May 31, 1993

As I continue to recover from an illness which profoundly weakened and disfigured me during the weeks before Easter, I am moved in the spirit of the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines (PCP II) to give attention anew to a law which cruelly weakens and disfigures millions of our brothers and sisters who are urban poor. ¹That Council declares our Church a Church of the Poor. It confronts us with Jesus, one with the poorest of the poor: “Whatever you have done to one of these least brethren, that you have done to me” (Ma 25:40). It challenges us not merely to an inner change of heart in recognition of each person’s dignity within the human family and God’s Kingdom. It challenges us to change social, political, economic and cultural institutions and systems whenever and wherever this dignity is debased. This includes situations where because of an overconcentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few, human dignity and solidarity within the Lord’s Kingdom²is affronted. It includes laws which abet this overconcentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few, and discriminates against the impoverished many.

Fundamental Human Right to Decent Housing

It is in this spirit that we examine Presidential Decree (PD) 772 — the decree promulgated with the force of law in 1975 which criminalizes urban squatting. We leave it to other more technical competencies to legally examine the alleged non-constitutionality of PD 772 and its incompatibility with the Urban Development and Housing Act of I 992. Our concern is moral. Fundamentally, the right of the urban poor to adequate housing must be reaffirmed. “... To be homeless means to suffer from the deprivation or lack of something which is due. This consequently constitutes an injustice. Any ethical consideration of the housing problem must take this as its point of departure.”⁴

Where the vast numbers of our urban poor through no fault of their own have been practically denied access to the benefits of legal housing and legitimate land-use by the current land-use and land-distribution system, it is unjust and immoral that the urban poor be stigmatized as criminal when they only create the shelter they need as human beings and cannot attain legitimately. From the moral viewpoint, it is not the urban poor in this situation which is reprehensible in their inability to afford legal housing. Reprehensible rather is the land-use and land-distribution system, and those who shamelessly exploit this for excessive profit, for its failure to respond to the urban poor’s right to decent and affordable shelter — a right which precedes property and commercial rights.⁵ PD 772 penalizes the victims of this failure with criminality, and strengthens those responsible in their blindness to this failure. It is a law which must be thoroughly appreciated in its injustice. And repealed.

Private Property Upheld, But Not Absolute:

The Human Right to Housing Prior to

Prerogatives of Private Property

In making this stand it must be made clear that we do not compromise the time-honored position the Church has always maintained with regards to private property. The right to private property has been long-considered a fundamental right necessary for the autonomy and development of the human person:⁶For this reason, we do not in principle condone squatting.

On the other hand, we do not live in an ideal world. Where land speculation unabatedly forces the price of land out of the reach of the poor and virtually monopolizes land for the wealthy alone, where remedies in legislation such as RA 7279 are too slow in their implementation, where serious land-use planning in urban areas is still the exception rather than the rule, where government has not yet been able to provide the leadership, organization and funding that could make the shelter program of this country viable, the human need of the poor for shelter must be met on a real plane. In the absence of other viable alternatives, the utilization of unused government and idle or abandoned private lands for this purpose cannot be considered immoral, and ought not be considered illegal, much less criminal.⁷

For as Pope Paul VI taught: “... private property does not constitute for anyone an absolute and unconditional right. No one is justified in keeping for his exclusive use what he does not need when others lack necessities” (PP, 23). No social sector, motivated by selfishness, greed, or the drive for profit through land speculation, can be justified in virtually monopolizing for its exclusive use the control of urban lands while so many poor lack minimum land-use for shelter. There is no moral justification for the luxury in land-use and the resplendent opulence of exclusive subdivision mansions while so many millions of our urban poor live in abject squalor or in sub-human dwellings.

Social Mortgage on Property

Applies to Real Property for Urban Poor Shelter

“Private property is thus subordinated to the universal destination of goods,” PCP II teaches. It was for this reason that Pope John Paul II saw fit “to refer to private property as under a ‘social mortgage’ [SRS, 42]” (PCP II, 302). Land held as private property is subordinated to the universal destination of land as a necessary condition for legitimate and decent human shelter for all. In the context of the virtual unresponsiveness of the land-use and land-distribution system of this country to meet the housing needs of those who are urban poor, despite the many continuing efforts being exerted by many to meet this problem honestly, the social mortgage on private property applies to all real property owners, private and public. Until property fulfills its social function, pays its social mortgage, the moral validity of its ownership is doubtful, despite any claims of title. Only insofar as property pays its social mortgage, is moral ownership assured. In the necessary restructuring of our land-use and land-distribution systems towards providing shelter for the poor, therefore, there is no private holding that cannot be tapped for this purpose. As the Vatican teaches “... it is important to remember that society as well as the State, has the obligation to guarantee for its citizens and members those living conditions without which they cannot achieve fulfilment, either as persons or as families... The right to housing is a universal right” (WHYDHB, III, 2).

Where the shelter needs of the urban poor clash with the speculative designs of types of land-owners or land developers who have neither an appreciation of the unhappy plight of the urban poor nor any desire to contribute to the solution of this grave problem, it must be appreciated that the moral claims to their ownership under the social mortgage is equivalently eroded. Where the urban poor have no access to legitimate land-use due to the market, they cannot be expected — under pain of criminality — to use the market to acquire legitimate land-use. Just as where a poor person who has no dollars has no access to goods in a store because these can be bought only with dollars, that poor person cannot be expected — under pain of criminality — to satisfy his needs in that store. If the formal land system is irresponsive to the shelter needs of the many, the ownership claims of the owners are eroded. Pope John Paul II teaches: “...there are many human needs which find no place on the market. It is a strict duty of justice and truth not to allow fundamental human needs to remain unsatisfied, and not to allow those burdened by such needs to perish”(CA. 34). The right to life always takes precedence over the right to property. The right to basic human needs always takes precedence over the right to superfluity of goods and luxury.

Victims Have Been Made Scapegoats

The Vatican is very clear: “Property is at the service of the human person. Any speculative practice which diverts property use from its function of serving the human person should be considered an abuse” (WHYDHB, 111,3). Where efforts today to rethink and restructure our land-use and land-distribution system towards a system more responsive to the human person are stymied by the general reduction of land in our country to a commodity ending too easily in abusive land speculation, by the rigid valuation of land in terms of strict market value, by the inability of the state to expropriate lands except against payment of market value, by the hesitation of the state and its subsidiaries to make government lands available for socialized housing, by the disadvantage of the relatively unschooled urban poor to access and develop land against the monied and politically adroit developers and their legal staffs, by the lack of sufficient long-term funding for such as the Community Mortgage Program, by the lack of qualified land-use planning, by the lack of such as base-maps, land-use maps, and actual-land-use maps, by the stupefying and debilitating bureaucratic requirements which accompany legitimate land-transfers, by the lack of available legal counsel for the urban poor, etc., all these only exemplify some of the real problems at present which keep the land-use system unresponsive to the shelter needs of the urban poor.

In fairness and justice we know: the urban poor alone are not responsible for this problematic. They are rather its victims. The law, therefore, that asserts they are ultimately criminally responsible for these problems casts the aggrieved into the role of criminals, and the victims into the role of scapegoats. Unjust, the law loses its morally coercive force.¹¹When the urban poor, who cooperate with government efforts to legitimately house the urban poor, are harassed and arrested¹²on the basis of PD 772 and jailed for being urban poor without legitimate shelter, our society’s sin against the urban poor is as shameful as it is grave.

Repeal PD 772!

We are the only Catholic country in Asia. Ideally, we ought to be a country specially sensitive to the human needs of our poor because of our Lord’s special identification with them. The reality is otherwise. We are the only country in the world outside of South Africa which legally criminalizes squatting. The oft-repeated claim that this criminalization of squatting is necessary to protect private property is belied by the many civil laws which give ample legal protection to private property. For even prior to the promulgation of PD 772 in 1975, private property was legally protected and secured.¹³Today, we know that PD 772, beyond having failed to effectively prevent new squatting, assails the dignity of the urban poor and injures their standing in civil society. In the name of Christian justice and social equity, the time has now come for its repeal. Where our poor already suffer so much from material deprivation, this type of unjust legislation only brings more unnecessary suffering to their unhappy existences. Instead of this law, we must in conscience commit ourselves anew to the real solution of the urban poor problematic with true love and respect for the urban poor.¹⁴We must commit ourselves anew to finding sufficient land-use to legitimately shelter our poor. Our position, as some cynically claim, is not one of bleeding hearts. It is however a position which knows that the human sufferings of our urban poor have limits, and that our failure to integrate the urban poor in the mainstrearn of our society may result in the most ugly type of urban anarchy, destruction, and bloodshed. Ultimately, the problems of our urban poor sisters and brothers in the Lord are our common concern.

Words of Pope John Paul II provide a fitting end to this pastoral statement: “Justice will never be fully attained unless people see in the poor person, who is asking for help in order to survive, not an annoyance or burden, but an opportunity for showing kindness and a chance for greater enrichment. Only such an awareness can give the courage needed to face the risk and the change involved in every authentic attempt to come to the aid of another. It is not merely a matter of ‘giving from one’s surplus,’ but of helping entire peoples which are presently excluded or marginalized to enter into the sphere of economic and human development” (CA, 58). The abolition of PD 772 will not compromise private property. But it shall correct a major disfigurement in our society. It shall liberate the urban poor from a stigma we have unjustly inflicted on them. It shall be a significant step towards solving our housing problem — not a problem of criminals, but the challenge of Filipinos struggling to live in the house of the Lord — to put their house in order.

May the Holy Spirit of Justice, Love and Life give us the strength and courage to do what we must - especially as we prepare ourselves for His Pentecost!

(sgd. ) + JAIME L. CARDINAL SIN, D.D.

Archbishop of Manila

Villa San Miguel

May 09,1993

Notes:

¹Problem of PD 772 also addressed in the Pastoral Statement of Jaime Cardinal Sin, DD, entitled Solidarity With the Urban Poor, on the occasion of Urban Poor Solidarity Week, Dec 5, 1992.

² “By reason of our pilrimage to the Kingdom of God, we need to change our hearts and the social, economic political and cultural systems that have promoted massive poverty and inequity” (PCP II, 273). “Each person, no matter how poor and uneducated is endowed with an inalienable dignity as an image of God and entrusted with an eternal destiny. Each person has to be respected as an equal member of the human family (PP, 17), actively participating towards the common good in solidarity with others. A situation such as the concentration of economic wealth and political power in the hands of the few is an affront to human dignity and solidarity” (PCP II, 296).

³Formal positions against PD 772 have been taken by the Ateneo Human Rights Center and have been submitted to legislators in support of a repeal of PD 772. Cf. also Michael Navarro. The Unconstitutionality and Repeal of PD 772, Thesis Presented to Ateneo de Manila College of Law towards the Degree of Juris Doctor, 1 993.

⁴What Have You Done To Your Homeless Brothers? Vatican: Committee on Justice and Peace, III, 2. Hereafter referred to as “WHYDHB.” “In this document [Charter of the Rights of the Family], it is explicitly stated that the family has the right to decent housing, fitting for family life and commensurate to the number of its members, in a physical environment that provides the basic services for the life of the family and the community” (Ibid., III, 2, Charter of the Rights of the Family, Art. 11). Also: “...adequate housing is important if a person is to find fulfilment, both as an individual and as a member of society” (WHYDHB, IV, 1). Also: This situation [housing problem] is not simply a fact to which those with responsibilities in the field and indeed all persons are called to react. Rather from an ethical point of view it is a scandal and one more indication of the unjust distribution of goods, originally destined for the use of all” (Ibid, I, 3). Also: “... every man has the right to life, to bodily integrity, and to the means which are necessary and suitable for the proper development of life. These are primarily food, shelter, rest, medical care, and finally the necessary social services” (Pacem in Tenris, 5).

⁵Pope Paul VI: “If the world is made to furnish each individual with the means of livelihood and the instruments for his growth and progress, each man has therefore the right to find in the world what is necessary for himself. The recent Council reminded us of this: God intended the earth and all that it contains for the use of every human being and people. Thus, as all men follow justice and unite in charity, created goods should abound for them on a reasonable basis (Gaudium et Spes. 69, 1). All other rights whatsoever, including those of property and of free commerce, are to be subordinated to this principle” (Populorum Progressio, 22).

⁶The Second Plenary Council of the Philippines is very explicit here: “We need to reaffirm the truth that private property is derived from the nature of the human person, is valid and necessary in itself, and ought to be considered an extension of human freedom (Gaudium et Spes, 71). This is a constant teaching of the Church. But equally constant and — sadly — not so faithfully practised is the perennial truth that private property has a social dimension” (PCP II). Also: ‘This right to private property, which is fundamental for the autonomy and development of the person, has always been defended by the Church up to our own day” (Centessimus Annus, 30. Cf. also: Rerum Novarum, 99-107). But Pope John Paul II is quick to add: “At the same time the Church teaches that the possession of material good is not an absolute right, and that its limits are inscribed in its very nature as a human right” (ibid.).

⁷ “lt is ... perfectly legitimate that those who suffer oppression on the part of the wealthy or the politically powerful should take action, through morally licit means, in order to secure structures and institutions in which their rights will be truly respected” (Instruction on Christian Freedom and Liberation, 75).

⁸ “...it is opportune to point out that there is a social duty inherent in the right of private property” (Pacem in Terris, pg 7; Mater et Magistra, pg. 430).

⁹This is especially so if one consider the law and judgement of Christ. Pope John Paul II quotes St; Thomas Aquinas in Centessimus Annus in reaffirmation of this principle: “But if the question be asked, how must one’s possessions be used? The Church replies without hesitation that man should not consider his material possessions as his own, but as common to all... “because above the laws and judgements of men stands the law, the judgement of Christ” (Centessium Annus, 30).

¹⁰For further articulation of problems involved in the inability of the formal housing sector to provide adequate shelter with the poor, confer proceedings of the Land Access Workshop sponsored jointly by the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Committee (HUDCC) and the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (UNCHS) and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) held at Manila Midtown Hotel, April 28-29, 1993.

¹¹ “...Since the right to command is required by the moral order and has its source in God, it follows that if civil authorities legislate for or allow anything that is contrary to that order and therefore contrary to the will of God, neither the laws made nor the authorization granted can be binding on the consciences of the citizens since we must obey God rather than men (Acts. 5:29)” (Pacem in. Terris, 15).

¹²Recent cases involve the ejection processings on the basis of PD 772 against the urban poor community of Bolante, Pasig, at the behest of the landowner and the arrest of hundreds of urban poor settlers in Kaingin, Quezon City, at the behest of a private person the validity of whose title is being contested.

¹³Navarro discusses legal remedies against squatting short of P D 772, pp 6-27. Cf. above, Footnote 2.

¹⁴ “For each Christan and for the Church, as the people of God, the stark reality of homeless persons and families is at one and the same an appeal to conscience and an exigency to do something to remedy the situation” (WHYDHB, III, 41).