the national budget devoted to slum upgrading programmes [and] community mortgage programmes,’ among others;11 ii. The Committee took note of the absence of judicial powers of the Philippine Commission on Human Rights and that it appeared as though there were no specific instances in which the ICESCR had been applied by domestic courts;12 iii. Of particular concern to the Committee was the use of the criminal law to deal with problems arising from the inadequacy of housing supply, through the prosecution of squatting. It was made clear that ‘in the absence of concerted measures to address these problems [of adequate housing supply] resort should not be had in the first instance to measures of criminal law or to demolition’. 13 This position is consistent with standard 3.4 above, which prohibits the use of evictions as a punitive measure; iv. The Committee referred to information it had received from a number of sources that the scale and frequency of forced evictions were particularly high. It recommended that the Government ‘should ensure that forced evictions are not carried out except in truly exceptional circumstances, following consideration of all possible alternatives and in full respect of the rights of all persons affected’ and that ‘when relocating evicted or homeless persons or families, attention should be paid to the availability of job opportunities, schools, hospitals or health centres, and transport facilities in the areas selected’;14 v. (b) Finally, the Committee recommended the establishment of ‘an independent body legally responsible for preventing illegal forced evictions, and for monitoring, documenting and reviewing any ongoing or planned forced evictions’.15 2008 Proceedings In its State report 16 for the 2008 proceedings of the CESCR, finalised in 2006, the Government identified policy and programme developments during the intervening period. It was noted that the Legislature had enacted Republic Act 8368 to decriminalise the act of squatting, which complied with the Committee’s 1995 recommendations. However, the government noted further that additional mechanisms had been developed to: ‘curtail the activities of professional squatting syndicates and professional squatters and intensifying the drive against them [to protect] the rightful beneficiaries of the [Urban Development and Housing Act] from squatting syndicates and professional squatters 11 Ibid, paras. 5,18 and 23. Ibid, para. 10. 13 Ibid, para. 16. 14 Ibid, paras. 16, 17 and 31. 15 Ibid, para 32. 16 United Nations Economic and Social Council, Periodic Reports Submitted by States Parties under Articles 16 and 17 of the Covenant: Combined Second, Third and Fourth Periodic Reports of the Philippines, 2006. 12 23