Rule of law

It may appear to many that the controversy that is the Sumilao land dispute involving San Miguel Foods Inc. (SMFI) on one hand and a group of protesting farmers on the other has finally been laid to rest, but it is far from it.

Many in the business community are convinced that an open-and-shut case has been muddled by politics once again, an occurrence that is becoming more and more common. And this lack of adherence to rules and procedure by government has become a stigma, scaring existing and potential investors alike.

But of course, we have a section of civil society that is supporting the Sumilao farmers’ cause, not so much because the farmers have a legal right to the land but because they appear to be the underdogs.

So which of the parties is really entitled to the 144-hectare property in Sumilao, Bukidnon?

If we were to go by the rules (lest we forget that our country is governed by the rule of law and not of men, which is the essence of republicanism and democracy), the business community is saying that SMFI is the legally proclaimed landowner, and not the 56 marching farmers backed by powerful groups.

But while SMFI is confident that it bought the contested land from the Quisumbings legally and in good faith, the rule of law seems to have been thrown to the dustbin as the controversy is now marred by the farmers’ appeal to the public’s sensibilities. After all, we Filipinos love tearjerkers and telenovelas, and the Sumilao case has now been transformed into a first-rate drama.

One of the issues being raised by the farmers is the five-year deadline for the development of the property into an agro-industrial zone.  They claim that SMFI is now in delay because the project should have been completed by Aug. 25, 2004, five years after the conversion order was issued.

The backers of these farmers should have reviewed Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order no. 1 issued in 2002 and other applicable AOs well before insisting on their arithmetic.

While Sec. 33.6 of DAR AO 01 states that “in no case shall development extend beyond five years from the issuance of the Conversion Order,” Sec. 64 of the same indicates that it “shall apply prospectively to all applications of land conversion.”

While the conversion was finalized by the Office of the President on Aug. 25, 1999, it could not immediately proceed then because the title was involved in another legal battle involving the cancellation of the Certificate of Land Ownership (CLOA) prematurely issued to the farmers.

On Jan. 16, 2002, the court finally restored the property to the Quisumbings, the original owners. After all the issues were resolved, the property was then sold to SMFI on Feb. 6, 2002.

AO 01 took effect on May 13, 2002, three months after the land was bought by SMFI. Since the order should apply prospectively, the said AO is not applicable to SMFI and the Sumilao property.

Legal experts also say that DAR’s AO no. 1 issued in 1990, the rules on land use conversion effective at the time of filing of conversion application, strengthens SMFI’s claim further. It states that “in no case shall completion of development extend beyond five years from the issuance of the development permit.”

Therefore, SMFI’s deadline for the conversion of the property should be on Oct. 26, 2009, five years after the company was issued the Certificate of Zoning Compliance on Oct. 26, 2004.

Immediately after the issuance of the zoning compliance (in lieu of the development permit which is applicable only for subdivision and condominium projects), SMFI wasted no time in developing the property to agro-industrial use.

The company prepared its homework — technical and feasibility studies, project consultation with concerned parties, processing of government requirements, bidding of land development contracts and civil works — until DAR approved the implementation of the hog farm project on Nov. 27, 2006.

At present, more than 30 percent of the P2.4-billion project has been completed.

Let’s hope that government and the courts decide this controversy based on what the law says, and not how a few groups want to interpret or even twist it. The end does not justify the means after all. Senator Trillanes and his group may make sense to some and their grievances may be legitimate but what they did is against the law and therefore, they should not be rewarded.

For comments, e-mail at [email protected]