Even without the prodding of a dear blog friend in Schumey, I would have notice it just the same. Last night, the issue on the plight of the Sumilao marchers were all over the news and with the involvement of important entities like Ateneo de Manila University, this protest march becomes not just another protest from farmer-beneficiaries supposedly qualified to be privileged under the government’s agrarian reform.
The Sumilao Marchers’ case contains a very painful circumstance where lands that have already been previously distributed were taken away by virtue of a reversal of judgment by none other than the Supreme Court of this nation, and involving such finality after the Department of Agriculture, the main agency who is supposed to protect and bolster the interest of farmer-beneficiaries under CARP, have failed and have been neglectful in motioning for a consideration, thus resulting to the cancellation of certificates of ownership that were already previously issued. It’s a painful situation we got here. Taking away what already have been given. Losing what was already gained.
The land involved here is the 144-hectare property owned by certain Norberto Quisumbing, which in 1994 was distributed to 165 Sumalio farmers in Bukidnon after then DAR Secretary Ernesteo Garilao denied the conversion application by Quisumbing.
This DAR distruibution order was then challenged before the Office of The President and thereon it was decided that conversion was allowed and when DAR lapsed in challenging this decision by Malañang, the Supreme Court ruled with finality that the certificates issued to the Sumilao farmers be revoked, making way for conversion.
11 years hence, no conversion had occurred and in fact, the land in question was sold to San Miguel Corporation in 2002—-in clear violation of the conversion plan approved by the Office of The President. With this very clear and blatant violation of the conversion plan in question, hopes now arises for the Sumilao farmers, citing such failure of the condition for the exemption from CARP coverage of the Quisumbing property, and without the realization of the conversion plan, the farmers may bring this up with the appropriate legal venue, along with a new issue, separate from the one or ones decided with finality by the Supreme Court, this time bringing to issue such failure of condition precedent.
With this, I hope the Sumilao farmers would get proper and sufficient legal representation in bringing up this issue. And may they succeed.
Read more of the Sumilao Farmers’ case at Gary Lazaro’s blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment