The Village Tickler

Several columnists have recently disparaged the “Walk for Justice” of Sumilao farmers, saying the marchers are actually farmer-beneficiaries.

One columnist had gone to the extent of saying that “the Sumilao dispute seems to be about beneficiaries of the [Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program] whose desire for property has become insatiable as the greediest of landowners.”

Another columnist asked: “Was there really any injustice done when these very same farmers who are claiming to be landless have actually been landless for a little short of a decade now?”

Obviously, not one of them had tried to ask the side of the farmers or to consider other information aside from those fed by the former landowner (Quisumbing).

The walk for justice occurred, and thus the Sumilao case reared its head once more, recisely because of the continuing injustice committed against the farmers.

True, the 78 Mapalad farmers were recipients of the 66 hectares voluntarily offered by the kind-hearted Salvador Carlos, who took pity on the farmers after they lost the case to President Ramos’ former executive secretary Ruben Torres and the Supreme Court. They each received about 0.8 hectare. The 87 other farmers who belong to San Vicente Landless Farmers’ Association (SALFA) did not receive any land.

Please take a look if there is any justice in this: DAR placed the 144-hectare property of Norberto Quisumbing under coverage of CARP in 1990. To escape CARP, Quisumbing applied for conversion. DAR Secretary Ernesto Garilao denied the conversion. DAR proceeded with the CARP process and issued the certificates of land ownership award (CLOAs) to the 165 Sumilao farmers in 1994.

Quisumbing appealed to the Office of the President, along with a proposal for a five-development plan of his property. The development plan included the establishment of a development academy, a cultural center, an institute for livelihood science, a museum,
a library, a golf course, a sports development complex, an agro-industrial park, forest development and support facilities, and construction of a 360-room hotel, restaurant, housing projects, and others.

In 1996, Torres approved the land conversion based on the terms of Quisumbing’s proposed five-year development plan. Not only did he reverse Garilao’s denial order, he allowed conversion of an irrigated land, contrary to existing rules of conversion. He also declared that the Sangguniang Bayan of Sumilao has authority to convert lands when any local government should first get certification or clearance from DAR that the land being converted is not subject to redistribution under CARP.

There were many errors in Torres’ decision, yet the Supreme Court upheld it in 1999 simply because the DAR failed to file a timely motion for reconsideration, allowing the Torres order to lapse into finality.

Hence, the SC decision was based on technical grounds, not on substantial issues of the case.

The SC decision resulted in the cancellation of CLOAs of the 165 Sumilao farmer-beneficiaries. Taking pity on the farmers, landowner Salvador Carlos offered to
them 66 hectares of his property beside the Quisumbing property.

When Torres issued his decision, he declared: “Converting the land in question would open great opportunities for employment and bring about real development in the area towards a sustained economic growth in the municipality.

Eleven years after Torres’ decision, and eight years after the SC decision, no development took place in the Quisumbing estate. Instead of implementing his proposed five-year development plan, he had his land registered under a new title. In February 2002, less
than a month after the new title, Quisumbing sold the land to San Miguel Foods Inc., which is currently constructing a piggery farm in the 144 hectares.

Now, what’s that question again by one of the columnists?

Was there really any injustice done to the farmers?

The answer is obvious.

Signed:

Raul Socrates Banzuela
National Coordinator
Lakaw Sumilao, Walk for Justice