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.
