and other
conditions for quality of life.
Spe
cial
Issu
e
12 Salin-Diwa
3: That Medium Rise Housing be
provided more resources as one
of the more viable options for in-
city housing development.
Findings: The total amount in the
Trust Funds has generally increased
from 2005 to 2009 suggesting either
that a) some earmarked funds have
remained in Trust rather than utilized
during the period for their purpose
and/or b) funds have been put in
trust for additional items. According
to NHA’s Financial Management
Department, the amount indicated in
the Trust Funds could be a
combination of collections or interest
(unless specifically indicated
interest).
Recommendations 1: That CSOs
study the intended purposes
(restricted uses) of the Trust
Funds for possible alignment
with CSO proposals.
2: The national government
should program the principal
payments for the loans incurred
by NHA, so that corporate funds
for interest payments can be
channelled to more productive
uses.
Findings: As the value of total
disbursements have gone up, so have
the share of project development to
total disbursements increased. With
the significantly higher total
disbursement in 2009 (7,319M from
4,297M in 2008), the share of Project
Development climbed to 82.1% from
71%, while COE dropped to 15.4%
from 25.8% in 2008. This apparent
trend for more efficient corporate
operations bears watching in the
future. Further study of Project
Development budgets would also be
useful in showing that operating
expenses were not merely shifted to
project costs.
Recommendation: For budget
advocates to continue monitoring
the efficiency of corporate and
project expenses.
Findings: The share of National
Programs to total disbursements for
Project Development averages 88%
from 2005 to 2009. With the
exception of the CARE Program, the
National Programs have tended to be
located in NCR and the adjacent
Regions 3 and 4... The order of
regions from most to least
production is the same as the order
of regions with most to least housing
need. However, the proportion of
production in NCL and SLB are each
about 12 percentage points above
their proportion of housing need,
while the proportion of production in
Visayas and Mindanao are 5 to 10
percentage points below their
proportion of housing need. . . The
focus on Resettlement programs
seen in earlier tables also raises the
question of what proportion of local
housing need the housing production
figures actually address, especially in
NCL and SLB, which might have big
production only because they serve as
receiving localities of resettlers from
NCR.
Recommendations 1: The national
government agencies and the
local government units should be
able to link housing delivery with
more strategic plans for shelter
at the national and local levels.
2: For budget advocates to look
more closely at the costing
parameters for the various forms
of assistance provided by NHA.
Findings: Collections doubled from
2006 to 2007, and then dropped
again in 2008 and 2009. 2007, the
year with the highest collections,
was also the year when rental/lease
collections made a bigger
contribution to collections than
instalment contracts...Collection
efficiency was never higher than 33%
in the period from 2005 to 2008.
Recommendations 1: For NHA to
consider whether rentals/leases
are not of more value in terms of
generating revenues for the
agency.
2: For national government to
consider collection from turned-
over units in the context of other
revenue generation programs for
housing, given the typical
situation and capacity of the
agency’s clientele.
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Debt Service 86.018 M 2.5%
133.250 M 3.5%
686.418 M 12.9%
74M 1.7%
60M 0.8%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Cost per completed unit 133,525.72 137,420.06 2.9% increase
197,685.48 43.8% increase
207,891.47 5.2% increase
411,566.65 98% increa se
COE per completed unit 20,293.36 21,783.91 7.3% increase
28,457.52 30.6% increase
22,990.89 19.2% decrease
37,202 61.8% increase
Finding:
Finding:
Result of the NHA and PHILSSA
joint assessment of Case Studies
• Releases greater than what was
specified in the GAA is due to
special tasks given to NHA for
resettlement, prompting the
national government to provide
added funds.
• Most of the subsidy received by
NHA for resettlement went to the
relocation of informal settlers
along the rail. A bigger challenge
for NHA is post-relocation
because they continue to spend
for it.
• NHA is the only agency doing
construction in the housing
sector. If the government enters
into a big venture with a creditor
for infrastructure, one of the
conditions is to fund relocation of
informal settlers. If this is not
done, the creditor might take the
money back, and it will pose a
big problem to the government.
That is called off-budget funding
by the national government.
Spe
cial
Issu
e
13Salin-Diwa
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
To improve the national
transport system in the
Philippines the national
government during the Arroyo
Administration implemented an
ambitious project to rehabilitate
and modernize the national
railway station from north to
south including removal of
thousands of informal settlers
along the railroad tracks to give
way to the improvement and
expansion. To remove the
informal settlers the national
government through the National
Housing Authority (NHA) was
tasked to develop numerous
resettlement sites where these
informal settlers can be
relocated. One of the
resettlement sites developed in
the south to address this massive
relocation is the Southville 3
where informal settlers along the
railroad track within Muntinlupa
are transferred.
Project Location. Southville 3
is located in a 50 hectare
property inside the National
Revisiting Southville 3:NHA Resettlement Project inside National Bilibid Prison
Bilibid Prison in Barangay
Poblacion, Muntinlupa City under
Presidential Proclamation No.
234 and 335.
Project Type. It is a mass
housing project and in-city type
of relocation. The tenurial
arrangement is usufruct–30 years
lease and average amortization
of Php400 monthly for the
housing unit and development
worth Php 135,000. Housing type
is raw house.
Beneficiaries. The
beneficiaries come from the
railroad tracks of Barangay
Alabang up to Barangay Tunasan,
almost 8.3 kilometers for the first
4 Phases of the Project. Of the
10,500 families only 6,400 are
qualified. The rest that did not
qualify opted to be paid and the
rest availed
of the “Balik
Probinsiya”
program.
For the
additional
295 bene-
ficiaries,
they come
from the
property
being
developed by
NHA for
government
employees.
They are members of the
“Koalisyon ng Samahang
Maralita ng NBP” living inside
the Bilibid Compound. There
are three associations
included in the 295 additional
units. They are:
• Buklurang Samahan ng
Sitio Daang Hari with 36
members;
• Samahang Maralita ng
Sitio Daang Hari with 36
members;
• Sitio Mapalad Farmers &
Settlers with 31
members.
Contractors. For the 6,946
units they employed four
contractors for site development
and 60 contractors for the
housing units. It would mean at
least 115 units per contractor.
For the additional 295 units they
have identified through a bidding
process four contractors.
Contractors have employed
community beneficiaries who are
skilled in the housing
construction as a support to the
beneficiaries.
Cost. The overall cost of the
project including the additional
295 units is P1.25B. It is divided
into site infrastructure cost and
housing cost. The average cost
per housing unit including
infrastructure is Php 129,000 –
81,000 for the housing unit and
an average of 48,000 for site
development.
Lots Generated. The lot has
an average size of 36 sq.m. and
the housing unit has an area of
20 sq.m.
Project Status. As of now,
they have already completed the
6,946 units where the breakdown
per phase was provided in Table
(Excerpts from Muntinlupa Development Foundation Case Study)
Spe
cial
Issu
e
14 Salin-Diwa
b. Project Construction
(comparing target
unit construction
with completions)
They have
completed all the
targeted units in
the first four
phases except the
additional units of
295 due to the
absence of funds.
c. Unit Cost Efficiency
(variance in established
unit cost)
From the reports that we
have gathered it seems that NHA
followed the cost per unit in
terms of utilization. In the
absence of data on actual
expenditures we cannot
determine variance between
target costs to actual
expenditures.
d. Project Responsiveness
(percentage of target
beneficiaries
accommodated/ included)
The units generated and
completed are more than
enough to meet the needs of the
identified beneficiaries that
qualify along the railway in
Muntinlupa. The project
generated 6,946 as compared
to 6,400 qualified
beneficiaries. If we include
families that are disqualified
and those who opted to avail of
the Balik Probinsiya program,
the generated lots would not be
enough, short of at least 3,000
units.
The presence of an
authentic Local Inter-agency
Committee (LIAC) during the
first four phases of the project
wherein CSO and PO
participation is adhered to
from planning, implementation
and monitoring have greatly
contributed in the
responsiveness and eventual
success of the project.
Unfortunately, due to political
intervention of the current local
officials, it is affecting the
authentic participation of the
community in the resettlement
project. Traditional and
patronage politics is affecting
the participative and
democratic processes initially
established by CSOs and POs.
As an example, LIAC is currently
inactive and duly elected
representatives were removed
in the implementing body by the
local chief executive and
replaced by his handpicked
leaders. With this, it somehow
affects the implementation of
the additional 295 units.
Affected beneficiaries are not
consulted and represented in
the implementing body of the
project like LIAC. In a dialogue
with NHA the leaders suggested
to dissolve the previous LIAC
and create another one headed
by NHA.
2. As for the additional 295 no
construction has started yet
despite having identified the four
winning bidders for construction
of units. NHA Bgy. Poblacion is
still waiting for the release of the
funds according to Engr. Johnny
Coronel, Project Engineer of NHA,
to be able to start the
construction of the units.
For the basic and communal
facilities, almost all are provided
like water tanks, health centers,
schools (elementary to
highschool) and recreational
facilities except for the jeepney
station, public market and
material recovery facilities.
The community is at a stage
wherein it has to address estate
management concerns like
maintaining facilities, addressing
unlawful sale of housing units by
beneficiaries and ensuring
payment of amortization. These
are common problems being
raised during discussions with
leaders and NHA personnel.
MONITORING RESULTS
AND FINDINGS
a. Budget utilization
(comparing budget releases
and utilization)
Data is not sufficient enough
to compare budget releases and
utilization. But it is very clear
that there is a delay in the
releases of the budget that
causes delays in the completion
of the project specially for the
additional 295 units. As for the
6,946 they started four months
delayed.
Location No. of Lots Housing Units
Completed Additional
Phase 1 1831 1831
Phase 2 1828 1714 114
Phase 3 1993 1934 69
Phase 4 1589 1467 112
Total 7241* 6946 295
Table 2:
* Including the additional (295 units)
Spe
cial
Issu
e
15Salin-Diwa
Result of the NHA andPHILSSA jointassessment of CaseStudies• Inter-agency implementation of
the project is strong during the
early stage of the project.
Lately, due to influence of the
current local officials it somehow
affected the participation of Civil
Society Groups and People’s
Organizations.
• Define the role of the LGUs in
terms of sustainability of the
project and how to ensure
authentic participation.
• Who will undertake the estate
management and when will
NHA disengage from the
project? Will the LGU assume
that responsibility?
e. Project quality (identify
project defects)
During the 4 phases of the
project, minimal defects are
addressed immediately by
contractors due to presence of
CSO monitoring teams that
provide instant feedback to
NHA. Basic and communal
facilities needed in the
community are present
compared to other resettlement
sites due to the active
participation of the different
stakeholders of the project.
FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
• It is difficult to determine
cost effectiveness and
efficiency of project
without the necessary data
or availability of data.
There is cooperation in the
part of NHA in the
monitoring effort but lack
necessary information in
providing adequate
conclusions. Some data
somehow provide a hint of
the problem like delays in
releases but not enough to
establish cost
effectiveness and
efficiency. Established
protocol somehow causes
delays unlike when it is
already available in the
website for transparency
purposes.
• As for responsiveness, the
project specially for
Phases 1-4 is responsive
in terms of addressing
number of beneficiaries
and ensuring targeted
beneficiaries are provided
with housing. Aside from
this, basic community
facilities are met and
provided. For the
additional units of 295,
there was delay releasing
funds.
• The monitoring period is
too short to gather data to
establish a more in-depth
analysis of the project.
Hopefully, a longer period
of monitoring involving all
the cycle of budget from
formulation to execution
specially for the additional
295 lots could be
conducted.
• Southville 3 remains to be
one of the best practices of
NHA in terms of in-city
relocation, inter-agency
cooperation and CSO
participation.
Unfortunately, due to
politics, readiness and
sustainability of CSOs’ and
POs’ efforts to address the
current issues and
concerns of the project
(estate management stage)
they might not be able to
uphold the success that
they have accomplished
through the years. Thus, we
recommend to assess
current inter-agency
mechanism and address
problem areas with the
participation of CSOs and
People’s Organization. To
also address the turn-over
plans of maintaining and
sustaining project gains.
Spe
cial
Issu
e
16 Salin-Diwa
INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION
NGC Project Background and Legal
Bases
In 1979, President Ferdinand
E. Marcos issued Proclamation
No. 1826, reserving 444
hectares of land along the
Commonwealth (both the east
and west sides) area in Quezon
City for the development of the
National Government Center
(NGC), a centralized site /
government complex apportioned
for housing major government
institutions. Proclamation No.
1826 was however seemed to
remain futile as the plan did not
fully materialize. There were
seven government offices, erected
which include among others
(DSWD, Batasan Pambansa,
Commonwealth High School etc),
covering a total of around 43
hectares, but the whole area was
not fully used for the primary
purpose of making it a hub for
government offices. Informal
settlers started to impinge the
area, built temporary dwellings
until it became a permanent
residence for them. Then in 1987,
President Corazon C. Aquino
issued Proclamation No. 137
excluding 184 hectares (west
side) from the coverage of
Proclamation 1826, declaring the
same open for disposition to
qualified beneficiaries.
NGC-EASTSIDE
The NGC-East side area which
covers a total of 238 hectares
was opened for disposition to
bona fide residents in 1994
through a Proclamation No. 1169
issued by the former President
Fidel V. Ramos. Then it was made
Subdivision, Reblocking, and Auxiliary Service FundA Study on Fund Utilization of NGC-Eastside
into a law by the former President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
through a Republic Act No. 9207
(National Government Center
Housing and Land Utilization Act)
in 2003. The said Act has also
stipulated that those institutions
already operating and with
existing facilities or structures at
the time of effectivity of the said
Act will be retained and the land
area that may be allocated to
them shall be based on the area
that they actually occupied.
Portion for commercial/
economic area was also
allocated, and the SRA area which
already existed at the time of the
Act was also retained. A year
later (2004), the NGC-East Master
Development Plan (see annex 1)
was developed and approved by
the Quezon City Council thru
Ordinance No. SP-1386, S-2004.
This was followed by the
approval of the Implementing
Rules and Regulations (IRR) for
R.A. 9207 by the NGC-
Administration Committee.
Approximately, 20,500 lots
are projected to be generated for
residential use and were opened
for availment by the legitimate
residents. Determination of the
legality of residency was based
on the census survey conducted
in 1994 and occupancy
verification survey conducted in
2000. Both surveys recorded
29,931 families belonging to
different Home Owners
Associations (HOAs). Only these
29,931 censused families were
considered as “bona fide”
residents who will be entitled to a
lot allocation as provided for by
R.A 9207.
Homelots Generated and
Beneficiaries
As per the initial projections,
with 29,931 families and only
20,500 lots for allocation, there
is a considerable shortage –
almost 10,000 more lots are
needed to accommodate all the
bona fide residents. The National
Housing Authority (or NGC
eastside PMO) came up with a
proposition to allocate 4.5
hectares from the 238 hectares
for the construction of medium
rise buildings. One hectare could
approximately accommodate 10
buildings with 60 units each.
Around 45 buildings are
projected to be constructed, and
these can house approximately
2,700 families. Still a long way to
fill in the difference but the NGC-
EDP Project Management Office
(PMO) believes that this may be
enough since from the last survey,
a number of “legitimate”
residents have already left, and
those who have sold or bought
units would be disqualified;
renters and sharers are not also
qualified.
A total of 298 Home Owners
Associations (HOAs) exist in the
NGC East Side, and out of this
number, only 258 are qualified to
outline their Community
Development Programs (CDPs).
The Community Development Plan
serves as guide for all land
development undertakings in
NGC-East in the coming years. It
describes the aims of the
proposed land use plan, the
proposed spatial structure for the
area, and proposed policies for
land use management. This is
also one of the pre-requisites in
applying for the NGC Housing
Project. For HOA to be qualified
(Excerpts from Foundation for Development Alternatives, Inc. Case Study)
Spe
cial
Issu
e
17Salin-Diwa
in the housing project, certain
criteria / requirements must be
met based on the policies set by
the NGC-AC).
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATIONPROJECT IMPLEMENTATIONPROJECT IMPLEMENTATIONPROJECT IMPLEMENTATIONPROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
Project Updates
A. Number of Qualified
Beneficiaries
15,631 out of 29,931 families
included in the 2000
Occupancy Verification
Census
B. Number of HOAs with
approved CDP: 196 out of
256 HOAs
C. Number of HOAs with
approved Subdivision Plan:
21 out of 196 HOAs
D. Number of lot disposed: 524
out of 1,658 generated lots
The NGC-EDP Project
Manager admitted that the
implementation of the project
was not that easy. There were
problems encountered along the
way. Financial capability of the
target beneficiaries was one of
the major problems identified.
Preparation of the required
documents entails corresponding
expenses. Though for lot prices,
the bonafide residents were only
charged a very minimal cost
(Php700/sqm.) plus other
incidental expense i.e., surveyor’s
fee, processing of
documents and other related
expense.
As experienced by
NAMABA HOA, the first HOA
which applied for the
housing project, its payment
to the surveyor was delayed;
consequently, submission of
the CDP was delayed as well.
Another setback
encountered was the issue
with the “recalcitrant”.
During the reblocking phase,
a number of complaints
were received by the NGC
office; complaints from the
leaser and the lessee,
demolition activities,
reduced lots, etc. Hence,
getting a legal service was
another burden that deliberately
impeded the project. It was an
added burden to the NHA and the
people.
Reblocking activities usually
prolong the whole process. NGC-
AC advises the HOA to start the
reblocking activity as soon as the
CDP is approved by the NHA even
without the DENR’s approval of
the subdivision plan yet so as not
to be subjected to price increase.
With this recurring issues
and problems, realization of this
project seemed to be unworkable
at this point. Even if there are
families who are ready to
transfer, they cannot go on
unless the adjacent structure is
also willing and ready to move.
NHA’s intervention is also seemed
to be insufficient. As
acknowledged by the PMO,
implementation of the project is
not easy due to the problems
identified.
THE BIRTH OF ORDINANCETHE BIRTH OF ORDINANCETHE BIRTH OF ORDINANCETHE BIRTH OF ORDINANCETHE BIRTH OF ORDINANCE
NONONONONO. SP-1073, S-2009. SP-1073, S-2009. SP-1073, S-2009. SP-1073, S-2009. SP-1073, S-2009
With all those obstructions,
the HOAs were advised by the
PMO to get assistance from the
Local Government Unit. With the
upcoming 2010 national election,
it would be an opportune time to
seek assistance from them to
fasten the reblocking activities. It
was very fortunate that the QC
LGU through the help of Councilor
Allan Francisco, the proponent of
the Ordinance No. SP-1073, S-
2009, an ordinance
appropriating Php 18,585,000 to
be allocated for the community
development on NGC Eastside
Housing Projects was enacted
and approved on 2 December
2009. Php 17,500,000.00 of the
total fund would come from the
Office of the Vice Mayor Herbert
Bautista while the remaining
(Php1,000,000 would come from
the office of Councillor Allan
Francisco). The amount
appropriated would be included
in the 2010 annual budget or in
any available funds of the City
Treasury of the City Government.
THE FUND APPROPRIATED
The fund allocated was
named as National Government
Center-Eastside Development
Project (NGC-EDP) Subdivision,
Reblocking, and Auxiliary
Services Fund, a government
subsidy from the Quezon City
Government. Said fund was
released to the National
Government Center Eastside
Development Project (NGC-EDP)
Management Office thru the
National Housing Authority. This
means that the NGC-ED PMO
would take the accountability of
managing and supervising the
implementation of the project.
The fund is intended to
assist the accredited
homeowner associations in
NGC-Eastside in (a) funding
the preparation and
approval of their respective
subdivision plan, (b)
Funding the operation of the
Task Force Reblocking,
especially in undertaking
the reblocking of structures
(as per approved
Community Development
Plan (CDP), and (c) Auxiliary
Legal Services which would
help the beneficiaries,
facing formal complaints in
judicial bodies and/or other
forms on account of their
ISSUES ENCOUNTERED THAT HELD DOWN
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
1. Determination of the qualified beneficiaries. Issue /
problems with the “sharers” and /or “renters”
continue to surface even it was made clear from the
start that only those censused families will be
considered as “bonafide” residents and therefore
entitled to lot allocation.
2. Preparation of the required documents
• Financial constraints. Payment to surveyors,
preparation of subdivision plan, etc.
• Processing and approval of documents usually
takes time
3. Reblocking Phase.
• Complaints on reduced lot sizes
• Recalcitant
• Legal services
Spe
cial
Issu
e
18 Salin-Diwa
compliance with the reblocking
requirement of the project.
THE SECRETARIAT
To ensure an effective and
efficient implementation of the
project, a secretariat was formed;
this is composed of originally five
representatives from different
offices/sector with direct
involvement in the project.
However, with the defeat of
Councillor Francisco in the last
election, representative from his
office was excluded from the
Secretariat.
The Secretariat is tasked to:
A. Prepare a yearly program of
activities with corresponding
budget.
B. The program shall include the
list of regular activities the
secretariat will be conducting
based on the objectives set.
C. Ensure the smooth and
effective implementation of
the submitted organizational
and financial plan
D. Decide on matters pertinent to
the effective execution of the
Subdivision plan and
Reblocking Trust.
E. Revise, amend the submitted
program or provide funds for
activities not specified
therein, as long as the
activities are consistent with
the objectives.
MONITORING RESULTMONITORING RESULTMONITORING RESULTMONITORING RESULTMONITORING RESULT
A. Budget utilization
As explained by the PMO, as of
to date no fund utilization
took effect. The fund remains
untouched and it is still with
the bank.
B. Project Updates
From the initial target of
20,500 lots for disposal, only
524 has been so far disposed.
However, this is not included
in the 18.5M fund
appropriated by the LGU. It
has been disposed prior the
approval of the grant from the
LGU.
The proposed construction of
a medium rise building to
accommodate at most 2,700
families is shelved.
c. Number of Qualified HOAs
(to avail of the grant from the
LGU) and total number of
beneficiaries
No data as of now. Validation
of HOA applicants would be
done by August 2011.
MONITORINGMONITORINGMONITORINGMONITORINGMONITORING
FINDINGS ANDFINDINGS ANDFINDINGS ANDFINDINGS ANDFINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the data gathered
through interviews and review of
available documents, no fund
disbursement or utilization took
effect from the time the fund was
transferred to NGC EDP
Management Office last
December 2010. The actual
amount is still with the bank.
Ceremonial awarding was done
in July 2010, however, actual
transfer of funds was done five
months later.
According to Engr. Antonio
Del Rosario, the NGC-EDP Project
Manager, the office is still doing
the necessary preparatory
activities. For the last six
months, most of the PMO’s
activities were focused on doing
all the necessary preparations.
However, he did not elaborate on
what activities the office has
been doing. According to him, it is
the government’s process that
slowed down the activities.
A Secretariat’s meeting was
set for July 15, 2011 to discuss
the plans and upcoming
activities. The HOAs were hopeful
that after the meeting, activities
would start to roll on (especially
on the reblocking activities).
During the interview the NGC-
EDP Project Manager mentioned
that there is a projected plan of
activities with corresponding
budgetary allocations, and
promised to give us a copy. But no
copy was given even after a
couple of follow ups. According
to one of the Secretariat
members, the of activities and
budget plan are actually not yet
on hand and would only be made
available by first week of July
2011.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Conduct a new survey or
validation survey of the legal
beneficiaries, to see how
many more lots are still
needed. Cross check it with
the data of the 1994 census
and occupancy verification
census in 2000.
B. PMO should conduct regular
meeting with the involved /
interested HOAs as to the
timeline and/or the plan of
activities to avoid any
wariness on the part of the
HOAs.
Result of the NHA and PHILSSA joint assessment of Case
Studies• The allocated budget will be used for the approval of a subdivision survey,
reblocking itself, and legal and financial assistance, if necessary.
• The budget itself is a grant, not a loan. It is not recoverable. The challenge is that
beneficiaries do not have the initiative to provide a counterpart for the fund to roll.
• NGC uses the IRR of the Ordinance as their guideline. PO and NGO
representatives sit in the secretariat to monitor fund utilization.
• Cooperation from private organizations through granting of loans to
beneficiaries is encouraged.
• According to RA 9207, the national government must appropriate funds yearly
for this purpose. Since the NGC project started in 2003, they have not
received any appropriation. PHILSSA can help lobby for appropriation from
the national government.
Spe
cial
Issu
e
19Salin-Diwa
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONPROJECT DESCRIPTIONPROJECT DESCRIPTIONPROJECT DESCRIPTIONPROJECT DESCRIPTION
BACKGROUND OF BICOL CARE
PROJECT ( Taysan Resettlement
Site)
On 21 January 2009, the
President of the Philippines
passed an Executive Order no.
779, amending the Executive
Order No.634, dated July 3,2007,
Entitled “Creating the Bicol
Calamity Assistance and
Rehabilitation Efforts Committee.
The Bicol Care Commission (B-
Care) was created in 2007 to
integrate relief, rehabilitation,
resettlement, recovery, livelihood,
and development efforts in
different areas of the Bicol Region
particularly affected by
Typhoons, Caloy, Millenyo, and
Reming . The B–CARE was funded
Looking Back at Bicol Calamity Assistance Rehabilitation
Efforts (Bicol Care)Taysan Resettlement Site, Barangay Taysan, Legazpi City
under the R.A 9401 General
appropriation Act of 2007. The
amount covered expenses for
relocation site development, land
acquisition, construction of
housing units and home
materials assistance.1
The Taysan Resettlement Site
is one of the recipients of this
project located at the Barangay
Taysan, Legaspi City,
Taysan Resettlement Site
was used as a Transit Center on 7
January 2007 with Barangay
Padang having the biggest
number of families prior to the
creation of B-CARE. Shelter
Construction started in July 2007
with the residents clearing up the
entire area rather than wait for
NHA to do the task.2
Based on Housing records
in 2009, 389 units were under
the usufruct agreement. The
partners for housing projects
were Community Organization of
the Philippines Enterprise
Foundation, Inc. (COPE),
Department of Social Welfare
and Development, Philippine
Council of Evangelical Churches
thru: Philippine Relief and
Development Services (PHILRADS),
Compassion International , Y’s
Men , Gawad Kalinga,3 while the
NHA tasked under the Bicol Care
Project to provide land
development to identified
resettlement sites owned by
LGUS; acquisition and
development of new relocation
site and housing materials
assistance4
Name of Village
Project Name No. of Units Active /Actual Type of Unit
COPE COPE/ Christian Aid 110(55 duplex) 110 duplex
DSWD DSWD Core Shelter project 240 127 Single detached
PHILRADS House of HOPE Project 50 (25duplex) 50 duplex
Compassion Compassion Village 28(14duplex) 28 duplex
Gawad Kalinga
GK Village 400 66 Single detached
Y’s Men Y’s men and Masonic Village 8 (4-duplex) 8 duplex
Total 726 units 389
(Excerpts from Community Organization of the Philippine Enterprise Foundation, Inc.
Case Study)
1 Executive Order No. 779 – Amending Executive Order No. 634, dated July 3, 2007 entitled” Creating the Bicol Calamity Assistance and Rehabilitation Committee.2 “ Taysan Resettlement Site” DSWD Presentation during the City Sharing in Legazpi City on October 29 , 20093 Ibid4 NHA document “ NHA Status Report” as of Jan 18, 2008
Spe
cial
Issu
e
20 Salin-Diwa
PROJECT STATUSPROJECT STATUSPROJECT STATUSPROJECT STATUSPROJECT STATUS
Basis
Republic Act 9401 known as
General Appropriation Acts of
2007 provided for a budget for
the B–CARE amounting to 750M.
The NHA reported that
there are gaps for lots and
shelter with 10,683 target
number of families to be served;
while lot to be generated is
9,431. The gap is 1,603 . While
the shelter target is 10, 683
only 3,363 commitment with the
gap of 7, 320. 5
Budget UtilizationThese are the coverage of NHA project under B–CARE:
Description Sq. M %
Residential 60.874 53.24%
School Site 10.005 8.75 %
Community Facilities 1.581 1.38
Circulation 29.623 25.91%
Legal Easement 754 0.66%
Open Space 1.513 1.32%
Unbuildable 9.989 8.74%
Total 114,339 100.00%
Community Facilities : Space allocation
Parks and Play ground: Space allocation
Infrastructure works : Turned over to LGU 2/19/10
Community Facilities and Project Utilities
FINDINGS ANDFINDINGS ANDFINDINGS ANDFINDINGS ANDFINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONRECOMMENDATIONRECOMMENDATIONRECOMMENDATIONRECOMMENDATION
FINDINGSFrom the data gathered at
the office of NHA, the Agency
cannot provide the pertinent
documents unless there is an
approval from their General
Manager.
NHA has a very clear report
on the project it took at Taysan.
Resettlement Site, on the other
hand, based on our ocular
inspection and focus group
discussion (FGD), the
researcher found out that;
• NHA has built 500 septic
tank at the vacant lot
without housing structure.
Septic tank were built
without following proper
technology ( e.g septic tanks
have no proper outlet and
location )
• 24 jetmatics were installed.
Of the 24 water pumps only
3 are functioning. Of the
three one water pump is
served as the drinking
water servicing 389 families
of the entire resettlement
site (located at COPE
Village)
• School facilities–not enough
room for students ( e.g high
school students were
occupying the elementary
classroom or extension
room thru tent)
• Electricity –No primary line
at the Resettlement Site; No5 NHA Document
Spe
cial
Issu
e
21Salin-Diwa
individual meter
(electrification source)
connected at Barangay Hall.
• Incomplete Drainage system
• Poor Drainage system (no
cover)
• Substandard canals. There
were two canals on the main
line located on both sides of
the road, but in the rear
portion of the site, canals are
only constructed on one side
of the road.
As per NHA protocol, any
request for data in the regional
offices has to be coursed
through the national office for
approval.
Push for a functional LIAC or
re-activate regular consultation
among LGU, NHA, CSOs and
beneficiaries. Maximize existing
structures like the LHB.
RECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONS
• NHA Bicol Care document
must be available to anyone
who is requesting it because
it is a public document.
Result of the NHA and
PHILSSA joint
assessment of Case
Studies
• The housing units in the
project site came from
many donors, i.e.
Gawad Kalinga, Habitat,
PHILRADS, COPE
Foundation, Y’s Men,
DSWD. Because of the
very nature of the
project, it is hard to
determine who is
accountable for the
specific development or
housing unit. Should
include joint monitoring
and assessment of
project for immediate
feedback to NHA and
other agencies involved
in the project to address
accountability and
immediate rectification of
substandard work.
• Before the land is
turned over to the LGU,
the acceptance
committee of NHA has to
approve the housing
conditions.
• NHA is only for land
development.
• Review documents so
the people we will be
informed about project
design and other
specifications and as
basis for any feedback
about the project.
• There should be budget
transparency, as to how the
budget being allocated and
how it is being used
(disposition)
• NHA consultation with LGU
and civil society with regard
to acceptability of the project
should be done.
• There must be a public notice
through the use of signage
reflecting the contractor/the
agency who will implement
the project , the duration of
the project implementation,
the amount of the project
etc.
• The project should be apt to
the needs of the community
(e.g excessive installation of
septic tank must be
converted into other services
that are useful to the
community)
• Canals and drainage must
be installed both in the rear
and front of the houses
and in between of the houses
/block
Spe
cial
Issu
e
22 Salin-Diwa
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONPROJECT DESCRIPTIONPROJECT DESCRIPTIONPROJECT DESCRIPTIONPROJECT DESCRIPTION
Proclamation No. 1772
dated 14 May 2009 is an
amendment to Proclamation No.
507 dated 21 October 1932,
which reserved certain parcels of
land in Barangay Jagobiao,
Mandaue City, Cebu as additional
Leprosarium site for the Eversely
Child Treatment Station. The said
amendment excludes portions
thereof and declaring the same
for urban development and
socialized housing purposes in
favor of qualified beneficiaries
under the provisions of Republic
Act No. 7279 otherwise known as
the Urban Development and
Housing Act.
Sacred Heart Ville Jagobiao Housing Project
Presidential Proclamation 1772
PROJECT STATUSPROJECT STATUSPROJECT STATUSPROJECT STATUSPROJECT STATUS
The Cebu Project Office has
submitted the necessary documents
for the approval of the Survey and
Individual Titling Works Contract
proposal to NHA-Visayas
Management Office.
For Public Bidding and Award.
FINDINGSFINDINGSFINDINGSFINDINGSFINDINGS
There were claimants of the
land particularly Lot 1969,
1989, 1991 which consist of 3.3
hectares of the area. But NHA
Region VII said that this is not a
problem anymore.
The residents of Sacred
Heart Ville were divided into
two Homeowners Associations
– the Jagobiao Urban Poor
Organization and the Sacred
Heart Ville HOA. One of the
major factors of the split is
local politics.
NHA Region VII said that
the bidding is on-going. CSO
was not involved during the
bidding process.
RECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONS
Recommend to NHA that
CSO should be involved with
the projects’ bidding process.
Continue to strengthen
the partnership/working
relation with the NHA Region
VII
Continue monitoring the
Sacred Heart Ville Jagobiao
Housing Project until its
completion.
Result of the NHA and
PHILSSA joint
assessment of Case
Studies
NHA is amenable to the
idea that PHILSSA and
beneficiaries of the
proposed projects can
participate in the bidding
process as observers,
based on the Procurement
Law. AGM Kampitan is the
head of the Bids and
Awards Committee.
(Excerpts from Fellowship for Organizing Endeavors Case Study)
PROJECT NAME JAGOBIAO HOUSING PROJECT
(Presidential Proclamation 1772)
LOCATION
AMO Visayas
Region VII
Province Cebu
District 6th District
City Mandaue City
Barangay Jagobiao
PROJECT CLASSIFICATION Slum Upgrading Project (SUP)
PROJECT BENEFICIARIES Qualified On-Site Beneficiaries (RA 7279)
PROJECT PROPONENTS
NHA Land Administrator
MANDAUE CITY LGU Functions per PP 1772 IRR
PCUP Functions per PP 1772 IRR
(Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor)
DENR Functions per PP 1772 IRR
(Department of Environment and Natural Resources)
TOTAL ACQUISITION COST To be agreed by DENR and NHA
Total Estimated Project Cost (Survey Works and Titling)
Survey Works and P 2,785,570.80
Individual Titling
PROPOSED PHYSICAL FEATURES Slum Upgrading Features
TOTAL AREA 118,874 Square Meters
PROJECTED BENEFICIARIES 907 Families
Spe
cial
Issu
e
23Salin-Diwa
PROJECT SUMMARPROJECT SUMMARPROJECT SUMMARPROJECT SUMMARPROJECT SUMMARYYYYY
The project is covered by
TCT No. T-100471 registered in
the name of NATIONAL HOUSING
AUTHORITY (NHA) with a total
land area of 73,637 sq. m. Out
of the total area, only 50,000
sq. m. is being considered for
development into resettlement
site for members of TALOMO
MUSLIM VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION (TAMVIHA) and
having a total value of 14 million
Pesos.
The property is presently
occupied by members of Talomo
Muslim Village Homeowners
Association (TAMVIHA) and
TAUMU. However, only the Talomo
Muslim Village Homeowners
Association recognizes NHA as
the owner of the property.
TAMVIHA is presently headed by
its President, Hadji George
Sacar. Project packaging is
being prepared for the said
property by the Technical Unit of
NHA-Region XI Office.
The project is severely
depressed and the actual
occupants had continuously and
openly took possession of the
area even before the entry/
acquisition of the NHA. NHA has
not introduced any development
in the area until at present.
The site was originally
included for the proposed
Kadayawan Homes Housing
Project but due to the hard
opposition and resistance of the
occupants, the area was not
developed.
A Certificate of Budget
Allocation (CBA) in the amount of
P300,000 dated 14 October 2002
was granted by the Finance
Department for the said proposed
survey works. Publication of
invitation to bid was made in
the local newspaper on 24
November 2003. No interested
party submitted application to
bid probably due
to the hostile
environment and
peace and order
situation of the
area at that
period.
Just this year,
a Certificate of
Fund Availability
(CFA) amounting
to P1,223,564.62
was approved for
the survey works,
and public
bidding was set
sometime in the
last week of July
2011.
NHA Kadayawan Muslim Village HOA, Davao City
At present, the new set of
Officers of TAMVIHA, headed by
Hadji George Sacar, is more open,
friendly and progress–oriented
that NHA is taking advantage of
the new environment so that this
much delayed project can now
move forward and finally be
realized.
QUICK FAQUICK FAQUICK FAQUICK FAQUICK FACTS- SUMMARCTS- SUMMARCTS- SUMMARCTS- SUMMARCTS- SUMMARYYYYY
OF SURVEY RESULTSOF SURVEY RESULTSOF SURVEY RESULTSOF SURVEY RESULTSOF SURVEY RESULTS
Below are some quick
figures culled from the results
of the Monitoring Survey:
Project Name SURVEY WORKS FOR NHA
MUSLIM VILLAGE
RESETTLEMENT PROJECT
Location Kadayawan Homes, Bangkal,
BarangayTalomo, Davao City
Project Classification Slum Upgrading
Project Land Area 73,637 sq. .m
Total No. of Units 370 units (more or less)
Total Project Cost P 16,745,921.08
Project Duration 245 calendar days
Project Status For Bidding (3rd quarter of 2011)
Approved Budget P1,223,564.62
Budget Allocated for Survey Works
Mode of Procurement Public Bidding
(Excerpts from San Lorenzo Ruiz Socio-Economic Development Foundation, Inc.
Case Study)
Spe
cial
Issu
e
24 Salin-Diwa
Figure 1. FGD with TAMVIHA President
3. RESULTS OF THE3. RESULTS OF THE3. RESULTS OF THE3. RESULTS OF THE3. RESULTS OF THE
MONITORING SURVEYMONITORING SURVEYMONITORING SURVEYMONITORING SURVEYMONITORING SURVEY
3.1 BASIC INFORMATION
3.2 LAND PROFILE
Target Beneficiaries:
Members of Talomo MuslimVillage Homeowners
Association (TAMVIHA)
HOA President Hadji George
Sacar
Address Atis St., Muslim
Village HOA,
Bangkal, Brgy
Talo
Contact No 09192582752
Topography Relatively flat
below sea level
Existing Utilities
Water provided by Davao
City Water District
Power provided by Davao
Light and Power
Company
Drainage outfall thru existing
Talomo River
Access Road along existing
subdivision road
3.3 SITE CHARACTERICTICS /
CONDITIONS:
3.4 EXISTING FACILITIES: (within 5
kms from the Project Site)
Schools
Elementary Dolor Elem
School
High School Matina National
High School,
Daniel Aguinaldo
College UM Matina
Commercial Areas Matina CENTRO,
NCCC Matina,
MAKRO
Industrial Areas: Coca Cola Plant
Hospital/Clinics Sanitarium
Hospital
Religious Center Our Lady of
Lourdes,Seventh
Day Adventist
Communication PLDT, Bayantel,
Fac. Smart, Globe, Sun
3.5 LEGAL ASPECT
Landowner National Housing Authority
Area per TCT 73, 637 sq. m.
Area considered 50,000 q.m. Land
Use Classification Residential
Tenancy/Squatting Occupied by proposed
beneficiaries
Encumbrance Claimed by the actual
Litigants Claims occupants
3.6 GENERATED LOTS
No of Lots Generated 370 lots
Lot Sizes 94 sq.m.
Density (lot per hectare) 40 lots per
hectare
Housing Units Self-help
Construction
3.7 PROJECT COST SUMMARY
Direct Cost (Land 14M + 1.22M
Cost + Survey works) Php 15,223,564.62
Indirect Cost Php 1,522,356.46
(10% pf Direct Cost)
Total Project Cost Php 16,745,921.08
3.8 SELLING PRICE AND AFFORDABILITY
CONSIDERATION
Selling Price
The proposed price is PHP510.00 per square
meter or an average of Php 47,940.00 lot
value per beneficiary. NHA have proposed
repayment options for 30,20 and 10 years with
an amortization of 287.42 (lowest) and 566.02
(highest).
Buyers Financing NHA In-house
Plan Mode of Awarding Direct Award to the
qualified beneficiaries
Spe
cial
Issu
e
25Salin-Diwa
3.9 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Community’s Knowledge on the
Selling Price:
As of to date, the Community
does not have information yet as
to how much is the cost of the lot/
property per square meter. During
the FGD, majority expressed their
willingness to start paying but
also hoped that the price is not
so high. They are willing to
negotiate with the NHA on the
said matter.
Presence of PO during consultation
It was learned from the FGD
attended by key leaders of the
NHA-Talomo Muslim Village HOA
that there were series of
visitation, census and tagging,
inspection and consultation
made by NHA with regards to the
implementation of the NHA-
TAMVIHA Housing Project.
Mode of Selection Process –
Identification of Beneficiary
The respondents of the FGD
have likewise expressed that they
will have the “as is - where is”
mode of selection and
identification of beneficiaries of
the housing project. NHA XI
already conducted census tagging
three years ago and will again
conduct a socio profiling before
the implementation of the
approved budget on Survey Works
in partnership with the
Community leaders.
3.10 OBSERVATIONS
The observation noted by the
team is based on the current
physical conditions of the
housing units. Renovations,
repairs and improvements were
already done on some units.
During the FGD and actual
visitation of the team to the
housing project site,
infrastructure surrounding the
housing units was likewise
observed and among the
remarkable problems expressed
by the respondents and observed
by the team were:
• The project is in the middle
of two big Rivers – Talomo
River and Matina Rivers
• The community did not
observe the proper easement;
• Roads were primarily
macadam-built (a road made
from broken stones
combined with asphalt);
• There were no subdivision
and housing plans for the
project
• No proper canals and
drainage system,
• No proper water system;
• Seawall is obsolete (Marcos
Administration) and no
longer serves its purpose.
Sample Houses
There are about 370 (more or
less) self-constructed units in the
project.
During the FGD, some pioneer
residents recalled that their
houses made of bamboos, wood,
nipa and generally light and
cheap materials were submerged
by floods.
Community Livelihood program
The FGD respondents
expressed that there is an
existing livelihood program for
women. The community has a
nipa project and most of the
active participants are Muslim
women. The community took the
opportunity of maximizing the
available resources in the area
for livelihood.
3.11 OTHER FINDINGS AND
OBSERVATIONS TO THE PROJECT
• Majority of the settlers,
almost 95%, are Muslims
and claimed that their
ancestors stayed for almost
80-90 years in the area and
already passed from three
generations. They claimed
that this area is their
heritage property. This is the
main reason why for the
past years, there was heavy
resistance from the
occupants on the said
project. They further claimed
that they occupied the land
for years now without paying
a single centavo; but they
also fear for future
demolition. They just hope
for proper consultation on
the said property. They are
willing to negotiate with NHA
on the pricing of their
claimed land.
• There are two HOA/Groups
existing in the area, the
TAMVIHA and TAUMO. But
TAMVIHA is recognized by
NHA as the owner of the
property, while TAUMO
questions the legality and the
ownership of NHA. TAMVIHA
is headed by Hadji Madjid
George Sacar, while TAUMO
is headed by Larry Cabaquio.
Spe
cial
Issu
e
26 Salin-Diwa
TAUMO occupied mostly the
proposed open space of the
property.
• TAMVIHA has apprehensions
on the selling price of the
project and the payments
schemes that will be
imposed to them. It also
considered the issue on re-
alignment, lot adjustment
and re-blocking after the
survey works.
• Big portion of the property
is still covered by Nipa trees
and submerged in water.
Muddy and sandy portions
of the property are also
observed.
• Some parts/blocks that are
supposed to be part of
Kadayawan Homes are part
and parcel used by
TAMVIHA.
• The property is in the
middle of the Talomo and
Matina Rivers. It regularly
suffers from flash floods.
Two of the most disastrous
floods was on 29 June 2009
and 29 June 2011 which
damaged millions of pesos
of properties, killed 31
people, affected almost
13,000 families, and washed
out 649 houses. Community
members of TAMVIHA are
wary for another flash
floods
• Have an existing road-right-
of-way from the access road
of Kadayawan Homes.
Pathways can also be seen
inside the property but no
clear roads for those units
near the river and nipa trees.
• According to other
respondents, issues on
social and religious
discrimination are also
prevalent in the area. Petty
crimes exist and neighboring
communities always tagged
them as culprits of those
crimes;
• Youth development is very
commendable in the
community. The Bangkal
Muslim Youth Organization
(BMYO) is now a known
Muslim youth organization
in Brgy Talomo and Davao as
well. These groups enhance
the capacity of the youth and
expand their knowledge on
social issues and
development.
• At present, the new set of
Officers of TAMVIHA headed
by Sacar is progress oriented
that NHA is taking advantage
of the new environment so
that this much delayed
project can now move
forward and finally be
realized.
4.4 .4 .4 .4 . RECOMMENDATIONS:RECOMMENDATIONS:RECOMMENDATIONS:RECOMMENDATIONS:RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Full implementation of the
planned lay-out and project
implementation of the Survey
Works project. An audit of
the finished project must
first take place before final
payment to the contractor/
surveyor.
2. To include in the Survey
Works, complete housing
plan for the community –
Road Plan, Drainage Plan,
Topography plan, Water
and Light etc.
3. To better facilitate/mitigate
the issues on corruption,
public consultation, public
bidding and monitoring
must be implemented.
4. A thorough study of the
sites, especially on how to
mitigate or adapt with the
flooding, etc. be made first
and should the project
proceed, consideration to
address the issues must be
included.
5. Craft a plan that will
minimize lot adjustment or
dislocation if in case
houses will be affected by
re-blockings and re-
alignments.
6. Social preparedness is very
important in this kind of
project. It is very important
to conduct another round
of socio-economic
profiling and census
tagging within the
Community to identify the
present occupancy status
and affordability study of
the beneficiary. Conduct
public consultation
specially to inform the
would-be beneficiaries and
discuss the acceptability of
the selling price and terms
of payments and invite
other stakeholders in the
consultation process like
members of the Local
Housing Board of Davao
City specially the CSO’s, the
Urban Poor PO groups and
NGO and other government
shelter agencies.
Result of the NHA and PHILSSA joint assessment of Case Studies
• We should exercise caution in using the “as is, where is” term because it means
the community will not be moved even for reblocking purposes.
• The cost of land development is only Php 35/sq.m. Because it only covers land
cost and survey.
Spe
cial
Issu
e
27Salin-Diwa
Issues Raised
• BPA is only limited to the formulation ofthe budget. How about the differentphases of the budget cycle? As wellas other aspect of projectimplementation like humandevelopment.
• NHA was not involved in thedevelopment of the researchframework and indicators for the casestudy/research
• Previous studies should includevalidated information and updates fromNHA
• Difficulties in getting relevant data fromNHA.
• Some issues raised in some projectscannot be attributed only to NHA due tothe multisectoral approach in projectimplementation. Some stakeholders ofthe project are not involved andincluded in the assessment.
• How to ensure efficient implementationof projects identified in the budget for2012 and how about policyrecommendations that was raisedduring NHA assessment.
• How to ensure project ID andimplementation in the regions.
• PHILSSA was not invited in the biddingprocess of projects of NHA.
• Lack of sustainability of the monitoringeffort from budget preparation up toproject completion of CSO due to lackof resources.
• Include DBM in the budget formulationand monitoring process.
Action Points
• Prepare a clear set of indicators that can be accomplished within the period of the BPA. Howdo we address other components of human development aside from housing that is notcovered by the budget? Have a leveling-off of indicators and expectations.
• Discuss having an agreement with NHA for another BPA that includes PHILSSA participationin monitoring of project implementation aside from budget preparation.
• Ask for formal guidelines from DBM that would include CSO in budget execution and budgetmonitoring.
• Monitoring and assessment should be longer than three months to cover the implementationof the project.
• For the next case study development and BPA, include NHA in the formulation of theresearch framework and monitoring tool. Make it a joint endeavor with NHA.
• Validate previous case studies to rectify inaccuracies.
• Protocol for getting data from NHA: Should be requested from National before it would bereleased to CSO to make it official.
• NHA to be involved in the development of the research tool to ensure data provision.
• Include and coordinate with different stakeholders in the regions in the assessment of NHAprojects to enable them to see the nuances of project implementation and for us to havebetter information for proper and accurate assessment of the projects. Identify the properagencies that will provide the basic services, since only electrification is borne by theNHA.
• Require a memorandum of agreement between sending and receiving LGUs in terms ofresettlement issues.
• Identify project sites per region given the budget ceiling set by DBM per program andestablish partnership with CSO in its implementation.
• TWGs created in regions with CSO representation will be adopted. PHILSSA membersare already part of this TWG in Bicol, Visayas and Mindanao. (There are existing TWGsin Bicol, Visayas and Mindanao. TWGs should also be created in NCR andCALABARZON.)
• Project ID to be processed by the regions through the TWG and this is where policychanges can be implemented. This would serve as the pilot site for policy changes.Only then when it is found effective will it be adopted by NHA national.
• NHA is open to the idea that PHILSSA or any CSO can observe in the bidding processof projects conducted in Manila. Just inform NHA or include it in the BPA with NHA.Check website for schedules.
• Joint effort with NHA with government and international funding support for the monitoringeffort.
• Include DBM in the BPA. They should be part of the BPA process from the start ot theend. This would prevent any expectations from the participating agencies and CSO. Itwould establish the parameters and limitations of the engagement.
PHILSSA and NHA Joint Assessment of the
Budget Partnership Agreement (BPA) and
Identified Action Points
This joint activity was held on 31 August 2011 at NHA Conference room to assess the Budget Partnership Agreement
(BPA) between PHILSSA and NHA in formulating the 2012 NHA budget. The BPA came about because of the NationalMemorandum Order # 109 issued by DBM to pilot test budget formulation reforms in seven National Governmentagencies, wherein CSOs are included in the formulation of the agencies budget. But prior to the BPA, PHILSSA and
NHA have been partners in budget reforms under the National Budget Monitoring Project 1 of INCITEGOV andUSAID.
If
undel
iver
ed p
leas
e re
turn
to
PH
ILSSA SECR
ETAR
IAT
PH
ILSSA SECR
ETAR
IAT
PH
ILSSA SECR
ETAR
IAT
PH
ILSSA SECR
ETAR
IAT
PH
ILSSA SECR
ETAR
IAT
3/F
lr.
Hoe
ffne
r B
uild
ing,
Soc
ial
Dev
elop
men
t C
ompl
exA
tene
o de
Man
ila
Uni
vers
ity,
Loy
ola
Hei
ghts
1108 Q
uezo
n C
ity
Tel
. N
os.:
4264328 •
4260811 •
4266001 loc
. 4854
Tel
efax
: 4264327
E-m
ail:
phi
lssa
@pl
dtd
sl.n
et