Squatting and politics

“Estero settlers” (previously and more appropriately called “squatters”) have been the problem of every administration. Every year especially when the rains come, their relocation is boldly announced. And so this year we have such an announcement again. And based on the firm statements of the people in this administration who made the announcement, this is the last and final one. They boldly declared that these squatters along the waterways will be relocated within this year and they have as much as P50 billion to spend for this purpose.

But doubts about this firm commitment just cannot be erased right away. People remain skeptical especially  after hearing the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Secretary’s explanation on why they are doing it only now instead of last summer or even earlier. He said that the delay was due to the request of some local officials who obviously need the votes of these settlers/squatters in the last elections. In fact he said similar requests for delays are again brought up due to the forthcoming Barangay elections. But it will not be granted anymore, according to him.

This unabashed admission by the DPWH Secretary actually confirms what we have known all along. This squatter problem, not only in the waterways but even in private properties especially in Metro Manila, is actually due to and the reason for the kind of politics and politicians we have in this country. It will never be solved for as long as we have not gotten rid of them in our midst. The Secretary did not actually name the local officials, but it is almost certain that most of them belong to, and/or supported PNoy and his candidates.

It is really quite hard to believe that this latest announcement from this administration will be translated into action. Indeed much of what it has achieved so far consists mostly of press releases and publicity stunts just to earn pogi points. To be sure, even this latest plan about squatter relocation appears to be another publicity stunt. The announcement came merely as a reaction to the adverse publicity that the administration has been reaping due to a series of damaging flash floods that hit the metropolis and caused massive traffic jams.

To be sure, this is the first time that the Estero squatters are even being blamed for our traffic problem. Their relocation seems to be merely for the purpose of countering the adverse reactions of the people on the recurring floods and the traffic jams. If this administration is really sincere on this matter, it should have taken steps right away without much fanfare mainly because lives of more than 100,000 families living along the waterways are gravely endangered and not because of floods and traffic problem.

The worst part therefore in this squatter problem now in the limelight has something to do with the kind of officials now in power particularly the local officials. Their last move delaying their relocations clearly shows that they are more concerned about losing the votes of these people than about saving their lives which are greatly imperiled especially during the rainy season. It can really be said that this kind of politicians with self serving interests win elections and retain power mainly because of the vote of squatters. It seems to be something of a give and take arrangement where these politicians win their votes mainly on the promise that they will protect their occupancy. It may also be because of patronage politics which thrives best in squatter areas or in places where people live in extreme poverty.

Under the present Constitution, there seems to be no way of changing this kind of politicians now in power because the right of suffrage may be exercised “by all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law, who are at least 18 years of age, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one year and in the place wherein they propose to vote for at least six months immediately preceding the election” (Article V Section 1). Obviously squatters have the right of suffrage.

To improve the quality of our electorate, it has been proposed that the right of suffrage should be exercised only by those who really contribute to the coffers of the government and who actually pay the salaries, emoluments and “pork barrels” of the elected officials. After all, they are the ones with a bigger stake in seeing to it that we have good governance in this land; they are the ones concerned about the proper and wise use of the taxes they paid.

If this proposal will be adopted, only citizens paying their taxes either as realty owners or income earners should be allowed to vote. Squatters will obviously be excluded in the exercise of this right. In fact attempts have been made to submit this proposal to Congress which has the power to prescribe the qualifications and disqualifications of voters. But it has never even reached first base because of the constitutional provision that “no literacy, property, or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage” (Article V Section 1).

But is there really no chance at all under the present Constitution to improve the quality of the electorate that is necessary to reform our politics and to achieve good governance? Shall we continue to have in our midst self serving politicians who thrive best on patronage politics?

If we take a closer look and give a deeper interpretation to the provision of the Charter on this subject especially on the residency requirement, change can still happen. When the Charter mentions about “resident” it must be definitely referring to “legitimate residents.” So squatters can not be considered under this category and therefore cannot exercise the right of suffrage. Our election officials should look into this matter.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]