There is a fundamental problem with the National Housing Authority’s (NHA) approach to resettlement: it offers housing units under financial terms and project conditions that many urban poor families cannot realistically sustain. 

This creates a cycle where awardees struggle to keep their homes and are often forced either to endure severe economic hardship or to illegally “sell” their rights out of desperation.

When families leave or sell these units, public frustration often turns toward the beneficiaries. Many say, “Binigyan na nga sila ng pabahay, pinakawalan pa,” or complain, “Kami nga nagpapakahirap magtrabaho pero hindi binibigyan ng pabahay” or “Nasasayang lang ang tax ko sa libreng pabahay para sa mga iskwater.” These reactions stem from a common misconception that housing units in NHA resettlement sites are given free to informal settler families (ISFs). The reality is far more complex.

To grasp why resettlement efforts falter, we need to look beyond these surface judgments and examine the NHA’s resettlement program — one structured around a corporate approach that emphasizes cost recovery rather than providing meaningful, lasting support to urban informal settlers. 

Struggling to survive

The NHA builds “socialized housing” intended for “underprivileged and homeless citizens” as defined by the Urban Development and Housing Act (UDHA) of 1992. But its housing units are sold to beneficiaries at lower interest rates and longer repayment periods, not given for free (except in special cases like post-Yolanda projects).

As a government-owned and -controlled corporation (GOCC), the NHA must manage its costs and generate income. This corporate framework shapes the government’s resettlement program, contrasting with other countries’ shelter agencies that rent out government-owned housing units at below-market rates to those who cannot afford housing in the private market.

To lower production costs, most NHA projects are located on cheap land far from urban centers. The savings in project costs, however, translate into heavy burdens for resettled families.

Severed from jobs and livelihoods in the city, households suffer significant income loss. To cope, many rent bed spaces in the city — often in informal settlements also — to work. They return home only on weekends or once a month to save on grueling commutes. With barely enough to get by, families resort to borrowing from neighbors to buy food. Many, mostly women, quit work to take care of their children. Basic services like water and electricity are often unreliable, and schools and hospitals are difficult to reach. Defective housing units often force households to spend their limited income on urgent repairs just to make them livable.

Given these hardships, awardees often lack the capacity to pay their monthly amortization, which typically starts between P200 to P600 after a one-year moratorium. Although this may seem affordable from the outside, it is a heavy burden for families living hand-to-mouth.

The financial burden worsens as the NHA’s payment scheme increases loan balances over time, adds yearly interest, and imposes penalties for late payments. This creates a debt trap that makes it nearly impossible for families to secure permanent tenure.

Faced with survival needs, many awardees resort to illegally selling their “rights” to their units. Non-ISFs or better-off households often buy these rights, exposing a severe housing shortage (even for the non-poor) and leakage of subsidies meant for the poor.

Threat of eviction

The precarious situation of families in resettlement sites is set to worsen under the new NHA charter. In May 2025, President Marcos Jr. signed Republic Act No. 12216, extending the NHA’s corporate life by another 25 years. While the implementing rules are pending, housing advocates have raised alarms over a provision that is dangerous for the very sector that the NHA is mandated to serve. 

The law empowers the shelter agency to “summarily eject and dismantle, without the necessity of judicial order,” any informal settlers or illegal occupants — including awardees behind on payments—in its projects after just a 10-day notice. This clause did not appear in any of the NHA charter bills that civil society organizations were asked to review, suggesting that this highly consequential provision was inserted without proper consultation with urban poor groups during public hearings.

Why is this provision concerning? First, it allows eviction “without the necessity of judicial order.” The Constitution is clear: people cannot be deprived of their home or property without due process of law. 

Second, it is against existing safeguards under the UDHA such as a 30-day notice (not 10), adequate consultation, and coordination with agencies before any eviction takes place. Giving the NHA unilateral summary ejection power bypasses the procedural protections that urban poor communities and advocates fought for over decades. 

Third, it increases the risk of abuse and arbitrary evictions. Unless tightly limited in the implementing guidelines, the NHA could invoke this summary power against struggling awardees who fall behind on payments. 

It’s a corporation

The NHA’s harsh eviction power underscores its fundamental role as a GOCC tasked with “ensuring collection and recovery” of debts from beneficiaries — who largely fund the agency’s operations through their amortization payments. As a corporation, the NHA relies on its income to cover personnel, maintenance, and other operating expenses, despite receiving allocations from the national budget. Much of its revenue depends on payments from families facing the added challenges of living in distant resettlement sites.

However, the NHA’s collection efficiency remains low, ranging from 20% to 50% between 2015 and 2022, according to a Commission on Audit (COA) report. To address this, the agency has implemented several loan condonation programs that waive penalties and delinquency interest. The most recent program, running from May to October this year, aimed to assist over 200,000 long-term housing loan holders by condoning 100% of penalties and delinquency interest, plus 95% of unpaid amortization interest. The impact of this latest round of condonation on NHA’s overall collection performance is still unclear.

The renewal of the NHA charter offered a crucial chance to reform the government’s resettlement program. Advocates were calling for substantial changes in how the NHA serves the “underprivileged and marginalized” and contributes to solving the housing shortage, with some even pushing for its abolition.

Instead, the new charter keeps the NHA on a business-as-usual path while granting it harsher powers that risk producing informal settlers all over again. It is hardly a formula for resolving the country’s housing crisis. – Rappler.com

Gerald Nicolas is with the Urban Poverty and Governance Program of the John J Carroll Institute on Church and Social Issues (ICSI), an advocacy-oriented research institute based at the Ateneo de Manila University and a member of the Society of Jesus Social Apostolate (SJSA).