7. SFHC

At the Socialized Housing Forum, Florencio “Jojo” Carandang Jr. of the Social Housing Finance Corporation (SHFC) challenged conventional ideas of housing affordability, arguing that for the country’s poorest sectors, individual solutions are often insufficient–and that the answer may lie in collective approaches.

Framing his discussion around “reimagining housing affordability,” Carandang grounded his insights in both global and national frameworks, linking the housing challenge to Sustainable Development Goal 11 on building inclusive and sustainable cities, as well as to the Philippine Development Plan. At the core of his presentation, he answered the question on if the poor can actually afford housing.

Using income and expenditure data, Carandang illustrated the constraints faced by low-income households. For families at the lowest income levels, only a small portion of monthly earnings–often around 20% to 25%–can realistically be allocated to housing. In practical terms, this translates to extremely limited capacity to pay for rent or amortization. Thus, under traditional market-based models, housing remains out of reach for a large segment of the population.

This is reflected in the country’s housing backlog, which continues to grow due to the gap between demand and actual housing production. Even with ongoing efforts, the scale of need far exceeds current delivery rates, particularly for low-income groups who remain underserved.

To address this, Carandang highlighted one of SHFC’s flagship programs–the Community Mortgage Program (CMP) –as a model that directly responds to these constraints. Unlike conventional housing loans, CMP is structured as a community-based financing mechanism, where groups of low-income households collectively access loans for land acquisition, site development, and eventually, housing construction. And so, while individuals may not be able to afford housing on their own, they can do so collectively. By pooling financial capacity, communities can acquire land that would otherwise be inaccessible. At the same time, shared responsibility within the group supports repayment, reinforcing a system of mutual accountability rooted in social cohesion and bayanihan.

However, over time, the program has evolved to address gaps in its original design. Recognizing that many communities struggled to move beyond initial land acquisition, SHFC introduced enhanced models such as the Expanded CMP (ECMP), which allows for more integrated financing–covering not just land, but also site development and housing improvements in a more streamlined manner.

This shift reflects a broader understanding that housing is not a one-time intervention, but a progressive process that unfolds in stages. Beyond its design, CMP has also demonstrated strong repayment performance, challenging assumptions about lending to low-income households. Despite irregular incomes, community-based borrowers have maintained relatively high repayment rates, suggesting that financial inclusion in housing is both feasible and sustainable when structured appropriately.

However, Carandang emphasized that financing models alone is not enough. A major constraint remains the limited allocation of public resources for housing. Compared to other sectors, housing continues to receive a relatively small share of the national budget–despite its potential to generate both social and economic returns.

This imbalance, he noted, is particularly striking given the sector’s multiplier effects. Housing development stimulates demand for construction materials, generates employment, and directly benefits low-income families–making it both a social investment and an economic driver.

In this context, Carandang argued for a stronger policy focus on housing, not only as a welfare concern, but as a strategic component of national development. He also emphasized the importance of aligning financing, policy, and implementation with the lived realities of communities. Programs must be grounded in data, responsive to income constraints, and designed to support long-term stability rather than short-term outputs.

For many Filipinos, housing cannot be treated as an individual purchase decision. Instead, it must be understood as a collective challenge, requiring shared solutions that leverage community, cooperation, and institutional support. In doing so, socialized housing can move closer to its goal–not just of providing shelter, but of enabling security, dignity, and participation in the broader process of nation-building.