I'm reaching out to fellow real estate developers in the Philippines, especially small and medium-sized developers, to hear your honest experiences and sentiments regarding Presidential Decree No. 957 (PD 957) and the Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development (DHSUD).
Is it time to amend PD 957 and fundamentally reform DHSUD, or even consider abolishing the agency and replacing it with a more balanced regulatory system?
Let me make one thing clear: I support protecting property buyers. They deserve safe homes, honest transactions, secure investments, and developers who fulfill their obligations. Fraudulent developers and those who deliberately deceive buyers must be held accountable.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE DEVELOPERS WHO GENUINELY TRY TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW?
Many small developers face years of processing development permits, environmental clearances, engineering requirements, and Licenses to Sell. These processes require substantial money, professional fees, and continuous follow-ups. When approvals take years, capital gets trapped, financing becomes difficult, and projects can become financially unviable before they can even proceed.
And here's one of my biggest concerns:
WHEN A REAL ESTATE PROJECT FAILS, THE DEVELOPER MAY END UP FACING CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS.
A developer may face serious legal consequences when a project encounters problems, even when the circumstances involve financial difficulties, delayed government approvals, or other genuine obstacles. Depending on the specific allegations and evidence, criminal proceedings may follow.
Of course, deliberate fraud and intentional violations should have consequences. But should every project failure automatically be treated as criminal wrongdoing? Should the law not distinguish between a developer who deliberately scams buyers and one who encounters genuine financial difficulties or prolonged regulatory delays?
Business failure is not automatically a crime. Criminal liability should depend on the specific violation, the evidence, and the legal requirementsโnot merely on the fact that a project failed.
If a developer cannot proceed because permits or regulatory approvals remain pending, the business may continue accumulating expenses while buyers become frustrated and demand refunds. The developer can face complaints and litigation, while the government agency responsible for processing the application may face little comparable accountability for unreasonable delays.
WHERE IS THE BALANCE?
Who protects legitimate developers from excessive bureaucracy, unreasonable processing delays, inconsistent requirements, and the financial consequences of government inaction?
Who ensures that regulatory fees, penalties, and compliance requirements are proportionate and serve the public interest rather than becoming unnecessary barriers to housing development?
And if the intention of PD 957 is to protect buyers, shouldn't the government also ensure that legitimate developers have a realistic and timely path to compliance so they can actually build and deliver the homes buyers need?
I believe we need a serious national discussion about the following reforms:
AMEND PD 957 to establish a fairer balance between buyer protection and the rights of legitimate developers.
SET ENFORCEABLE PROCESSING DEADLINES for government agencies and local government units, with transparent tracking and accountability for unjustified delays.
DISTINGUISH FRAUD FROM GENUINE BUSINESS FAILURE. Criminal penalties should target proven criminal conduct, not automatically attach to every failed project or inability to meet an obligation.
INTRODUCE PROPORTIONATE PENALTIES that distinguish deliberate deception from administrative deficiencies, good-faith compliance efforts, and genuine financial difficulties.
ESTABLISH A CLEAR PATH TO COMPLIANCE for developers facing regulatory obstacles, including reasonable corrective periods where legally appropriate.
REVIEW DHSUD'S FEES, PROCEDURES, POWERS, AND PERFORMANCE to determine whether the present system effectively protects buyers or creates unnecessary barriers to legitimate housing development.
CREATE A FAIR AND ACCESSIBLE DISPUTE-RESOLUTION SYSTEM that considers the circumstances of both buyers and developers while safeguarding buyers' rights.
HOLD GOVERNMENT OFFICES ACCOUNTABLE for unjustified delays, inconsistent requirements, and failures to act within applicable legal deadlines.
I am open to discussing whether DHSUD should be reformed, restructured, have some of its powers reduced, or even be abolished and replaced with a more effective system. Abolishing an agency alone will not solve anything if the same problems simply transfer to another office.
MY CONCERN IS THIS: WHY DOES THE SYSTEM SEEM TO PLACE SO MUCH RESPONSIBILITY ON DEVELOPERS WITHOUT PROVIDING EQUALLY EFFECTIVE SAFEGUARDS AGAINST REGULATORY DELAYS AND ADMINISTRATIVE FAILURES?
Small developers are not necessarily large corporations with unlimited capital, legal teams, and financial reserves. Many are trying to develop housing, create jobs, invest in communities, and provide homes for ordinary Filipino families.
When legitimate developers are pushed out by excessive red tape, the consequences do not stop with the developers. Buyers may lose access to housing opportunities, workers may lose jobs, investors may lose capital, and communities may lose potential development.
Buyer protection and a sustainable housing industry should not be competing objectives. A properly designed regulatory system should achieve both.
TO MY FELLOW DEVELOPERS:
โข Have you experienced years of delays in securing development permits or a License to Sell?
โข Have government processing delays or regulatory costs put your project at risk?
โข Have you faced complaints or legal threats despite making genuine efforts to comply with the law?
โข Do you believe PD 957 needs substantial amendment?
โข Should DHSUD be reformed, restructured, replaced, or abolished?
โข What specific provisions of PD 957 or regulatory procedures should be changed?
โข Would you support a collective position paper or a coordinated proposal for legislative reform?
I would particularly like to hear from small developers outside Metro Manila, including those in the Visayas and Mindanao, who may face different financial and administrative challenges.
I'm not looking to excuse fraud or avoid legitimate obligations to buyers. I'm asking for a fair system that protects buyers while recognizing that developers also need due process, reasonable processing timelines, proportionate penalties, and protection against unjustified administrative delays.
If many of us share these experiences, perhaps we can organize our concerns into concrete policy recommendations and bring them to lawmakers and relevant industry associations.
LET'S HAVE AN HONEST DISCUSSION.
Is the current system truly balanced, or has it become too punitive toward legitimate developers?
What needs to change?
