Wednesday, February 20, 2019

MAMBABATAS NA MAMBUBUTAS! Si Senator Cynthia Villar at Ang Mga Magsasakang Pilipino (by ENIGMA)

Kailangan Bang Lumabag Sa Batas Ang Mga Mambabatas Kahit Sila Ang Gumagawa Ng Batas?

               Noong Enero 9, 2017 isang balita ang nailathala sa pahayagang Philippine DailyInquirer (PDI) na nagtatanong kung nasaan ang 2.4M na ektarya ng lupaing nawawala sa datos ng Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA). Nagtatanong ang sumulat nito kung saan napunta ang mga nawawalang napakalawak na ektarya ng lupaing sakahan sa bansa.  Batay sa ulat, isa sa pinakamalaking nawalan ng sakahang lupain ay ang Kanlurang Bisayas, panlima sa pinakamalaking kawalan ng lupaing sakahan sa bansa na ang nangunguna dito ay ang Gitnang Bisayas, Silangang Bisayas, ARMM at Kanlurang Mindanao.  Kung ating titingnan, ang mga lugar na nangungunang nawalan ng malalawak na lupaing sakahan, ito ay mga lugar na napakaprogresibo sa ating bansa.  Hindi nasagot sa balitang iyon kung saan napunta ang nawawalang mga sakahan at hindi rin nailagay  ng Philippine Statistics Authority kung nasaan. 

               Ang usaping sakahan  ay saklaw ng batas sa Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) at Department of Agriculture (DA) na napaloob sa RA 6657 o CARP (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program) na inamyendahan ng RA 9700 o CARL (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law). DIto nakapaloob ang mga batas alinsunod sa “Land Use Conversion” na syang totoong sanhi ng pagkawala ng milyon-milyong ektaryang sakahan sa bansa.  Batay sa probisyon ng RA 6657 at RA 9700, sa Sec. 73 at 74 ay napaloob ang sumusunod:

"SEC. 73.     Prohibited Acts and Omissions. — The following are prohibited:

"(a)   The ownership or possession, for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Act, of agricultural lands in excess of the total retention limits or award ceilings by any person, natural or juridical, except those under collective ownership by farmer-beneficiaries;
"(b)   The forcible entry or illegal detainer by persons who are not qualified beneficiaries under this Act to avail themselves of the rights and benefits of the Agrarian Reform Program;
"(c)   Any conversion by any landowner of his/her agricultural land into any non-agricultural use with intent to avoid the application of this Act to his/her landholdings and to dispossess his/her bonafide tenant farmers;  
"(d)   The malicious and willful prevention or obstruction by any person, association or entity of the implementation of the CARP;
"(e)   The sale, transfer, conveyance or change of the nature of lands outside of urban centers and city limits either in whole or in part after the effectivity of this Act, except after final completion of the appropriate conversion under Section 65 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended. The date of the registration of the deed of conveyance in the Register of Deeds with respect to titled lands and the date of the issuance of the tax declaration to the transferee of the property with respect to unregistered lands, as the case may be, shall be conclusive for the purpose of this Act;
"(f)    The sale, transfer or conveyance by a beneficiary of the right to use or any other usufructuary right over the land he/she acquired by virtue of being a beneficiary, in order to circumvent the provisions of this Act;    
(g)   The unjustified, willful, and malicious act by a responsible officer or officers of the government through the following: "(1)   The denial of notice and/or reply to landowners;
"(2)   The deprivation of retention rights;
"(3)   The undue or inordinate delay in the preparation of claim folders; or
"(4)   Any undue delay, refusal or failure in the payment of just compensation;  
"(h)   The undue delay or unjustified failure of the DAR, the LBP, the PARC, the PARCCOM, and any concerned government agency or any government official or employee to submit the required report, data and/or other official document involving the implementation of the provisions of this Act, as required by the parties or the government, including the House of Representatives and the Senate of the Philippines as well as their respective committees, and the congressional oversight committee created herein;
"(i)    The undue delay in the compliance with the obligation to certify or attest and/or falsification of the certification or attestation as required under Section 7 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended; and
"(j)    Any other culpable neglect or willful violations of the provisions of this Act.   
"In the case of government officials and employees, a conviction under this Act is without prejudice to any civil case and/or appropriate administrative proceedings under civil service law, rules and regulations.
"Any person convicted under this Act shall not be entitled to any benefit provided for in any agrarian reform law or program."
SECTION 25.  Section 74 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 74.     Penalties. — Any person who knowingly or willfully violates the provisions of this Act shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than one (1) month to not more than three (3) years or a fine of not less than One thousand pesos (P1,000.00) and not more than Fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000.00), or both, at the discretion of the court: Provided, That the following corresponding penalties shall be imposed for the specific violations hereunder:  

"(a)   Imprisonment of three (3) years and one (1) day to six (6) years or a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) and not more than One hundred fifty thousand pesos (P150,000.00), or both, at the discretion of the court upon any person who violates Section 73, subparagraphs (a), (b), (f), (g), and (h) of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended; and
"(b)   Imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years or a fine of not less than Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) and not more than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00), or both, at the discretion of the court upon any person who violates Section 73, subparagraphs (c), (d), (e), and (i) of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended.
"If the offender is a corporation or association, the officer responsible therefor shall be criminally liable."  

Ito ang dalawang probisyon na pinagbabasehan  sa kaso ng Illegal Land Use Conversion.  Ito ang nalalabag at linalabag ng kung sino man ang gumawa ng iligal na “pagpalit ng paggamit ng lupain” (Land use) sa bansa.

               Isa sa pinakamalaking kawalan sa paggamit ng mga sakahang lupain ay ang tahasang pagpalit ng paggamit nito sa Residential/Commercial na  gamit.  Ang Land Use Conversion ng bansa ay may sariling IRR  galing sa RA 6657 at RA 9700.  Pansinin na ang IRR na to ay katuwang ng ilang departamento ng gobyerno na dapat magtulong tulong sa pagpatupad nito. Ehemplo ang mga masunod na batas: 


SECTION 4. Scope and Limitations
4.1 Cities and Municipalities qualified to apply for reclassification are those with Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUPs) approved by HLRB or the Sangguniang Panlalawigan after 01 January 1989;
4.2 Cities and Municipalities with CLUP's not falling within the above mentioned categories, must update their CLUP's incorporating proposals for reclassification;
 4.3 Agricultural lands may only be reclassified as stated in Sections 1 (b) (1) and (2) of Memorandum Circular 54, to wit:
"(b) Agricultural lands may be reclassified in the following cases:
(1) when the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes as certified by the Regional Director of the Department of Agriculture (DA), in accordance with the standards and guidelines prescribed for the purpose; or
(2) where the locality has become highly urbanized and where the land will have greater economic value for residential, commercial or industrial purposes as certified by the local government unit concerned. The city/municipality concerned should notify the DA, HLRB, DTI, DOT and other concerned agencies on the proposed reclassification of agricultural lands furnishing them copies of the report of the local development council including the draft ordinance on the matter for their comments, proposals and recommendations within seven (7) days upon receipt.”
4.4 Agricultural lands that may not be reclassified are as follows:
a. Agricultural lands distributed to agrarian reform beneficiaries;
 b. Agricultural lands already issued a notice of coverage or voluntarily offered for coverage under CARP; and
c. Agricultural lands identified under AO 20, s. of 1992 as non-negotiable for conversion.

Ano ba ang AO 20 s. 1992?
Office of the President of the Philippines

WHEREAS, R.A. No. 6657, otherwise known as the “Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law” (CARL), implements the policy of the State to promote comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform;
WHEREAS, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), the agency tasked to implement the CARL, is authorized by law (Title XI, Book IV E.O. No. 292, Series of 1987) to approve or disapprove conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses such as residential and industrial conversions in accordance with law;
WHEREAS, Section 20 (a) R.A. No. 7160, otherwise known as the “Local Government Code of 1992”, empowers local government units (LGUs) to reclassify agricultural lands in cases
(1) where the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes as determined by the Department of Agriculture or
(2) where the land shall have substantially greater economic value for residential, commercial, or industrial uses as determined by the sanggunian concerned;
WHEREAS, Section 20 (c) of the Code also provides that the requirements for food production human settlements, and industrial expansion shall be taken into consideration in preparing plans for future use of land resource;
WHEREAS, pending adoption of comprehensive guidelines on land conversion to implement Section 20 of the Code, it is deemed necessary to promulgate interim guidelines on agricultural land conversion based on existing guidelines adopted in accordance with law;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FIDEL V. RAMOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law do hereby direct the observance by all agencies and LGUs concerned of the following interim guidelines on agricultural land use conversion:
1. All agricultural lands classified hereunder shall not be subject to and non-negotiable for conversion:
 (a) All irrigated lands where water is available to support rice and other crop production, and all irrigated lands where water is not available for rice and other crop production but are within areas programmed for irrigation facility rehabilitation by the Department of Agriculture (DA) and National Irrigation Administration (NIA); and
(b) All irrigable lands already covered by irrigation projects with firm funding commitments at the time of the application for land use conversion.
 2. All agricultural lands other than those referred hereunder as non-negotiable for conversion may be converted only upon strict compliance with existing laws, rules and regulations.
This Administrative Order shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in a newspaper of general circulation. Done in the City of Manila, this 7th day of December, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and ninety-two.
(Sgd.) FIDEL V. RAMOS President of the Philippines

B. Governing Policies

 1. The following areas shall not be subject to or non-negotiable for conversion:
 a. Protected areas designated under the National Integrated Protected Areas (NIPAS), including watershed and recharge areas of aquifers, as determined by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), pursuant to RA 7586 (1992);
b. All irrigated lands, as delineated by the Department of Agriculture (DA) and/or the National Irrigation Administration (NIA) and approved by the President, where water is available to support rice and other crop production, and all irrigated lands where water is not available for rice and other crop production but are within areas programmed for irrigation facility rehabilitation by the DA and the NIA, pursuant to Presidential Administrative Order 20 (1992); and
 c. All irrigable lands already covered by irrigation projects with firm funding commitments, as delineated by the DA and/or NIA and approved by the President.
For this purpose, the Network of Protected Areas for Agriculture (as of 1991), as determined by the DA and/or NIA shall serve as guide in determining non-negotiable areas. The Network may only be revised upon the approval of the President, upon favorable recommendation by the Cabinet Cluster on Agro-Industrial Development. In all cases, applications for conversion involving lands protected from and non-negotiable for conversion shall not be given due course by the DAR.

               Ngunit sa lahat ng ito, nakaligtaan ng mga nasa tungkulin ang usapin ng “non-negotiability clause” sa mga naturang IRR’s.  Palagi ang usapin ng illegal conversion ay napunta sa usapin na may aplikasyon na sila for conversion ngunit hindi pa ito naaprubahan.  Ito ay paglabag lang sa probisyon ng RA 6657 at RA 9700 Secs. 73 at 74 o tinatawag na “Illegal/Premature Conversion”. Binale wala ang usaping nakapaloob sa MC 54 Sec. 4.4, a, b, c; AO 20; AO 363 Sec. B.1.a, b c. at ng iba pa lalo na ang AO1 S 2002 na siyang pinaka Bibliya ng Land Use Conversion.  Malinaw na nasaad na ang mga lupaing agrikultural na irigado at maaaring maging irigado (alluvial plains) ay hindi pwedeng galawin ayon sa batas.  Bakit ginalaw at nilabag? Bakit walang naparusahan?  Napakahabang usapan ngunit hindi maitatanggi na ang mga departamentong may tungkulin sa pag-“monitor” ng Illegal Land Use Conversion ay may malaking problema.  Sila ay nakapikit  mata at tahasang nagbulag-bulagan na huwag ipatupad ang batas.  Tanto nyo ba kung bakit nagsusulputan ang mga magagara at malalaking “residential subdivisions” ng mga AYALA, MEGAWORLD, STA LUCIA, at ang pinakamarami sa lahat, ang mga subdibisyon ng mga Villars sa mga lugar na sakahan ng bayan?  Mga ibat-bang pangalan, ibat-ibang taong nakapalagay ngunit pag ni research mo, mabibigla  ka na lang na lahat may koneksyon!  Libo-libong ektarya ng mga irigadong sakahan na tahasang sinisira at ginagawang pabahayan na wala man lang ni katiting na “Conversion Order” galing sa DAR.  At halos lahat ng mga ito ay may bahid ng pamilya Villar. Bibilhin ng sapilitan sa murang halaga at ibebenta ng mahigit isang milyon ang halos 24 metro kuadrada.  Binili nila ng mababa pa sa tatlong milyon ang ektarya at ibebenta ng 125 milyon?  Ito ay sa kwentahang 40 metros kuadrados ang isang yunit at sasabihin na natin na 5,000 metros kuadrados lang ang gagamitin nila, hindi ang buong 10,000 metros kuadrados sa isang ektarya.  Kung ang isang yunit ay nagkakahalaga ng isang milyon na pinakamura nilang binebenta, sila ay tutubo ng mas o menos 120 milyon sa isang ektarya!  Isipin nyo kung ilang libong ektarya na ang kanilang nakuha ng iligal at hindi ka na magtataka kung bakit hinahabol na ng mga Villar si Henry Sy sa pinakamayamang tao dito sa bansa.

               Hindi ba alam ni Senadora Villar na marami silang nilalabag na batas? Hindi ba sya ang nakaupo na Chairman sa Committee on Agriculture sa Senado?  Hindi ba kaipokritohan ang sitwasyon na to?  Maraming mga ahensya ang nireklamuhan ng mga magsasaka na may katungkulan sa ganitong mga usapin: NIA, HLURB, DENR,DA, DAR, DILG at DPWH.  Ang unang maririnig pag nagreklamo ang magsasaka ay “mahirap kumontra dyan, kay Villar kasi yan”, “done deal na yan”, “wala na kayong magawa”, “ at iba pang mga katuwiran.  May mga ahensya pa ng gobyerno na nagsasabing ayaw nilang mag-apruba ng mga papeles na kinakailangan ngunit sila ay tinatawagan daw ng tao sa Malakanyang.  Sino kaya ang tumatawag doon?  Hindi kami naniniwala na ang Pangulo ang tumatawag sa kanila. Kaya maraming ahensya ang nagbubulag-bulagan lang. Ngunit kahit kay Villar pa ang mga malalaking subdibisyon na to, pwede ba naman na kahit may nilabag na batas ay OK lang, magsasawalang kibo lang? Ganun na lang nila tratuhin ang paglabag sa batas ng mga malalaking politiko at mayayamang tao sa bansa?  Ang RA 386 o “The Civil Code of the Philippines” ay nagsasaad sa Sec. 3. Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith. Exempted ba ang mga Villars sa batas dahil si Sen. Cynthia ay nakaupo sa Senado at si Mark na kanyang anak ay Sekretaryo ng DPWH?  Ganun na lang ba ang trato natin sa batas ng bansa, iba ang para sa mayaman na politiko at iba din sa mga mahihirap na tao?  Kultura na ito ng “impunity”, papayag na lang ba tayo ng ganito? 
               Nananawagan kaming mga magsasaka na sanay magkaroon man lang ng kahit kaunting hiya at konsensya si Senadora Villar at kanyang pamilya at iregalo na lang nya sana ang mga lupaing iyan sa mga magsasaka ng bansa, kung totoong may malasakit sya sa magsasakang Pilipino gaya ng pinapakita at sinasabi nya sa medya.  Ito ay maselan na usapin sa seguridad ng pagkain sa bansa na lalo na ngayong panahon na tayo ay nagdedepende lamang sa importasyon para makakain tayo ng bigas. Sila ngayon ang may pinakamalaking paglabag sa batas ng agrikultura sa bansa.  Sila ang isa sa pinakamalaking dahilan ng pagkasira at pagkawala ng malawak na lupaing pang-agrikultura sa bansa. Sila dapat managot sa batas sa mga kasalanang ito. Ito ay napakaseryosong abuso sa poder at pagtraydor sa pagtitiwala ng mga mamamayang Pilipino.

Pictures of Impunity

A road is constructed illegally by Camella Homes on a contested farmland In Iloilo.

This is the farmland beside that road above. 

The provincial Task Force in action in one of the contested farmlands link to the Villars in Iloilo.

The Provincial Task Force in one of their OSI (Ocular Sight Inspection) related to the above picture.

A tale of impunity and destruction in the Iloilo farmlands.

A Riceland beside the Vista Mall in Iloilo.

A road constructed beside Vista Mall in Iloilo, formerly a fertile farmland.



No comments:

Post a Comment