WHY EARTH CANT BE MOVED

It has been more than a year since Typhoon Haiyan, indelibly scarred the terrain and people of
the Philippines. 171 municipalities in 14 provinces severely affected. The DOST estimates that
losses amounted to over 571-billion PHP. Official government records show that around 3.4
million families were affected and 890,000 families were displaced or rendered homeless.
The OPARR indicated in their expected deliverables the construction of 205,128 housing
units (to house a little over 20% of the entire displaced population) and have identified 153
hectares of government-owned land for this purpose.
On the first year of commemorating the tragedy, we have scrambled for anecdotes, official
government releases and information from humanitarian organizations to come up with a
semblance of an answer to what survivors are still clamoring for: Saan kami titira? Why is it
that only 2% of the targetted housing units have been built? Why are survivors still in tents
and temporary shelters quite an aberration from establishing normalcy, the latter being a
requisite of resilience.
We have fixated at the inefficieny, if not incompetence of government, without trying to
understand what really belies the problem. Providing an answer to this question cannot be
attributed to a single cause it is instead part of a myriad of mutually-exacerbating factors.
The government is not a homogenous entity; while it is true that some may be more inefficient
and incompetent than others, it is unjust and unproductive to label the whole lot.
PROCEDURAL NIGHTMARES? For one, if we look at the processes and documentary
requirements involved in shelter provision we will partially get a sense of why plans are
progressing very slowly. The processes involved in pre-construction takes about 8 to 10
months, before site development is officially allowed. Some of which are as follows: (1) DENR
requirements ensure that the area is not under the coverage of NIPAS, and that the processes
involved complies with environmental and safety standards; houses are not to be built on top
of fault-lines, in areas very near volcanoes or prone to flooding and soil erosion; (2) HLURB
certifications ensure that the project area is in accordance with zoning requirements and
complies with prescribed land-use to avoid incompatible uses i.e. houses beside factories; (3)
DA clearances ascertains that the area is not covered by SAFDZ and/or NPAAAD and that
these areas have not been allocated for the coconut and sugar industries and irrigation
infrastructure; (4) DAR, through the (MARO, BARC and CLUPPI) issues certifications that
areas are not subject to the CARP.
Breaching or overriding these requirements will have dire implications on national
development, food security, environmental sustainability, human health and welfare as well as
on social justice (as is the objective of asset distribution under the CARP). Which is why we
have to remind ourselves what purpose these mechanisms serve.
LAND COMPLEXITIES: Also, matters go far beyond procedural concerns; there are substantial
concerns in other aspects. In various areas, different configurations of the following concerns
are faced: (1) limited availability of habitable A&D land; (2) limited LGU resources to acquire
land; (3) available land has adverse claims or multiple encumberances; (4) the said lot only has
tax declaration, as opposed to having a land title as required by the COA, and (5) the

contentious application / questionably interpretation of the no build zone policy among

many others. In the first place our (6) Land Administration and Management System, including
cadasteral mapping has yet to be completely set up.
The government is exerting effort to improve the Fast-tracking of Housing Projects and the
creation of Regional One-Stop Housing Permit Offices (ROSHPOs) but while government is
reviewing and changing policy, it has to execute interventions at the same time. Imagine having
to drive a car while fixing it on the run. However, securing the future and addressing the more
urgent concerns of the present should not be treated as an or option. The present and future
should be treated as a continuum in building resiliency, in that long-term goals of having a
harmonious land use are balanced off with the everyday needs of survivors such as food,
clothing and shelter.
This article is not intended to justify the delay in government intervention; what it seeks to
underscore is that we have a lot of problems to contend with. More than anything it serves as a
challenge for everyone: for government to be more committed with its responsibilities, for the
academe to help in policy review and improvement, for international organizations to assist in
aspects that need more attention, for civil society to contribute its collective historic and
indigenous knowledge as inputs to planning and for the private sector to lend its more
advanced technologies.
As a post-script I make reference to the title in its litaral and figurative sense. Earth-moving is
a term used in engineering and architecture to refer to the cutting and filling of rock material
(cut and fill) or the digging and pushing of earth. In the vernacular we refer to this as
pagtatambak at pagpapatag ng lupa. Earthmoving is a critical activity in site development as
it prepares the ground where buildings are to be erected. It is a befitting figure of speech that
implies accomplishing a close to impossible task such as moving the entire earth. Why are
there still no houses for survivors? Why cant earth be moved?