supportive functions and to what extent they are responsible for the specific, necessary tasks required to perform them. Moreover, there are no IRRs that provide any further guidance on sections 7 and 8, only the HUDCC guidelines which is not an enforceable legal instrument. Merely requiring government entities to ‘coordinate’ with each other to perform a function encourages the abrogation of responsibility among agencies. To ensure that measures are effectively implemented the law should specify explicitly and in detail the functions required for the realisation of these measures and each specific government entity responsible for such functions. (b) Devolution to Local Governm ent A variety of measures exist in the institutional setup which transfer considerable authority and decision making power to the local government during the eviction and resettlement process. In addition to the devolution of power established by the Local Government Code of 1991, LGUs are conferred considerable powers under the UDHA to conduct evictions and facilitate resettlement, again, in coordination with other agencies. In 2008, Executive Order 708 devolved further powers to local governments, conferring them with a ‘clearing house function’ with respect to evictions, as well as mandating the creation of local housing boards (LHBs). The composition and functions of the LHB are governed by DILG Memorandum Circular 143 of 2008, which specifies that the LHB is to be chaired by the Mayor and is required to provide a ‘certificate of compliance’ that a proposed eviction complies with the requirements of the UDHA, before the eviction can take place. HUDCC has provided a Guidebook86 for local government on their obligations with respect to housing provision within their jurisdiction, including the development of the inventory of lands and attendant requirements, as mentioned above, as well as assistance with the development and composition of local housing boards. This document offers a wealth of information on how LGUs should implement their legal obligations under relevant housing law, but it does not itself constitute a legal instrument and is not enforceable against LGUs. Local government non-compliance was a recurring theme raised by many participants in both the civil society and government stakeholder roundtable discussion forums, particularly with respect to the administrative requirements of the UDHA. During the government discussion, HUDCC identified that it had made some headway in providing the technical assistance to local governments to meet their legal obligations and provide the training required for local officials. However, the decentralised framework provides considerable independence to LGUs and HUDCC lacks the power to enforce its policies against them. Importantly, most responsibility attributed to LGUs under the UDHA is complementary, in that LGUs are specified in addition to a variety of other government entities to undertake a single function. This is the case not only in relation to the use and acquisition of lands for social housing, but also in the prevention of professional squatting, 87 conducting evictions and providing resettlement, 88 preventing new structures being built 89 and assisting in the 86 Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council, LGU’s Guidebook for Local Housing Project/Program, 2009. Republic Act 7279, s. 27. 88 Ibid, ss. 28-29. 87 55