2. 1
I N F O R M A L
C I T Y
D I A L O G U E S
The
2040
Urban
Challenge
in
Metro
Manila
Futures
Mapping
Workshop
Conference
Room
5,
ISO
Building
Ateneo
de
Manila
University
Loyola
Heights,
Quezon
City
March
5-‐6,
2013
3. 2
Table
of
Contents
List
of
Acronyms
................................................................................................................
4
Executive
Summary
...........................................................................................................
5
Inclusive
Futures
Mapping
Workshop
Day
1
......................................................................
8
Opening
Program
...............................................................................................................................................
8
Opening
Remarks
..............................................................................................................................................
8
Inspirational
Message
.....................................................................................................................................
9
Introduction
of
the
Participants
...............................................................................................................
10
Introduction
of
Project
Steering
Committee
Members
&
Staff
....................................................
11
Overview
of
the
Informal
City
Dialogue
Project
.............................................................................
111
Overview
of
the
Inclusive
City
Dialogue
Inclusive
Futures
Mapping
Workshop
in
Metro
Manila
...........................................................................................................................................................................
12
Metro
Manila:
Then
and
Now,
Perspectives
from
the
Communities
........................................
13
Talk
Show
Part
One:
In
the
Eyes
of
the
Elderly
..................................................................................
13
Talk
Show
Part
Two:
In
the
Eyes
of
the
Youth
....................................................................................
17
Open
Forum
.......................................................................................................................................................
19
Synthesis
.............................................................................................................................................................
20
Workshop
1:
Factors
Changing
The
Way
People
Live
In
Metro
Manila
..................................
20
Physical
................................................................................................................................................................
21
Physical-‐Environmental
...............................................................................................................................
21
Environmental
..................................................................................................................................................
21
Social
.....................................................................................................................................................................
21
Economic
.............................................................................................................................................................
22
Institutional
.......................................................................................................................................................
22
Workshop
2:
Highly
Important
and
Uncertain
Factors
..................................................................
23
Workshop
3:
Combination
of
Drivers
....................................................................................................
26
Summary
and
Integration
...........................................................................................................................
28
Inclusive
Futures
Mapping
Day
2
.....................................................................................
29
Recap
....................................................................................................................................................................
30
Reflections
from
the
Participants
............................................................................................................
31
Workshop
4:
Building
Metro
Manila
Scenarios
.................................................................................
32
Workshop
Outputs:
Building
the
Scenarios
.........................................................................................
34
Scenario
4:
“Run
Samson
Run”
.........................................................................................................................
34
Scenario
3:
“Maghintay
ka
Lamang”
...............................................................................................................
35
Scenario
2:
“Hawak
Kamay”
..............................................................................................................................
37
Scenario
1:
“Kanlungan”
......................................................................................................................................
38
Workshop
5:
Completing
Metro
Manila
Scenarios
...........................................................................
39
Workshop
Outputs:
.........................................................................................................................................
39
Scenario
4:
“Run
Samson
Run”
.........................................................................................................................
39
Scenario
3:
“Maghintay
ka
Lamang”
...............................................................................................................
40
Scenario
2:
“Hawak
Kamay”
..............................................................................................................................
40
Scenario
1:
“Kanlungan”
......................................................................................................................................
41
5. 4
List
of
Acronyms
AdMU
Ateneo
de
Manila
University
ASoG
Ateneo
School
of
Governmet
AusAID
Australian
Government’s
Overseas
Aid
Program
BPO
Business
Process
Outsourcing
CAMANAVA
Caloocan,
Malabon,
Navotas,
Valenzuela
CENRO
City
Environment
and
Natural
Resources
Office
CSO
Civil
Society
Organizations
DILG
Department
of
Interior
and
Local
Government
DPWH
Department
of
Public
Works
and
Highways
DSWD
Department
of
Social
Welfare
and
Development
DTI
Department
of
Trade
and
Industry
EDSA
Epifanio
Delos
Santos
Avenue
GDP
Gross
Domestic
Product
HLURB
Housing
and
Land
Use
Regulatory
Board
HUDCC
Housing
and
Urban
Development
Coordinating
Council
ICD
Informal
City
Dialogues
ICT
Information
and
Communication
Technology
IFS
Informal
Settlements/
Sector
LGU
Local
Government
Unit
LRT
Light
Rail
Transit
MM
Metro
Manila
MMDA
Metropolitan
Manila
Development
Authority
MRT
Metro
Rail
Transit
NGO
Non-‐government
Organizations
NHA
National
Housing
Authority
OFW
Overseas
Filipino
Workers
PETA
Philippine
Educational
Theater
Association
PWDs
Persons
with
disabilities
RH
Reproductive
Health
SPED
Special
Education
STDs
Sexually
Transmitted
Diseases
TV
Television
USAID
United
Stated
Agency
for
International
Development
6. 5
Executive
Summary
The
two-‐day
workshop
entitled
Informal
City
Dialogues:
The
2040
Urban
Challenge
in
Metro
Manila
Inclusive
Futures
Mapping
Workshop,
held
at
Conference
Room
5,
ISO
Building,
Ateneo
de
Manila
University
Loyola
Heights
Quezon
City
last
March
5-‐6,
2013,
was
attended
by
a
total
of
97
individuals,
representing
different
sectors
of
the
society
coming
from
37
various
organizations.
About
50%
of
the
participants
came
from
the
community,
15%
from
the
government
(national
at
local)
while
the
remaining
25%
was
from
the
private
sector,
media,
NGOs
at
CSOs.
With
support
from
the
Rockefeller
Foundation
and
it’s
sub
grantee
Forum
for
the
Future
(FFF),
this
event
was
organized
by
its
implementing
partner
Ateneo
School
of
Government
under
the
Innovations
at
the
Base
of
the
Pyramid
in
Southeast
Asia
(iBoP
Asia)
Program.
The
Rockefeller
Foundation
has
launched
the
Centennial
Urban
Challenge
for
the
21st
Century
Project
formally
referred
to
as
“Informal
City
Dialogues:
The
2040
Challenge”
that
aims
to
examine
the
formal
and
informal
structures
within
cities,
understand
the
relationship
between
the
formal
and
informal,
and
envision
a
future
for
these
cities.
Six
cities
have
been
selected,
including
Metro
Manila
in
the
Philippines.
Thus,
one
of
the
objectives
of
this
workshop
is
to
enable
the
participants
to
appreciate
the
process
of
envisioning
the
future
through
shared
narratives.
.
The
program
formally
started
with
an
opening
remarks
of
Dr.
Antonio
La
Viña,
Dean
of
the
School
of
Government,
and
an
inspirational
message
from
Fr.
Jett
Villarin,
President
of
Ateneo
de
Manila
University.
Both
of
them
recognized
the
importance
of
planning
towards
a
better
Metro
Manila.
They
both
believed
that
looking
as
far
ahead
as
2040
can
be
a
big
challenge
especially
if
the
planners
are
not
equipped
with
ideas
about
the
future.
Nevertheless,
they
were
optimistic
on
what
planning
could
do.
They
noted
that
if
planning,
dreaming,
and
execution
are
done
together,
then
it
could
be
done.
They
also
recognized
the
importance
of
examining
one’s
role
or
part
in
the
fulfillment
of
the
plans
along
with
their
individual
responsibility
to
one
another
and
the
country.
A
Talk
Show
segment
entitled,
Metro
Manila
Then
and
Now
featured
a
video
documentary
on
the
Pearl
of
the
Orient
set
back
in
the
early
1900s.
A
talk
show
with
representatives
from
elderly
living
in
five
(5)
selected
communities
in
Metro
Manila
shortly
followed
the
video
presentation.
Another
short
video
clip
highligting
the
evolution
of
Metro
Manila
through
the
years
was
shown
which
was
immediately
followed
by
a
talk
show
with
the
younger
generation.
Some
of
the
highlights
of
this
segment
include
findings
about
the
huge
percentage
of
migrants
in
Metro
Manila
coming
from
various
places
in
Luzon,
Visayas
and
Mindanao.
Meanwhile,
the
elderly
revealed
that
the
number
of
high-‐rise
buildings
back
then
was
not
that
big
since
majority
of
lands
were
agriculturally
utilized,
with
few
budding
central
business
districts
and
industrial
areas
in
some
areas.
Some
said
that
they
reside
in
danger
zones
because
that
was
all
they
could
afford.
The
profound
understanding
of
what
informal
means
was
evident
in
the
interviews
with
representatives
of
the
young
and
the
elderly.
They
all
wished
to
convey
the
message
that
they
all
play
a
significant
role
in
the
society.
Though
many
of
them
are
usually
volunteers,
a
big
percentage
belong
to
the
social
7. 6
service
sector
while
some,
including
the
elderly,
still
work
for
the
formal
industry
sector
(e.g.
construction
worker,
home
service
type
of
job,
sales
clerk
in
malls,
etc)
The
participants
mentioned
their
desire
to
own
a
house
and
for
housing
projects
to
be
in
tune
with
their
practical
needs.
There
should
be
inclusive
elements
such
as
livelihood
and
planning
should
be
seen
in
a
holistic
way
and
with
proper
system
in
place.
They
also
strongly
argue
that
government
plans
should
prioritize
the
poor
and
marginalized
and
not
mainly
focused
on
gaining
profit.
Furthermore,
they
complained
about
their
problems
within
their
sector.
There
are
those
who
sell
and
rent
out
rights
of
lands
that
are
not
theirs.
In
planning,
they
recognized
the
crucial
role
of
the
census
or
such
surveys
in
government
decision-‐making
as
this
will
help
in
knowing
the
capacity
of
the
informal
settlers
to
pay
for
housing.
They
acknowledged
that
their
group
should
start
providing
the
government
proper
information.
They
also
saw
the
important
role
of
arts
such
as
Philippine
Educational
Theater
Association
(PETA)
in
highlighting
their
importance
in
the
society
and
the
other
possible
things
that
they
could
contribute.
It
was
also
noted
that
there
were
government
offices
both
from
the
national
and
local
that
wishes
to
have
“in-‐city
development”1
as
in
the
case
of
Mandaluyong
who
granted
informal
settlers
additional
funds
to
build
homes
as
well
as
other
basic
services
such
as
health
centers,
schools,
and
markets.
Some
of
the
pressing
points
raised
were
the
need
to
be
truly
socially
inclusive
in
planning
and
to
ensure
that
the
process
is
participatory.
The
following
questions
were
raised;
what
is
the
proper
planning
process
and
project
implementation?
What
is
the
right
mechanism
for
participation?
They
saw
that
there
were
many
different
levels
of
participation
and
technologies
available
for
use.
They
believe
that
it
is
crucial
to
determine
the
correct
combination
and
be
able
to
respond
to
the
following
inquiries:
technology
of
listening
or
participation?
How
does
one
monitor
the
level
of
participation?
They
also
reiterated
that
informal
settlers
should
not
be
seen
as
an
eyesore
but
rather
partners
in
development.
They
should
always
be
included
in
decision-‐making
and
solution
seeking
process
and
be
given
a
chance
to
achieve
their
desires
to
improve
their
situation
in
life.
Gender
and
development
issues
as
well
as
corresponding
perspectives
were
also
raised
as
an
important
factor
in
development.
The
first
workshop
identified
the
reasons
for
change
in
Metro
Manila.
There
were
more
than
80
drivers
of
change
identified,
selected
and
categorized
into
different
themes:
physical,
environmental,
social,
economic
and
institutional.
The
participants
were
able
to
identify
top
11
reasons
for
change
and
these
were
ranked
according
to
those
which
future
are
believe
to
be
certain
or
uncertain.
There
was
a
long
discussion
on
the
proper
combination
of
drivers
of
change
but
in
the
end
the
two
selected
drivers
were:
urban
planning
and
development
as
the
first
driver
while
the
second
driver
was
population
growth.
1
A
type
of
housing
development
that
does
not
require
informal
settlers
to
transfer
to
another
place.
Instead
the
local
government
ensures
progress
in
a
particular
area
within
the
city
where
the
informal
settlers
could
legally
stay.
8. 7
The
following
day,
the
participants
shared
their
reflections
on
how
they
appreciated
the
value
of
having
a
genuine
participatory
process
in
surfacing
the
issues
and
problems.
They
also
saw
their
contribution
and
the
barriers
they
face
towards
achieving
their
vision
of
Metro
Manila
in
2040.
There
was
also
a
little
apprehension
to
some
who
have
been
to
similar
workshops
or
dialogues
with
nothing
concrete
happening
about
their
situation.
Aside
from
being
given
an
opportunity
to
participate
in
dialogues,
they
believe
that
sensitivity
to
one
another's
opinion,
regardless
of
the
sector
they
belong,
is
indeed
a
critical
and
significant
factor
in
people's
participation.
A
matrix
of
the
two
identified
drivers:
population
growth
and
effectiveness
in
urban
planning
and
development,
both
given
a
high
and
low
setting,
created
four
unique
scenarios:
1. Slow
growth
of
population
and
effective
urban
planning
and
development
2. Rapid
growth
of
population
and
effective
urban
planning
and
development
3. Slow
growth
of
population
and
ineffective
urban
planning
and
development
4. Rapid
growth
of
population
and
ineffective
urban
planning
and
development
The
participants
thought
of
various
circumstances
across
different
horizons
and
determined
what
the
everyday
stories
of
their
particular
scenario
were.
After
they
agreed
with
the
face,
icons
and
characterization
of
their
scenarios,
they
were
instructed
to
make
a
futures
wheel
on
the
implications
of
that
particular
scenario
in
Metro
Manila,
and
later
figured
out
the
relationship
of
each
circumstance,
the
participants
determined
which
could
happen
in
2020,
2030
or
2040.
Mr.
Benjamin
dela
Peña
of
the
Rockefeller
Foundation
shared
his
insights
in
planning.
He
believes
that
the
mistake
of
plans
is
not
because
they
are
wrong
plans
or
they
went
through
a
wrong
process
but
because
the
plans
are
not
revisited.
A
good
plan
should
always
reflect
the
needs
of
the
poor.
Mr.
Jacob
Park
of
Forum
for
the
Future
shared
that
people
were
able
to
experience
a
new
kind
of
conversation
in
this
workshop
and
perhaps,
were
also
able
to
learn
the
act
of
proper
listening.
He
believes
that
these
are
absolutely
critical
in
solving
problems
and
what
has
been
accomplished
in
this
workshop
can
be
considered
a
great
success.
However,
there
was
an
agreement
that
it
is
not
all
about
planning
but
also
about
implementation.
He
also
encouraged
everyone
to
come
together
for
another
workshop
in
April
and
talk
about
what
kind
of
innovations
they
could
all
create
to
build
a
future
that
they
want
Mr.
Benedict
Balderrama
closed
the
program
by
saying
that
the
essence
of
having
an
inclusive
city
is
having
space
for
everyone
where
participation
by
all
sectors
is
appreciated.
The
workshop
was
a
glimpse
or
practice
of
the
kind
of
participation
that
an
inclusive
city
dreams
about.
Everyone
has
hope
for
a
systematic,
sustainable,
progressive
and
more
participative
future.
He
said
that
gradually,
all
should
practice
correlating,
listening,
helping,
and
participating
with
and
among
one
another
to
achieve
an
inclusive
city.
This
workshop
called
for
all
to
participate
and
engage
and
with
this,
he
sees
Metro
Manila’s
future.
9. 8
Inclusive
Futures
Mapping
Workshop
Day
1
5
MARCH
2013
Opening
Program
The
program
formally
started
with
the
singing
of
the
National
Anthem
followed
by
an
Invocation
entitled
Pananagutan
(Accountability)
led
by
the
master
of
ceremony,
Mr.
Jay-‐R
Cordova.
Opening
Remarks
DR.
ANTONIO
G.M.
LA
VIÑA
Dean,
Ateneo
School
of
Government
Dr.
La
Viña
greeted
everyone
a
wonderful
morning
and
welcomed
them
to
the
workshop.
He
expressed
his
satisfaction
in
seeing
the
participants’
willingness
to
join
and
participate
in
the
two-‐day
informal
city
dialogue
envisioning
Metro
Manila
in
2040.
He
complimented
the
invocation
entitled
Pananagutan
(Accountability),
as
this
may
be
the
main
emphasis
of
the
dialogue
for
the
day.
He
reminded
everyone
about
the
significance
of
inclusivity
in
which
no
one
should
be
excluded
in
envisioning
the
future
of
Metro
Manila
in
2040.
He
thanked
representatives
from
all
sectors
present
in
the
workshop:
the
government,
private
sector,
academe,
non-‐government
organizations
and
informal
communities
in
Metro
Manila.
He
also
acknowledged
the
presence
of
the
members
of
the
Project
Steering
Committee
particularly
Mr.
Benjie
de
la
Peña,
a
Filipino
based
in
New
York
and
working
for
the
Rockefeller
Foundation,
and
Mr.
Jacob
Park
representing
Forum
for
the
Future.
He
informed
everyone
that
the
dialogue
and
visioning
exercise
is
not
only
being
done
in
Metro
Manila
but
also
in
five
other
cities
around
the
world
namely
Chennai
in
India,
Bangkok
in
Thailand,
Nairobi
in
Kenya,
Accra
in
Ghana
and
Lima
in
Peru.
He
stated
that
Metro
Manila’s
case
is
special
as
Metro
Manila
is
faced
with
many
challenges
and
pressures
with
a
lot
of
uncertainties.
However,
in
order
to
envision
what
Metro
Manila
should
look
like
in
2040,
everyone
had
to
understand
the
present-‐day
drivers
of
development
and
find
ways
to
interpret
the
future.
Dean
of
Ateneo
School
of
Government
Dr.
Antonio
G.M.
La
Viña
in
his
Opening
Remarks
10. 9
He
recognized
the
difficulty
in
facing
the
problems
and
pressures
that
Metro
Manila
is
facing,
but
with
assurance
that
as
long
as
everyone
understands
the
present
well,
all
can
move
forward
to
the
future.
Inclusivity
is
crucial
in
the
process
of
finding
solutions.
As
an
example,
he
mentioned
how
the
Philippines
continue
to
become
wealthy
with
only
a
few
people
who
benefit
(the
elite).
This
tremendous
wealth
is
not
being
distributed
to
the
people.
This
reflects
how
Filipinos
plan
for
their
cities.
He
was
excited
to
see
everyone
present
in
the
dialogue
for
it
means
involving
everyone
in
the
planning
process.
Being
part
of
the
United
Nations
process
called
the
Millenium
Ecosystems
Assessment
ten
years
ago,
he
is
a
firm
believer
of
futures
mapping
exercise
in
trying
to
pin
down
the
drivers
for
change
and
envisioning
to
plan
better.
He
hopes
that
everyone
will
learn
in
the
process
and
that
all
would
be
open
to
listen
to
what
each
other
has
to
say
especially
since
they
all
come
from
various
sectors
with
diverse
thrusts
and
lessons
brought
by
individual
experiences.
Lastly,
he
thanked
everyone
and
hoped
for
all
to
stay
with
them
in
the
next
two
days
and
hopefully
come
up
with
something
good
and
useful.
Inspirational
Message
FR.
JOSE
RAMON
T.
VILLARIN,
SJ
President,
Ateneo
de
Manila
University
Fr.
Villarin
greeted
everyone
a
great
morning
and
wondered
how
many
of
them
in
the
room
would
still
be
alive
in
2040.
He
shared
that
Madam
Auring2
was
the
first
that
came
to
his
mind
when
he
was
asked
to
speak
about
futures
mapping.
But
the
type
of
futures
mapping
referred
to
in
this
workshop
requires
determining
what
each
of
them
sees,
how
they
see
and
the
lens
used
in
looking
at
the
future.
The
mapping
exercise
also
demands
them
to
look
as
far
ahead
as
2040
but
gave
assurance
that
it
is
possible.
He
noted
that
all
they
had
to
do
was
to
look
within
themselves
and
find
their
dreams,
values,
and
desires.
He
shared
his
personal
story
about
his
stay
in
Navotas 3
in
2002.
He
recalled
how
compact
and
informal
Navotas
as
a
place
was
and
quickly
realized
that
it
would
be
difficult
for
him
to
live
there.
The
2
A
known
fortune
teller
in
the
Philippines.
3
Navotas
is
a
1st
class
city
in
Metro
Manila,
Philippines.
The
city
occupies
a
narrow
strip
of
land
along
the
eastern
shores
of
Manila
Bay.
Navotas
is
considered
to
be
a
very
important
fishing
community
with
70%
of
its
population
deriving
their
livelihood
directly
or
indirectly
from
fishing
and
its
related
industries
like
fish
trading,
fish
net
mending,
and
fish
producing
having
marginal
percentage
of
inter-‐Island
fish
producers.
Navotas
is
part
of
the
informal
subregion
of
Metro
Manila
called
CAMANAVA.
This
sub
region,
aside
from
Navotas,
includes
the
cities
of
Caloocan,
Malabon
and
Valenzuela.
Navotas
is
perceived
to
be
prone
to
flood
especially
during
the
rainy
season
and
during
high
tide,
but
the
national
and
local
government
are
trying
to
alleviate
the
problem.
Pollution
and
overpopulation
are
other
problems
that
the
government
is
trying
to
solve.
source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navotas
Fr.
Villarin,
President
of
the
Ateneo
de
Manila
University,
delivering
his
inspirational
message
before
the
workshop
participants.
11. 10
place
where
he
lived
had
no
toilet
and
bathroom
and
had
illegal
electrical
connections.
He
remembered
how
the
people
would
have
a
code
for
the
electricity
providers
who
often
come
in
the
area
to
check
on
and
apprehend
illegal
electrical
connections.
He
recounted
the
simple
ways
of
the
people
living
there
particularly
his
generous
host,
being
a
food
vendor
whose
day
starts
at
4:00
in
the
morning
to
go
the
market
and
buy
the
things
she
need.
At
5:00
am
she
starts
preparing
then
at
8:00
am
starts
selling.
The
following
day,
she
will
use
the
money
she
got
from
her
sales
the
previous
day
to
start
the
day
all
over
again.
Then
at
night,
they
would
all
watch
telenovelas
before
they
go
to
bed.
One
time
he
asked
his
host
if
they
could
watch
an
Ateneo-‐La
Salle
basketball
game
but
the
family
had
no
clue
what
it
was
he
wanted.
It
dawned
on
Fr.
Villarin
that
Navotas
was
a
different
world
that
had
nothing
to
do
with
luxury
such
as
the
collegiate
basketball
game
he
wanted
to
see.
He
noted
the
keyword
in
this
story
was
inclusion,
which
literally
meant
not
being
left
out
and
being
involved.
In
planning,
dreaming
and
in
seeing
the
future,
all
should
be
included.
But
in
reality,
many
are
missed
in
prosperity
and
in
the
economy.
As
an
example,
he
mentioned
a
news
article
he
recently
read
that
40
of
the
most
affluent
families
on
the
Forbes
wealth
list
accounted
for
76%
of
the
country's
gross
domestic
product
growth
(GDP).4
The
wealth
of
the
nation
is
held
by
only
a
select
few.
The
Philippines
is
not
really
a
poor
country.
In
fact,
the
country’s
GDP
is
9
trillion
pesos
or
200
billion
dollars,
a
lot
of
resources
that
excludes
many.
In
envisioning
the
future,
one
must
look
at
his
or
her
dreams
and
be
aware
of
their
own
looking
glass.
He
invited
everyone
to
also
look
into
the
lens
that
others
are
looking
into.
Coming
from
different
sectors,
each
have
their
own
biases,
but
he
calls
for
everyone
to
be
open.
In
the
end,
Fr.
Villarin
saw
this
futures
mapping
as
a
discernment
exercise
in
which
one
has
to
scan
and
weigh
what
the
Lord
wants
using
their
feeling.
He
believes
that
the
Lord
dislikes
exclusivity
as
evident
by
his
Lenten
stories
about
His
linkage
with
sinners.
He
invited
everyone
to
be
cognizant
and
be
aware
of
who
they
are,
Sons
of
God.
He
asks
all
to
be
truly
the
Sons
of
God
and
embrace
the
good
and
renounce
the
prejudiced.
Mr.
Cordova
thanked
Fr.
Villarin
for
the
very
insightful
and
inspiring
message.
He
encouraged
everyone
to
use
this
as
guide
for
the
2-‐day
workshop
in
planning,
dreaming,
and
executing
their
desires
for
themselves,
families,
community,
and
country.
Introduction
of
the
Participants
Mr.
Cordova
called
out
the
sector
and
organizations
present
in
today’s
workshop.
He
requested
the
following
to
rise
as
they
hear
their
sector
or
organization
called
to
acknowledge
their
presence:
• Welfare
ville,
Addition
Hills,
Mandaluyong
City
• Barangay
Donya
Imelda,
Quezon
City
• Estero
de
San
Miguel,
Manila
• Manggahan,
Pasig
City
• Barangay
Sto.
Niño,
Marikina
City
4
source:
http://business.inquirer.net/110413/philippines-‐elite-‐swallow-‐countrys-‐new-‐wealth
12. 11
<<
Assistant
Dean
Dr.
Caleda
giving
the
participants
an
overview
about
the
Informal
City
Dialogues
Project
• National
Government
Agencies:
DILG,
DTI,
DSWD,
MMDA,
HLURB,
Urban
Poor
Associates
• LGUs
• Private
sector
• CSOs
and
NGOs
Introduction
of
Project
Steering
Committee
Members
&
Staff
In
the
same
manner,
he
also
requested
the
members
of
the
project
steering
committee
and
project
team
to
rise
and
be
identified.
He
started
with
the
project
steering
committee
composed
of
six
members
representing
various
stakeholders
who
provide
direction,
advice,
and
guides
in
the
project
implementation.
• Ms.
Tina
Velasco,
MMDA,
representing
the
government
• Ms.
Antonio
Yulo
Loyzaga,
Manila
Observatory,
representing
science
• Mr.
Benedict
Valderama,
Chairman,
Partnership
of
Philippine
Support
Service
Agencies,
Inc.
representing
the
urban
poor
• Mr.
Carlos
Rufino,
Urban
Land
Institute
representing
the
Private
Sector
• Dr.
Emma
Borio,
Department
of
Sociology
and
Anthropology,
representing
the
Academe
• Dr.
Mary
Jean
Caleda,
ASoG,
Ex-‐officio
member
He
also
acknowledge
the
project
team
led
by
Dr.
Antonio
La
Viña
and
Dr.
Mary
Jean
Caleda
with
the
following
as
members:
Project
Director:
Dr.
Segundo
Romero
Project
Manager:
Dr.
Danielle
Guillen
Co-‐facilitator:
Ms.
Aurma
Manlangit
Senior
Research
Associate:
Ms.
Jessica
Dator
Bercilla
Project
Associate:
Ms.
Althea
Pineda
Research
Associate:
Mr.
Jay-‐R
Cordova
Researchers
and
Interns:
Ms.
Criselda
Doble,
Charmaine
Tobes,
Dhenmark
Valera,
Alaina
Villegas
Overview
of
the
Informal
City
Dialogue
Project
DR.
MARY
JEAN
CALEDA
Assistant
Dean,
Ateneo
School
of
Government
2013
marks
the
Rockefeller
Foundation’s
centennial
year
with
the
theme:
“Innovation
for
the
Next
100
years”.
The
informal
city
dialogues
(ICD)
is
part
of
its
centennial
year
activities.
In
partnership
with
other
organizations
in
five
cities
of
developing
countries,
the
Forum
for
the
Future
manages
the
informal
city
dialogues.
13. 12
Dr.
Romero
giving
an
overview
about
the
Inclusive
Futures
Mapping
Workshop
in
Metro
Manila
Informal
City
Dialogue
is
a
global,
multi-‐stakeholder
project
that
has
series
of
discussion
about
the
future
of
a
city
and
the
role
of
the
various
sectors
in
shaping
its
development.
The
dialogue
involves
a
diverse
group
of
citizens
from
various
sectors
including
public,
private,
civic,
industry,
CSOs
and
vulnerable
groups
namely
persons
with
disabilities,
women,
youth
and
senior
citizens.
This
group
talks
about
scenarios
of
what
life
in
their
city
could
be
like
in
2040.
The
informal
dialogues
have
three
major
activities.
The
first
activity
is
the
inclusive
futures
mapping,
the
one
happening
today,
which
started
when
the
project
team
visited
the
five
chosen
areas
in
Metro
Manila
and
conducted
the
pre-‐community
inclusive
mapping
workshop.
The
second
activity
is
the
planning
workshop,
set
to
happen
sometime
in
April,
which
will
determine
the
innovations
that
can
be
proposed
to
help
the
city
achieve
a
more
inclusive
and
resilient
future.
The
third
major
activity
is
the
centennial
challenge
grant
wherein
the
cities
from
the
six
developing
countries
would
compete
for
the
best
innovation
project
that
could
be
funded
by
the
Rockefeller
Foundation.
Portions
of
the
total
1
million
dollars
grant
would
be
given
to
cities
with
the
most
innovative
proposal.
The
inclusive
city
dialogue
was
further
explained
to
the
participants
through
a
short
audiovisual
presentation.
Overview
of
the
Inclusive
City
Dialogue
Inclusive
Futures
Mapping
Workshop
in
Metro
Manila
DR.
SEGUNDO
ROMERO
Director,
Innovations
at
the
Base
of
the
Pyramid
Dr.
Romero
expressed
his
delight
to
see
a
room
full
of
eager
and
willing
participants.
He
said
that
everyone
was
there
to
invest
on
two
important
days
of
special
discourse,
which
talks
about
the
future
of
Metro
Manila.
This
was
an
unusual
event
where
various
stakeholders
including
the
government,
private
sector,
and
community
members
would
sit
down
and
talk
about
the
future
of
the
entire
Metro
Manila.
He
encouraged
everyone
present
to
make
the
most
out
of
this
rare
occasion.
He
wanted
all
the
participants
to
keep
in
mind
a
crucial
point
of
view
in
the
duration
of
the
workshop
or
dialogue:
“the
present
is
a
future
of
yesterday”.
2040
seems
to
be
too
far
ahead
from
2013
but
in
1986,
exactly
twenty-‐seven
years
ago,
2013
was
a
year
that
none
of
them
could
have
imagined.
He
posed
a
question,
where
do
the
participants
see
themselves
in
2040?
Inclusive
future
is
their
dream.
It
is
a
type
of
future
that
fosters
interface
between
formal
and
informal
citizens
and
the
rich
and
poor.
It
is
a
future
of
strong
and
resilient
cities.
But
in
order
to
see
through
this
future,
they
need
to
start
with
what
they
have
now
and
what
motivates
them.
Dealing
with
the
current
situation
entitles
them
to
dream
about
the
future.
This
certain
planning
for
the
future
calls
for
the
participants
to
unravel
what
drives
Metro
Manila.
In
this
complex
world,
there
is
a
need
to
tie
the
past
with
the
future.
14. 13
Dr.
Romero
emphasized
that
all
have
a
say
in
the
future.
How
each
of
them
acts
would
shape
or
define
the
future.
He
also
presented
the
different
types
of
futures.
A
possible
future
is
something
that
might
happen.
Plausible
is
something
that
could
happen.
It
is
not
likely
to
happen
but
it
could
happen.
Probable
is
something
that
is
expected
to
happen
while
preferable
is
something
that
they
want
to
happen.
In
scenario
building,
what
one
wants
to
happen
is
not
the
same
as
what
could
possibly
happen
thus
the
need
to
be
prepared.
This
workshop
demands
grasping
the
envelope
of
uncertainty.
It
is
pivotal
to
imagine
those
that
one
could
not
even
imagine
happening.
He
presented
an
illustration
of
the
type
of
future
for
targeting.
He
encouraged
everyone
to
visualize
things
that
can
probably
happen.
He
provided
this
example:
there
was
a
scientific
study
about
Metro
Manila
that
if
a
7.2
earthquake
magnitude,
approximately
50,000
people
will
die
and
there
will
be
fire
across.
This
example
is
unlikely
to
happen
but
it
is
possible
and
requires
a
great
deal
of
preparation.
This
two-‐day
workshop
is
rarely
done
but
should
be
taken
note
of
because
many
will
benefit
from
this
kind
of
activity.
He
explained
that
part
of
the
process,
was
for
project
team
to
gathers
data
and
information
from
the
participants
at
the
same
time,
share
it
with
the
community.
He
moved
into
presenting
the
workshop
flow.
The
workshop
started
with
the
opening
program
followed
by
a
talk
show
about
Metro
Manila
of
the
past
and
the
present
where
selected
community
members
shared
their
experiences
in
Metro
Manila.
It
was
followed
shortly
by
the
identification
of
the
most
important
and
significant
drivers
of
change
in
Metro
Manila.
The
identified
drivers
were
organized
in
two
cluster:
those
that
are
certain
to
happen
and
those
that
are
not.
The
workshop
was
designed
to
put
more
focus
on
the
drivers
of
change
that
are
indefinite
for
this
needs
more
preparation
that
those
which
are
sure
to
happen.
Then
the
group
looked
into
the
combinations
of
the
top
two
unlikely
to
happen
drivers
to
produce
four
different
scenarios.
The
following
day,
the
group
created
stories
based
on
the
various
scenarios
presented
and
reviewed
in
the
plenary
hall.
These
scenarios
were
identified
as
those
consistent,
robust
and
distinct.
In
the
next
workshop
in
April,
everyone
will
again
convene
to
determine
relevant
points
that
will
answer
the
questions:
what
will
be
done
with
these
scenarios?
Which
scenario
do
they
want
to
have
in
the
future
and
how
would
they
get
there?
The
event
in
April
will
be
dubbed
as
the
innovations
planning
that
would
specify
what
could
be
done
to
achieve
a
Metro
Manila
they
all
dream
about.
Once
done,
the
communities
will
submit
a
proposal
to
Rockefeller
Foundation’s
urban
challenge
grant,
for
possible
funding
of
their
proposed
innovations.
These
activities
need
the
involvement
of
all
stakeholders
especially
the
community
whose
voices
are
often
unheard.
Lastly,
Dr.
Romero
stressed
the
significance
of
collective
planning
in
the
process.
After
this
everyone
paused
for
a
coffee
break
and
s
photo
session.
Metro
Manila:
Then
and
Now,
Perspectives
from
the
Communities
MS.
JESSICA
DATOR
BERCILLA
AND
DR.
DANIELLE
GUILLEN
This
segment
started
with
a
video
documentary
of
the
"Pearl
of
the
Orient"
as
introduced
by
the
segment
hosts,
Ms.
Bercilla
(Jec)
and
Dr.
Guillen
(Danes).
Talk
Show
Part
One:
In
the
Eyes
of
the
Elderly
15. 14
Photo
1
Talk
Show
Part
1
(L-‐R:
Ms.
Jessica
Bercilla
Teofilo
"Tofin"
Morado,
Lucila,
Marina
Turibio,
Antonio
Javier,
Dr.
Danielle
Guillen
and
Pedro
Cadab)
The
first
part
of
the
talk
show
featured
the
stories
of
the
elderly
members
of
the
community,
how
they
struggled
to
live
in
Metro
Manila,
their
way
of
life,
and
how
they
coped
with
the
changes
in
the
Metro
and
within
their
respective
communities.
The
selected
participants
shared
their
dreams,
aspirations,
and
grievances
as
to
why
for
so
long
a
time,
no
one
has
ever
defended
their
right
to
live
in
Metro
Manila,
and
no
one
looked
at
their
order
of
living.
They
also
shared
a
longing
to
thrive
and
improve
but
at
the
same
time
asked
whether
they
still
have
hope
for
a
brighter
future.
Before
they
began,
the
selected
senior
participants
were
asked
to
introduce
themselves
by
stating
their
name,
age,
place
of
origin
and
area
of
residence.
Teofilo
Morado,
63
years
old,
lives
in
Manggahan
Pasig
City,
was
here
in
Manila
since
1973
Lucila
Monforte,
75
years
old,
originally
from
Iloilo,
lives
in
Donya
Imelda
Quezon
City,
was
here
in
Manila
since
1963
Marina
Turibio,
78
years
old,
lives
in
Manggahan
Pasig
City
Antonio
Javier,
64
years
old,
originally
from
Antique,
lives
in
San
Mateo,
Rizal
Pedro
Cadab,
59
years
old,
original
from
Masbate,
lives
in
San
Mateo,
Rizal
After
the
introductions,
each
was
asked
to
share
and
describe
what
Metro
Manila
was
when
they
first
arrived.
Lucila
recollected
Donya
Imelda,
Quezon
City
used
to
be
a
meadow.
When
she
arrived
in
Metro
Manila,
she
fondly
recalled
participating
in
folk
dances
similar
to
the
ones
shown
in
the
opening
video.
She
has
been
a
community
volunteer
since
1984
but
it
was
only
during
16. 15
Marina
Toribio,
78
yrs.
old,
resident
of
Brgy.
Manggahan,
Pasig
City
Lucila
Monforte,
75
yrs
old,
resident
of
Brgy.
Doña
Imelda,
QC
Teofilo
Morado,
63
yrs.old,
resident
of
Brgy.
Manggahan,
Pasig
City
2007
or
2008
when
she
started
receiving
subsidy
for
the
community
work
she
does.
She
clearly
recalled
that
the
houses
built
back
then
were
all
nipa
huts
and
there
were
all
cottages.
There
were
no
buildings
and
the
entire
barangay
of
Donya
Imelda
was
grassland.
Their
area
was
so
rural
that
carabaos
and
children
bathe
in
the
area
where
their
houses
are
now
built.
Since
the
place
was
full
of
tall
cogon
grass,
it
was
also
notorious
as
dumping
ground
for
murder
victims.
She
noted
that
when
Kapitan
Liksi
became
the
barangay
captain,
the
place
gradually
improved
and
consequently,
informal
settlers
were
asked
to
move
out
from
the
place.
Meralco,
a
private
electric
power
distributor,
owned
the
place
where
they
currently
live.
Meanwhile,
Marina
shared
how
she
vividly
remembers
their
place
in
Pasig
City
as
a
vegetable
field
located
near
the
river.
The
primary
livelihood
back
then
was
farming
although,
few
factories
such
as
United
Tobacco
already
existed.
The
men
back
then
were
mostly
divers
excavating
sand
from
under
the
river
and
then
sell
them
for
a
living.
Beside
the
river,
was
a
vegetable
field.
Soon
after,
people
from
different
areas
started
migrating
to
their
place,
Manggahan,
and
occupied
the
place.
When
the
government
started
the
Manggahan
floodway
project,
more
buildings
and
factories
emerged
forcing
some
residents
to
move
out
from
the
area.
The
National
Housing
Authority,
awarded
some
of
the
government
lands
to
a
few
settlers,
but
those
who
had
nowhere
to
go
decided
to
group
together
to
get
a
share
of
the
land
they
settled
in.
Thirty-‐six
(36)
square
meters
were
awarded
to
each
of
them
and
Marina’s
family
was
one
of
the
fortunate
beneficiaries.
She
also
shared
how
her
parents
struggled
just
to
get
them
to
finish
school.
Aling
Marina
currently
teaches
elementary
levels
1
and
2.
Tofin
shared
the
origin
of
the
term
paglusob
and
pagsalakay
(siege
and
invade)
by
the
citizens
in
their
community
known
as
Ninoy
Aquino
Pilot
Community
(NAPICO).
He
also
told
the
story
of
how
their
place
in
Pasig
City
was
called
Manggahan.
In
1986,
there
was
a
group
of
men
drinking
alcohol
who
ran
out
of
“tapas”.
When
they
saw
the
vegetable
field,
they
harvested
some
of
the
vegetables
and
use
them
as
tapas.
They
took
advantage
of
the
fact
that
no
one
looked
after
the
vegetable
field
and
the
political
chaos
happening
back
them
and
divided
the
land
among
themselves.
They
used
straws
to
establish
boundaries.
After
a
few
weeks,
the
government
found
out
what
these
men
had
done
and
tried
to
reclaim
the
land
but
the
people
who
established
claims
stood
firm.
They
argued
that
they
needed
the
land
to
grow
vegetables,
hence
the
name
Tanimang
Bayan
(People’s
Field).
It
was
in
this
context
that
the
street
names
were
named
after
vegetables.
But
the
people
had
hidden
agenda
and
eventually
built
their
homes
in
the
people’s
field
supposedly
used
only
for
17. 16
Antonio
Javier,
64
yrs.
old,
resident
of
San
Mateo,
Rizal
Pedro
Cadab,
59
yrs.
old,
San
Mateo,
Rizal
planting.
The
government
realizes
then
that
the
people
would
never
leave
the
place
so
in
partnership
with
the
National
Housing
Authority,
they
developed
housing
projects
for
the
people.
He
also
recalled
that
in
1973,
there
were
only
a
few
houses
along
Amang
Rodriguez
Avenue
but
plenty
of
Mango
trees,
thus
the
place
was
called
Manggahan
or
Mango
Orchard.
He
also
remembered
that
during
the
rainy
season,
the
road
would
be
flooded
with
water
coming
from
the
river
and
the
nearby
field.
Eventually,
when
the
city
proper
developed
and
along
with
it
sources
of
income
and
livelihood
grew,
many
migrated
to
Manggahan.
Since
then,
people
started
flocking
in
Manggahan
until
houses
replaced
the
Mango
trees.
The
family
of
Antonio
or
Tonyo
lives
beside
the
river
because
this
was
all
he
could
afford.
He
is
aware
that
they
live
in
a
danger
zone
area
but
they
cannot
do
anything
about
it
because
their
income
is
not
enough
to
transfer
to
a
safer
place.
However,
he
never
loses
hope
and
he
believes
that
given
a
chance
they
could
still
improve
their
current
situation.
He
said
he
is
just
waiting
for
the
right
project
for
poor
people
like
him
who
live
in
danger
zones.
When
Dr.
Romero
came
to
their
place,
his
hopes
went
up.
He
said
he
felt
like
he
have
found
a
partner
who
understands
what
their
situation
and
what
they
are
going
through.
He
said
he
was
just
waiting
for
the
government
to
help
them.
Mang
Pedro
recollected
how
his
aunt
brought
him
to
Manila
in
1970
as
her
helper.
Then
in
1974,
his
uncle
from
Masbate
came
to
Manila
and
made
him
work
as
construction
worker.
In
1985,
he
got
into
Ortigas
and
Company,
which
was
about
a
kilometer
away
walk
from
EDSA.
Because
of
this,
he
joined
the
People
Power
Revolution
as
a
bystander
hoping
to
see
positive
changes
in
the
Philippines.
It
was
in
Metro
Manila
where
he
started
a
family.
He
also
shared
his
own
family’s
experience
of
transferring
from
different
LGUs
and
renting
and
buying
off
land
from
a
fellow
informal
settler.
It
was
notable
how
the
community
members
regard
themselves
as
squatters
or
informal
settlers.
When
asked
how
the
two
terms
differ
from
each
other,
they
all
agreed
that
the
term
informal
settler
was
just
a
glamorized
version
of
a
squatter.
They
defined
squatters
as
those
who
have
no
capacity
to
buy
(a
piece
of)
land
or
rent
a
house
that
they
build
their
own
homes
in
a
vacant
lot
not
rightfully
owned
by
them
where
they
can
dwell
for
free.
They
defined
squatters
as
people
found
in
a
place
with
no
order
or
a
disorganized
place,
living
in
an
illegally
built
shanty,
living
in
a
land
that
is
not
theirs
and
without
permission.
Informal
comes
from
the
fact
that
their
way
of
living
is
frequently
disturbed
by
being
asked
to
move
out.
The
participants
coming
from
the
informal
sector
also
have
varied
opinions
as
to
how
to
deal
with
their
situation.
Some
say
it
depends
on
the
person
and
on
the
kind
of
local
government
they
are
in.
Some
are
fortunate
to
have
a
local
government
who
understands
their
situation
and
prioritizes
them
by
having
programs
and
projects
that
benefits
them.
18. 17
Lucy
de
Guzman,
resident
of
Brgy.
Doña
Imelda,
Quezon
City
There
are
those
who
believe
that
people
should
not
force
themselves
in
Metro
Manila
where
space
is
a
problem.
Some
even
said
that
they
should
not
rely
on
help
given
by
the
government
and
they
should
do
their
share
in
uplifting
their
status.
To
some
of
the
participants,
living
in
a
land
that
has
been
vacant
for
a
long
time
is
acceptable
while
for
those
living
in
danger
zones,
they
wanted
to
get
out
of
their
perilous
lifestyle.
Most
shared
the
opinion
that
despite
working
hard
to
improve
their
situation,
they
could
only
do
so
much
and
most
of
the
time
their
resources
still
end
up
inadequate.
Most
of
them
strive
to
make
ends
meet
and
are
willing
to
adjust
or
work
with
the
demands
of
the
world
but
are
limited
by
their
capacity
to
pay.
They
all
yearned
to
be
given
a
right
to
own
or
settle
in
abandoned
and/or
empty
lots
in
Metro
Manila.
A
few
of
their
wishes
include
a
generously
wealthy
person
buying
off
a
piece
land
to
be
distributed
to
them
or
build
a
housing
project
for
them.
Those
who
grew
up
in
the
place
where
they
currently
reside
would
not
want
to
be
transferred
to
another
place
so
they
suggested
a
tenement
to
be
built
for
them.
Some
just
wanted
a
secure
place
to
live
regardless
where
they
will
be
taken
but
some
also
do
not
want
to
be
moved
from
where
they
are
now.
They
do
not
want
a
high-‐end
or
middle
class
residential
area,
but
just
an
orderly
place
to
settle
in.
All
of
them
were
also
willing
to
pay
rent
or
lease
as
long
as
they
will
be
placed
in
a
secure,
safe
a
location
and
a
guarantee
that
they
will
never
be
displaced.
Talk
Show
Part
Two:
In
the
Eyes
of
the
Youth
The
second
part
of
the
show
started
with
an
audiovisual
presentation
showing
the
transformation
of
Metro
Manila
from1940s
to
the
present.
This
time
the
younger
generation
raised
their
concerns
and
grievances
regarding
their
present
situation.
This
second
part
featured
the
selected
younger
generation
of
the
community
as
represented
by:
Lucy
de
Guzman,
resides
in
Donya
Imelda;
Myelene
Pagakpak,
18
years
old,
originally
from
Samar,
resides
in
Estero
de
San
Miguel;
Nancy
Berion,
41
years
old,
born
in
Pasig
but
now
resides
in
Mandaluyong;
Dennis
Policarpio,
40
years
old,
born
and
still
resides
in
Welfare
ville;
and
Quin
Cruz,
2nd
term
barangay
councilor
from
Manggahan
Pasig
City
To
start
the
discussion,
the
hosts
asked
the
participants
to
describe
their
situation
in
their
current
place
of
residence.
Lucy
began
by
a
rundown
of
her
family’s
nomadic
lifestyle.
She
grew
up
in
a
simple
family,
always
renting
and
moving
from
one
informal
settlement
to
another.
She
was
proud
that
despite
their
living
condition,
her
father
raised
her
and
her
six
siblings
well.
Her
main
issue
was
housing
and
she
is
wishing
that
the
government
would
include
people
like
them
in
their
priority
programs
and
projects.
She
contends
that
the
government
should
have
great
consideration
on
them
when
deciding
what
to
do
with
large
parcels
of
land
that
they
own.
She
expressed
her
strong
objection
to
the
current
trend
that
instead
of
allocating
to
the
needy,
the
government
sells
19. 18
Mylene
Pagakpak,
18
yrs.
old,
resident
of
Brgy.
Estero
de
San
Miguel
Nancy
Berion,
41
yrs.old,
resident
of
Welfareville,
Brgy.
Addition
Hills,
Mandaluyong
City
Quin
Cruz,
2nd
term
barangay
councilor
from
Manggahan
Pasig
City
Quin
Cruz,
2nd
term
barangay
councilor
from
Manggahan
Pasig
City
the
land
to
rich
people
and
earns
profit
from
it.
She
thinks
that
this
is
not
fair
for
them
who
could
not
even
afford
rent
in
a
decent
place.
Dennis
was
born
and
raised
in
the
place
he
currently
resides
in.
He
remembered
that
Welfare
Ville
used
to
be
called
Boystown
and
it
being
free
from
houses.
Houses
started
to
emerge
when
it
became
a
relocation
site
for
fire
victims
until
informal
settlers
slowly
flocked
in.
Welfare
ville
is
a
property
of
the
local
government.
The
local
government
of
Mandaluyong
wanted
to
develop
welfare
ville
to
make
it
a
livable
place
for
its
current
residents.
The
residents
of
welfare
ville
owned
the
rights
to
the
land
however,
it
has
not
been
awarded
to
them
yet
because
it
still
has
to
go
through
a
bidding
process.
Myelene,
broke
down
to
tears
as
she
recalled
why
her
family
moved
in
to
Metro
Manila
from
Samar.
She
narrated
that
after
she
lost
her
father,
her
mother
decided
to
move
to
Metro
Manila
to
start
anew.
She
told
the
interviewer
that
she’s
a
member
of
Philippine
Educational
Theater
Association
(PETA),
a
group
of
creative
and
critical
young
artist-‐teacher-‐cultural
workers
that
fosters
both
personal
fulfillment
and
social
transformation. 5
According
to
her
their
group
aims
to
exhibit,
particularly
to
the
affluent
members
of
the
society
their
living
conditions
in
settlement
areas
and
conveyed
their
desire
to
own
a
house.
Nancy
belongs
to
the
few
groups
of
informal
settlers
with
an
accommodating
local
government.
Their
LGU
plans
to
develop
their
current
location
to
accommodate
their
needs
and
committed
to
provide
money
to
build
them
a
new
home.
Councilor
Quin
said
that
the
main
problem
of
their
barangay
is
the
lack
of
space.
Their
local
government
has
housing
projects
for
them
such
as
medium
rise
buildings
to
deal
with
the
space
issue
but
in
his
opinion,
this
still
was
not
enough.
The
government
has
yet
to
address
their
other
needs.
They
still
have
problems
with
safety,
sanitation,
and
health.
He
wanted
the
government’s
planning
perspective
to
change
from
immediate
to
long-‐term
to
consider
their
other
social
needs.
As
an
advocate
for
gender
and
development,
he
also
suggested
the
need
for
a
revolutionary
training
that
would
change
the
mindset
of
the
people
from
the
local
5
Source:
http://petatheater.com/about-‐peta/
20. 19
government
to
include
the
marginalized
and
vulnerable
sectors
in
gender
and
development
planning.
Dennis
stressed
the
importance
of
taking
Census6
seriously
so
the
government
would
have
baseline
as
to
how
much
the
people
are
willing
and
able
to
pay
to
own
a
house.
He
believes
that
from
there,
the
government
would
be
able
to
develop
proper
housing
projects
that
the
poor
can
afford.
Just
like
their
senior
counterparts,
the
much
younger
members
of
the
informal
settlers
community
were
also
willing
to
pay
for
their
homes
so
long
as
they
are
guaranteed
never
to
be
displaced
and
that
their
location
be
improved
according
to
their
needs.
Their
wishes
include
the
fulfillment
of
a
medium
rise
building
that
would
relocate
those
living
in
danger
zones.
This
fulfillment
includes
a
non-‐
politicized
process
of
selecting
the
beneficiaries
giving
precedence
to
those
who
have
been
residing
in
the
area
for
some
time.
Ultimately,
they
pushed
for
social
inclusion
in
government
decision
making
and
planning.
Open
Forum
Question
of
a
LGU
employee,
CENRO
of
Pasig
City
to
Councilor
Quin
Cruz:
In
what
sense
is
the
housing
project
of
the
local
government
for
the
informal
settlers
in
Pasig
not
enough?
Pasig
City
has
a
Local
Inter-‐Agency
Committee
composed
of
NHA,
HUDC,
PCUB
and
the
Commission
on
Human
Rights
which
sought
to
address
the
problems
faced
by
the
informal
communities
near
the
river
and
other
areas
in
Pasig.
They
follow
a
process
that
listens
to
the
needs
of
the
communities.
Response
from
Councilor
Quin
Cruz:
Participation
forms
a
big
part
in
the
planning
process.
He
mentioned
how
for
25
years
he
witnessed
the
barangay
assembly
changed
from
purely
participatory
to
being
pseudo
participatory
merely
done
in
compliance
to
the
DILG
mandate
without
a
proper
monitoring
mechanism
in
place.
Barangay
assembly
used
to
follow
a
parliamentary
procedure
providing
a
venue
for
free
discussion
where
people
can
freely
propose.
He
felt
that
there
is
a
need
to
apply
the
true
essence
of
participatory
with
proper
mechanisms
to
monitor
people’s
participation
in
place.
Captain
Filomena
Singko
shared
the
bottom
up
planning
approach
in
Estero
de
San
Miguel.
She
agreed
that
true
people’s
participation
is
essential
in
planning
especially
since
based
on
experience,
most
form
of
participation
is
for
compliance
only
where
the
barangay
captain
will
select
among
the
members
of
the
community
who
will
sit
in
the
planning
process.
The
names
would
be
submitted
to
DILG
and
those
selected
would
receive
the
mandated
honoraria.
Dialogues
are
not
dialogue
in
the
truest
sense
of
the
word
instead
become
an
orientation
of
the
proposed
changes
or
plans.
Conversations
are
turned
into
orientation
as
to
where
the
community
will
be
taken
and
what
will
happen
to
them
without
even
consulting
them.
All
development
should
have
social
inclusion.
Informal
settlers
should
also
not
be
seen
as
an
eye
sore
but
rather
partners
in
development.
In
a
truly
participatory
setting,
informal
settlers
are
part
of
the
solution
seeking
process.
A
true
dialogue
should
listen
to
both
parties
and
look
at
solutions
that
are
amenable
to
both.
6
From
Wikipedia:
A
census
is
the
procedure
of
systematically
acquiring
and
recording
information
about
the
members
of
a
given
population.
source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census
21. 20
Consultation
with
informal
settlers
should
always
be
a
priority
by
the
government
and
they
should
be
given
a
chance
to
uplift
their
status
in
life.
They
expressed
their
right
to
live
in
the
city
along
with
everybody
else
and
not
be
treated
as
a
problem
of
the
society.
It
was
assured
that
efforts
of
the
government
to
improve
the
situation
of
the
community
were
all
appreciated.
The
selected
respondents
shared
their
actual
experiences
in
their
respective
communities.
This
part
had
no
intention
to
criticize
or
identify
the
shortcomings
of
the
government.
The
main
issue
raised
was
the
sensitivity
of
the
things
that
are
being
constructed
for
the
poor
hence
their
clamor
for
a
more
participatory
planning
process.
Synthesis
DR.
SEGUNDO
ROMERO
Dr.
Romero
recognized
the
value
of
the
process
they
have
just
witnessed.
He
could
not
stress
enough
the
value
of
listening
and
the
essence
of
participation.
The
message
of
having
an
available
technology
of
participation
was
clear
in
fact,
the
project
team
used
this
available
technology
in
the
five
study
areas.
The
data
the
project
team
collected
were
key
in
planning.
Since
the
government
and
the
community
have
different
focus,
with
the
latter
focusing
on
inputs
rather
than
outcomes,
the
data
collected
would
bring
both
focuses
together
and
fused
into
a
concrete
plan.
The
government
needs
to
apply
the
technology
of
listening
in
planning
to
consider
the
needs
and
thoughts
of
the
community
members.
It
is
ideal
and
correct
to
consult
with
the
community
before
making
any
decision
or
before
pouring
out
resources
to
a
program
or
project.
A
form
of
consultation
that
asks
the
people
about
their
problems,
what
solutions
or
alternatives
they
see
and
which
among
those
alternatives
is
most
favorable
to
them.
Who
should
be
responsible
and
how
else
could
they
collaborate
to
come
up
with
a
perfect
solution.
Dr.
Romero
also
agreed
in
how
the
community
members
defined
their
state
of
being
informal.
Informal
meant
having
a
disorderly
disposition
but
also
stressed
that
everyone
has
every
right
to
live
in
Metro
Manila.
The
question
was
who
could
fix
their
current
disposition?
The
community
members
expressed
their
willingness
to
share
with
the
responsibility
but
they
need
partners
because
as
is
they
have
no
capacity
to
bring
order
by
themselves.
He
commended
the
keenness
of
the
people
to
pay
and
share
with
the
responsibility.
But
this
enthusiasm
does
not
get
to
the
government
hence
the
reason
for
misunderstanding.
Workshop
1:
Factors
That
are
Changing
The
Way
People
Live
In
Metro
Manila
This
workshop
required
the
participants
to
find
within
themselves
the
drivers
for
change
in
Metro
Manila.
The
participants
were
asked,
what
they
thought
were
the
causes
or
reasons
for
Metro
Manila
to
change?
The
causes
may
be
positive
or
negative.
They
were
given
papers
to
write
as
many
answers
as
they
could
in
fifteen
minutes.
In
order
to
mingle
with
others,
they
were
directed
to
work
in
groups
of
22. 21
three.
Some
examples
were
seen
at
the
board
including
Urbanization,
Hunger,
Energy
and
Security,
Reproductive
Health,
Water
Shortage,
Climate
Change,
Connectivity
etc.
They
were
not
limited
to
them
and
were
in
fact
asked
to
qualify
their
answers
e.g.
if
they
answered
population,
they
had
to
tell
whether
it
was
increasing
or
decreasing?
Once
done,
the
participants
were
asked
to
classify
their
answers
with
similar
ideas.
Below
were
their
answers
classified
accordingly:
Physical
Increasing
infrastructure
development
Inadequate
drainage
canals
catch
basins
MMDA/
DPWH
flood
control
masterplan
Place
of
entertainment
and
fun/
leisure
Housing
backlog
Extreme
traffic
due
to
rapid
increase
of
road
vehicles
Having
many
buildings
or
institutions
Place
to
study/
best
schools
located
(concentrated
in
Metro
Mania)
Insufficient
infrastructure
development
Poor
public
transportation
services
(inefficient,
poorly
maintained)
Shortage
in
MRT/
LRT
Vehicle
volume
Transportation
efficiency
Shortage
in
international
airports
Presence
of
universities
and
colleges
(education)
Physical-‐Environmental
Lack
of
green
and
walkable
spaces
Given
their
own
land
and
houses
at
low
rates
Environmental
Change
in
climate
and
flooding
in
Metro
Manila
Environmental
destruction/
Deteriorating
urban
ecosystem
of
Metro
Manila
Growing/
Chronic/
Worsening
disasters
(manmade
and
natural)
Sensitivity
to
environmental
concerns
Aggravating
air
pollution
Severe
air
pollution
Environmental
degradation
Social
Rapid
Urbanization
–
growing
population
(migration/
organic
growth)
Migration
from
town
to
city
Delivery
of
good
service
to
sick
people
Broken
families
due
to
OFW
exports
Huge
contribution
of
media
–
both
print
and
TV
ads
High
crime
rates
