8. OSHDP

At the Socialized Housing Forum, Atty. Gerwin Panghulan of the Organization of Socialized and Economic Housing Developers of the Philippines (OSHDP) shifted the discussion away from housing shortages alone, and toward a less visible but equally critical issue: the system that governs how housing is delivered.

While much of the day focused on backlog figures and housing demand, Panghulan argued that the deeper challenge lies not only in the scale of need, but in the complexity of the regulatory environment that shapes housing production. To illustrate this, he shared a case of a developer ready to deliver hundreds of housing units for low-income families. The land had been secured, financing was in place, and implementation could have begun immediately. Yet before construction could even start, the project had to navigate a long chain of permits–from local clearances to zoning approvals and environmental compliance.

Individually, each requirement was reasonable. But collectively, they created a process that stretched for years. By the time approvals were completed, costs had increased, forcing the developer to redesign the project just to remain viable. This, Panghulan emphasized, reflects a broader systemic issue. In many cases, the biggest barrier to housing delivery is not the lack of developers, land, or financing–but the structure of regulation itself.

The scale of the challenge makes this issue even more urgent. Housing demand continues to grow, with projections reaching up to nearly 11 million units by 2028 if current trends persist. Yet annual housing production remains limited, covering only a fraction of total need. At this pace, closing the gap could take decades. To understand why, Panghulan pointed to the housing process as a value chain, not a single activity.

From land acquisition and permitting to construction and financing, each stage involves different institutions and regulatory requirements. No single agency controls the process. Instead, housing delivery depends on coordination across multiple actors—including national agencies, local governments, and financial institutions. When coordination works, projects move forward. When it does not, delays accumulate.

In practice, this often results in what Panghulan described as a “permitting maze”–a system where projects can take three to seven years to complete, with most of that time spent not on construction, but on compliance. Two key bottlenecks stand out.

The first is land regulation, particularly the time required for conversion, reclassification, and zoning approvals. The second is fragmented permitting, where multiple agencies impose overlapping requirements and timelines. Recent reforms have begun to address these issues.

Institutional consolidation under DHSUD has strengthened sector leadership, while initiatives under the Anti-Red Tape Authority (ARTA) and proposed one-stop-shop processing centers aim to streamline approvals. The push toward digitalization–through electronic submissions and shared databases–also offers potential to reduce duplication and improve efficiency.

However, Panghulan argued that streamlining alone may not be enough. Instead, he called for a deeper redesign of how regulation works. Current systems operate on two assumptions, that all compliance must be completed upfront, and that approvals must be processed individually–even for identical housing units. While these approaches may seem reasonable in isolation, together they create a system that is repetitive, front-loaded, and difficult to scale.

In response, he proposed a shift toward more adaptive regulatory frameworks. One approach is model-based permitting, where standardized housing designs are approved once and allowed to be replicated without repeated reviews. Another is post-validation and time-bound compliance, where projects are allowed to proceed based on essential requirements, with remaining conditions completed within a defined period. These reforms do not eliminate regulation, but instead shift its focus–from repetitive checks to risk-based oversight, and from rigid sequencing to more flexible implementation.

Beyond regulatory reform, Panghulan also highlighted the need to strengthen mechanisms that expand housing supply, including improved compliance frameworks and incentives that encourage private sector participation.

Ultimately, his message returned to a core idea that housing delivery is fundamentally a matter of coordination. The Philippines does not lack capable developers, financing institutions, or housing programs. What remains to be strengthened is the system that connects them. Because behind every delayed permit or stalled project are real consequences–families waiting longer for homes, communities delayed in taking shape, and opportunities for stability postponed.

In this context, improving housing outcomes is not only about building more units, but about building a system that allows those units to be delivered efficiently, predictably, and at scale. When that system works, Panghulan noted, plans become homes, and programs become communities.