SC nixes bid to void DAR order on farmlands conversion

MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court upheld an order of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) in 2008 to temporarily suspended the conversion of farmlands for commercial use.

Associate Justice Jose Perez dismissed the Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Association’s (CREBA) petition to nullify the implementation of DAR Administrative Order 01-02. This order was later amended as DAR AO 05-07, and DAR Memorandum 88.

DAR at that time blocked the land conversion proposals to address the country’s acute rice shortage.

The umbrella organization of about 3,500 private property companies accused DAR of grave abuse of discretion and said the agency overstepped its jurisdiction.

Under DAR conversion rules, AO 01-02 sought to regulate the conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses and identify those that were wrongly exempted from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) or Republic Act 6657.

AO 01-02, issued by former DAR Secretary Hernani Braganza on February 28, 2002, deemed as agricultural lands, those that are “not reclassified as residential, commercial, industrial or other non-agricultural uses,” before CARP became a law in June 15, 2008.

Memorandum Order 88 was issued by another former agrarian reform chief, Nasser Pangandaman, who on April 15, 2008, acting on orders of former President Gloria Arroyo — amid concerns that a deficit in rice supply was due to the unabated conversion of prime agricultural lands for real estate development.

CREBA said these orders slowed down housing projects, and aggravated the housing shortage, unemployment and illegal squatting problems in the country.

It said that AO 01-02 is illegal because it covers all applications for conversion — from agricultural to non-agricultural uses or to other agricultural uses, such as the conversion of agricultural lands or areas that have been reclassified by the local government units through Presidential Proclamations, to residential, commercial, industrial or other non-agricultural uses on or after 15 June 1988.

CREBA said there is nothing in the CARP Law that gives DAR the jurisdiction or authority to require that non-awarded lands or reclassified lands be submitted to its conversion authority.
CREBA charged Braganza of grave abuse of discretion in issuing AO 01-02, considering that he was not authorized to expand the legal definition of the term “agricultural lands” through an administrative order.

The SC however, ruled in favor of DAR, saying CREBA’s claim that DAR Memorandum 88 is unconstitutional, “stands on hollow ground.”

“Such measure was made in order to ensure that there are enough agricultural lands in which rice cultivation and production may be carried into. The issuance of said Memorandum 88 was made pursuant to the general welfare of the public, thus, it cannot be argued that it was made without any basis,” the SC said.

The ruling was concurred by Chief Justice Renato Corona and Associate Justices Presibitero Velasco Jr, and Teresita Leonardo De-Castro.

In affirming the validity of DAR AO 01-02, SC cited Department of Justice Opinion 44 issued in 1990, which clarified that after the effectivity of RA 6657, DAR was given the authority to approve land conversion.

“Concomitant to such authority, therefore, is the authority to include in the definition of agricultural lands ‘lands not reclassified as residential, commercial, industrial or other non-agricultural uses before 15 June 1988’ for purposes of land use conversion,” the SC said.
Moreover, it said that the DAR Secretary has basis in including lands not reclassified as residential, commercial, industrial or other non-agricultural uses before 15 June 1988 in the definition of agricultural lands, citing cases previously decided by the SC.

“Having recognized the DAR’s conversion authority over lands reclassified after 15 June 1988, it can no longer be argued that the Secretary of Agrarian Reform was wrongfully given the authority and power to include ‘lands not reclassified as residential, commercial, industrial or other non-agricultural uses before 15 June 1988’ in the definition of agricultural lands,” the SC said.

“Such inclusion does not unduly expand or enlarge the definition of agricultural lands, instead, it made clear what are the lands that can be the subject of DAR’s conversion authority, thus, serving the very purpose of the land use conversion provisions of RA 6657.”

The SC said that as the agency responsible for CARP implementation, DAR is authorized by law to establish and promulgate operational policies, rules and regulations, and priorities for agrarian reform implementation. –abs-cbnNEWS.com