implementation of the Community Mortgage Programme,90 among other things. All of these provisions require LGUs to perform a function ‘in coordination’ with other agencies. This style of statutory construction capacitates LGUs to misuse their powers under the law. It allows inaction when the local government concerned sees it in their interests to not comply with the law, while conferring a considerable measure of power in a variety of different areas. The DILG has been particularly active in recent years in circulating memoranda among local government to promote compliance with the law in a variety of housing-related areas, including with respect to compliance with the UDHA and advisories of the Commission on Human Rights during the eviction and resettlement process. 91 However, the lack of enforceability of these instruments renders them ill equipped to establish compliance among LGUs with the applicable legal and human rights framework. During consultations with government and civil society, many participants also raised the issue of political influence within local government. The political interference in local governance structures in the Philippines, and an absence of effective controls over local decision-makers and administrators, has been well recognised. 92 In the housing sector, this inhibits the efficiency of solutions for the urban poor. Some local government officials are known to be sympathetic to the desire the urban poor to construct settlements in their jurisdiction, notwithstanding their prohibition under the legal framework, on the basis that these settlers will provide key votes in local elections. The political basis for many of these opposing sympathies highlights the inability of the present institutional structures to limit the political interference of local decision-makers and enforce the overarching legal framework within local jurisdictions. In certain respects, the decentralisation to local government in the institutional infrastructure is a double-edged sword for the protection and promotion of human rights. The framework provides local government ample independence to develop innovative policies and mechanisms for the benefit of the urban poor and to promote the enjoyment of human rights within its jurisdiction. Several notable instances exist within the Philippines of local governments using their autonomy to provide positive and participatory resettlement outcomes for the urban poor. An often-cited example is the approach taken by the Naga City Government, which has adopted extensive mechanisms within local housing institutions to mandate consultation, high standards in social housing service delivery and grievance measures to promote access to justice.93 Similar localised measures adopted by the Quezon City government were recognised by national agencies during the government stakeholder consultation undertaken by this review. Importantly, the localisation of service delivery in housing and local implementation of national programmes can operate to increase efficiency in the eviction and 89 Ibid, s. 30. Ibid, s. 33. 91 See: Memoranda Circular Nos. 2010-31, 2010-134 and 2011-182 of the Department of Interior and Local Government. 92 For example, see: World Bank, Community-Driven Development and Accountable Local Government: Some Lessons from the Philippines, 2009. 93 Asian Development Bank, Access to Justice for the Urban Poor: Towards Inclusive Cities, 2010, p. 52. 90 56  Human Rights in the Rubble