BY ERWIN ‘AMBO’ DELILAN
THE RUCKUS between Victorias Milling Company (VMC) and the people in Barangay Purisima, Manapla, Negros Occidental is steadily escalating.
VMC distillery expansion with perimeter fence construction caused the newest upheaval.
The youths in the village are now joining the fray. They carry placards big and small bearing demands for VMC to stop its distillery operations as soon as possible.
They’re also chanting,“Baho kag hilo sa Purisima, dula-on na. VMC Distillery, tapna-on na.”
People claim air and water pollution by VMC distillery in Purisima worsened and is no longer bearable.
“Our health…our life are at stake here,” they tell the media.
For them, it’s also time to amplify their grievances against VMC and to call attention of local officials.
“As if we’re neglected, we’re abandoned and no one want to listen to us,” they lament. “Guv, help us!”
Simple appeal but heartbreaking to hear!
The governor, they say, remains “elusive” to the “warring story” in Purisima.
I called him, but he could not be reached (as of this writing).
Manapla’s Mayor Manolet Escalante, on the other hand, admits to being “physically tired” with this, which he terms as a never-ending uproar.
But who’ll settle this matter for the sake of peace in Purisima?
Will the governor and the mayor let this turn into a “bloody” confrontation?
I think it’s high time for our local executives to use their “brain cells” than let their “unconsciousness” on the issue complicate the tension.
Board Member (BM) Andrew Montelibano, chair of the committee on environment in the Provincial Board, seems to be oblivious, too, on the pollution issue in Purisima.
By all means, BM Andrew really needs to address the conflict. He is bound to apprise Negrenses that he’s capable to handle pollution matter(s) to prove that his title as an environment czar in the province is not just “for nothing”.
NOT YET OVER
Meanwhile, Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs) in Purisima nixed Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) Teresita Mabunay for allegedly being partial in favor of VMC.
Mabunay’s pronouncement that the latter remains the rightful owner of the 106 hectares contested landholdings in the village came as a “shocking” and “pulsating” sound for ARBs’ ears.
“The fight is not yet over!” declared the ARBs.
They said the Bureau of Agrarian Reform Assistance’s (BALA) Certificate of Finality (CoF) dated Feb. 18, 2020 is vague and unacceptable in the Registry of Deeds (ROD) in the province.
The contested property still remains under the name of the Republic of the Philippines, the ROD-NegOcc documents revealed, thus, they’re still asserting their rights over there.
DAR (Department of Agrarian Reform) thru the Land Registration Authority (LRA) had successfully transferred the land title from VMC to the Republic of the Philippines in 2013.
Land title T-1542 covering Lot Areas 423 and 315 is now Lot title – 091-2014000903 as stipulated in the new Transfer of Certificate of Title (TCC) issued by LRA also in 2013.
My source from ROD-NegOcc said that after BALA’s CoF, there’s a pending application for the transfer of title T-091-2014000903 to be reverted anew to VMC.
ROD-NegOcc, however, will not honor Ayson’s signature except that of DAR secretary John Castriciones.
BALA director Marjorie Ayson, in her Feb. 18, 2020 Order, affirmed that the contested land, involving three parcels of land with aggregate area of 106.8413 hectares, was finally exempted from Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
She cited the Aug. 22, 2019 Order issued by the Land Use Cases Committee (LUCC) which also granted the exemption clearance for the said land.
LUCC used as basis records from the Municipal Planning and Development Office (MPDO) of Manapla certifying that the contested land had already been converted from agricultural to industrial in 1979.
Section 3 {c} of the CARP law (RA 6657) states: (Only) those agricultural lands are qualified for CARP.
While lands already classified as commercial, industrial and or residential before June 15, 1988 no longer need any conversion clearance.
The same provision was cited in the Department of Justice (DOJ) Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990, which was also used by LUCC as basis.
On contrary, however, records showed that former DAR secretary Rafael Mariano directly disregarded LUCC’s arguments.
In his explanatory note, Mariano stressed that, “Although the subject lands were already classified as non-agricultural prior to the effectivity of CARP, they are still being utilized for agricultural activity, being predominantly planted with sugarcane with the presence of farmworkers when it was subjected for CARP coverage.”
Thus, “It was further ruled that the period to file an Application for Exemption has already lapsed, considering the Notice of Coverage (for the said land) was issued to VMC on Jan. 17, 20212, but the Application of Exemption was only filed on May 27, 2014.”
Such omission necessitated DAR to move for the transfer of title of the disputed land under the Republic of the Philippines.
What a simple yet understandable elucidation by then Secretary Mariano. But DAR-Western Visayas director Sheila Enciso (in a phone interview) clarified that Mariano’s order was already superseded by BALA’s Order, citing LUCC’s Aug. 22, 2019 Order.
Enciso explained that LUCC was mandated and delegated by the new DAR Secretary to review and handle the case.
Thus, as to the reverting of title from Republic of the Philippines to VMC anew, Enciso said the latter should seek Castriciones’ signature first thru an order with finality.
But Enciso also warned of the possible “twist” in the case. Because of the unmet conditions stipulated in the BALA’s order dated Feb. 18, 2020, the ARBs can still have another legal maneuvering.
They cans still file for the Petition for the Revocation of the Aug. 22, 20219 LUCC’s Order, exempting the contested land from CARP coverage, she said.
One of these unmet conditions was the payment of Disturbance Compensation (DC) for the affected tenants, farmworkers or bona fide occupants within 60 days upon receipt of notice.
And based on her experiences, Enciso said, LUCC’s Order for Exemption maybe revoked by BALA if and when the petitioners can substantiate their Petition for Revocation.
Though tricky, she admitted that there’s still hope. But she refrained from pre-empting the (possible) final decision yet. “It’ll depend on the dispositive portion of the decision of the BALA later.”
For ARBs, this is quite tedious and exasperating! “But we’re determined to fight ‘till the end,” they punctuated.
As to the proposed appeal to the Office of the President, Enciso was discouraging such move. But with the ongoing brouhaha, Enciso is amenable to gather both warring parties in one sitting. She’s very much willing to settle the case regardless of any appeal in the future. This, as the ARBs simply want DAR to issue a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) against VMC distillery while the case didn’t reach its finality yet.
May Enciso “walk the talk”. That’s because I want to see local executives with DAR people leading in the midst of this brouhaha. Because not anyone can afford to say later, “Kay ginpabay-an n’yo lang!”
After all, everything will boil down to this bothering question: “Diin gid bala ang konsesya n’yo?”/PN
