Sumilao

The Philippines is not really a poor country. It is a nation endowed with rich natural resources and vast tracts of fertile land that would enable the inhabitants to live prosperously in keeping with their dignity as human beings. Yet because of the markedly unequal distribution of such wealth, poverty still stalks the land as about 90% of our people still live below poverty level. This is the anomaly that continues to hound us and prevents us from attaining the same kind of progress now being enjoyed by our Asian neighbors. We are a rich country with poor inhabitants.

This anomalous situation is dramatically and graphically illustrated in Sumilao, Bukidnon where an extensive tract of land with an area of 1,440,000 square meters is owned by a single family who was not actually the ones tilling the land.

Although in 1994 the said land was already placed under the Comprehensive Land Reform Program of the government for distribution to the farmers supposedly tilling the land, an Executive Order (E0) was issued the following year removing the same from the program and converting it to agro-industrial use.

The said EO was questioned before the Supreme Court (SC) but on April 24, 1998, the SC affirmed the validity of the EO. The SC even subsequently ruled that the protesting farmers are not real parties-in-interest and were not entitled to the land since it was no longer under CARP thereby paving the way for its sale to SMFI, a subsidiary of SMC, which started developing the property into an agro-industrial estate.

Under our justice system, the SC is the court of last resort so that its decision is final and the parties have no other alternative but to accept the ruling as part of the law of their case regardless of their belief as to its unfairness and even if it is indeed unfair and unjust. To be sure such ruling may be invoked in all other cases of similar nature that may subsequently arise.

In this case however, this basic principle seems to have been disregarded. The supposedly aggrieved farmers resorted to another method that is becoming a fad in this country. They apparently thought (and they may be correct) that since they cannot get a fair shake in the institutions supposedly designed to make democracy work, a direct appeal to their countrymen would be more effective to get what they wanted. So with the aid of media, they dramatized their grievance by walking 1700 kilometers to get the sympathy and attention of the nation.

The farmers’ cause indeed appears valid and politically correct enough to impel Malacañang into voiding the 1995 EO and once more placing the said property under land reform allegedly because the conditions for the conversion of the land into agro-industrial use were violated. With such move Malacañang has scored some political points but it also highlights the many ills besetting our country that are the very causes hindering us from truly uplifting the plight of the poor and making our country really progressive.

First of all assuming that the 1995 EO had indeed been violated, it is the judiciary and not the executive department that should void the said EO after affording all the parties concerned the chance to be heard and to present their sides on the said violations. The factual and legal issues here cannot be unilaterally decided by Malacañang just to appease the farmers and to convince them that they did not walk for 1700 kilometers in vain. It may be politically advisable but legally infirm. Poverty cannot be used as an excuse to disregard the proper legal procedure. I am pro-poor but not to the extent of spoiling them with legal shortcuts. This kind of politics is the very reason why squatting has become an urban blight. “Informal settlers” (euphemism for squatters) have been tolerated to trample upon the property rights of others just because they are poor. This is not how to attain real progress. Only by strictly observing the rule of law and equally applying it to the poor and rich alike can we attain real progress.

Of course the farmers may have valid gripes when the 1995 EO removed the property from the coverage of land reform. They may be right in thinking that in this country the rich are “more equal” than the poor because barely a year after the property was declared a land reform area, it was already converted into an agro-industrial land that obviously favored the landowner. Something fishy must have transpired in the issuance of said EO that has not come to light up to now, thereby giving the impression of double standard of justice for the rich and for the poor. This is another ill besetting us. There seems to be no equality before the law.

To be sure the SC has already found the 1995 EO above board meaning, among others, that the land may be of better use and would benefit even the farmers if converted into an agro-industrial area. Land reform may really equalize the distribution of land by giving land to the landless tillers. But it is not a panacea that would result in the improvement of the tillers’ lives. Land ownership entails substantial expenses to make the land more productive and thus bring prosperity and progress to farmer-owners. Hence converting land reform areas into industrial or commercial lands sometimes becomes necessary as it is more beneficial and brings more progress to the area. There must really be something wrong in the Land Reform Law or in its implementation. This is another ill besetting our country.

The English translation of “sumilao” is to bring into the limelight. The “Sumilao” case has indeed brought to light the many ills hounding our country’s march to progress like greed, injustice, corruption, bad politics that ultimately result in unequal distribution of wealth.

*     *     *

E-mail at: [email protected]