phil. daily inquirer, march 29

========

MANILA, Philippines--Farmers involved in the Sumilao land dispute with San Miguel Corp. are closer to getting their share of the 144 hectares of land in Bukidnon which they fought for, after the concerned parties at noon Saturday signed a memorandum of agreement (MoA) spelling out the details of the land distribution.

A joint statement from the Sumilao farmers and the SMC said the MoA details “the implementing guidelines for the Basic Agreement entered into by all parties on March 3, 2008 that defined the parameters of the settlement.”

It said the farmers are expected to occupy an initial 50 hectares in the next few days.

The signing ceremony was held at the San Carlos Seminary Complex in Guadalupe with Archdiocese of Manila Cardinal Gaudencio Rosales as witness. After the signing ceremony, the parties paid a courtesy call on President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in Malacanang to present her with a copy of the settlement agreement and thank her for her support.

The signing is a culmination of the quiet backroom negotiations initiated by Manila Cardinal Gaudencio Rosales and participated in by top-level representatives of the Catholic Church, SMC, and the government. The talks lasted nearly three months from January to March 2008.

On Cardinal Rosales’s appeal, the statement said, SMC and its chief executive officer Ramon Ang agreed to release to qualified farmers by deed of donation 50 hectares within the original property of 144 hectares. Further, it said SMC will acquire 94 additional hectares outside of the original 144-hectare property for the farmers to complete the 144 hectares claimed.

According to the statement, the farmers are presently identifying their preferred parcels of land outside the original property from a list given them by SMC; they have agreed to accept this formula of 50 hectares inside the original property and 94 hectares outside.

The Deed of Donation giving the 50 hectares to the farmers was also signed today by San Miguel Food Inc. (SMFI), a subsidiary of SMC.

“The farmers have organized a new cooperative made up of initial qualified beneficiaries which will be the owner of these lands. Other qualified beneficiaries from MAPALAD and SALFA will be included in the succeeding processes. This will finally vindicate their years of sacrifice and relentless efforts,” the statement said.

On the other hand, Arroyo has ordered the Department of Agrarian Reform to expedite the process of determining qualified farmer beneficiaries and pledged the support of all other agencies of government.

DAR has conducted the technical survey delineating the 50 hectares to be given the farmers and is also determining which parcels of land within the vicinity of the original property can be acquired by SMC for distribution to the farmers.

DAR Secretary Nasser Pangandaman has vowed to personally attend to this. President Arroyo also offered the use of Air Force C-130 planes to transport the farmers back to Mindanao where thanksgiving Masses are scheduled on site.

“The farmers are expected to occupy the initial 50 hectares within the SMFI property in a few days. The dropping of all pending cases by all is also part of the agreement,” the statement said.

The settlement is a win-win situation where “all protagonists have won. SMC will be able to continue with their project and has also clearly demonstrated that it is a corporation with social responsibility. The farmers will get the land they have sacrificed and worked for through many years with a promise of a better life for their families,” it added.

PROJEKT DESAP
A Photo Project on the Lives of the Families of Desaparecidos

A photograph is regarded as a powerful tool for communicating ideas in a way that a written or oral account cannot. A photograph is not hindered by language, nor does it expect its viewers to be educated or literate. The language that a photograph speaks can be understood by anybody.
It is with the acknowledgment of this power that we deemed it appropriate to use photographs as a tool for human rights advocacy. We intend to contribute to the continuing effort of sustaining and heightening public awareness and consciousness on the issue of enforced disappearances. By mounting a photo exhibit, we also intend to give a human face to the stories and struggles of the families of the disappeared (desaparecidos). We strongly believe that we can reach out to more people by telling their stories through images.
This initiative is part of a growing Artists Response against the human rights abuses of the Arroyo administration. Parallel efforts are currently being undertaken by independent and mainstream filmmakers, poets, artists and musicians. All these initiatives will culminate in a Human Rights Festival on Human Rights Day, December 10.
SURFACING, the photographers' initiative is headed by a small working group of student photographers with advice from professional photojournalists and in coordination with the Free Jonas Burgos Movement (FJBM). FJBM is a loose network of individuals seeking for the surfacing and release of Jonas Burgos, who was abducted last April, by suspected military operatives. It also speaks against human rights abuses, in particular, of other enforced disappearances of activists in the country.

-galing sa Philippine Daily Inquirer

1990--The Department of Agrarian Reform places the 144-hectare estate owned by the Quisumbing family in Barangay San Vicente in Sumilao, Bukidnon, under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).

But DAR suspends implementation because the property is still under a 10-year Crop Producer and Grower Agreement between the landowner and Del Monte Philippines.

April 1994--The agreement expires.

Sept. 25, 1995--The estate is awarded to Higaonon farmers. DAR issues Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) to 137 farmers.

Oct. 13, 1995--The CLOAs are entered into the Sumilao Register of Deeds. These form the basis of the farmers' claim of vested rights over the estate.

March 29, 1996--Executive Secretary Ruben Torres issues an order allowing the conversion of the property from purely agricultural to agro-industrial use.

In applying for reclassification, the Norberto Quisumbing Sr. Management and Development Corp. had said it planned to set up 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 a hotel, restaurant, and housing project and others.

Oct. 9, 1997--Fifteen farmers start a 28-day hunger strike in front of the DAR central office in Quezon City.

Nov. 6, 1997--President Fidel Ramos modifies Torres' order, limits the conversion to 44 hectares and approves 100 hectares for distribution to farmers.

April 1999--The Supreme Court denies with finality the motions for reconsideration filed by the claimants and upholds Torres' order despite opposition from DAR officials.

The decision also voids the CLOAs issued to the farmers.

Under CARP implementing rules, the estate's owners have five years to implement the new land-use plan.

December 1999--Robin Lession, one of the farmers in the 1997 hunger strike, commits suicide in protest of the Supreme Court decision.

Feb. 6, 2002--The Quisumbing family sells part of the property to San Miguel Foods Inc. (SMFI), a subsidiary of San Miguel Corp. (SMC). But farmers claim that "much of the land" remains idle.

The land is put under lease agreement with SMFI subsidiary Monterey Food Corp. (MFC).

Nov. 3, 2004--Farmers file a petition for revocation of the conversion order, saying the five-year period for the conversion of the estate's use for agro-industrial purposes has ended. They claim that none of the development projects promised by the Quisumbings has taken place.

July 10, 2006--MFC submits "Revised Development Plan for Sumilao Property" to DAR as a way of asking whether the development of the property into a hog farm is "in accordance with approved conversion of the property into agro-industrial use."

Oct. 27, 2006--Agrarian Reform Secretary Nasser Pangandaman dismisses the farmers' petition, saying DAR has no jurisdiction over the matter as it was the Office of the President that allowed the conversion in March 1996.

Nov. 27, 2006--DAR confirms revised development plan submitted by MFC, says the Sumilao Hog Farm project is "consistent" with the "agro-industrial use" clause cited in the March 1996 ruling by the Office of the President.

Nov. 30, 2006--Farmers lodge a petition at the Office of the President seeking the cancellation/revocation of land conversion.

Oct. 3, 2007--The Office of the President dismisses the petition.

Oct. 10--Farmers begin a 1,700-kilometer march from their home village of San Vicente in Sumilao to Manila, with the intention of reaching Metro Manila in time for the observance of International Human Rights Day on Dec. 10.

Their "Walk for Sumilao Land, Walk for Justice" is aimed at dramatizing their demand to be finally installed in the estate.

Oct. 23--Farmers complete the march's Mindanao leg, which totaled 435 km from Sumilao to Surigao City.

Oct. 25--They start the Visayas leg of the march.

Nov. 16--The Office of the President remands dispute to DAR, says the agency has the expertise on the factual issues raised by the farmers.

Dec. 3--Farmers arrive in Metro Manila. They begin their "tour" the following day and are met by members of militant groups at the Manila Film Center. They are later escorted to the Senate in Pasay City, where they are met by a number of senators.

Dec. 5--Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales expresses support for the farmers, says he has asked President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to give the estate to the farmers.

Farmers perform a tribal ritual in front of SMC main office in Pasig City to protest the corporation's "witting or unwitting participation in the mockery of agrarian reform."

DAR legal counsel says the law that created CARP does not state that a new owner of a disputed property is bound by the conversion pledges made by the previous owner.

P

1990--The Department of Agrarian Reform places the 144-hectare estate owned by the Quisumbing family in Barangay San Vicente in Sumilao, Bukidnon, under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).

But DAR suspends implementation because the property is still under a 10-year Crop Producer and Grower Agreement between the landowner and Del Monte Philippines.

April 1994--The agreement expires.

Sept. 25, 1995--The estate is awarded to Higaonon farmers. DAR issues Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) to 137 farmers.

Oct. 13, 1995--The CLOAs are entered into the Sumilao Register of Deeds. These form the basis of the farmers' claim of vested rights over the estate.

March 29, 1996--Executive Secretary Ruben Torres issues an order allowing the conversion of the property from purely agricultural to agro-industrial use.

In applying for reclassification, the Norberto Quisumbing Sr. Management and Development Corp. had said it planned to set up 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 a hotel, restaurant, and housing project and others.

Oct. 9, 1997--Fifteen farmers start a 28-day hunger strike in front of the DAR central office in Quezon City.

Nov. 6, 1997--President Fidel Ramos modifies Torres' order, limits the conversion to 44 hectares and approves 100 hectares for distribution to farmers.

April 1999--The Supreme Court denies with finality the motions for reconsideration filed by the claimants and upholds Torres' order despite opposition from DAR officials.

The decision also voids the CLOAs issued to the farmers.

Under CARP implementing rules, the estate's owners have five years to implement the new land-use plan.

December 1999--Robin Lession, one of the farmers in the 1997 hunger strike, commits suicide in protest of the Supreme Court decision.

Feb. 6, 2002--The Quisumbing family sells part of the property to San Miguel Foods Inc. (SMFI), a subsidiary of San Miguel Corp. (SMC). But farmers claim that "much of the land" remains idle.

The land is put under lease agreement with SMFI subsidiary Monterey Food Corp. (MFC).

Nov. 3, 2004--Farmers file a petition for revocation of the conversion order, saying the five-year period for the conversion of the estate's use for agro-industrial purposes has ended. They claim that none of the development projects promised by the Quisumbings has taken place.

July 10, 2006--MFC submits "Revised Development Plan for Sumilao Property" to DAR as a way of asking whether the development of the property into a hog farm is "in accordance with approved conversion of the property into agro-industrial use."

Oct. 27, 2006--Agrarian Reform Secretary Nasser Pangandaman dismisses the farmers' petition, saying DAR has no jurisdiction over the matter as it was the Office of the President that allowed the conversion in March 1996.

Nov. 27, 2006--DAR confirms revised development plan submitted by MFC, says the Sumilao Hog Farm project is "consistent" with the "agro-industrial use" clause cited in the March 1996 ruling by the Office of the President.

Nov. 30, 2006--Farmers lodge a petition at the Office of the President seeking the cancellation/revocation of land conversion.

Oct. 3, 2007--The Office of the President dismisses the petition.

Oct. 10--Farmers begin a 1,700-kilometer march from their home village of San Vicente in Sumilao to Manila, with the intention of reaching Metro Manila in time for the observance of International Human Rights Day on Dec. 10.

Their "Walk for Sumilao Land, Walk for Justice" is aimed at dramatizing their demand to be finally installed in the estate.

Oct. 23--Farmers complete the march's Mindanao leg, which totaled 435 km from Sumilao to Surigao City.

Oct. 25--They start the Visayas leg of the march.

Nov. 16--The Office of the President remands dispute to DAR, says the agency has the expertise on the factual issues raised by the farmers.

Dec. 3--Farmers arrive in Metro Manila. They begin their "tour" the following day and are met by members of militant groups at the Manila Film Center. They are later escorted to the Senate in Pasay City, where they are met by a number of senators.

Dec. 5--Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales expresses support for the farmers, says he has asked President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to give the estate to the farmers.

Farmers perform a tribal ritual in front of SMC main office in Pasig City to protest the corporation's "witting or unwitting participation in the mockery of agrarian reform."

DAR legal counsel says the law that created CARP does not state that a new owner of a disputed property is bound by the conversion pledges made by the previous owner.

Pangandaman adds that the five-year implementing period started when the development permits were issued by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. SMC lawyer Wilfredo Peñaflor says permits were issued only in 2004.

Dec. 6--Farmers and their supporters picket the House of Representatives to call the lawmakers' attention to their plight.

Pangandaman meets with the farmers to say he is giving contending parties three days to submit position papers before he makes his decision.

angandaman adds that the five-year implementing period started when the development permits were issued by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. SMC lawyer Wilfredo Peñaflor says permits were issued only in 2004.

Dec. 6--Farmers and their supporters picket the House of Representatives to call the lawmakers' attention to their plight.

Pangandaman meets with the farmers to say he is giving contending parties three days to submit position papers before he makes his decision.

Philippines: New Terrorism Law Puts Rights at Risk

(New York, July 17, 2007) – A new counterterrorism law in the Philippines contains overbroad and dangerous provisions which could allow authorities to hold detainees indefinitely and engage in spurious prosecutions, Human Rights Watch said today.

The Human Security Act of 2007, passed by the Philippine Congress in February and signed by President Gloria Arroyo in March, took effect on July 15. Numerous civil society leaders, religious figures, and human rights advocates have criticized the law, and the UN special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism has called for the law to be repealed or for its implementation to be delayed. 

“The vague language of the Human Security Act invites the government to misuse it,” said Joanne Mariner, terrorism and counterterrorism director at Human Rights Watch. “The Philippine Congress should repeal or revise the act to comply with human rights standards.”

Human Rights Watch said that the new law contains an overly broad definition of terrorism, and overly harsh mandatory penalties applicable even to minor violations of the law. The law provides for the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects without adequate procedural protections, and permits persons apprehended in the Philippines to be rendered to countries that routinely commit torture, as long as the receiving government provides assurances of fair treatment.

Human Rights Watch said the Philippines was not adequately utilizing its existing legal system to prosecute perpetrators of bombings and other human rights abuses. 

Human Rights Watch expressed concern about several of the new law’s provisions:

Article 3 defines terrorism as the commission of certain crimes, including murder, piracy, kidnapping, arson, and the destruction of property, that “sow[] and creat[e] a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand.” The act sets the mandatory sentence for the crime of terrorism at 40 years without parole.

Human Rights Watch is concerned that this definition is vague and overbroad, and could allow the government to transform less serious offenses, such as vandalism, or legitimate acts of protest, into crimes punishable by a mandatory 40-year sentence. Under this definition, for example, a political protestor demanding that the president resign, who sets fire to an effigy (committing arson or destruction of property), could conceivably be charged with terrorism and, if convicted, sent to prison for 40 years.

Article 4, defining conspiracy, is likewise overbroad, setting a punishment of 40 years in cases where “two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of the crime of terrorism . . . and decide to commit the same.” Because prosecutions under article 4 are possible even where no overt act has occurred, the provision compounds the problems with overbroad language in article 3. This could have a chilling effect on peaceful critics of the government seeking to hold political protests.

Human Rights Watch is also concerned about article 17 of the act, which allows regional trial courts to declare a group of persons to be a “terrorist and outlawed organization, association, or group,” and seize its assets and search its financial records, among other actions. Such a declaration can be made in cases where it is shown a group has engaged in terrorism (as defined in the overbroad language in article 3) but also in cases in which the government shows the group is “organized for the purpose of engaging in terrorism,” another term which is subject to the vague definition of terrorism in article 3. While the organization is supposed to be given due notice and opportunity to be heard, it and its members face a serious loss of rights without the benefit of a full judicial process. 

Human Rights Watch also raised concerns about articles 18 and 19 of the new law, which regulate the detention of terrorism suspects. Article 18 doubles the period that the police can detain persons without judicial supervision, allowing up to three days of custody before the detainees must be brought before a judge. In a country where mistreatment in detention remains a major concern, this provision opens the door to further abuse.

Article 19, which covers cases of “actual or imminent terrorist attack,” (a term that is not defined and could potentially encompass less serious crimes, as discussed above), allows detention beyond three days if the police obtain the written approval of a court or a “municipal, city, provincial or regional official.” Because the provision sets no express limit to the allowable period of detention in such cases, it could conceivably be used to justify indefinite detention. Notably, the Philippines authorities have a history of holding suspects for extended periods without arraignment or trial, raising concern that the new law might essentially legitimize these abusive practices.

In addition, although the legislation purports to ban the practice of rendition – the unlawful transfer of a person to another country – it actually sets out broad exceptions to this ban. Those exceptions, which allow a detainee to be handed over to another government without a formal extradition proceeding if the detainee’s testimony is needed for a terrorism-related trial or police investigation, sanction the handover of terrorism suspects based on official assurances of fair treatment in the receiving state. As Human Rights Watch has documented in a series of reports, such diplomatic promises are an ineffective safeguard against torture and other human rights abuses. (See http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/eca/ecaqna1106/.)

A positive aspect of the new law is its ban on the use of torture, threats, and coercion against detainees. The law expressly provides that any evidence obtained by such means is inadmissible in any judicial or administrative proceeding.

Human Rights Watch recognizes that the Philippines has experienced numerous bombings and other attacks against civilians in recent years, and that the government has a strong and legitimate interest in prosecuting persons suspected of plotting mass violence. But Human Rights Watch cautioned that using overbroad and potentially abusive legislation would not advance the counterterrorism agenda.

“What the Philippines really needs is not a new and dangerously broad counterterrorism law, but better efforts to make its current justice system work,” Mariner said.