meetings appears limited to the 30-day notice period prior to the eviction.64 This process of consultation should be separate from and antecedent to the official eviction notice period. Reasonable time is required for communities to consider and propose alternatives to the eviction and seek professional and legal advice on the implications of the project and the eviction process. A 30-day period is not sufficient to include all aspects of the consultative process, which must commence well before the 30-day official eviction notice is rendered; iii. Nowhere in the UDHA or in the IRRs are the special requirements of vulnerable groups mentioned as part of the process of consultation. In accordance with standard 3.5, it is essential for government to consider, and request the input of communities about, the particular effects of the project and eviction on women, children, people with disabilities, the elderly, and other groups with special interests. This obligation must be reflected in the regulatory regime; and iv. The IRRs state that points of agreement and disagreement shall be provided to affected parties and ‘[s]hould any party refuse to sign the agreement, the same shall be posted in the area’.65 This suggests that if there is a disagreement between government and the affected community, that the Government’s view will prevail and will be disseminated within that community. Standard 3.9 requires that where parties fail to reach agreement those affected have recourse to some form of dispute resolution body to mediate the issue and reach a fair outcome. Such a procedure should be incorporated into the consultation process. (b) Provision of Com pensation As mentioned, section 28 of the UDHA provides the conditions for eviction and resettlement of affected communities. However, there is no provision in the Act for compensation to be provided as a matter of course to those affected for damage to their real or personal property, or other forms of assessable damage incurred during the course of the eviction process. The only provision for compensation can be found at section 28(8), which requires ‘financial assistance in the amount equivalent to the prevailing minimum wage multiplied by sixty (60) days shall be extended to the affected families by the local government unit concerned’. This is only for evictions pursuant to a court order and only if relocation is not possible within a 45-day period. Importantly, there is no stipulation as to the purpose of this financial assistance. The Act is unclear as to whether compensation is to assist those affected during their resettlement, if there is a delay, or if it is designed to be a payment in lieu of resettlement. This matter came before the Philippine Supreme Court in Galay v. Court of Appeal,66 in which a group of urban poor citizens subject to eviction requested the court to determine inter alia ‘whether there can be eviction and demolition without actual relocation’. The Supreme Court upheld the decision that there was no 64 See: s. 3(1)(e), 4.0. s. 3(1)(e), 3.0. 66 G.R. No. 120132 December 4, 1995. 65 36  Human Rights in the Rubble