Position Paper on the HB 3059 or The Genuine Agrarian Reform Act of The 1987 Constitution describes Agrarian Reform as follows:

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Position Paper on the HB 3059 or The Genuine Agrarian Reform Act of The 1987 Constitution describes Agrarian Reform as follows:"

Brooke Lane
6 years ago
Views:

1 Position Paper on the HB 3059 or The Genuine Agrarian Reform Act of 2007 The 1987 Constitution describes Agrarian Reform as follows: The State shall, by law, undertaken an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing (underline mine). 1 The Constitution lays the basic nature of Agrarian Reform as distribution of agricultural lands to the landless farmers and farmworkers with adequate support services to enable them to make the land productive. It is a redistribution of the nation s wealth to usher industrialization through sound agriculture. The Constitution also has provisions that dictate how Agrarian Reform to be implemented in a democratic setting. The requirement of due process and just compensation in taking private property are central 2. The Supreme Court in upholding RA 6657 said that the State s power to implement agrarian reform is revolutionary 1 Section 4, Article 13 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution Constitution, Article 3, Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. Article 3, Section 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.

2 however the Supreme Court also recognizes and protects the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. HB 3059 is a reminiscence of the People s Agrarian Reform Code which was not passed by Congress in Instead, The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (Republic Act 6657) was passed into law and was affirmed by the Supreme Court as legal and valid. Many farmers became beneficiaries of the program which paved way to the improvement of their lives. Despite the rosy promises of the law, CARP is unfinished because of the resistance by landowners and the inefficiency of the Department of Agrarian Reform in implementing the program. Inorder to further benefit the many landless farmers, CARP must be improved and not abandoned. Contrary to the CARP, HB 3059 aims to replace it and in the process ignores many provisions of the Constitution. HB3059 is a more radical program that transfers ownership of agricultural land and other non-land properties to the government which will be distributed to farmertillers. The means proposed by HB 3059 will violate the fundamental rights of individuals like due process and equal protection of the laws. The bill s proposal to give the DAR exclusive and primary jurisdiction on just compensation and other criminnal acts will deprive the Judiciary of its basic duty to settle justiciable cases controversies affecting rights of individuals 3. The bill on its face, cannot stand a challenge on its unconstitutionality Constitution, Article 8, Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.

3 On the specific provisions of the bill, it is important to note that the scope and coverage of the lands covered under HB 3059 is greatly expanded. It will include almost all agricultural, dominantly agricultural or potentially agricultural under agrarian reform. A two billion peso proposed budget is not enough. Moreover, many of these lands were exempted by the Constitution or RA 6657 (i.e. educational or military reservations) or some were declared by the Supreme Court as exempted (fishponds or pasture lands) under specific conditions. Disregarding the valid exemption by the above authorities will cause instability in our present system of laws and government. The free land distribution advocated by the bill is not a good policy because it will destroy the foundations of our economy. Although writing off of amortization of lands may benefit some farmers, it may not be good for them because they will lack motivation to work and make the land productive. Sullied landholding as defined in the bill is very broad and vague. The administrative determination that a certain land is sullied falls short of the reasonable standard prescribed by the Constitution and the Rules of Court. Confiscation of sullied landholdings seems to be the right thing to do, however, the process must conform to the Constitutional requirement of due process which the bill lacks. There is no opportunity for the Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

4 landowner of an alleged sullied lanholding to defend his/her property right. Similarly situated with the sullied landholdings are the lands (and non-land properties) owned or operated by Transnational Corporations that will be taken away without due process because of nationalization of industries. These lands are singled out because of racial discrimination espoused by the bill. There is no ownership by the beneficiary of the land awarded to him/her under this bill. The conditions set by the bill limit the rights of the beneficiary, the beneficiary s choice of use is curtailed and when he/she dies the land will go back to the government. The beneficiary cannot use the awarded in ways he/she deems best and the State can confiscate it if he/she is not tilling it. Retention of the awarded land is subject to the whim of the People s Agrarian Reform Council. The bill does not specify the area of award and such area will be determined on a case-to-case basis. This will pose great danger to the farmer beneficiaries. Because of its uncertainty, more disputes might happen between the farmers. The system of determining the just compensation for covered lands under the bill is violative of the Constitution. The amount considered as just compensation by the bill will be lower than the fairmarket value of the land which the Supreme Court in a number of cases declares as the basis of just compensation. Furthermore, the immunity granted to covered lands from taxes runs counter with the State s taxation power. The repeal of PD 27 and RA 6657 will be dangerous because of the many improvements of farmers lives brought about by these laws and many farmers are potential beneficiaries of these

5 programs. Repealing the two laws will give the resisting landowners reasons to continue resisting and reclaiming the lands. Many claiming farmers will become prey to the landowners when these laws are repealed. In sum, the bill s worth is beyond questioning in another system of government, a revolutionary system. At present, agrarian reform is being implemented in a democratic system of government where fundamental rights are respected and guaranteed. However, if there is some pressing and urgent issue that matters to landless farmers right now is the impending expiration of the agrarian reform funding by June 2008 which may or may not be continued and the need for reforms in the CARL. Landlords are doing everything to stall the passage of an extension of CARP. Time is of the essence in having an extension of CARP with major improvement because its discontinuance will confirm remaining landlords position and nailing the farmers to land bondage. HB 3059 dilutes the efforts of the farmers sectors in pushing for the passage of a bill that continues CARP with reform. It provides false hopes to advocates and farmer beneficiaries because it will never pass the Constitutionality test.

Constitutional Reform and the Agrarian Reform Agenda 1

Constitutional Reform and the Agrarian Reform Agenda 1 By Ernesto G. Lim Jr. 2 I. Introduction This paper was commissioned with the primary objective of determining if a constitutional reform agenda (a