|
THE timing
couldn’t have been more ironic. As economists and analysts
in and out of government kept the bullish tone about the
real-estate sector continuing to hold its own despite the
fallout from the US subprime fiasco, the food-commodities
“crisis” erupted, triggering a slew of panicky—albeit some
were well-grounded—reactions and suggestions.
As a
tightening rice supply market sent prices rising and
squeezed the Philippines, now among the world’s top rice
importers, related problems of the government neglect of
agriculture and the rice farming sector, specifically,
came to the fore.
One such
reaction surfaced just as the debate over extending the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) was breaking.
One policy reaction of the government was to impose a
freeze on all land conversions, painted as a key villain
in the shrinking of prime farmlands the past two decades—a
development that in turn was blamed for declining
production and the increasing reliance on imported rice. A
debate that, by itself, could not, however, be treated
that simplistically.
The
controversial agrarian reform program, the almost 20-year
implementation of which was marred by legal dispute and,
often, violence and bloodshed, is due to end on
June 17, 2007.
The food
vs development debate, however, focuses more closely on
the issue of land conversion, and the inherent right of
landowners against the right of agrarian reform
beneficiaries under CARP.
The rice
ruckus has prompted policymakers to take a second look at
the policy of allowing the conversion of agricultural land
supposedly covered by CARP and subject of land acquisition
and distribution—including areas devoted to rice. The
practice has been going on for years since CARP was
implemented in 1998.
At the
center of the controversies is the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR), the lead implementing agency, now caught in
the crossfire between the landowners and farmer claimants.
Lately,
real-estate developers have joined the fray, fighting side
by side with landowners against a DAR order imposing a
moratorium on land conversion.
No to land
conversion
Agrarian-reform advocates, even those claiming to support
the program, have long protested land conversion, which
they call a serious flaw of CARP, because it exempts
privately-owned agricultural land from the
program. Needless to say, land conversion is the
landowners’ ticket out of CARP. Most of the land-use
conversions took place during CARP’s 20-year
implementation, all of them approved by the DAR.
Allegations of graft have also been raised by
agrarian-reform advocates, taking up the cudgels for the
landless farmers and tenants who ended up losing their
CARP-promised piece of land in the process of land
conversion.
Land-use
conversion is also another way out where agricultural
lands that have already been distributed are suddenly
found to be, according to local land-use plans or zoning
ordinances, for residential, commercial or industrial
use—hence CARP-exempt, says Sonny Africa, a researcher of
the local think-tank Ibon Foundation.
Rice
fields no more
In what
used to be—some even irrigated—rice fields, now stand big
subdivisions, malls, commercial malls, wet markets,
resorts, hotels, condominiums, golf courses, warehouses,
factories, industry plantations and even government
buildings because of land conversion.
Not even
Central Luzon, the country’s top rice producer, is spared
from the massive land conversion largely because farmers
no longer see rice farming profitable.
Now you
have it, now you don’t
Even
farmers already holding the certificate of transfer of
land (CTL) and certificate of land ownership awards (CLOAs)
are still threatened by land conversion.
In 1993
anti-CARP groups led by the fisherfolk alliance Pambansang
Lakas ng Kilusang Mamamalakaya ng Pilipinas (Pamalakaya),
the Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP) and the Sentro
Para sa Tunay na Repormang Agraryo (Sentra) held a
preliminary assessment of CARP from 1988 to 1993, and one
of the striking results of the program was revealed—a
total of 10,958 certificate of land transfers (CLTs),
9,133 EPs and 2,303 Certificate of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs)
were cancelled by DAR covering 32,041 hectares of prime
agricultural lands affecting over 22,000 CARP
beneficiaries.
Most of
the CLOA holders have appealed their case before DAR and
hope a favorable decision will eventually give back their
promised land.
Pamalakaya
cited at least seven big cases in Southern Tagalog, where
CARP beneficiaries including fishermen were eased out of
their farmlands to give way to land-use conversion
projects undertaken by big landlords, private developers
and the government.
Social
justice
Landless
farmers have been pinning their hope on agrarian reform,
with some even batting for a more progressive program of
distributing land for free—to help improve the lives of
farmers. For them, the equal distribution of the country’s
natural resources – specifically land as promised by CARP—
should be a continuing social justice program to ensure
peace and security.
Peasant
leader Jaime Tadeo said despite its failure, the
implementation of the program—ensuring that land
distributed by the government to the farmers stays with
the farmers—coupled with various support services provided
by the government—is the only way for farmers to improve
their lives.
Moratorium
‘temporary’
Taking
into account the seriousness of the diminishing land
devoted for food production vis-à-vis the government’s
food security targets, including becoming rice-self
sufficient by 2010, Agrarian Reform Secretary Nasser
Pangandaman has issued a moratorium on land conversion,
temporarily suspending the processing and approval of all
conversion applications.
A
Malacañang order subsequently prohibited the conversion of
agricultural lands—specifically areas devoted to rice for
two years.
While
agrarian reform advocates view these moves positively,
adversely affected sectors feel DAR’s order is unlawful,
even unconstitutional, as the moratorium on land
conversion is way beyond the agency’s mandate and
authority.
Enter the
Creba
The
Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Association (Creba),
for one, has asked the Regional Trial Court in
Quezon City
to stop DAR from implementing the conversion ban and other
“oppressive” rules “that go beyond its authority and
violate the Constitution and other laws.”
The
petition filed by Creba president Reghis Romero II accused
the DAR with usurpation of legislative powers and abuse of
authority.
DAR chief
Pangandaman brushed aside the complaint, saying Creba is
merely sour-graping.
He said
the moratorium is temporary and DAR needs to review
existing policy, which was meant to prevent possible
supply shortage because of poor production.
However,
Creba insists that in freezing conversions, Pangandaman
allegedly expanded CARP’s coverage to include lands
specifically exempted or excluded from the program under
Republic Act 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
(CARL).
Creba
claimed Pangandaman disregarded and dispensed with the
criteria and conditions prescribed by Congress for
conversion, and promulgated its own prohibitive set of
conditions that virtually precludes the nonagricultural
use of land; imposed a total ban on the conversion and
reclassification of irrigated and irrigable lands;
restricted the conversion and reclassification of all
other lands not covered by its conversion ban; declared
that only those lands reclassified prior to the
effectivity of RA 6657 are CARP-exempt, but nonetheless
includes these lands within the scope of the conversion
ban and restrictions, even as it requires that exemption
clearance still be secured for these exempt lands under
conditions that negate the exemption granted by the law
itself.
DAR’s
authority over the conversion of lands, according to Creba,
is limited only to those that have been awarded and titled
in the names of the beneficiaries of Republic Act 6657.
The DAR’s
rules on conversion, however, allegedly cover “practically
all lands, whether or not covered by agrarian reform,” and
include those reclassified by Congress or by the
legislative bodies of local governments.
The DAR,
Romero said, has been generating huge revenues from
applications for land conversions, the payment of which is
computed per square meter.
“With such
requirement covering virtually all lands, including those
already reclassified for nonagricultural uses, DAR has
effectively empowered itself to exercise control over the
nation’s use of privately-owned land resources,” the Creba
complaint said.
The
petition stresses that “nowhere in the laws it is provided
that the DAR was created, or is authorized, to promulgate
or implement national land-use policy.”
The
national land-use policy is governed by constitutional
guarantees on equitable allocation of land resources for
food, shelter, environment and other basic needs, Creba
argued.
“The
implementation of all these land-use laws is not entirely
or solely lodged with the DAR, such as to give it
jurisdiction over all other lands not covered by agrarian
reform,” Creba asserted.
According
to Creba, when DAR requires its prior approval for
converting the use of practically any land, even outside
those covered by agrarian reform, “it foists upon the
nation the legal abomination of the Executive encroaching
on the Legislative, in violation of the principle of
separation of powers.” | 
