BMFI

Nov. 27 update:
Even Typhoon Mina Veered Away and Spared the Marchers from Destruction of its Fury

As fate would have it, Typhoon Mina spared the Sumilao farmers from its fury.

The Sumilao farmers were in Gumaca, Quezon Province when Typhoon Mina brought massive destruction in areas where it passed. The 26 November 2007 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer reported that Typhoon Mina displaced hundreds of families, triggered power outages, and downed communication lines.

The Sumilao farmers were still in Sta. Elena, Camarines Norte when they heard the news that super typhoon Mina will hit the province of Quezon. In order to escape the forecasted damage of Mina, the farmers forced themselves to walk 52 kilometers from Sta. Elena to Gumaca. They decided to stay in Gumaca for another day because they were strongly advised not to proceed to Malinao, Ilaya, Atimonan, Quezon.

Fortunately, typhoon Mina veered away from its expected course, and moved out of the country. The farmers attributed their being spared from Mina by the guidance of Magbabaya.

"Before we started our walk in Luzon, we asked that Magbabaya will bless our walk in Luzon, protect us from sickness and calamities, and that our spirit will forever remain strong," said Roger Anlicao, one of the Sumilao farmers.

But the Sumilao farmers have yet to face the effects of tropical storm Lando, which according to the same PDI article, will reenter the country, and would hit Mindoro Island, the Bondoc Peninsula, the Sourther portion of Quezon Province and Camarines Norte.

For now, however, the weather is better, and allows the Sumilao farmers to continue with their walk.

"The weather is good for us now, but whatever happens on our way to Malacanang, we are prepared to face all circumstances that await us," said marcher Joey Racasa.

On 25 November 2007, as early as 4 a.m., the Sumilao farmers started to walk again for another 33 kilometers negotiating the whole stretch from Gumaca to Atimonan. They arrived in their destination around 4 p.m.

The following day, they woke up at 2:30 a.m. and an hour after their morning rituals, they started traversing the road from the municipality of Atimonan to Lucena City, the regional center of the province.

PAKISAMA's version of Umalokohan (barker) was set up to introduce the Sumilao farmers to the public and to discuss and explain the Walk for Sumilao Land, Walk for Justice Campaign.

Approximately 400 supporters round up the Sumilao farmers when the marchers reached the boundary of Municipality of Pagbilao and Lucena City. Streamers bearing calls and support for the Sumilao farmers were displayed.

When the marchers were approaching said area, stream of applause and warm welcome echoed along the road. After which, a short and moving program was organized by PAKISAMA which was headed by Ka Cita. As speakers from the Sumilao farmers explained their plights and discussed the rationale of their 60-day walk from Bukidnon to Manila, support groups responded with their respective solidarity messages.

Some of the support groups that were known to the Sumilao farmers particularly during their Quezon province leg include: MAMAMAYAN, Kilusang Mangingisda (KM), BINHI, Kilusang Magbubukid ng Bondoc Peninsula, Quezon Association for Rural Development and Democratization Services, inc., Kalipunan ng mga Magsasaka at Mangagawa sa Niyugan ng Gitnang Quezon, UGNAYAN, Alay Kapwa Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Municipal Organization of UGMA-PAKISAMA, Mangingisda at Magsasaka ng Unisan at Agdangan, SAMALO, SAMACA, KAMALAYAN, SAMANA, Akbayan Quezon, Tanggol Kalikasan, Samahan ng mga Magsasaka sa Kanlurang Tayabas (SAMAKATA), Pinag-isang Tinig ng mga Magsasaka (PINTIG), Katuparang para sa Tunay na REpormang Agraryo (KATUPRAN), KAISAHAN, SALIGAN, LGU of Lucena City and Province, LGU of Malinao Ilaya, Atimonan, Quezon, PNP National and local, Bureau of Fire Protection, Samahan ng Maliliit na Magsasaka sa F. de Jesus, Ugnayan Sariaya, DSWD Region IV and local, Philippine Red Cross and Hermana Fausta IP's in Tayabas, Quezon.

The Katutubo of Tayabas, Quezon even offered a gift to the farmers as a symbol of their support. Likewise, local media joined the marchers as they walked from Malinao to Lucena City.

They arrived at Punzalan Gym in Lucena City at around 3 p.m.

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:

(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.

It is also worth mentioning that petitioners Paterno Tuminhay and Renato Penas are 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. 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"

e.) DAR Administrative Order No 1, series of 2002

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 that SMFI plans to illegally transform the whole 144-hectare property into a piggery farm right in the midst of the farmers' residences, 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. Facturan. 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 their 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.

Hence, their legal standing is beyond doubt.

Note: Please feel free to send your suggestions and comments to balaodmindanaw@gmail.com.