available to communities as soon as they arrive in the resettlement site. Accordingly, the law should provide, either in the Act or the IRRs, that all the basic services shall be available to resettled communities immediately upon arrival in the resettlement site. Another matter of concern in relation to the provision of services in resettlement sites is the jurisdictional coverage of the relevant provisions of the IRRs and the Act. The Act provides that services must be guaranteed by either the LGU or the National Housing Authority, but does not offer any clarification as to when or where either entity will be responsible independent of the other. Furthermore, the IRRs require that adequate social services are to be provided in resettlement sites ‘jointly or under the auspices of cooperating agencies such as, but not limited to, the DECS, DOH, DSWD, and NGOs’.76 But again, there is no further specification of where and when each agency or entity will be specifically responsible for the provision of services. This absence of specification of responsibility promotes a climate in which agencies and LGUs are able to avoid the provision of services on the basis that the law provides for an alternative responsible agency. The law should identify a single agency or entity responsible for the provision of services, or clearly specify circumstances under which multiple agencies will be responsible for the provision of multiple services, and explicitly designate which agency is responsible for the provision of which particular service. Finally, neither the UDHA nor the IRRs identify special protections for marginalised groups during the course of resettlement. Such groups are particularly vulnerable to the negative impacts of resettlement and accordingly the non-discrimination principles that pervade the international standards require that their special interests and requirements be accounted for during resettlement. As yet there is no generally applicable anti-discrimination protections under Philippine law. To comply with Standard 3.3, the law should provide specifically that these requirements are taken into account during the resettlement process and any additional necessary services that these groups require are provided in resettlement sites. 5.5 Professional Squatters and Squatting Syndicates A central feature of the framework established by the UDHA is the exclusion of ‘professional squatters’ and those belonging to ‘squatting syndicates’ from the benefits of government housing programmes and the protections established by section 28. Section 27 of the UDHA enables various forms of action against professional squatters and squatting syndicates. In particular, it states that ‘[a]ny person or group identified as such shall be summarily evicted and their dwellings or structures demolished, and shall be disqualified to avail of the benefits of the Program’. In addition, section 27 prescribes criminal penalties for these offences of six years imprisonment and/or a fine 76 s. 3(3)(b), 2.0. 42  Human Rights in the Rubble