BY ERWIN ‘AMBO’ DELILAN
THE POLLUTION dispute in Barangay Purisima, Manapla, Negros Occidental involving the sugar-producing giant in Asia, Victorias Milling Company, Inc. (VMCI), has borne another enigma – land dispute.
Members of the Save Purisima Movement (SPM) and Group of Environmental Socialists (GOES), Inc. are claiming that the land being occupied by VMCI for its distillery venture was covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). And such had already been paid by the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP). Thus, the 105 (identified) Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs) are now praying for the immediate distribution of their lots.
At first, I was “stunned” by this development. So I made a personal research, and eventually secured some vital documents to support this piece.
And, it’s true! VMC distillery is currently standing within the contested landholdings in Purisima.
Covered by land title (T-1542), the area (totaling to 106.8413 hectares) was classified as “CARPable”, documents revealed.
According to DAR documents, such had already been divided to 105 ARBs in the barangay upon payment made by LBP in 2013 and 2019, respectively.
VMCI, however, contested DAR’s order. It filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR). It contended that the subject landholdings were no longer considered as agricultural land.
VMCI cited the certification issued by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) thru its Regional Director in Western Visayas, Pilar Jamandre (dated April 4, 2014), stating that the subject land holdings were already zoned as industrial, per approval by the Land use and Zoning Ordinance of Manapla through Resolution No. R-41 dated Dec. 4, 1980.
Likewise, the town’s Municipal Planning and Development Office (MPDO) also issued a certification on March 2014 stating that the subject lands were also zoned as industrial, per the approved Comprehensive Ordinance No.2, series of 1979 and ratified by the HSRC Resolution No. 413, Series of 1980.
VMCI’s legal team invoked the jurisprudence Natalia Realty Inc. and Estate Developers and Investors Corporation versus DAR, et al. as its main legal armament.
There, the High Tribunal, in its order, stressed that lands classified in the town’s plans or zoning ordinance as approved by HLURB and its preceding competent authorities prior to June 15, 1988 for residential, commercial, or industrial uses are no longer within the coverage of the CARP law.
But DAR, in its Aug. 30, 2017 order, signed by then Secretary Rafael V. Mariano, still denied VMCI’s MR.
Mariano, in an eight-page decision, directed the Municipal Agrarian Reform Program Office (MARPO) of Manapla to proceed with the documentation, acquisition, and distribution of the subject property pursuant to Republic Act (RA) Nos. 6657 and 9700.
VMCI went to the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance (BALA). There, it sought refuge by having the same legal contention.
On Feb. 18, 2020, BALA through its director, Atty. Marjorie Ayson, released a Certificate of Finality (CoF), reversing the assailed DAR order dated Aug. 30, 2017, hence, granting the Application for Exemption from CARP coverage of the contested property for being reclassified into non-agricultural prior to June 15, 1988.
BALA mainly used as basis for its decision the Department of Justice (DOJ) Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990 that states, “With respect to the conversion of agricultural lands covered by RA No. 6657 to non-agricultural uses, the authority of the DAR to approve such conversion may be exercised only from the date of its effectivity or on June 15, 1998.”
“Thus, all lands that are already classified as commercial, industrial, or residential before June 15, 1988 no longer need any conversion clearance,” the DOJ added.
On Jan. 9, 2021, lawyer Roberto Kamarista, acting as counsel for Task Force Kasanag (TFK), a group assisting the SPM and GOES, Inc., penned a letter addressed to BALA’s Ayson, asking for reconsideration on her decision.
Ayson’s reply is still being awaited until now.
While on Feb. 5, 2021, GOES, with Pastor Ariel Daven Garzon (Advocacy Officer) and Rene Bale (Coordinator), also penned another letter but, this time, addressed to President Rodrigo Duterte, DAR Secretary John R. Castriciones and Ayson.
GOES didn’t only ask for reconsideration on BALA’s order, but also appealed for the immediate issuance of a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) against the operations of VMC distillery which, according to the group, continues to endanger the health and lives of the people living in the surrounding barangays as well as the degradation of the environment.
They likewise asked the President, Castriciones and Ayson to penalize VMCI under the existing laws of the Republic of the Philippines.
As of this writing, none of the three responded to GOES’s letter yet.
Well, the chronology of the issue was coherent. An ordinary “Juan de la Cruz”, for sure, can (really) understand as to the legal points stressed in every argument by each party.
But what puzzled me were the two documents coming from LBP. Both disclosed the Certificates of Deposit, amounting to more than P24M as payment to VMCI for the three contested landholdings.
The first Certificate of Deposit was dated Aug. 30, 2013 and signed by LBP Landowners Compensation Department Head Rafael Berbano.
There, it revealed that LBP deposited to VMCI the amount of P9,034,133.93 for Lot Nos. 423 and 315.
The second one was dated April 24, 2019 and signed by LBP Land Transfer Processing Department Vice President, Atty. Ricarte P.A. Rey.
It also showed that LBP deposited to VMCI another P15, 062,126.09 for Lot No. 416.
Both Certificates of Deposit then bore the remarks: Deposited.
Questions:
1. What happened to these payments or to the P24, 096,260.02 (both in cash and in bonds)?
2. Did VMCI (really) accept these payments?
3. If they did, why it appealed DAR’s order?
I emailed VMCI’s Investors Relations Manager Ann Tiongco with the same questions.
And Tiongco’s response: “We have no information about this. Perhaps, it is best for you to verify instead with LBP if VMC indeed received said check deposits.”
Another question is: What’s the specific role of BALA in CARP?
BALA, per the DAR’s information, provides legal assistance to the beneficiaries affected by agrarian cases, particularly those whose legal rights as ARBs are challenged by the landowners.
But in this case, BALA is found on the opposite side.
And the bothering point here is, why BALA overturned DAR’s order when, in fact, it is just an attached bureau of the said agency.
What a “mind-boggling” situation.
Pitiful, however, are the 105 farmer-beneficiaries who, until now, remain “hopeful” of getting their lands, which they considered as government’s “gifts” for their previous sacrifices.
But if this is the reality – from pollution to land dispute with lots of uncertainties (until now), is Purisima a “forsaken” land?
God have mercy on Purisimanhons!/PN
