Metropolitan Arrangements - Philippine Institute for Development ...

Local Efforts in Housing Provision 135
the National Housing Authority. At present, the city is implemendng
17 housing projects. Like Naga, Puerto Princesa adopted other
schemes for procuring lands: three through the Community Mortgage
Program (CMP); one through the Gro/up Land Acquisition and
Development (GLAD) Program; eight through direct purchase; two
public lands; and another two through land donation.
t,u,,tltrtio,, ofb
Identifying the target beneficiaries of the program can help to
determine the legal claimants of housing projects. It also helps in
prioritizing those who need immediate shelter given the limited
number of lots available. Lastly, it defines what particular sectors are
bound to benefit from the project. All cities included in the study
formulated their own set of criteria with particular attention to
socioeconomic status.
The official census listing and structure mapping of the priority
barangays along the coastal areajof Puerto Princesa was the primary
basis in selecting prospective beneficiaries. Results of the census of
squatters as of january 1995 yielded 4,009 households occupying
coastal areas of the city. Another 638 families were found living in
other places like watersheds. Puerto Princesa projected its housing
needs at 6,473 (1995-1999), 7,078 (2000-2004) and 5,443 households
(2005-2009). This estimate is based on the city's population growth;
relocation of households living in dangerous/uninhabited areas,
public parks, sidewalks; and lands needed by the government and
squatters occupying private lands with orders of eviction. Initially, there
were 2,990 prospective families in the nine target barangays. They
represented 42 percent of the total number of households needing
housing assistance.
The city followed the Urban Development and Housing Act's
(RA 7279) specific requirements. The law stipulated that heads of
families muscVbe Filipino citizens; be underprivileged and homeless
or living in makeshift dwellings with no security of tenure; not own
any real property anywhere; not have availed of any government
housing program except those in leasehold or rental payments; be
residents of the area before the affectivity of the Act (March 1992);
and not be professional squatters or members of a squatting syndicate.
First preference was given to the qualified census-listed owneroccupant
of the duly tagged structures. Secondary preference was
accorded to those census-listed rent-free or sharer of the duly tagged