The Society of Honor by Joe America

A homeowners’ association needs enough power to protect a community—but enough restraint to respect the people who live in it

By Karl M. Garcia

A homeowners’ association is easiest to appreciate when something goes wrong.

The gate is left unsecured. Garbage is not collected. Drainage is clogged. A contractor does poor work. A homeowner stops paying dues. Someone builds a fence into common property. A supposedly vacant piece of land slowly becomes occupied.

Suddenly, everyone wants the HOA to act.

But when the HOA does act, another question arises:

How much power should a private community association have?

That is the real issue behind many HOA disputes.

A subdivision is not simply a collection of privately owned houses. It is a shared physical and social system. Roads, drainage, lighting, security, landscaping, open spaces and common facilities have to be maintained. Contracts have to be managed. Dues have to be collected. Reasonable community rules have to be enforced.

Without an organization capable of doing these things, a subdivision becomes harder and more expensive to manage.

But an HOA is also not a government.

Its authority comes from law, its governing documents and its legitimate responsibility to manage a shared community. It cannot turn that responsibility into unlimited private power.

The challenge, therefore, is not to make HOAs weaker.

It is to make them capable, professional and accountable.

THE GATE IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT

Consider the subdivision gate.

Residents want security. They want to know who enters the community and who should not. They want protection from unauthorized access and a system capable of responding quickly to emergencies.

That is a legitimate HOA function.

But a gate is a security device, not a private court.

A modern subdivision must accommodate residents, guests, household workers, contractors, delivery riders, caregivers, repair technicians and emergency responders. Security should make these movements safer and more orderly—not turn ordinary life into an obstacle course.

Technology can help: digital visitor passes, resident verification, CCTV, vehicle identification, delivery protocols and clear emergency procedures.

The principle should be simple:

Maximum security with minimum unnecessary friction.

But security also has a legal boundary.

The Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in Sabig, et al. v. Court of Appeals and Spouses Retirado provides a useful example. The case involved homeowners who had failed to pay association dues. The HOA declared them delinquent and imposed several sanctions, including restrictions affecting deliveries, transportation and guests.

The Supreme Court upheld the HOA’s authority to sanction delinquent members—but drew a line around that authority.

Under Republic Act No. 9904, the Magna Carta for Homeowners and Homeowners’ Associations, members have both the right to enjoy basic community services and facilities and the right to use common areas such as subdivision roads. The Court held that an HOA’s power to sanction delinquency does not extend to depriving a homeowner of that right to use common areas.

That distinction matters.

A homeowner who owes dues still owes dues. An HOA still has legitimate remedies.

But the association’s authority to collect does not automatically become authority to block a homeowner’s use of subdivision roads.

Enforcement is legitimate only within the authority granted by law.

That is a principle worth remembering well beyond HOAs.

SECURITY SHOULD BE BOUGHT AS A CAPABILITY

The same principle should shape how HOAs procure security services.

The question should not simply be:

How many guards can we get for the lowest price?

The better question is:

What security capability does this community actually need?

That means looking at manpower, training, technology, supervision, response procedures and continuity.

A contractor offering more guards for less money may not provide better security. High guard turnover, inadequate training, weak supervision, poor incident reporting and obsolete equipment can make a seemingly cheap contract expensive in practice.

Competitive procurement is therefore not an accusation against contractors.

It is basic community governance.

Residents should know what they are paying for, what performance is expected and how competing proposals were evaluated.

The same principle applies to landscaping, garbage collection, repairs, drainage maintenance and other major contracts.

An HOA is spending other people’s money.

That requires stewardship.

COMMON SPACE IS NOT SURPLUS SPACE

The other side of community governance is protecting what residents collectively own or are entitled to use.

This becomes particularly important with open space.

A vacant parcel inside a subdivision can look like unused land.

It may not be.

It could be a planned park, playground, drainage area, access corridor, landscaped space or another component of the approved subdivision plan.

Vacant does not mean available.

This is where small violations can become large problems.

One person puts up a structure. Another follows. A fence becomes permanent. A small store appears. Utilities are connected. More structures are added.

Eventually, what began as a few unauthorized acts can become an established settlement.

By then, enforcement becomes much harder. Property disputes become more complicated. Human needs become involved. Political pressure grows.

The lesson is not that every occupant should simply be removed.

The lesson is that problems are easier to solve before they become entrenched.

That requires early documentation, lawful enforcement and, where people genuinely need housing, humane and lawful housing solutions.

FOLLOW THE MONEY

There is also a tendency to focus only on the people physically occupying disputed land.

That may miss the larger problem.

If people are being charged for supposed rights to land that someone else does not own, who is collecting the money?

Who is producing the documents?

Who is organizing construction?

Who is facilitating utility connections?

Who is promising that occupants will eventually receive ownership?

Who benefits from allowing the occupation to grow?

Sometimes the visible occupant is not the person driving the problem.

Follow the money.

But enforcement must be even-handed.

An HOA should not aggressively pursue an informal occupant while ignoring a homeowner who has extended a fence, driveway, garden or structure into common property.

The rule should respond to the violation—not to the wealth or social position of the person committing it.

NOT EVERY COMMON AREA IS THE SAME

Another reason HOA disputes become complicated is that not all common areas have the same legal status or function.

A road is not a swimming pool.

A drainage easement is not a clubhouse.

A playground is not a parking area.

An amenity may have rules governing its use that are different from those governing a road needed for ordinary access.

The legal status of a particular road or parcel may also depend on ownership, dedication, donation, subdivision approvals and other circumstances.

That is why HOAs should resist one-size-fits-all enforcement.

Before imposing a sanction, the association should ask:

What is the legal basis?

What does the governing document actually authorize?

What right is being restricted?

Is the restriction proportionate?

Was due process followed?

Is the same rule being applied to everyone?

These questions may slow an association down.

They can also prevent much bigger problems later.

STRONG HOA DOES NOT MEAN UNLIMITED HOA

There are two bad extremes.

One says HOAs should have almost unlimited power because residents voluntarily joined a subdivision.

The other says that because some HOAs abuse their authority, they should have very little authority at all.

Both are wrong.

A weak HOA cannot protect common property, maintain infrastructure, collect legitimate dues or provide effective security.

An overreaching HOA can turn community management into private coercion.

The answer is neither.

The answer is competent authority with clear boundaries.

An HOA should be strong enough to enforce legitimate obligations, protect common property, manage contracts and maintain security.

It should also be disciplined enough to understand that homeowners retain rights.

The board is a steward, not the owner of those rights.

THE REAL TEST IS GOVERNANCE

A capable HOA should not be measured by how many penalties it can impose.

It should be measured by whether it can keep the community safe, orderly, financially sound and livable without constantly resorting to conflict.

That requires transparent budgets.

It requires competent procurement.

It requires good records and maps.

It requires maintenance before infrastructure fails.

It requires early action against encroachment.

It requires lawful collection of dues.

It requires fair and consistent enforcement.

And it requires knowing when the association’s authority ends.

Residents, for their part, also have responsibilities.

They should pay legitimate dues. Follow reasonable rules. Respect common property. Avoid encroachment. Cooperate with reasonable security procedures. And use lawful channels when they believe the board has acted improperly.

Rights and responsibilities have to work together.

That is the essence of community governance.

THE COMMON GROUND

The best subdivision is not one with the most restrictive gate or the most aggressive board.

It is one where residents understand that they share a community—and where the institution managing that community understands that it serves them.

The gate should protect people, not intimidate them.

Dues should fund services, not purchase arbitrary power.

Security contracts should buy capability, not simply headcount.

Open space should remain available for its intended purpose.

Roads should remain accessible according to law.

Encroachments should be addressed before they become permanent.

And rules should apply whether the person involved is an informal occupant, an ordinary homeowner, a wealthy resident, a contractor or an HOA officer.

The Supreme Court’s 2026 ruling provides an important reminder: even legitimate private authority has boundaries.

That is not a weakness.

It is what makes authority legitimate.

A good HOA does not need unlimited power.

It needs enough authority to protect the community, enough competence to use that authority well, and enough restraint to respect the rights of the people it serves.

That is the balance worth building:

Strong HOA. Strong homeowner rights. Strong accountability.

That is not a contradiction.

It is good community governance.