1 - Universal Periodic Review

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4.1.3. CriminalizationThere is a significant increase in criminal cases being filed against agrarian reformpetitioners. The charges are mainly filed by the landowners’ agents, and includequalified theft, malicious mischief, trespassing, libel and estafa. Such charges in the firstinstance fail to recognize or respect the actual legal land and tenure rights of thepetitioners under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). Meanwhile, theCARL states that agrarian reform related cases should not be tried in the regular courts.Yet landowners and their agents are making frequent use of the civil and penal codes toharass peasant agrarian reform petitioners, unfortunately with the active support of theprovincial prosecutor and local judge. Farmers often do not have sufficient funds to postbail (forcing them to borrow or remain in jail), much less money to hire lawyers to defendthemselves in court. DAR lawyers do not normally represent tenants involved in agrarianrelated criminal cases.The Mission learned of 189 cases filed against 196 petitioners, mainly in the vast VillaReyes (San Andres) and the Matias hacienda (San Francisco). Some of the affectedpetitioners told how they were violently arrested as a result of the dubious criminal casesfiled against them. Since 1996 more than 300 farmers have been imprisoned. From May12 th 2006 42 farmers were jailed after they voluntarily surrendered to the authorities atthe police camp in Manila. 48 more farmers have pending warrants of arrests. Theirliberty is denied unnecessarily by state agencies, which allow them to be used as toolsof the landowners.4.1.4. Lack of effective ownership and control of the land resourceFor agrarian reform petitioners still caught up in extremely onerous sharing systems,and for those who have been forcibly evicted or displaced as a consequence ofcontinuing harassments, the right to food is severely violated. Without access to the landthat is rightfully due them under the CARL, they lack economic or physical access toadequate food, and what is more, they no longer have access to their rightful means forits procurement. Petitioners without land titles are especially vulnerable to foodinsecurity and harassments from land owners and their allies.4.1.5. Specific Recommendations(i) Once they petition for their legal land and tenure rights under the CARL, tenantsbecome extremely vulnerable to all manner of legalistic and extra-legal retaliatoryactions of landlords. Such retaliatory actions also directly undermine the agrarian reformpetitioners’ ability to construct and maintain an adequate rural livelihood, which in turnweakens their capacity to sustain their position on the land. This situation worsens thelonger the CARP implementation process drags on. The government, through the DAR,should hasten implementation of CARP so as to make as short as possible the amountof time petitioners have to wait before gaining full ownership and control of the land.(ii) The killing of agrarian reform petitioners by non-state actors is unacceptable andshould not be tolerated. Suspects in the murder cases should immediately be arrestedby state authorities and brought to trial. Witnesses should be protected, and the victims’IFFM 2006 Final Report 18
families should receive adequate welfare support. The victims and their families deservea speedy and just resolution of these cases.(iii) The national PNP and AFP should immediately investigate instances of localpersonnel collaboration with landlords in committing crimes against agrarian reformpetitioners. State armed forces should not allow themselves to be used as agents oflandlords in harassing tenants and agrarian reform petitioners. Erring personnel shouldbe immediately investigated and appropriate administrative and criminal charges filedagainst them. The PNP and the AFP should join hands in keeping the peace andprotecting agrarian reform petitioners and beneficiaries from human rights violations.(iv) The courts and their agents (judges and provincial prosecutors) should stopentertaining agrarian reform related cases. When filed, such cases should be dismissedimmediately and forwarded to the DAR, as instructed in the agrarian reform law. Aspauper-litigants, accused petitioners should be provided with free legal assistance bycompetent lawyers who are knowledgeable of the agrarian reform law.v) The food security of agrarian reform petitioners and their families should be made apriority of the Philippine government as a signatory to the ICESCR.4.2. Western VisayasThe Mission visited the provinces of Iloilo, Negros Occidental and Oriental Negros last3–5 June 2006. Victims, relatives of victims and witnesses of human rights violationswere interviewed. In all cases, the petitioners or beneficiaries of the governmentagrarian reform program were still obliged to struggle to secure their legal land rights inprivate agricultural lands or in public lands, as these were being claimed by powerfulprivate persons.The three provinces covered by the Mission are known for their sugarplantations/haciendas. Producing more than half of the country’s sugar, the Negrosprovinces are considered the nation’s “sugar bowl”. The Philippine sugar industryemploys an estimated 556,000 farmers and 25,000 sugar mill workers. About 5 millionpeople depend on the industry, directly or indirectly. The sugar industry dates back tothe Spanish era. In Negros Occidental, only about seventeen family groups withinterlocking relations control most of the vast sugar plantations. The sugar trade wasopened up under American colonial rule, and the industry boomed until early 1980’s,when a crisis hit and many hacienda owners were forced to sell or mortgage theirproperties or convert their farms to other commercial uses. Many of them diversified intoother sectors and became dominant industrial and business forces. But the sugarworkers were hardest hit and are counted among the poorest of the country’s poor.After almost two decades of the implementation of CARP, the three provinces remainbastions of landlordism. As of 2005, the CARP coverage balance in private landholdingsis 125,540 hectares, which does not include an additional 1.8 million hectares of publicland being claimed by private landowners. Big sugar hacenderos use a combination oflegal and extra-legal processes to block CARP implementation, often with the help ofIFFM 2006 Final Report 19
Page 1 and 2: RUNNING AMOK:LANDLORD LAWLESSNESS a
Page 3 and 4: petitioners and agrarian reform ben
Page 5 and 6: List of AcronymsADB Asian Developme
Page 7 and 8: SWS Social Weather StationTADECO Ta
Page 9 and 10: 1. IntroductionThe Government of th
Page 11 and 12: During the Visayas leg of the prese
Page 13 and 14: the right to food in General Commen
Page 15 and 16: into the CARP. Voluntary Offer to S
Page 17: This remote region on Southern Luzo
Page 21 and 22: 4.2.5. Dispossession of cropsTwo (2
Page 23 and 24: is therefore the least desirable op
Page 25 and 26: (v) To properly investigate those i
Page 27 and 28: was the person they saw shoot Ka Er
Page 29 and 30: assailants at the time of her husba
Page 31 and 32: collective CLOA, that is why they c
Page 33 and 34: claimants in Texas filed a class-ac
Page 35 and 36: 5.3. State Obligation to Protect Pe
Page 37 and 38: (iii) Ensure Petitioners’ and Ben
Page 39: IFFM 2006 Final Report

1 - Universal Periodic Review

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?