– to settle on or occupy property, especially otherwise unoccupied property, without any title, right, or payment of rent.
Just because a property is unoccupied, or unused, does not mean anyone should be allowed to stay or inhabit that property if they do not own it, and if they do, they should not cause any trouble when the property owner decides to do something with that property.
This law that states squatting is legal should have a caveat that states squatters should leave when the property owner tells them to leave, and should not be compensated just because they’ve built stuff there. Anything on the property should be considered property of the OWNER of the property. This whole idea of compensating squatters because they have to move is ridiculous. It’s akin to having something stolen from you and then having to pay the thief that stole from you. It’s stupid. And to think, the government made this legal.
Do I blame the squatters? No I don’t. Some of them had no other choice. They were forced into situations like these due to the failure of the government to provide adequate jobs and sufficient educational system to attain better jobs and therefore improve their lives. Instead of solving the squatting problem, the government came up with the solution of making squatting legal, thereby avoiding actually fixing it.
But I do find fault in the squatters who turn squatting into their way of life, by squatting on land then forcing the property owner to pay them off to leave so that he can be free to develop his own land. And it’s sick that the government condones such actions.
So what solution is there?
I say we decentralize Manila. And I’ll go into that further later this week in another post.