| ARTICLES / ESSAYS
Nov. 16-17 update:
Naga City Resolution No. 2007-347
The Sumilao farmers traversed a
total of 20 kilometers from the Municipality of Bula to Naga
City. Again the farmers continued walking despite heavy
rains. They were all soaked and wet because their raincoats were
already tattered. This hardship did not affect the marchers'
determination to reach the day's destination.
Donations from community folks are
still prevalent. The marchers received support in money and in
kind. Such overwhelming support were highly appreciated. It
certainly lifted the hearts of the farmers.
The Sumilao farmers were joined by
different like-minded groups in the day's walk. They were Lakas ng
Kababaihan, Naga City Peoples' Council LGU, SALIGAN, Coalition for Bicol
Development, Coca-Cola Workers' Union-Bicol Region, Casureco Fraternity
and Kumon.
The highlight of the day was when
the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Naga City unanimously approved Resolution
No. 2007-347, “Declaring Solidarity and Support to the Quest of Lumad
Farmers of Sumilao, Bukidnon to Recover Their Land.”
The message of the resolution was
that the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Naga City shares the same sentiments
as the Sumilao farmers and that there should be recognition of their
rights over their ancestral land. It was the LGU's reaffirmation of
their support to the Sumilao farmers' struggle to recover the land that is
legally and rightfully theirs.
At the end of the day, the farmers
rested with a smile on their faces and likewise hope that these supports
will soon be translated to a tangible government action distributing the
disputed 144-hectare land in Sumilao, Bukidnon to them.
17 November 2007
The following day, the Sumilao
Farmers started walking at around 4:35 a.m. negotiating the stretch of
Naga City to Sta. Rosa, Pasacao with 30 kilometers.
They had a stopover in the
Municipality of San Fernando, Camarines Sur to have a breakfast with Mayor
Fermin Mabolo. They were welcomed by the good mayor with a simple
meal that was prepared as a manifestation of his support to the
marchers.
They arrived in St. Rose Ublima,
Brgy. Sta. Rosa del Norte, Camarines Sur at around 2 p.m. They were
welcomed by the locals with a warm welcome party. The Sumilao farmers
got acquainted with the people who visited them. They got to know
Ragay and Limbanan Farmers, Bicol Christian Life Community, LGU of San
Fernando, DAR Province, Guardians Republicans, SALIGAN and Caseres Social
Action Foundation, Inc.
A small program was likewise
conducted where it was actively participated by the LGUs of San
Fernando. To educate the public, Rene Peñas delivered a short
message stressing the history of the Sumilao farmers' struggle. Rev.
Fr. Mike dela Rosa gave an inspiration message. He delved on the
struggle of the Sumilao farmers that as long as they are holding the
truth, justice will be served in their favor.
The short program was concluded
with a reflection from the farmers that what they are asking is the
144-hectare land that is legally theirs.
Revisiting the Sumilao Case:
Petitioners are the community residents and qualified agrarian reform
beneficiaries (ARBs) who are directly affected by the conversion
The petitioners in this case are
landless farmers, farmworkers, and community residents in San Vicente,
Sumilao, Bukidnon. Being such, they undoubtedly have a paramount
interest on the instant petition as they are the immediate community
residents who are directly affected by the conversion of the
land. Being such, they undoubtedly have a paramount interest on the
instant petition.
Further, the petitioner-farmers
being the landless residents of San Vicente, Sumilao, are the qualified
farmer 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:
- agricultural lessees and share
tenants;
- regular farmworkers;
- seasonal farmworkers;
- other farmworkers;
- actual tillers or occupants of
public lands;
- collective or cooperatives of
the above beneficiaries;
and
- others directly working on the
land.
It is also worth mentioning that
petitioners Paterno Tuminhay and Renato Peñas are the incumbent Barangay
Kagawads of San Vicente, Sumilao, Bukidnon, hence, they have the moral and
political obligation to be vigilant on matters affecting their
jurisdiction.
On this note, several DAR policy
issuances pertinent to protest to conversion of agricultural lands
recognize the legal standing of the community residents and landless
farmers on the matter:
a. DAR Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1990
Article VIII. "Protest
or opposition against the application for conversion may be applied by any
person who may be displaced with the Provincial Agrarian Reform
Adjudicator (PARAD) xxx"
b. DAR Administrative Order No. 12, series of 1994
Article XIV. "The
Regional CLUPPI shall evaluate written protest filed by any person who
may be displaced or affected by the proposed land use conversion"
c. DAR Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1999
Article IV. Section
18. Who May File. – Any person who will be displaced or directly
affected by the proposed land use conversion such as occupants, tenants,
farmworkers, identified beneficiaries, bona fide residents of adjoining
properties or communities may file a written protest against the
application for conversion xxx Provided, that in case the protestant
or oppositor is an identified beneficiary under the agrarian reform
program of the land applied for and who failed to file a written protest
within the said period due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
neglect, he shall have the right to intervene at any time during the
pendency of the application.
d. DAR Administrative Order No. 1, series of 2004
Section 16. Protest. Persons
affected by the proposed land use conversion, such as identified
beneficiaries, farmers, agricultural lessees, share tenants, actual
tillers, occupants or residents of adjoining properties or communities,
may file a written protest xxx. An oppositor who is an identified
Agrarian Reform Beneficiary (ARB) of the land applied for conversion, and
who failed to file a written protest within the period due to FISTS, may
intervene at any time during the pendency of the application
Although the above-cited provisions
refer to the legal standing of identified beneficiaries, farmers,
agricultural lessees, share tenants, actual tillers, occupants or
residents of adjoining properties or communities to protest to
applications for conversion of agricultural lands, the same principle
applies to petitions for cancellation of approved conversion orders.
The present petition for
cancellation of the conversion order is synonymous to a protest by the
community residents and landless farmers themselves who were directly
affected by the failure of NQSRMDC and its successor-in-interest
SMFI to comply with the conditions of the conversion order to the great
detriment of the community residents and landless farmers who could have
benefited from the land which remained idle and uncultivated for 10 years.
The fact the SMFI plans to illegally
transform the whole 144-hectare property into a piggery farm right in the
midst of the farmers' residents, in violation of the authorized
development plan in the conversion order, raises immediate concern to the
petitioners. The active participation of the actual residents and the
landless farmers in filing the instant petition, as they are the ones who
are directly affected thereby, confirms their legal standing to petition
its cancellation.
The petitioners also bring the
instant petition under the doctrine of intergenerational responsibility
as enunciated in the case of Oposa vs. Factoran. Essentially, the
principle means that we hold the natural resource treasures of the Earth
in trust for the benefit, enjoyment and use of the generations of
humankind yet to come. Petitioners herein, as the actual residents
and qualified farmer-beneficiaries of the 144-hectare land, represent not
only themselves but also future generations who are directly affected by
NQSRMDC and SMFI's illegal conversion of the land, and who are the future
beneficiaries thereof.
Furthermore, the effect of granting
the petition for revocation of the conversion order is the reversion
of the land to the status of agricultural lands and shall be subject to
CARP coverage as circumstances may warrant. The petitioners and their
future generations will be the beneficiaries of the subject land's CARP
coverage under Section 22 of RA 6657. 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 and their future generations, otherwise,
they will suffer the consequences if the Conversion Order will be upheld.
|