In other news: Sumilao exodus ends; now the planting begins

Sunday morning, I woke up to another wonderful news! :)

Sumilao exodus ends; now the planting begins

By TJ Burgonio, Michael Lim Ubac

Philippine Daily Inquirer

First Posted 01:04:00 03/30/2008

MANILA, Philippines—Young Higaonon farmer leader Napoleon Merida Jr. has been having recurring dreams of planting crops in the verdant fields of Sumilao, Bukidnon, since December.

Now, 24-year-old Merida and the rest of the 166 Higaonon farmers can start tilling more than a third of the 144-hectare ancestral land that they had been struggling to reclaim for more than 10 years.

“After the celebration, I can start planting palay and corn,” Merida, president of the San Vicente Landless Farmers’ Association composed of second-generation Higaonon farmers, told the Inquirer yesterday.

Today, the farmers will be flown home to Mindanao on an Air Force C-130 plane for a thanksgiving Mass to be celebrated by Malaybalay Bishop Honesto Pacana and Cagayan de Oro Archbishop Antonio Ledesma.

In a compromise settlement principally brokered by Manila Archbishop Cardinal Gaudencio Rosales, the property owner San Miguel Foods Inc. (SMFI) agreed to donate 50 hectares in the original site to the farmers, and acquire the remaining 94 ha elsewhere.

‘Everyone won’

A joint statement by the two parties released by Malacañang said:

“All protagonists have won. SMC will be able to continue with [its] 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.”

According to the statement, the government has “demonstrated its commitment to land reform and social justice, and that it is a government that cares for the poor and is committed to fighting poverty.”

It said the Church, led by Cardinal Rosales, also “played its role as a Church of the poor and peacemaker on earth.”

“Much can be done if we work together,” it added.

Signing rites

The contending parties formally signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) spelling out the terms of the settlement at the chapel of the San Carlos Seminary in Guadalupe, Makati City, with Rosales and Auxiliary Bishop Broderick Pabillo among those serving as witnesses.

“Definitely, this is a big victory for the farmers,” Rosales said later in an interview.

The signing ceremony ended with cheers from the farmers, wearing white T-shirts and white headbands, who had marched all the way from the headquarters of Caritas Manila.

“Today, our exodus ends. Today, we finally become tillers of the land we have owned since the beginning,” said 21-year-old Elgine Merida, reading from the farmers’ prepared manifesto.

Even San Miguel Corp. (SMC) president Ramon Ang, who had broached the idea of the 50-ha donation to the farmers, heaved a sigh of relief.

“I’m happy because this had a happy ending,” Ang said.

SMC, Southeast Asia’s largest food and beverage firm, is the parent company of SMFI.

Backdoor negotiations

The MOA ended three months of “backdoor negotiations” mediated by Rosales between the farmers and SMFI executives.

The basic agreement was sealed as early as March 3, the two camps said in a statement. The MOA was finalized only on Friday night, according to Napoleon Merida.

The signatories were Ang and SMFI president Francisco Alejo, Napoleon and Samuel Merida, Larry Carejo and Mercy Serona from the farmers’ side, Antonio Medina of the Norberto Quisumbing Management Development Corp. (NQMDC), and Agrarian Reform Secretary Nasser Pangandaman and Philippine Information Agency Secretary Conrado Limcaoco in behalf of the President.

The others who signed as witnesses were Christian Monsod, a consultant of the farmers, their legal counsel Arlene Bag-ao, and SMFI lawyer Wilfredo Peñaflor.

According to the joint statement on the MOA read to the media:

SMC is to release 50 ha in the original site to qualified farmers “by deed of donation” and acquire 94 ha in adjacent lands to complete the 144 ha claimed.

The rest of the disputed land will remain with SMFI as it pursues its plan to convert the property into an agro-industrial complex.

The farmers have identified their preferred parcels of land outside the original site from a list provided by SMC, and have also organized a new cooperative, Panaghiusa sa mga Mag-uumang Nakigbisog alang sa Yuta sa Sumilao (Panaw-Sumilao), composed of initial qualified beneficiaries to be named owner of the land.

Pangandaman, under orders from President Macapagal-Arroyo to expedite the process of determining the qualified farmer-beneficiaries, has conducted a technical survey delineating the 50 ha.

All pending cases on the land dispute are to be dropped.

Courtesy call

The farmers later called on Ms Arroyo in Malacañang to present her a copy of the settlement agreement and thank her for her support.

They were accompanied by Limcaoco, Pangandaman, Ang and Fr. Anton Pascual, the executive director of Caritas Manila.

Both Pangandaman and Ang declared the settlement agreement a “win-win solution.”

Emerging from the meeting with Ms Arroyo, Ang told reporters that SMC had turned the title to the 50-ha property over to the farmers.

“Today, upon signing [of the agreement], they now own the land. Tomorrow, when they return, they will step on land that belongs to them,” Ang said.

According to Pascual, the Sumilao land is “not only a pastoral but also a personal [issue]” for Cardinal Rosales, who was assigned to Bukidnon as a bishop 20 years ago and personally knows the farmers.

Pascual thanked Ms Arroyo for intervening in the land dispute, saying: “Through her, the wheels of justice turned and she was able to help the farmers.”

‘Triumph of persevering spirit’

Arlene Bag-ao described the agreement as “a triumph of the farmers’ persevering spirit.”

Ang, who gave much of the credit to Rosales for the forging of the agreement, said he thought of donating the 50 ha the first time the farmers protested SMFI’s agro-industrial project.

“We were surprised when they started complaining. We thought we had ironed out everything with them. During the public hearing most of them signed the endorsement for us to put up the factory,” he told reporters.

The DAR originally awarded the land to the farmers in 1995 through the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. But in 1996, on appeal by landowner Norberto Quisumbing through the NQMDC, then Executive Secretary Ruben Torres Malacañang reversed this and approved the land’s conversion from agricultural to agro-industrial.

In February 2002, the NQMDC sold the 144-ha property to SMFI.

In November 2004, the farmers petitioned for the cancelation of the conversion order, charging that NQMDC had violated the terms by not implementing the five-year development plan that it had proposed to undertake on the land.

In October 2007, the farmers walked from Bukidnon to Manila to take their case to Malacañang.

“We would have wanted that they give us the whole 144 hectares so we won’t be far apart. But we’re happy as it is,” Napoleon Merida said Saturday.

Said Marlon Manuel, a lawyer for the farmers: “A lot has happened, and we believe that this is the best long-term settlement.”

Voluntary offer to sell

Manuel said the 50 ha would be opened for cultivation to all qualified farmers, including those who did not go through the initial process of identification.

The 94 ha, on the other hand, will be put under the CARP’s Voluntary Offer to Sell scheme, and will be acquired by the DAR from SMC on the farmers’ behalf, he said, adding that it would be up to the DAR and SMC to process the scheme.

Ang said SMC had acquired the 94 ha, which could be occupied and tilled in a month’s time.

“We’ve made the advance payment. But the amount is not important. What’s important is that the farmers are happy,” he told reporters.

He said the land could be paid for “over a period of 30 years.”

Ang said the MOA signing could be just the start of a partnership with the farmers.

He said SMFI would provide new means of livelihood, and build infrastructure such as schools, markets and hospitals once its agro-industrial complex became operational.

SMC offers help

“Despite the misunderstanding, and the bad publicity, we will continue the project, and we will support everything that you need. Whatever you need, we will help you,” Ang told the farmers.

He said SMFI had decided to invest on farm land in Sumilao with the intention of making good business and helping the farmers.

He stressed that when the company bought the land, it was unaware of any land dispute between the former landowner and the farmers.

“We had no bad intentions when we went to Sumilao. We never intended to hurt the rich, much less the poor,” Ang said.

Rosales’ tribute

During the signing ceremony, Rosales paid tribute to Ang for his sincerity and to the farmers who, he said, by their “faith in God, goodwill and trust [in other people],” helped seal the agreement.

“God gave us light and inspiration so that any problem here on earth will have a solution. This is the solution offered by God. Thanks to God,” the cardinal said.

Father Bernas on the SC's decision

Sounding Board
A dangerously crippling decision 

By Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J.
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 00:30:00 03/31/2008

MANILA, Philippines - Without resorting to the language of Governor Salceda, indeed it can be said that the President is the luckiest woman. The Court could have decided that Romulo Neri should answer the three questions pregnant with cloudy foreboding: (a) Whether the President followed up the NBN project; (b) Whether the President directed him to prioritize the ZTE; (c) Whether the President said to go ahead and approve the project after being told about the alleged bribe.

But the Court placed all three questions under executive privilege, and nothing derogatory to the woman, if there was any, as many thought, could come out.

The interest of this piece, however, is not about derogatory imputations but about the scope of executive privilege. Executive privilege, as almost everyone knows by now, is the prerogative of the President to withhold certain types of information from Congress, from the courts and from the public. It is a constitutional right of the President which she alone can claim, but she might also direct the executive secretary to claim it.

Thus, Secretary Ermita, presumably by authority of the President, wrote to the Senate: “The context in which executive privilege is being invoked is that the information sought to be disclosed might impair our diplomatic as well as economic relations with the People’s Republic of China. Given the confidential nature in which these information were conveyed to the President, he [Neri] cannot provide the Committee any further details of these conversations, without disclosing the very thing the privilege is designed to protect.” Neri also added (also by authority of the President?) that his answers might endanger national security.

The type of executive privilege claimed here is “presidential communication privilege.” Presidential communication is presumptively privileged; but the presumption is subject to rebuttal. Thus, whoever challenges it must show good and valid reasons related to the public welfare.

What reason did the Senate have? Recall that this was in the course of a legislative investigation occasioned by, among others, pending bills about foreign loans. The topic of foreign loans is special. It is not the sole domain of the President. Under our Constitution foreign loans may be incurred by the President but only with the prior consent of the Monetary Board and in accordance with laws passed by Congress. Hence the Senate had very good reason for finding out how the ZTE-NBN loans were handled and how the very unique experience under it which had attracted national interest could contribute to legislation.

When the claim of privilege is disputed by Congress, how and by whom is the dispute to be resolved? US decisions, strewn all over Justice Leonardo-De Castro’s ponencia, say that it is the Court that decides whether the claim of privilege has foundation.

That was the reason why the Court called for the oral argument on the subject. The Court wanted to find out, without compelling Neri to reveal legitimate secrets, how Neri’s answer might affect diplomatic relations and national security. As Chief Justice Puno observed, “The Court cannot engage in guesswork in resolving this important issue.”

Neri was not at the oral argument to explain. When his lawyer was asked to explain, Neri’s lawyer was clueless. His answer, repeated like a mantra, was “I cannot fathom.”

One might also add that, if there was any possible cause for impairment of diplomatic relations with China, one such possible cause would have been the cancellation of the contract. But no diplomatic problem arose from the cancellation.

The Court could have asked for an in camera session for Neri to explain his claim within the hearing of the Court alone. Such a procedure, followed by American practice, could have enabled the Court to sift what was privileged and what was not and then to allow the revelation of what was not privileged. But the Court did not use the procedure, probably because it was already obvious from the oral argument that the claim of privilege could not be sustained. It was, to paraphrase Neri’s lawyer, unfathomable.

But, lo and behold, the ponencia ruled that the matter was covered by executive privilege. Was it fathomed by guesswork, as Puno suggested? That is the way it looks to me.

The implication of this ponencia that shows no effort to look into the underlying substance of the claimed privilege is that once the claim of “presidential communication privilege” is claimed, no evidence is needed to support it even if there are legitimate reasons calling for disclosure. This would revolutionize the doctrine on executive privilege in a manner that can affect all other investigations. This can, for instance, hamper effective use of the recently promulgated writ of amparo and writ of habeas data. It can also cripple efforts to battle official corruption, which is a world-recognized specialty of the Philippines.

But did the Neri decision establish this paralyzing and stifling doctrine? We need to count heads. Two of the nine Justices concurred merely in the result without bothering to explain their concurrence. One Justice chose not to argue from executive privilege. That leaves six of the nine. Six out of 15 do not establish a doctrine, especially since the six concurring opinions might just as well have been unwritten.

The case clearly calls for a reconsideration to give the Court a chance to clarify what doctrine of executive privilege it really wishes to establish. Does the Court want to sublimate guesswork?

Happiness is what I feel :)

I 639. IBRAHIM, Ysnaira A.  640. ILAGAN, JR., Casiano A.  641. ILAO, Julan C.  642. ILARDE, Maila Katrina Y.  643. IMPERIAL, Dinah F.  644. IMPERIAL, Paul Rodulfo B.  645. INDAR, Rahma A.  646. INOTURAN, Florinda P.  647. INTERIOR, Enrico S.

Coz you see, I cannot be any prouder :)

Congratulations to you and to all who made it! :)

How devastating.

Because i cannot, for the love of God and country, come to terms with the how and the why of the Supreme Court's recently promulgated decision.

The voting was 9 to 6. 8 of the 9 justices who voted to grant Neri's petition are all appointees of PGMA. The other justice, on the other hand, is expected to be appointed Chief Justice when Justice Puno retires before 2010.

Tell me this isn't a devastating blow to Philippine democracy.

-----

"The giant question on the scope and use of executive privilege has cast a long shadow on the ongoing Senate inquiry regarding the alleged and attempted bribery of high government officials in the consummation of the National Broadband Network (NBN) Contract of the Philippine government.  With the expanse and opaqueness of the constitutional doctrine of executive privilege, we need to open a window to enable enough light to enter and illuminate the shadow it has cast on the case at bar.  The task is not easy, as the nature of executive privilege is not static, but dynamic.  Nonetheless, if there is a North Star in this quest, it is that the end all of executive privilege is to promote public interest and no other." (emphasis mine)

- Opening statement of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno in his dissenting opinion in Romulo L. Neri vs. The Senate Committee on the Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, Senate Committee on Trade and Commerce, and Senate Committee on Defense and National Security.

Yehey!

I cannot contain my excitement.  We are watching Across the Universe tomorrow! Never mind that there's a Commercial Law Review quiz at 7:00 p.m. (and I haven't really studied for it yet). I am so looking forward to tomorrow! I am reserving 14 tickets! Tell me if you wanna come join us! We're watching the 10:30 p.m. show at Glorietta 4.

Yehey! :)

Finding Nemo (The Manila Oceanpark Experience)

We were there at around 11am, and the line outside was already pretty long. We really should have gone earlier.

Paul called it the "soft opening". Well, it could have been that. The whole process - from entering, walking through the park, and exiting - was unsystematic, almost chaotic. They really should try to do something about that or most guests and visitors will miss out on the experience.

Here are a few pictures taken using my camera-phone. They did allow us to bring a camera, but we were told not to use it with the flash, (baka magulat daw ang mga fishies! :p). Paul however just gave up taking pictures (even though he was supposed to be the official photographer). With everybody pushing and shoving to get a better look, it was quite impossible to take decent ones! We dint even see Nemo!

Apologize only from the heart, mean it, say it with all SINCERITY and HUMILITY.

Again, it's all about you, isn't it? YOUR reasons. YOUR justifications. YOUR predicament.

I'm usually quiet about issues and controversies around school, but when you drag the name of the Ateneo Human Rights Center in your futile attempt to save face, I will make my voice heard.

You do not get to claim that "you operate only on one word: TRUST" because we know that is not true. If what you did was not betrayal, then what is?

You do not get to make it appear to me and to all those present in that meeting, or to any Ateneo law student for that matter, that you did not have a choice, because you did, and we all know what it was.

You do not get to impress on me or on anybody that YOUR stand is the only valid stand, and anything other than that is "sitting on the fence", "not responding", "choosing to be quiet", or "choosing what's convenient". We chose to stand for truth, accountability, and reform, at hindi ibig sabihin niyan na hindi kami naninindigan.

You never really got it, my friend. Maybe you never will. Sayang naman ang halos tatlong oras na "exchange of ideas". Ito rin pala ang kahihinatnan.

You do not deserve to be called my leader.

Please stop saying that you did not mean it and that you were just put on the spot. Please. I ask not for any explanation from you. You do not have my sympathy. You will not have my sympathy.

You made a complete fool out of me, and out of each and every person who stayed and waited for whatever it was you had to say. Surprise, surprise, it turned out to be just one of your deceptive and manipulative speeches.

Shame on me for actually believing that I could trust your word. Shame on me for actually believing that I could trust you. Shame on me for giving you the chance to redeem yourself. Those last few bits of respect I had for you are now gone, and somehow, I feel a sense of release.

So wallow in self-righteousness and carry on feeding your insatiable ego. After all, those are the things you do best.