Land Misuse - Sumilao Farmers

Land Misuse in the Philippines – Sumilao Farmers

By Architect Merant B. De Vera,uap

August 5, 2011

The Higaonon were the early settlers of a portion of ancestral land in Bukidnon. The ancestral land served as the Seat of Government of the Higaonons where the traditional conflict resolution and rituals were conducted by the Higaonon tribal council lead by Apo Manuagay Anlicao and Apo Mangganiahon Anlicao. The ancestral land is a flat agricultural terrain situated in the middle of Sayawan and Palaopao, and where Kitanglad can be seen from afar. It was once coined as pinetreehon by the visitors due to the loads of pine trees all over the area and its cold temperature. Magbabaya gave this to the Higaonon communities. It was their fore parents’. Then

Then the Angeles came in forcibly evicting the the indigenous community and converted it into a cattle ranch. The land was later transferred to the Ilagans. The ancestral land was divided between 2 landowners: Salvador Carlos and Norberto Quisumbing through the Norberto Quisumbing Sr. Management and Development Corporation (NQSRMDC). The ancestral land was eventually leased to Del Monte Philippines, Inc. (DMPI) for 10 years until 1994. At that time, the Higaonons became farm workers of the land they once owned.

With the advent of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) in 1988, the ancestral land was covered for distribution to Mapadayonong Panaghiusa sa mga Lumad Alang sa Damlag (MAPALAD) farmers, all of Higaonon lineage. Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) was subsequently issued to them, hence, recognizing their ownership of the ancestral land which rightfully belong to them. What followed next was a controversial legal battle which sparked national interest involving the sad state of agrarian reform in the country

In an apparent move to get around the reform, Quisumbing connived with the Sanggunian Bayan of Sumilao which unlawfully passed “Resolution Converting the 144 has of Land Situated at San Vicente, Sumilao, owned by Norberto Quisumbing Sr.,Management and Development Corporation from Agricultural to Industrial Institutional Areas” which was subsequently affirmed by the Sanggunian Panlalawigan of Bukidnon, allowing the reclassification of the agricultural land to agro-industrial. Quisumbing further applied for conversion of the land from agricultural to agro-industrial before the DAR Secretary notwithstanding the fact that the 144 hectare land, as prime agricultural land, is non-negotiable for change. Quisumbing proudly presented its development plan known as the Bukidnon Agro-Industrial

Quisumbing further applied for conversion of the land from agricultural to agro-industrial before the DAR Secretary notwithstanding the fact that the 144 hectare land, as prime agricultural land, is non-negotiable for conversion. Quisumbing proudly presented its development plan otherwise known as the Bukidnon Agro-Industrial Development Association project which proposed the following areas Development Academy of Mindanao, Bukidnon Agro-Industrial Park, Forest Development and Support Facilities.

At the beginning, the conversion of the 144 hectare agricultural land to agro-industrial suffers from infirmity. The subject that must first be determined is whether or not the land is prime agricultural land and therefore exempt from conversion in accordance to DAR. The findings of fact of the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC), Provincial Agricultural Officer and the National Irrigation Authority (NIA), set that the area is an competent agricultural land whose land characteristics and qualities favor the growth of wide range of crops, and that the area is well irrigated. The PARC Report further found the following conditions of the 144 hectare land when it conducted the inspection in 1994:

·         The area is an efficient agricultural land. The land has to be preserved for agricultural purposes;

·         The soil of the areas is loamy soil and is rich with organic matter which is an indication that the soil is productive;

·         The land is within the Service Area of Kisolon Communal Irrigation System;

·         The areas has an existing water supply, with irrigation canals and has an Irrigation Association;

·         The property is included in the 300 hectare service area programmed by the NIA for irrigation.

It is undeniably a major agricultural land. Being such, it is nonnegotiable for conversion “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:All irrigated lands where water is available to support rice and other crop production;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;All irrigable lands already covered by irrigation.”

The basis for exempting irrigated or irrigable lands from conversion is due to 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 for the country to ensure its food supply.

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. 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)

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.

The ancestors of the Sumilao farmers have been working on the land since time immemorial. Even after they were forcibly evicted by unscrupulous landowners on their very own land, they worked as farm laborers under Quisumbing and later to 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 on the status of the 144 hectare land.

The previous Supreme Court decision which stated that the MAPALAD farmers do not have legal standing on 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 and essentially based on the legal points about which the parties in the case actually fight. 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 the opinion of the court. 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 which is coverable under CARP. In other words, the cancellation of the Conversion Order will redound to the benefit of the Sumilao farmers, whereas they will suffer the consequences of the Conversion Order will be upheld. The Sumilao farmers are the ultimate beneficiaries being the qualified beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law

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 and 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, an inefficient agrarian reform and housing development programs are affecting the efficiency of land markets, and thus the country’s economic growth potential and equity. In a study conducted by the Philippine Institute for Development Studies, 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 no mechanism in place to resolve conflicting issues. Major land administration laws are outdated and some are not in accord with recent land use legislation. The land administration infrastructure including the land information system is poor and inadequate. Information about landownership, location, boundaries, actual uses and land values cannot be provided systematically by many local governments. 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 pursue.