Government itself, largely through the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) and the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH).23 A coalition of Philippine NGOs also made written submissions24 to the Committee, with a housing report being prepared by Sentro ng Alternatibong Lingap Palingal (Saligan), the John J Carroll Institute on Church and Social Issues (ICSI), Foundation for the Development of the Urban Poor (FDUP) and the Urban Poor Associates (UPA). The Coalition reported on various aspects of Government housing policy and practice, taking particular issue with the absence or deficiency of resettlement provided to those subject to evictions. It was identified that during the period from 1996 to 2008 nearly 50% of evicted individuals were not provided with relocation,25 and that in the majority of cases where resettlement was actually provided, the resettlement sites lacked access to basic services and infrastructure, such as ‘hospitals, schools, water, electricity, drainage, etc. because it usually takes years before these could be set up in these areas’.26 Among other things, problems were identified with government compliance with laws already in place to protect the rights of those affected by eviction processes.27 Many of the concerns identified by COHRE and the Philippine NGO coalition were also echoed by ESCR Asia, in its report28 to the Committee. The CHR provided the Committee with a study29 on the constitutional mandate of the CHR within the Philippine legal order, specifically considering whether the ICESCR has been invoked before domestic court proceedings and whether and to what extent the protection of ESC rights fall within the purview of the CHR’s functions. The CHR sought to explain to the Committee that the Philippine Supreme Court had limited the scope of the CHR’s mandate to areas that exclusively concern civil and political rights.30 In its concluding observations, 31 the Committee devoted considerable attention to matters of housing and forced evictions. It congratulated the Government for its decriminalisation of the act of squatting through the Anti-Squatting Repeal Act of 1997.32 However, the Committee expressed concern that government expenditure on housing remained low relative to other areas and was insufficient to address the shelter needs of the poor.33 The Committee identified as a subject of concern that the protection and promotion of the ESC rights had been excluded from the mandate of the CHR. On the basis of this concern, it was recommended that the Philippines: 23 Ibid, p. 6-7. Philippine NGO Network, Report on the Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 2008. 25 Ibid, p. 81. 26 Ibid, p. 73. 27 Ibid, pp. 79-81. 28 ESC Rights Asia, Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 2008. 29 Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, CHR Mandate Over Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), 2008. 30 Ibid, pp. 4-7. 31 United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Articles 16 and 17 of the Covenant (Philippines): Concluding Observations, 2008. 32 Ibid, para. 8. 33 Ibid, para. 29. 24 25