COMMENTS ON HOUSE BILL No. 2145
by SALIGAN

It is SALIGAN’s view that H.B. 2145 (AN ACT AMENDING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8368, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE “ANTI-SQUATTING LAW REPEAL ACT OF 1997”) seeks to underhandedly amend the definition of professional squatters in Republic Act No. 7279 (UDHA) and does not answer the problem of grinding urban poverty, which is the main reason that people resort to squatting in urban areas. As such, SALIGAN does not favor the enactment of said bill, to wit:

I SALIGAN humbly maintains that H.B. 2145 is unconstitutional for being violative of the Social Justice provision of the 1987 Constitution, and blatantly disregards the existing laws on Ejectment

H.B. 2145 forgets the Social Justice provision in the Constitution, which limits and defines a person’s right to private ownership. While seemingly an amendment of RA 8368, it is really RA 7279 that H.B. 2145 seeks to revise by trying to expand the definition of “professional squatters.” As can be seen in its wording, what the bill is trying to punish as a “professional squatter” is practically anyone who falls under the ejectment provisions of the Rules of Court.

Given this premise, it is respectfully submitted that the bill is not presenting anything new, save for its underhanded attempt to amend section 3[m] of the UDHA, which defines “professional squatters.” The house bill unlawfully expands the definition of professional squatters as found in the UDHA by adding the following definition:

Provided, that any person or group of persons who with the use of force, intimidation or threat, or taking advantage of the absence or tolerance of the landowner, succeeds in occupying or possessing the property of the latter against his will, and having received a written demand to either vacate or pay rent from said landowner, shall refuse to do so within a period of ninety (90) days, shall be considered a professional squatter within the purview of Republic Act No. 7279.

After an examination of the above provision, immediately noticeable is its suspicious similarity to what constitutes an action for Forceable Entry or Unlawful Detainer under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.

Read full article @ www.saligan.org

Related articles

• Romanian squatters make strong showing in “headline most likely to appeal to right-wing readers” contest (theRatandMouse.co.uk)
• Labour signals support for crackdown on squatters (guardian.co.uk)
• New laws could shift British squatters (news.smh.com.au)
• The idea squatting can be a solution to homelessness is false and cruel | Grant Shapps (guardian.co.uk)
• Squatters kicked out of house at 12th and Jefferson (centraldistrictnews.com)
• Cyber Squatters Mock Bachmann (politicalwire.com)
• How to avoid losing your home to squatters!!! [Lara Ryan] (ecademy.com)
• Squatters’ rights protesters arrested after clash with police outside Parliament (mirror.co.uk)
• The criminalisation of squatting belies a sinister logic | Alexander Vasudevan (guardian.co.uk)
• Polish squatters ‘move in’ to affluent London area ‘because rents are too high’ (telegraph.co.uk)