guidance on Philippine compliance with international standards relevant to housing and evictions. The Philippines has been subject to two cycles of review under the UPR, in 2008 and 2012. These proceedings will be considered separately and any matters of import in relation to housing and evictions noted. (a) 2008 Proceedings In its State report 35 to the first cycle of the UPR, the Government explained the initiatives it had taken in the housing sector. This included the ‘National Shelter Program’, which was to implement resettlement, slum upgrading, sites and services development, core housing, the Community Mortgage Programme and asset reform programme.36 As a matter of policy, the Government also identified the following priorities for its housing programme: ‘(a) continuation of urban land proclamations; (b) adopt the localization scheme and accessing innovative sources of income; (c) simplify the shelter subsidy system; (d) expand private sector participation in housing finance and construction; (e) encourage private developers to construct more housing units and ensure that their investments are adequately covered; (f) Partnership with multi-lateral donor agencies.’37 The OHCHR prepared a summary38 of 31 different external stakeholder submissions for consideration during the review. This summary noted some concerns in relation to housing, namely that since the enactment of the Urban Development and Housing Act in 1992 conditions for the urban poor had only worsened and residents continue to face regular threats of eviction and demolition.39 One of the most substantial of these external submissions was provided by the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions.40 COHRE levelled notable criticism at the category of ‘professional squatters’, as defined by the UDHA, concerned that the definition was ‘vague and may thus include legitimate urban poor individuals and families, underprivileged citizens and/or the homeless’.41 The 1995 recommendations of the CESCR were also reiterated, namely that the Government should have greater regard for the availability of basic services and economic opportunities when undertaking resettlement. COHRE indicated that since these 1995 recommendations, the Government has opted to resettle communities to locations further from the city where there are even fewer economic opportunities. 42 A variety of other concerns were raised, including the absence of sufficient compensation provided to resettled communities, a general failure of government to comply with legislative protections 35 United Nations Human Rights Council, National Report Submitted in Accordance with Paragraph 15(a) of the Annex to Human Rights Council Resolution 5/1: Philippines, 2008. 36 Ibid, para. 43. 37 Ibid, para. 151. 38 United Nations Human Rights Council, Summary Prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights , in Accordance with Paragraph 15(c) of the Annex to Human Rights Council Resolution 5/1: Philippines, 2008. 39 Ibid, para. 31. 40 Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, Submission to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to Assist in the Preparation of Documents for the First Cycle of the Universal Periodic Review, 2007. 41 Ibid, p. 5. 42 Ibid. 27