NLUA: Duterte legacy legislation
FOR more than two decades, many different versions of a proposed National Land Use Act (NLUA) have languished in Congress. I recall that even under the previous administration, the passage of the NLUA Bill was certified as urgent, but, until now, no version of the bill has been enacted into law. The call by President Rodrigo Duterte for Congress to pass the NLUA before the end of the year should prompt our representatives and senators to finally act on the much-delayed measure. As of now, the Philippines is reportedly the only developing country without a national land use policy.
I know for a fact that the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) has already drafted the Duterte administration version of the bill. All Congress needs to do now is to start the ball rolling on this and other NLUA bills filed in the 18th Congress — House Bills 105, 158, 564 and 706, and Senate Bill 38.
If passed, the NLUA will be a legacy legislation of President Duterte. I am certain that with the President’s resolve and a strong political will, he can put an end to the haphazard and unplanned development in our urban and rural centers.
It wasn’t long ago that the President, to the opposition of many, issued Proclamation 475 declaring Boracay Island under a state of calamity. Three years ago, my son went to Boracay expecting crystal clear waters and white sand. Instead, he was greeted with foul-smelling green gunk — algal bloom fertilized by feces and garbage from untreated sewage. Until recently, this was the trend in Boracay.
Seeking to reverse the island’s downward spiral into what he termed a “cesspool,” the President ordered a full closure of the island for six months even if it meant losing billions in government revenue. Now, the rationale for closing it was simple: a temporary sacrifice for long-term sustainability. To most visitors to Boracay nowadays, the President’s gamble has clearly paid off.
The case of Boracay serves as a microcosm of what happens when local government units fail to act. Had the national government not swooped in, Boracay would be the cesspool it was before, maybe even worse. The problem, as usual, was implementation. The same is happening, albeit on a larger scale, with regard to our current land use regulations.
At present, land use and classification is determined in large part by the local government units (LGUs). This stems from their power under Section 20 of the Local Government Code to reclassify lands. Part of this power is the directive for LGUs to “continue to prepare their respective comprehensive land use plans (CLUPs) enacted through zoning ordinances which shall be the primary and dominant bases for the future use of land resources…”
As it stands, therefore, the LGUs dictate land use within the locality for the foreseeable future (at least 10 years) through its CLUPs. Theoretically, leaving this decision primarily to the LGUs makes sense. They are, after all, the leaders of their own localities. They know the ins and outs of the area.
The problem is most LGUs either do not have a plan or if they do, these are poorly made, based on the priorities of whoever is the mayor at the time. The HLURB estimated in 2012 that “70 percent of municipalities had no or outdated land use plans.” Meanwhile, a policy brief by the German Institute for Development Evaluation, which surveyed cities and municipalities in the Visayas region in 2016, revealed, “[w]hile 84 out of 100 municipalities had land use planning documents, only 37 had been approved by the Provincial Land Use Committee” (following the hierarchical structure of passing these CLUPs). A review of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board website itself, in its list of cities and municipalities with and without approved CLUPs, shows that a great number of localities have CLUPs last approved in the 1990s and early 2000s, with some even dating back to the 1980s.
Aside from this, numerous other factors hamper the effective and efficient use of land. Since the CLUP is heavily reliant on policymakers to dictate the direction of a locality, a change in leadership means a change in plans. There is nothing preventing a new set of local politicians from changing a CLUP passed by the previous administration.
In addition, a hodgepodge of other applicable laws on land use involve many different government agencies, which results in an overlap of mandates and overall inefficiency. For instance, forest lands are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources but some LGUs are clueless as to what areas constitute forest lands or what projects can be built near or beside forest lands.
The bottom line, however, is that LGUs have not been up to the task with regard to land use. Boracay is only one example.
Land is a finite resource, and the Philippines has 300,000 square kilometers of it. The way I see it, the best course of action would be to pass the NLUA, which will allow a single national authority to streamline and monitor land use more effectively, with more accountability and a clearer delineation of roles.
Given the poor track record of LGUs, it is high time the national government be directly involved in determining the best use of our land, whether it be for protection — designating hazardous areas in case of typhoons or earthquakes as well as lands for preservation — production, settlement or infrastructure.
There will be naysayers for sure. Some have said that centralizing land use would raise the ire of mayors around the country. True, centralizing land use would have its drawbacks such as divesting power from LGUs. But it’s high time a national land use plan be passed to allow the national government to do what the LGUs have failed to do for the past two decades.
Source : https://www.manilatimes.net/2019/10/08/opinion/columnists/nlua-duterte-legacy-legislation
