National peasant federation Task Force Mapalad (TFM) is calling on the Department of Agrarian Reform to suspend the implementation of an order that gives leeway to the DAR to withhold from peasants and the public the release of information vital to the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, especially copies of department decisions that can enable landlords to still reclaim landholdings that are already acquired by the government for CARP and are about to be distributed to farmer-beneficiaries of the program.
“This order solidifies the cartelization of information between the DAR and the landlords opposed to agrarian reform. It gives the DAR wide discretion or even abuse of discretion by hiding from peasants pro-landlord decisions and giving back already CARPed lands to hacienderos even in farms where tillers are just within a hair’s breadth away from becoming CLOA (certificate of land ownership award) holders,” said lawyer Armando Jarilla, TFM secretariat executive director and national coordinator.
Jarilla is pertaining to the July 15, 2024 DAR Memorandum Circular No. 7 wherein Secretary Conrado Estrella III revised the rules on public access to copies of agrarian reform cases, decisions, and related information through limiting who can access these documents.
The circular repealed the “mandatory disclosure” provision under DAR M.C. No. 7 of 2011 that required the department to “allow all parties to a case, and any person affected by a decision” to access information pertaining and related to it.
Under M.C. 7 of 2024, information “shall be given only to a party” to the case and to “a person duly authorized by a Special Power of Attorney by the party concerned.” Thus, the circular limited the disclosure and access of information to the petitioner bringing the case, the plaintiff’s representative, and the defendant or respondent to the case.
Circular is violation of peasants’ right to information, due process
In the CARP protest cases filed before the DAR, only the landlord/landowner is identified or named as petitioner/appellant and the department as respondent or defendant.
“What this means is that farmer-beneficiaries of the CARP, even though they are or will be directly affected by anti-CARP and pro-landlord decisions by the DAR, are not recognized under the circular as real parties-in-interest and indispensable parties to it,” Jarilla explained.
In law, real parties-in-interest are defined as those who stand to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit. The simplest way to determine if a person is a real party-in-interest is to ask these two questions wherein both answers should be “yes”: (1) Will this party benefit or suffer from the court’s judgment? (2) Is this party entitled to any relief the court may grant?
Meanwhile, indispensable parties under Rule 3, Section 7 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure pertain to those “without whom no final determination can be had of an action (and thus) shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants.”
This provision maintains that the court cannot proceed and render an effective, enforceable judgment without including the indispensable party in litigation.
“Consequently, because farmer-beneficiaries under M.C. 7 of 2024 are neither acknowledged as real parties-in-interest nor indispensable parties to the case and not included as participants in the suit, the DAR can opt not to inform them about it or give them a copy of the case and decisions to it, hindering them to file an appeal until the ruling in the suit becomes final and executory, paving the way for them to go back to being powerless and landless again,” Jarilla explained.
“In effect, this does not only violate the peasants’ right to information but also their right to due process as enshrined in Section 1, Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution, stating that, ‘No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws,'” he added.
DAR’s pro-landlord decisions hidden from farmers
Even before the issuance of M.C. 7 of 2024, TFM peasants had already complained against the DAR’s decisions on CARP protests that favored landlords and were not made available to affected farmer-beneficiaries of the CARP.
Among these “hidden” DAR decisions involved Hacienda Bias in Brgy. Guimbalaon, Silay City, Negros Occidental. Secretary Estrella returned the 44.98-hectare hacienda to its former landowners Ma. Lydia Flores and Ma. Lourdes F. Vargas, represented by their heiress Gretchen Marie Vargas Celes.
The DAR chief issued the decision a decade after the sugar plantation was issued a notice of CARP coverage (NOC) in December 2013.
Also, Estrella sided with the former landowners six years after the department titled Hacienda Bias in the name of the Republic of the Philippines in December 2018 and January 2019; compensated the former landowners in exchange for taking possession of the land for CARP; and gave its 28 tillers or CARP beneficiaries usufructuary rights over the hacienda – or the right to use the land and enjoy the fruits thereof on the state’s behalf – in preparation for issuing them their own titles.
Moreover, Estrella still entertained the former landowners’ petition against CARP coverage even if it was filed out of time. The petition was filed on March 24, 2015 or over a year after the NOC of Bias was delivered to the residence of the landowners in December 2013 and the same was published in a newspaper in March 2014.
The period to protest CARP coverage of a landholding is only allowed within a non-extendable period of 30 days from the time of the NOC’s delivery and publication as mandated under Section 27 of DAR Administrative Order No. 7 series of 2011.
Also, in reversing the CARP’s gains in Hacienda Bias, Estrella justified his decision based on a flimsy, technical argument. Siding with the former landlord’s anti-CARP coverage position, he invalidated the DAR’s 2014 NOC, arguing that the notice was improperly served as the landowners failed to personally receive it.
“But isn’t it that it is already common knowledge, especially among those in the DAR, that recalcitrant landlords hide upon knowing that they will be personally served with NOC? Under the law, if personal service can’t be carried out, substituted service will be done via NOC publication,” said Teresita Tarlac, TFM-Negros Occidental president.
‘DAR gagged us’
From the time that Estrella issued his pro-landlord decision in Hacienda Bias on January 23, 2024 to when the ruling became final and executory on Feb. 21, 2024, until DAR Undersecretary for Legal Affairs Napoleon Galit issued a certificate of finality on April 18, 2024, not one from the 28 farmer-beneficiaries of the landholding, who already had usufructuary rights to it, was informed about the case and the DAR chief’s decision.
In the certificate, Galit noted that Estrella’s decision had already become final because “the prescribed reglementary period had already lapsed without a motion for reconsideration or appeal being filed.”
“That is exactly the point. Nobody filed to question the decision because the DAR did not inform us about the case and make us real parties-in-interest and indispensable parties to it,” said peasant leader Arnel Amaro, among the CARP beneficiaries of the hacienda.
“Isn’t this already a clear proof that the DAR gagged us? That the intention was really to hide the decision so that the DAR could freely give back Bias to the former haciendero?”
“We only discovered that the DAR had already stripped us of our rights when we followed up regarding the long-delayed issuance of our CLOAs and found out about Secretary Estrella’s decision on June 13, 2024 or almost two months after the secretary’s ruling became final and executory,” Amaro added.
More secret decisions returning CARPed lands to ex-hacienderos
Hidden decisions that erased the rights of CARP beneficiaries by voiding NOCs were also made in other Negros Occidental landholdings prior to the issuance of M.C. 7 of 2024.
Three of these involved sugarcane haciendas all situated in the town of Manapla that went back to former hacienderos through the DAR’s nullification of the landholdings’ NOCs.
The first involved the 20.73-hectare Hacienda Guicay Dos in Brgy. Purisima. Its NOC was voided in favor of landowner Nona Gallardo Gasambelo on Aug. 5, 2019 by then DAR Regional Director (RD) Stephen Leonidas or after more than seven years since the notice was issued on Aug. 5, 2019. The 17 farmer-beneficiaries only learned about the decision on Sept. 23, 2019.
The second involved the NOC issued to the 29-hectare Hacienda Dos Hermanas, also in Brgy. Purisima, that was likewise voided in favor of landowner Milan Garcia on Aug. 12, 2022 by then RD Shiela Enciso. The notice was declared defective nine years after the DAR issued the NOC on Aug. 27, 2013. The 32 farmer-beneficiaries, who already had usufructuary rights to the land, only obtained a copy of the decision in Feb. 2023.
The third, the 162.44-hectare Hacienda Bilbao in Brgy. Punta Mesa began to be covered by CARP through a June 26, 2014 NOC. However, after over a decade, the notice was also voided by DAR chief Estrella on Aug. 22, 2024 in favor of Levar Development Corp. The 102 CARP beneficiaries of the land only learned about Estrella’s decision on Nov. 27, 2024.
“We are afraid that more landholdings that supposedly have already been long distributed to farmer-beneficiaries of the CARP are being secretly given back by the DAR to their former hacienderos,” said Tarlac.
“But there is no way to know, especially now that the DAR has legitimized its secret decisions and barred us from knowing the truth via M.C. 7,” she said.
“Isn’t this enough proof that the DAR, under President Bongbong Marcos, is deforming agrarian reform, dissipating its gains, and re-empowering the wealthy elite?” added Tarlac.
Misapplications of M.C. 7, too much discretionary, arbitrary powers
Moreover, since M.C. 7’s implementation last year, TFM peasants have been complaining against the DAR’s misapplication of the circular.
In several instances, the circular was even used to delay or deny farmers’ simple requests for information that have something to do with fast-tracking the processing of their land claims as beneficiaries of the CARP.
“It appears that via M.C. 7, the DAR wants to not just cripple but kill the peasants’ right to information that will supposedly help them track and advance their land claims as beneficiaries of the CARP. Their use of the circular is too discretionary and arbitrary and can thus be unfair and oppressive,” said Maquirang.
There is no mention in M.C. 7 that such pieces of information are also prohibited from being released by the DAR. As stated in the circular’s “scope and coverage,” M.C. 7 is only “applicable to all request(s) for information relating to” to cases that are before the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) or its adjudicators “whether resolved with finality or are pending or undetermined by the office concerned.”
For instance, during their dialog with DAR representatives in Bacolod City, Negros Occidental last May 26, some 500 CLOA holders were appalled when they were told by the agency’s local officials that they would not release to them a position paper by the DAR’s Task Force ECJ unless they submit a special power of attorney (SPA) that purportedly is a requirement under M.C. 7.
The CLOA holders are among at least 1,756 farmer-beneficiaries of the 4,654-hectare landholding found in La Carlota City and in the towns of Hinigaran, Isabela, La Castellana, Pontevedra and San Enrique formerly owned by the late tycoon-politician Eduardo “Danding” Cojuangco Jr. (ECJ).
The position paper was a result of an April 24, 2025 dialog between the ECJ CLOA holders and the DAR task force.
During the said meet, the task force promised the farmers that through a position paper, it would come out with answers to the farmers’ queries on when and how they would be installed on their land and directly control and cultivate it. After 28 years, the CLOA holders remain landless as the property remains under the control of a cooperative that was formed when Cojuangco initiated a joint venture agreement with the CLOA holders.
During the heated May 26 dialog, the CLOA holders got frustrated when the task force, led by its vice chairperson, lawyer Maynaquita S. Montaño, chief of the legal division of DAR Negros Occidental 2 Provincial Office, told them that under M.C. 7, an SPA was needed to release the position paper.
The farmers argued that it was not required because they themselves were the principals or the primary parties.
“The SPA is only needed if they were not present in a proceeding thus an agent, representative, or attorney-in-fact should be authorized on their behalf,” explained lawyer Cecille Maquirang, counsel for TFM peasants, who was with the ECJ CLOA holders during the dialog.
TFM farmers further asserted that their request for the DAR task force’s position paper was made and promised them by the latter through a dialog and not through a legal proceeding.
“Thus, it was unexpected or even unbelievable for the task force to use the SPA requirement under M.C. 7,” added Maquirang.
In another instance of M.C. 7 misapplication, TFM farmer-beneficiaries (FB) of CARP in Batangas, who were tracking movements in their land claims before the DAR, requested through a November 2024 letter that they be furnished with a copy of the certificate of deposit (COD) issued by the Land Bank of the Philippines.
The issuance of a COD is proof that the government has already compensated the landowner and acquired the land in favor of CARP beneficiaries.
Having a copy of the COD would ensure the FBs that their claim over the CARP-covered 127-hectare landholding in the province’s Sitio Marulsa, Brgy. Laiya Ibabaw, San Juan, formerly owned by Hennessy Development Corp., was just a few steps away from being awarded to them by the DAR via CLOAs.
However, Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer Abdullah Linog refused to provide them their request citing prohibitions under M.C. 7
M.C. 7 conflicts with DAR FOI Manual, FOI executive order
A review of the DAR’s 2024 Freedom of Information Manual shows that M.C. 7 runs counter to it. Section IV.1(e) of the manual states that the DAR’s duty is to “publish, print, and disseminate…to the public” information that includes “important rules and regulations, orders, or decisions.”
The manual further states tha the DAR’s duty to release these pieces of information is “in conjuction with Republic Act 9485 or the Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007.”
The manual is a requirement under Executive Order No. 2 of 2016 issued by then President Rodrigo Duterte. Every government office under the executive branch is required to prepare and publish a People’s FOI Manual to operationalize E.O. No. 2 and ensure transparency and accountability in government operations.
M.C. 7 also contravenes Section 3 of E.O. No. 2 that states that, “Every Filipino shall have access to information, official records, public records and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions or decisions as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development.”
Once a case is filed in any Philippine court, including before quasi-judicial tribunals like the DARAB, this becomes part of official government records. DARAB’s rulings, orders, and case documents are also part of public records.
It is stated in Rule 132, Section 24 of the Rules of Court that public documents include the records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies, and tribunals.
############
———————–The article provided is authorized for use, and represents solely the author’s personal opinions. Please contact us in the event of any potential infringement.
