expected to properly and independently review the activities of the local government of which they are largely composed. (c) Fragm entation of Service Delivery and Responsibilities A recurring theme in the analysis of the institutional regime is the inability of the law to sufficiently define clear and discrete responsibilities for the array of government actors in the eviction and resettlement process. An unusual absence in the legal regime, in particular section 28 of the UDHA which regulates the conduct of evictions, is the stipulation of a specified body to undertake evictions. As discussed in Chapter 5, the law provides detailed guidance on the mechanisms and protection of evictions, yet it is silent on the intended audience of these provisions. Section 28(b) of the Act authorises evictions in cases where ‘government infrastructure projects with available funding are about to be implemented’. This intimates that any government entity that implements anything which could be deemed an ‘infrastructure project’ could be permitted to conduct evictions. The MMDA and DPWH are the national agencies which typically undertake infrastructure development, but this could also be undertaken by LGUs in the case of smaller-scale, local projects. Other national agencies may also be involved in evictions where relevant to their subject matter jurisdiction. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), for instance, will be involved in evictions which relate to the removal of structures encroaching on waterways, as per section 28(a) of the UDHA. That there is a range of government actors in effect authorised to conduct evictions is problematic for the enforcement of human rights standards. This requires all responsible implementing authorities to be aware of and willing to abide by legal protections prior to, during and subsequent to evictions. The same problem exists within the IRRs relative to the consultations required prior to evictions, which only refer to the ‘LGU or concerned government agency’.98 This broad distribution of authority during the eviction and resettlement process and the sheer number of agencies permitted to conduct evictions can only increase the likelihood of non-compliance. The lack of coordination among institutions has already been identified by other studies as a barrier to effective housing policy implementation 99 and can also inhibit the effective enjoyment of housing-related human rights. A framework that is designed to protect individuals and communities from the effects of human rights abuses should explicitly define its jurisdictional scope when creating obligations for responsible entities. To encourage compliance with human rights standards, the law should also identify (or establish) a single institution responsible for the conduct of evictions. A specialised and independent eviction agency or institution will be better equipped to comply with relevant law and would streamline the protection of human rights standards within the urban development process. 98 99 For example, s. 1(3)(3.0). See: UN-HABITAT, Innovative Tenure in the Philippines: Challenges, Approaches and Institutionalization, 2012, p. 45. 58  Human Rights in the Rubble