PLOWING THROUGH THE FUNDAMENTALS:
Discerning Justice Based on the Agricultural Constitution of the Land of the Sumilao Farmers and Deciding Against Illegal and Futile Conversion
Restore the Dignity of the Sumilao Farmers!
Revoke the Conversion Order!
Reclaim the Land!
Reform and Extend CARP!
Recognize the need for a National Land
A Position Paper on the Sumilao Farmers’ Struggle for Access to their Land
This paper aims to discuss the position of the Sumilao farmers on the 144-hectare land situated in San Vicente, Sumilao, Bukidnon. The farmers argue that the 144-hectare Norberto Quisumbing Sr., Management and Development Corporation (NQSRMDC) and now San Miguel Foods, Inc., (SMFI) –owned land should never have been converted to non-agricultural use because it is undoubtedly a prime agricultural land which is non-negotiable for conversion under the law, and the same has already been covered under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) in 1990.
Ten years after, the Sumilao farmers are launching a campaign to demand the revocation of the Conversion Order and to distribute the said lands to the landless peasants of Sumilao. Beyond this, the Sumilao farmers also campaign for the extension of CARP with reforms, and for the enactment of a national land use law protecting agricultural lands from massive conversions.
Sumilao Farmers were forced out of their own land
The Higaonon Indigenous Cultural Communities were the early settlers of a piece of ancestral land in Sumilao, Bukidnon. The 855 hectare ancestral land served as the Seat of Government of the Higaonons where the traditional “paghusay” (conflict resolution) and “pamuhat” (rituals) were conducted by the Higaonon tribal council led by Apo Manuagay Anlicao and Apo Mangganiahon Anlicao. The ancestral land is a flat agricultural terrain situated in the midst of Mt. Sayawan Mt. Palaopao Mt. Kitanglad
Then the Angeleses came in the 1940s forcibly evicting the Higaonons from a 243.8551 hectare portion of their ancestral land and converted it into a cattle ranch. The land was later transferred to the Ilagans. In the 1970s, the ancestral land was divided between two landowners: 99.8551 hectares were allotted to Salvador Carlos while 144 hectares were transferred to Norberto Quisumbing Sr. Both lands were eventually leased to Del Monte Philippines, Inc. (DMPI) for 10 years until 1994. At that time, the Higaonons became farmworkers of the land they once owned.
With the advent of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) in 1988, the 144-hectare ancestral land was covered for distribution to 137 Mapadayonong Panaghiusa sa mga Lumad Alang sa Damlag (MAPALAD) farmers, all of Higaonon lineage. Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) were subsequently issued to them, hence, recognizing their ownership of the 144-hectare ancestral land which rightfully belongs to them. What followed next was a controversial legal battle which sparked national interest reflecting the sad state of agrarian reform in the country.
The BAIDA Development Plan
In a move apparently done to circumvent agrarian reform, Quisumbing connived with the Sanggunian Bayan of Sumilao which illegally passed Resolution No. 24 in March 1993 entitled “Resolution Converting the 144 has of Land Situated at San Vicente, Sumilao, Bukidnon with the Following Technical Description as S.A. No. V-12669, TCT-14371 under Cadastral Lot No. H-Plan-LC2792 owned by Norberto Quisumbing Sr., Management and Development Corporation from Agricultural to Industrial/Institutional Areas.” Resolution No. 24 was subsequently affirmed by the Sanggunian Panlalawigan of Bukidnon, allowing the conversion of the 144-hectare agricultural land to agro-industrial.
Quisumbing also applied for conversion of the land in December 1993 from agricultural to agro-industrial before the DAR Secretary notwithstanding the fact that the 144 hectare land, being a prime agricultural land, is non-negotiable for conversion. Quisumbing proudly presented its development plan otherwise known as the Bukidnon Agro-Industrial Development Association (BAIDA) project which proposed the following:
Ø Development Academy of Mindanao which constitutes the following: Institute for Continuing Higher Education; Institute for Livelihood Science (Vocational and Technical School); Institute for Agribusiness Research; Museum, Library, Cultural Center and Mindanao Sports Development Complex which covers an area of 24 hectares;
Ø Bukidnon Agro-Industrial Park which consist of corn processing for corn oil, corn starch, various corn products; rice processing for wine, rice-based snacks, exportable rice; cassava processing for starch, alcohol and food delicacies; processing plants, fruits and fruit products such as juices; processing plants for vegetables processed and prepared food market; cold storage and ice plant; cannery system; commercial stores; public market, and abbatoir needing about 67 hectares;
Ø Forest Development include open spaces and parks for recreation, horse-back riding, memorial and animals (mini-zoo) estimated to cover 33 hectares;
Ø Support Facilities include the construction of a hotel (360 rooms), Restaurants, Dormitories and Housing Project covering an area of 20 hectares;
Ø Mindanao Sports Development Complex that includes facilities that shall qualify for international competitions such as: track and field oval, baseball and softball, tennis courts, basketball courts, swimming pools, equestrian court, games of chance – billiard, bowling, etc.; and
Ø Commercial Mall.
Prime Agricultural Lands cannot be converted
At the outset, the conversion of the 144-hectare agricultural land to agro-industrial suffers from serious infirmity. The issue that must first be decided is whether or not the 144 hectare land is prime agricultural land and therefore exempt from conversion in accordance with DAR Administrative Order No. 20, series of 1992. The findings of fact of the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC), Provincial Agricultural Officer and the National Irrigation Authority (NIA), confirmed that the area is an efficient agricultural land whose land characteristics and qualities favor the growth of a wide range of crops, and that the area is well irrigated. In addition, the PARC reported having found the following conditions of the 144 hectare land when it conducted the inspection in 1994:
Ø The area is an efficient agricultural land xxx. The land has to be preserved for agricultural purposes;
Ø The soil of the areas is loamy soil and is rich with organic matter which is an indication that the soil is productive;
Ø The land is within the Service Area of Kisolon Communal Irrigation System;
Ø The area has an existing water supply, with irrigation canals and has an Irrigation Association;
Ø The property is included in the 300 hectare service area programmed by the NIA for irrigation.
It is undeniably a prime agricultural land. Being such, it is non-negotiable for conversion in accordance with Memorandum Circular No. 54, in relation to Administrative Order No. 20, series of 1992, which states,
“In addition, the following types of agricultural lands shall not be covered by the said reclassification:
1. agricultural lands distributed to agrarian reform beneficiaries;
2. agricultural lands already issued a Notice of Coverage or voluntarily offered for coverage under CARP;
3. agricultural lands identified under AO 20, Series of 1992 as non-negotiable for conversion:
Ø All irrigated lands where water is available to support rice and other crop production;
Ø All irrigated lands where water is not available for rice and other crop production but within areas programmed for irrigation facility by DA and NIA;
Ø All irrigable lands already covered by irrigation.”
The basis for exempting irrigated or irrigable lands from conversion is the need to preserve the lands most suitable for agricultural productivity in order to ensure the country’s food sustainability. On the other hand, a look at Quisumbing’s development plan reveals that the prime beneficiaries would only be the well-heeled who have time and money to avail of such recreational facilities. More vital is the need of the farmers to own land to till and of the country to ensure its food supply.
Reclassification vs. Conversion
Moreover, Resolution No. 24 of the Sumilao Municipal Council and its other issuances have no effect on the DAR’s exclusive authority of conversion. LGUs never possessed the power to convert land as the same belongs to the DAR Secretary. LGUs only have the power to reclassify lands and the power of conversion is not the same as reclassification. Reclassification refers to determining what will be the future allowable use, should there be a change in use, whereas conversion refers to the nature of the use of the land. Reclassification refers to priority use, conversion refers to actual use. LGU’s power of reclassification is based on Section 20 of the Local Government Code (RA 7160) which state:
“Sec 20. Reclassification of Lands. – (a) city or municipality may, through an ordinance passed by the sanggunian after conducting public hearings for the purpose, authorize the reclassification of agricultural lands xxx
Provided, further, That agricultural lands distributed to agrarian reform beneficiaries pursuant to Republic Act 6657 otherwise known as “The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law”, shall not be effected by the said reclassification and the conversion of such lands into other purposes shall be governed by Section 65 of said Act.
Xxx
(e) Nothing in this Section shall be construed as repealing, amending or modifying in any manner the provisions of RA 6657.”
It is clear from the foregoing that what Congress has delegated to the LGU under the Local Government Code is merely the power to reclassify, not the power to convert lands. The power to reclassify shall be without prejudice to and cannot supersede the authority of the DAR to approve conversions.
Resolution No. 24 is void
Even assuming that the LGU of Sumilao can reclassify the 144 hectare prime agricultural land to agro-industrial, still, Resolution No. 24 substantially failed to comply with the requirements embodied in the law. The Local Government Code specifically requires a municipal ordinance, not merely a resolution, for a valid reclassification of agricultural lands. An ordinance differs from a resolution in that it has to pass through three readings before the Sangguniang Bayan, and that the same is subject to the veto power of the local chief executive and review by the Sanggunian Panlalawigan.
In addition, Memorandum Circular No. 54 mandates that before a reclassification of agricultural lands can be had, the municipality must have a Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) reviewed and approved in accordance with Executive Order 72, Series of 1993. No CLUP was ever made by the LGU of Sumilao when it passed the said resolution. Hence, Resolution No. 24 has no legal effect as the same suffers from inherent substantial and procedural defects.
Lands under CARP are not covered by Sec. 20 of the Local Government Code
More importantly, the LGU’s power of reclassification under the Local Government Code cannot affect lands already covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. This is very clear under Section 20 of the Local Government Code itself. In the case of the 144-hectare land, it was already issued a Notice of Coverage and Acquisition long before the passage of Resolution No. 24. Hence, the 144 hectare land could no longer be reclassified by the LGU of Sumilao as the same was already under the CARP process.
Based on the foregoing, DAR Secretary Ernesto Garilao denied the application for conversion filed by Quisumbing due to its patent invalidity.
The Torres Conversion Order
However, then Governor Fortich wrote a letter to the Office of the President berating the decision of DAR Secretary Garilao. Apparently, Executive Secretary Ruben Torres treated the letter as an appeal. Despite the patent illegality of the application for conversion, Torres issued the infamous Conversion Order approving the application for conversion of the land from agricultural to agro-industrial.
Torres justified the Conversion Order by stating that “converting the land in question would open great opportunities for employment and bring about real development in the area towards a sustained economic growth in the municipality. On the other hand, distributing the land to would be beneficiaries (who are not even tenants as there are none) does not guarantee such benefits.” The reversal of the DAR decision and the approval of the Conversion Order worked to the great injustice to the Sumilao farmers whose presence, contribution, and stake in the area have been conveniently disregarded.
MAPALAD Hunger Strike
Left with no more recourse, the Sumilao farmers decided to do the only non-violent and peaceful means their forefathers taught them during unpeaceful times – a Hunger Strike. Beginning October 9, 1997 , the Sumilao farmers subsisted on nothing but water in front of the DAR Central Office in Quezon City
At this time, several peasant organizations who were facing similar problems came out and joined the campaign. Policies regarding the implementation of agrarian reform in the country were also brought in the open. The Sumilao farmers became the symbol of hope for the whole peasantry.
Due to huge public pressure, President Ramos through Deputy Executive Secretary Renato Corona, issued the so-called “Win-win Resolution” wherein 100 hectares were to be given to the farmers while 44 hectares remained with Quisumbing. It was a pleasant victory for the Sumilao farmers and the whole peasant sector. The Sumilao farmers finally regained their ancestral land.
However, their victory was shortlived. Quisumbing was infuriated with the decision and brought the same before the Supreme Court. The Sumilao farmers, as farmer beneficiaries of the 144-hectare land, intervened in the case and raised novel questions regarding the validity Resolution No. 24 converting prime agricultural lands, the power of reclassification of LGUs vis-à-vis DAR’s authority to approve conversions, and the constitutionality of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law itself.
Supreme Court Ruled on Technicalities
Unexpectedly, the Supreme Court evaded the resolution of the substantial issues of the case and found one perfect excuse: reglementary periods. The Supreme Court refused to answer the constitutional issues and asserted that the DAR failed to question the Torres Conversion Order on time. The Supreme Court invalidated President Ramos’s “Win-win Resolution” while it reinstated the Torres Conversion Order approving the conversion of the 144 hectare land to agro-industrial. The conversion of the land to agro-industrial was affirmed, despite the fact that its conversion was contrary to existing laws and administrative orders, simply because the Conversion Order issued by Executive Secretary Torres already became final when President Ramos issued the “Win-Win Resolution”. In effect, the Supreme Court skirted merits and yielded to technicalities.
Worst, the Supreme Court denied the Sumilao farmers standing in the case by equivocally saying they were merely “recommendee farmer beneficiaries”, hence, have no real interest over the land. It further stated that the Sumilao farmers were never tenants, not even tillers of the land. The court’s declaration was a huge injustice to the Sumilao farmers considering that they were already the owners of the land by virtue of the Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) previously given to them under the agrarian reform law. It was an offensive attack on their dignity as peasants and an insult to the Higaonons.
The iniquitous decision compelled Robin Lession, one of the MAPALAD hunger strikers, to take his own life days after the decision came out. He only dreamt of cultivating a piece of agricultural land and providing a decent living for his family and children. His basic desire of owning a land for his family vanished in an instant. His frustration and disappointment was shared by the Sumilao farmers and the rest of the peasantry.
The Supreme Court pronouncements have a chilling effect on the state of agrarian reform in the country. The decision created a confusion on the existing policies on conversions of agricultural lands, power of LGUs to reclassify agricultural lands and legal standing of farmer-beneficiaries. In many instances, the confusion on policies is being utilized by landowners to evade the implementation of the CARP.
Quisumbing and/or SMFI violated the Conditions of the Conversion Order
Several years have passed since the Supreme Court decision in 1999 yet the 144 hectare land remain idle and uncultivated. Not one of the plans proposed by Quisumbing ever materialized. The “promises” of economic vitality, employment and increase in income remain “castles in the air”. Apparently, the Quisumbings have successfully fooled the Sumilao farmers and the peasant sector, the local government units of Sumilao and Bukidnon, the national government, the Supreme Court, and the Filipino people, by circumventing the coverage of the 144-hectare ancestral land through illegal conversion. They evaded the implementation of a genuine agrarian reform in the country.
A scrutiny of the pertinent rules on conversion is called for. DAR Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1990 (Revised Rules and Regulations Governing Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Non Agricultural Uses) as modified in DAR Administrative Order No. 1, series of 2002 (Comprehensive Rules on Land Use Conversion), provides:
“Within one (1) year from the issuance of the Conversion, the landowner and/or developer shall commenced development on the property approved for conversion, and shall complete development not later than the deadlines set forth in its site development plan schedule, but in no case shall development extend beyond five years from issuance of the Conversion Order.
xxx
It shall be subject to the schedule indicated in the detailed site development, work and financial plans, but in no case shall the period for development extend beyond five years from the issuance of the Conversion Order except as authorized by the Secretary or the approving official on meritorious grounds, provided that, if the development cannot be accomplished within five years, the grantee of the conversion order shall submit written request for extension within the six months before the lapse of the five year period provided further, that the extended development period shall be one year for every five hectares, but in no case shall the extension exceed five years.”
Quisumbing had deaf ears and ignored his obligation of complying with all the requirements of the conversion orders, specifically, to implement the BAIDA development plan within 5 years from 25 August 1999 , the time of finality of the Torres Order.
Quisumbing and/or SMFI Changed the Authorized Use of the Land
To make things worse, Quisumbing once more fooled the Sumilao farmers by selling the 144-hectare ancestral land to San Miguel Foods, Inc. (SMFI), the biggest conglomerate in the country owned by no less than Danding Cojuangco. Such act only reveals that Quisumbing either did not have the interest nor the capacity to implement the approved agro-industrial plan. It could be surmised that Quisumbing did not plan to develop the said land in the first place. Otherwise, changes or improvements would have taken place immediately. Rather, Quisumbing fought the fight of converting the land so it could be sold at a good price to SMFI. The plan was evidently made to avoid the coverage of the land from CARP.
SMFI, through its sister company Monterey Livestock Farm, plans to put up a 144-hectare piggery with 162 buildings to house 4,400 female pigs and 44,000 piglets. The conditions of the Conversion Order issued by the Office of the President, specifically the implementation of the BAIDA development plan, were conveniently disregarded. Considering that SMFI is a mere successor-in-interest of Quisumbing, the conditions of the Conversion Order clearly binds the former as provided by DAR Administrative Order No. 1, series of 2002:
“Section 33. Conditions of Conversion Order. The approval of the application for conversion order shall be subject to the following conditions:
33.9. The landowner and future landowner(s) of the property approved for conversion shall not change its use to another use not authorized under the Conversion Order without prior consent from the DAR.
Section 34. Effects of Approval of Conversion. The approval of an application for conversion shall have, but shall not be limited to the following effects:
34.1. It shall be limited to the specific use of the land authorized in the Conversion Order.
34.3. The conditions thereof shall be binding upon successors-interest of the property.”
Such act of illegally converting the land to a piggery farm which is completely different from the authorized use according to the application and the approved Conversion Order is another serious violation which needs to be addressed in accordance with law and justice.
Based on the foregoing, SMFI has grossly and willfully committed violations on laws and other issuances on land conversion, specifically, DAR Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1990 in relation to DAR Administrative Order No. 2, series of 1990, DAR Administrative Order No. 12, series of 1994 (Consolidated and Revised Rules and Regulations Governing Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Non-Agricultural Uses), and DAR Administrative Order No. 1, series of 2002. Without doubt, the violations are grounds for the immediate revocation of the Conversion Order given to Quisumbing and his successor-in-interest SMFI:
“Section 47. Grounds – The following acts or omissions shall warrant revocation of the Conversion Order:
47.3 Non-compliance with the conditions of the Conversion Order;
47.5 Conversion to a use other than that authorized in the Conversion Order.”
Restore the Dignity of the Sumilao Farmers!
Notwithstanding their loss in the Supreme Court by mere technicality, the Sumilao farmers’ commitment of regaining their ancestral land was never diminished. In fact, it even strengthened the MAPALAD farmers towards their advocacy for genuine agrarian reform.
The Sumilao farmers established the MAPALAD Multi-Purpose Cooperative (MPC) in order to reinforce their organization. Further, MAPALAD campaigned for the CARP coverage of the adjacent Salvador Carlos Estate which is still part of their ancestral land. Subsequently, a CLOA was issued to the MAPALAD farmers making them the owners of the land. Salvador Carlos initially opposed the distribution of his land to the farmers and a barrage of cases ensued before the courts. The MAPALAD farmers were criminally prosecuted for Grave Coercion when they attempted to possess their own land. Several farmer leaders were imprisoned in jail.
With divine providence, Salvador Carlos eventually understood the plight of the MAPALAD farmers and their basic desire to have a piece of land to call their own. In his last will, Salvador Carlos agreed to subject the land for coverage under CARP with the Sumilao farmers as beneficiaries. They finally regained a portion of their ancestral land. But it was not that easy for the MAPALAD farmers. Francisco Reyes, the administrator of Salvador Carlos, refused to heed the Voluntary Offer for Sale (VOS) submitted by Salvador Carlos to the farmers. When the MAPALAD farmers initiated their land occupation of the property, Reyes brought several armed men to harass the farmers. But the latter persisted in successfully occupying the land. The family of Salvador Carlos even joined their thanksgiving mass where they gave the farmers rosaries and a statue of the Virgin Mary. It was a momentous event for the MAPALAD farmers and the Carlos family.
The MAPALAD farmers immediately cultivated the cherished land. The cooperative, with 78 farmer beneficiaries, employed a communal farm development wherein each member was allocated a farm lot ranging from .450 to .900 hectare depending on their participation in the MPC’s projects. A portion thereof was allocated for a communal farm to support community development projects such as farm technology, gender sensitivity trainings, and paralegal formation activities. Despite the inadequacy of the 66 hectare land for at least 137 growing households, the MAPALAD farmers proved that they can develop the fullest potential of the land for agricultural productivity and at the same time for the advancement of the whole community.
Not only that, the MAPALAD farmers also encouraged the formation of another peasant group in San Vicente, Sumilao which led to the establishment of San Vicente Landless Farmers Association (SALFA) composed of 90 farmers, 90% of whom belongs to the Higaonon Tribe. Several members of SALFA are the children of the MAPALAD farmers and the rest are the other farmers and farmworkers residing in the barangay. The MAPALAD farmers also would also want the SALFA members to carry on their struggle for a genuine agrarian reform and their dream of possessing a precious land that is actually theirs in the first place.
All the SALFA members are landless. Apparently, the 66-hectare Carlos Estate distributed to the MAPALAD farmers is not enough for more than 400 farmer-residents in Sumilao. There are many farmers who are still landless amid some cherished victories on the Carlos land. They merely depend on a Php 50.00 to Php 80.00 labor pay per day during harvest season. Outside the harvest season, they engage in broom-making where they are paid Php 1.00 per broom. This meager earning could hardly provide food for their family. Not one of them had completed their schooling. The SALFA members also dreamt of one thing – a land of their own.
Revoke the Conversion Order which allowed the Land Conversion!
Enraged by the evils that Quisumbing and Cojuangco have committed, the Sumilao farmers, led by 78 MAPALAD farmers together with 90 SALFA landless farmers, filed a Petition for the Cancellation of the Conversion Order before the DAR Secretary on 3 November 2004 . The petition is based on the following grounds:
Ø Non-compliance with the conditions of the conversion order;
Ø Failure to commence any development work on the property within 1 year from the issuance or the finality of the Conversion Order on August 25, 1999 ;
Ø Non-completion of the development plan on the property within 5 years from the issuance or the finality of the Conversion Order on August 25, 1999 ;
Ø Failure to submit written request for extension within 6 months before the lapse of the 5 year period;
Ø Failure to submit quarterly reports on the status of the development to the MARO, PARO and the DAR Regional Office as required by the rules;
Ø Non-observance of the conditions for the use of the land as authorized in the Conversion Order by Quisumbing and his successor-in-interest, SMFI;
Ø Unauthorized change of use of the land from the development plan as approved in the Conversion Order to a 144-hectare piggery farm without the prior consent from the DAR.
It is worth mentioning that the present petition does not assail the previous Supreme Court decision approving the Conversion Order as it has already gained finality. On the contrary, the Sumilao farmers contend that the conditions of the Conversion Order were willfully breached by the grantee manifesting its incapability to implement the authorized land use plan. Hence, the cancellation of the Conversion Order is but proper.
Legal Standing of the Sumilao Farmers is beyond doubt
The ancestors of the Sumilao farmers have been working on the land since time immemorial. Even after they were forcibly evicted by unscrupulous landowners from their very own land, they worked as farm laborers under Quisumbing and later for Del Monte for several years. In fact, the Sumilao farmers were declared the owners of the 144-hectare land by virtue of the Certificate of Land Ownership Award duly given to them by the government in 1995. If not for the illegal conversion of the land as approved by the Office of the President, the Sumilao farmers would have remained as absolute owners thereof. Without doubt, the Sumilao farmers have a real interest in the status of the 144 hectare land.
The previous Supreme Court decision which stated that the MAPALAD farmers do not have legal standing in the case because they were merely “recommendee farmer beneficiaries” does not affect their legal standing in the present petition as the same was merely an obiter dictum, not the ratio decidendi of the case. Ratio decidendi is an analysis of what the court actually decided on and is essentially based on the legal points over which the parties in the case actually contend. All other statements about the law in the text of a court opinion are obiter dicta which are not rules for which that particular case stands.
The Supreme Court decision was purely based on technical grounds, to wit, the failure of the DAR to appeal the case on time. All other pronouncements in the previous Supreme Court decision, including the legal standing of the MAPALAD farmers, are merely obiter dictum.
Reclaim the 144-Hectare Agricultural Land to the Sumilao Farmers!
Hence, the Supreme Court decision does not affect the Sumilao farmers’ legal standing to file the present petition for cancellation. Significantly, they have a valid interest on the present petition being the farmer beneficiaries previously given CLOAs of the subject land. The cancellation of the Conversion Order will result in the reversion of the land to agricultural use which is coverable under CARP. In other words, the cancellation of the Conversion Order will redound to the benefit of the Sumilao farmers, as they will suffer the consequences if the Conversion Order will be upheld. The Sumilao farmers are the ultimate beneficiaries being the qualified beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law:
SEC. 22. Qualified Beneficiaries. - The lands covered by the CARP shall be distributed as much as possible to landless residents of the same barangay, or in the absence thereof, landless residents of the same municipality in the following order of priority:
(a) agricultural lessees and share tenants;
(b) regular farm workers;
(c) seasonal farm workers;
(d) other farm workers;
(e) actual tillers or occupants of public lands;
(f) collective or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries; and
(g) others directly working on the land.
(b) regular farm workers;
(c) seasonal farm workers;
(d) other farm workers;
(e) actual tillers or occupants of public lands;
(f) collective or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries; and
(g) others directly working on the land.
Provided, however, That the children of landowners who are qualified under Section 6 of this Act shall be given preference in the distribution of the land of their parents; and: Provided, further, that actual tenant-tillers in the landholding shall not be ejected or removed therefrom.
The fact that the 78 MAPALAD farmers have already acquired a 66 hectare land from the Carlos Estate does not negate their qualifications as farmer-beneficiaries because “landless residents” mean any person who do not own more than 3 hectares of land. In the case of the MAPALAD farmers, the ownership of each member ranges from .45 hectare to .90 hectare of land. Without doubt, they still qualify as farmer beneficiaries under the law. On the other hand, all the 90 SALFA members do not have any land of their own, hence, their qualification. Being the ultimate beneficiaries of the land in case of the cancellation of the Conversion Order, their legal standing to file the present petition is beyond doubt.
DAR has exclusive jurisdiction over the Petition
The Office of the Secretary of the DAR has the jurisdiction over the petition for cancellation or revocation of the conversion order, as provided in Section IX of DAR Administrative Order No. 1. Series of 1990, which states:
“Xxx The petition shall be filed with the Offices of the Secretary, the Undersecretary for Legal Affairs, or the Regional Director as the case may be, which shall decide upon the petition after due notice xxx.”
The above provision is in accordance with Section 50 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (RA 6657) which states:
“Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR.- The DAR is hereby vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matter involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
Indeed, DAR Secretary Pangandaman found that Quisumbing and/or SMFI has grossly violated the conditions in the approved application for conversion as shown in its Order dated 27 October 2006 which states:
“Records show that from the time that the said Order was affirmed by the Supreme Court on 25 August 1999 and up to the present, or for a period of more than five years, respondent, NQSRMDC failed to completely develop the property within the five year maximum period pursuant to the approved development plan on the application dated 29 March 1996 and neither was it able to file a request for extension to develop within the six (6) months before the expiration of the five-year period.
xxx
Further, on 06 February 2002, NQSRMDC sold the property to San Miguel Food Inc., as evidenced by TCT No. T- 80005 Malaybalay City 08 February 2002
As shown in the billboard posted in the area before the conduct of the ocular inspection, the successor company, San Miguel with its sister company, Monterey is planning to put up a project in the subject property which, is different from the authorized use of the subject application as stated in the approved Order of Conversion dated 29 March 1996.”
Despite the glaring violations that DAR Secretary Pangandaman himself has declared, he dismissed the petition for cancellation filed before his office for want of jurisdiction. The DAR Secretary insisted that the Conversion Order was issued by the Office of the President, hence, the DAR Secretary has no jurisdiction to revoke the Conversion Order. Apparently, DAR Secretary Pangandaman grossly failed to act and recognize his duties and responsibilities as stated in Section IX of DAR Administrative Order No. 1, s. 1990:
CANCELLATION OR WITHDRAWAL OF APPROVAL
The authorization for the land use conversion already issued by the Secretary, the Undersecretary for Legal Affairs, or the Regional Director as the case may be shall be withdrawn or cancelled, for any of the following grounds:
A. Misrepresentation or concealment of material facts in the application;
B. Failure to complete the land development of the area within the time frame specified in Section V, (F);
“VF. To prevent circumvention of coverage under the CARP, conversion shall be granted only upon evidence that the project to be established therein is visible and beneficial to the community affected and that the land development phase of the area can be completed within one (1) year after the issuance of the development permit where the area is five (5) hectares or less. Should the area exceed five hectares, an additional year shall be allowed for every five (5) hectares or a fraction thereof but in no cases shall the completion of development extend beyond five (5) years from the issuance of the development permit.”
C. Any other violations of the rules and regulations which are material to the grant of the conversion order;
The petition for cancellation or withdrawal of the conversion authority based on the grounds specified in A and C above-mentioned shall be filed by interested parties or the DAR motu proprio, within ninety (90) days from the issuance of the conversion order. The petition shall be filed with the Offices of the Secretary, the Undersecretary for Legal Affairs, or the Regional Director as the case may be, which shall decide upon the petition after due notice.
With respect to petitions, based on ground B above, the ninety (90) day period shall be reckoned from the date the one year requirement in Section V- (F) lapses;”
While it is true that it is the Office of the President which issued the approval of the Conversion Order, still, the DAR retains the power to cancel the same. Pertinent rules on conversion will bolster this conclusion. Section 33.12 of DAR A.O. 1, series of 1990 is determinative of this issue. It says, “The DAR reserves the right to revoke the Conversion Order upon valid grounds and after proper investigation.”
The acts of the department secretaries, performed and promulgated in the regular course of business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive, presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive. Given that it is the DAR Secretary which has the expertise and knowledge in implementing agrarian reform law, particularly the rules on conversion of agricultural lands, it unquestionably has the power to determine whether or not the conversion order may be revoked.
What rules apply to conversions approved by the President? In answering this query, we must not lose sight of the applicability of the “alter ego doctrine” or “doctrine of qualified political agency”. This doctrine states that, “Each head of a department is, and must be, the President’s alter ego in the matters of that department where the President is required by law to exercise authority”. The department secretaries are deemed advisers of the President and as such, the issuances of the secretaries are deemed to be those of the President. On the other hand, the orders of the President relevant to agrarian reform concerns are also deemed to have been issued by the DAR Secretary. There is no question then that the administrative rules on conversion apply to conversion orders approved by the Office of the President as well.
It is worth mentioning that the approval of the application for conversion was made not pursuant to an application for conversion at the first instance before the Office of the President but pursuant to an appeal of the denial of the application by the DAR Secretary. It should here be emphasized that then Secretary Garilao’s denial of the application for conversion was based on substantive legal grounds and was cognizant of the rights of the Sumilao farmers.
Considering that DAR Administrative Order No. 1, series of 2002, provides for similar approving authorities and procedure for appeal in the processing of applications for conversions and petitions for revocation, there is no reason why the DAR should not have taken jurisdiction over the matter. At this juncture, the incumbent DAR Secretary has the power to revisit, and reaffirm, Secretary Garilao’s Decision after verification of the compliance or the non-compliance with the conditions in the conversion order.
Petition pending before the Office of the President
The Sumilao farmers raised the petition for cancellation of the Conversion Order directly before the Office of the President since it is unable to obtain a favorable response from the DAR Secretary. The Sumilao farmers maintained that the DAR Secretary has exclusive jurisdiction over the petition, and that the DAR should have ordered the cancellation of the Conversion Order because of the violations.
Granting, but not accepting, that the Office of the President is the proper office to determine the petition, with more reason that it should immediately cancel the Conversion Order it previously approved since Quisumbing and/or SMFI has grossly violated the conditions thereof. The latter’s willful defiance of the Conversion Order has already been affirmed by the DAR Secretary in its order and by the OCI report, hence, the immediate cancellation of the Conversion Order is but logical and just.
For certain, the cancellation of the Conversion Order will bring hope and a sense of justice not only to the present families of the Sumilao farmers but also to their successor generations who really deserve to have a piece of land of their own.
Had the land been previously awarded to the Sumilao farmers, it would have been productive and earning income by now. Quisumbing in a sense was ironically right in his bias that distributing the land to the farmers does not guarantee such benefits because no benefits actually redounded to anyone. No benefit redounded to the farmers. Nor to the communities. Nor to the local government units. Nor to the government.
All that was attained was the circumvention, if not a sheer mockery, of agrarian reform laws and agrarian law implementors to evade coverage from CARP.
Reform and Extend the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)!
It has been 19 years since the enactment of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), yet, the fruits of agrarian reform remain to be seen, or to put it squarely, now mostly belongs to Cojuangco and his hogs.
The government has reported an accomplishment of a seemingly impressive 6.4 million hectares – or 79.4% of the target CARP scope of 8.1 million hectares from 1972 to 2005. However, the figures were computed in such a way as to falsely depict the true situation of agrarian reform in the country. The "accomplishments" include lands with registered CLOAs but which have not been turned over to tenants. There is double counting where collective CLOAs and the individual CLOAs are both tallied. In the most brazen cases, there are CLOA holders who still do not occupy the lands. In other instances, titles which have been distributed and accounted for as accomplishment are eventually cancelled.
On top of that, the government’s original target scope of 10.3 million hectares in 1988 was severely reduced in 1996 to 8.1 million hectares to accommodate large-scale exemptions and massive land conversions. More than 5.3 million hectares of land were exempted outright from CARP in 1996. The reductions in the scope of public land in turn accommodated vast tracts of government land leased or otherwise controlled by big landlords as cattle ranches, export crop plantations and logging concessions.
Taken as a whole, there are more than 10.2 million marginal farmers, tenants and farm workers, 70% of whom are still landless even at the closing stages of CARP.
The recent moves of President Arroyo and our legislators fail to clue us in on the President’s stance with respect to CARP and on whether or not Congress may give CARP another extension: CARP has been lumped with other asset reform programs of the government such as urban land and ancestral domain instead of the usual separate chapter in the recent Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP); the target for land acquisition and distribution (LAD) of private agricultural lands has been reduced to only 100,000 hectares per year; and the legal moves by Congress to stop CARP, to wit, exemptions of big prawn farms, fish ponds and aquaculture areas from CARP coverage, foreign investors' leasing of private lands for up to 75 years, and the proposed 25-year moratorium on CARP implementation in the Mindanao region.
This indicates the Arroyo administration’s abandonment of the Constitutional mandate on agrarian reform as provided in Section 4, Article XII of the Constitution, to wit:
The State shall, by law, undertaken an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing.
The struggle of the Sumilao farmers will be brought to naught unless the agrarian reform program will be extended beyond 2008 and a genuine implementation of land acquisition and distribution (LAD) will be had.
Recognize the need for a National Land
Corollary to the issue on the “expiration” of the CARP in 2008, the government seems to have no clear land use policy that ensures that agricultural lands are protected or exempted from conversion into other uses. The problem on massive land conversion is a serious problem for the government to deal with, especially with a growing population, perennial problem of food security and threat to the ecology.
As of the moment, the government has not come up with a national land use policy that it could effectively implement. This deficiency consequently results in land disputes. Farmers are complaining that their lands are being converted to industrial plants and subdivisions while land developers and landowners insist that such lands are no longer fit for agricultural production. The weaknesses in land use policy, administration and management, inconsistent land policies, inefficient land administration infrastructure, a highly politicized land tax system, inefficient agrarian reform and housing development programs are affecting the efficiency of land markets, and thus the country’s economic growth potential and equity.
At present, there are 19 agencies involved in land administration but their operations are not coordinated and information integration is poor. There is considerable overlap and fragmentation of institutional responsibilities among land agencies and there is no mechanism in place to resolve conflicting issues. Major land
In the case of the 144-hectare land, the same was illegally reclassified by the LGU of Sumilao to an agro-industrial property contrary to policy issuances prohibiting reclassification of prime agricultural lands, and in contravention of the power of conversion of the DAR Secretary. Unless and until a proper land use policy shall be enacted by Congress, the problem on massive conversions of agricultural land will continue.
Conclusion
The real issue in the case is the right of the Sumilao farmers to regain their long lost ancestral land. They have been robbed by unscrupulous landlords who have transformed their ancestral land into cattle ranches, pineapple plantations and now, piggery farms – the very same land on which the Higaonons perform their sacred rituals and prayer offerings to “Magbabaya”.
The 144-hectare ancestral land remains fertile though. Its rich soil awaits cultivation. Mt. Sayawan Mt. Palaopao Culaman River
In sum, the Sumilao farmers call the attention of Bukidnon Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer Julio Celestiano, DAR Regional Director John Maruhom, DAR Secretary Nasser Pangandaman and President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo through Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, and demand the following:
- Restore the Dignity of the Sumilao Farmers!
- Revoke the Conversion Order!
- Reclaim the Land!
- Reform and Extend CARP!
- Recognize the need for a
National Land
No comments:
Post a Comment