Home / News / Urgent Appeals / PHILIPPINES: Eviction of impoverished farmers in Barangay Talomo
 

PHILIPPINES: Eviction of impoverished farmers in Barangay Talomo

September 3, 2002

URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION
<br>

<br>
ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAM
<br>

<br>
4 September 2002
<br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
<br>
UA-39-2002: Eviction of impoverished farmers in Barangay Talomo, Philippines
<br>

<br>
PHILIPPINES: Land rights; Loss of land and deprivation of livelihood
<br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
<br>

<br>
The following urgent appeal is based on information received from the Task Force Detainees of the Philippines (TFDP). It combines information from a recent urgent appeal of theirs and two updates to it. Please show solidarity with the farmers in the Philippines who are losing their land and livelihood.
<br>

<br>
CASE DETAILS
<br>

<br>
Seventeen impoverished farmers from Barangay Talomo, Sto. Tomas, Davao del Norter, Philippines have been evicted on August 8, 2002. This was in an area of contested land of about 23.4676 hectares. Prior to these farmers' entry, they say the area was a cogonal, forested, and uncultivated land. These farmers first entered the land between 1972 and 1986 and took possession of the land in 1987.
<br>

<br>
These farmers have been struggling to earn a living to feed their children. They must often borrow from traders outside of harvest season or even during harvest season if their crops fail. Each of the seventeen farmers, generally supporting a number of children, cultivated land ranging from a fraction of a hectare up to two hectares, planted with such plants and trees as banana, coconut, mango, and jackfruit, as well as engaging in rice farming.
<br>

<br>
It is reported that in 1987, some persons arrived and introduced themselves as the heirs of the owner of the land, although they told the farmers they could keep cultivating. These persons, heirs of Paulino Lopez, submitted a petition to President Aquino in 1987 for a portion of patented land under the name of Paulino Lopez, covered by Lot No. 12, CAD-284 without title covering an area of 23.4676 hectares for CARP coverage. This land was titled among the heirs of Paulino Lopez based on a Homestead patent title from Homestead Application No. 233180 O.C.T. No. (P-2278) P-541 in the name of Paulino Lopez.
<br>

<br>
This land has now been in dispute for years. The heirs of Paulino Lopez brought a civil case, which resulted in the Regional Trial Court making an order against the farmers in 1995, affirmed by the Court of Appeal in 2001. On 5 July 2002, the farmers received a notice to vacate from the Sheriff of Panabo City. The Sheriff delivered this to only one person, which resulted in some confusion.
<br>

<br>
On 8 August 2002, it is reported that a convoy of around 200 people, including police, private security guards, and members of the military not in uniform arrived to carry out the demolition. There were attempts at negotiation. After some time, the sheriff refused to give any more time for negotiation and got a team to spray the farmers with tear gas. In the early afternoon, the municipal mayor arrived, and there was a new round of negotiations. This gave the farmers fifteen days to relocate.
<br>

<br>
During these next fifteen days, about ten security guards of the alleged landowner were placed into the area. They were reportedly armed with armalite rifles and shotguns.
<br>

<br>
On August 24,2002, the day after the 15 days expired, some hired workers of the landowners accompanied by the their security guards, reportedly used chainsaws to destroy the plants of the farmers, other fruit trees, and trees which are the evidence of their long occupation in the area.
<br>

<br>
The farmers's houses, other than one demolished before, are still in place. Some say the landowner may have sensed that it would be questionable to remove illegally the houses of the farmers, because the court failed to issue an order of demolition up to this point. On 26 August 2002, some hired workers of the alleged landowners reportedly fenced the entrance gate of the area where the houses of the farmers are located, and the farmers were driven out. On 26-27 August 2002, some hired workers of the alleged landowners reportedly brought three chainsaws, and more trees and plants of the farmers were destroyed.
<br>

<br>
According to TFDP, the acquisition of the land by Paulino Lopez and his heirs was based on fraud. The acquisition of the Homestead Certificate of Title of Paulino Lopez was tainted with fraud, misrepresentation, and irregularity, because he could not have complied with the residence and cultivation requirements of the Homestead Law. At the time he was supposed to be residing on the land, he was reportedly residing in Davao City, and it is too far from the contested land.
<br>

<br>
According to TFDP, Paulino Lopez made a misrepresentation in his final proof of application for a Homestead Patent because he said in his application that he built a house and he had cultivated the area. But according to witnesses who were living in the place for quite some time, they stated that neither Paulino Lopez nor his heirs had done this. They had not cultivated the land. They had not introduced any improvements. There were no traces of cultivation ever having been made before the farmers came. The title holder and his transferees had never exercised acts of possession as appropriate to the concept of an owner, because they have never complied with the minimum requirements of residence and cultivation provided for in the Public Land Act.
<br>

<br>
Today, the farmers who have been living on this land and supporting their families for decades are being chased out. Their livelihoods and their very lives are at risk.
<br>

<br>

<br>
SUGGESTED ACTION
<br>

<br>
Please send your appeal to the Filipino authorities to urge them to take action on the ownership of this land.
<br>

<br>

<br>
SUGGESTED LETTER
<br>

<br>
Dear
<br>

<br>
Re: The situation of seventeen evicted farmers in Barangay Talomo and the proper ownership of Lot No. 12, CAD-284 based on Homestead Application No. 233180 O.C.T. No. (P-2278) P-541
<br>

<br>
I write to express my concern about the situation with respect to the above-mentioned lot, which has now been given to the heirs of Paulino Lopez.
<br>

<br>
Seventeen farmers have been living on this lot and supporting their families at a subsistence level for decades. They have recently been evicted with much force. I am particularly concerned at their plight in light of indications that they have been removed entirely unjustly.
<br>

<br>
I am told that the heirs of Paulino Lopez were given this land based on documents that included misrepresentations and fraud. I am told that Paulino Lopez could not have complied with the residence and cultivation requirements of the Homestead Law. At the time he was supposed to be residing on the land, he was reportedly residing in Davao City, and it is too far from the contested land.
<br>

<br>
I am also told that Paulino Lopez said in his final application for a Homestead Patent that he built a house and he had cultivated the area. But according to witnesses who were living in the place for quite some time, neither Paulino Lopez nor his heirs had done this. They had not cultivated the land. They had not introduced any improvements. There were no traces of cultivation ever having been made before the farmers who have recently been evicted came.
<br>

<br>
I ask that you investigate this matter thoroughly, and, if these reports are right, take immediate steps to cancel the title of Paulino Lopez and his heirs so that this land may be returned to its just owners, the farmers who have been living on it these past decades. They are now without their land and without their livelihood based on an unjust taking of their land.
<br>

<br>
I look forward to learning about your action on this issue.
<br>

<br>
Thank you for your attention.
<br>

<br>
Sincerely yours,
<br>

<br>
-------------
<br>

<br>
PLEASE SEND LETTER BY FAX OR EMAIL TO:
<br>

<br>
1. Her Excellency Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
<br>
President, Republic of the Philippines
<br>
New Executive Building
<br>
Malacanang Palace Compound
<br>
J. P. Laurel St.
<br>
San Miguel, Manila
<br>
PHILIPPINES
<br>
Fax: +632 929 3968
<br>
E-mail: opnet@ops.gov.ph or kgma@yahoogroups.com
<br>

<br>
2. Mr. Heherson Alvarez
<br>
Secretary
<br>
Department of the Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
<br>
DENR Bldg., Visayas Avenue,
<br>
Diliman, Quezon City
<br>
PHILIPPINES
<br>
Tel: +632 928-0691 to 93
<br>
E-mail: denr@globe.com.ph
<br>

<br>
3. Hon. Hernando Perez
<br>
Secretary
<br>
Department of Justice
<br>
DOJ Building,
<br>
Padre Faura,
<br>
Manila 1004
<br>
PHILIPPINES
<br>
Fax: +632 521-1614
<br>

<br>
Also send a copy of your letter to:
<br>

<br>
Ms. Valera Quisumbing
<br>
Chairperson, Commission on Human Rights
<br>
SAAC Building, UP Complex
<br>
Commonwealth Avenue
<br>
Diliman, Quezon City
<br>
PHILIPPINES
<br>
Fax: +632 929-0102
<br>
Email: apnr@chr.gov.ph
<br>

<br>
And let the Task Force Detainees of the Philippines know of any action you take:
<br>
Rita M. Melecio
<br>
ritz_tfdp@eudoramail.com
<br>

<br>

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Case
Document ID :
UA-39-2002
Countries :
Issues :
Document Actions
Share |
Subscribe to our Mailing List
Follow AHRC
Extended Introduction: Urgent Appeals, theory and practice

A need for dialogue

Many people across Asia are frustrated by the widespread lack of respect for human rights in their countries.  Some may be unhappy about the limitations on the freedom of expression or restrictions on privacy, while some are affected by police brutality and military killings.  Many others are frustrated with the absence of rights on labour issues, the environment, gender and the like. 

Yet the expression of this frustration tends to stay firmly in the private sphere.  People complain among friends and family and within their social circles, but often on a low profile basis. This kind of public discourse is not usually an effective measure of the situation in a country because it is so hard to monitor. 

Though the media may cover the issues in a broad manner they rarely broadcast the private fears and anxieties of the average person.  And along with censorship – a common blight in Asia – there is also often a conscious attempt in the media to reflect a positive or at least sober mood at home, where expressions of domestic malcontent are discouraged as unfashionably unpatriotic. Talking about issues like torture is rarely encouraged in the public realm.

There may also be unwritten, possibly unconscious social taboos that stop the public reflection of private grievances.  Where authoritarian control is tight, sophisticated strategies are put into play by equally sophisticated media practices to keep complaints out of the public space, sometimes very subtly.  In other places an inner consensus is influenced by the privileged section of a society, which can control social expression of those less fortunate.  Moral and ethical qualms can also be an obstacle.

In this way, causes for complaint go unaddressed, un-discussed and unresolved and oppression in its many forms, self perpetuates.  For any action to arise out of private frustration, people need ways to get these issues into the public sphere.

Changing society

In the past bridging this gap was a formidable task; it relied on channels of public expression that required money and were therefore controlled by investors.  Printing presses were expensive, which blocked the gate to expression to anyone without money.  Except in times of revolution the media in Asia has tended to serve the well-off and sideline or misrepresent the poor.

Still, thanks to the IT revolution it is now possible to communicate with large audiences at little cost.  In this situation there is a real avenue for taking issues from private to public, regardless of the class or caste of the individual.

Practical action

The AHRC Urgent Appeals system was created to give a voice to those affected by human rights violations, and by doing so, to create a network of support and open avenues for action.  If X’s freedom of expression is denied, if Y is tortured by someone in power or if Z finds his or her labour rights abused, the incident can be swiftly and effectively broadcast and dealt with. The resulting solidarity can lead to action, resolution and change. And as more people understand their rights and follow suit, as the human rights consciousness grows, change happens faster. The Internet has become one of the human rights community’s most powerful tools.   

At the core of the Urgent Appeals Program is the recording of human rights violations at a grass roots level with objectivity, sympathy and competence. Our information is firstly gathered on the ground, close to the victim of the violation, and is then broadcast by a team of advocates, who can apply decades of experience in the field and a working knowledge of the international human rights arena. The flow of information – due to domestic restrictions – often goes from the source and out to the international community via our program, which then builds a pressure for action that steadily makes its way back to the source through his or her own government.   However these cases in bulk create a narrative – and this is most important aspect of our program. As noted by Sri Lankan human rights lawyer and director of the Asian Human Rights Commission, Basil Fernando:

"The urgent appeal introduces narrative as the driving force for social change. This idea was well expressed in the film Amistad, regarding the issue of slavery. The old man in the film, former president and lawyer, states that to resolve this historical problem it is very essential to know the narrative of the people. It was on this basis that a court case is conducted later. The AHRC establishes the narrative of human rights violations through the urgent appeals. If the narrative is right, the organisation will be doing all right."

Patterns start to emerge as violations are documented across the continent, allowing us to take a more authoritative, systemic response, and to pinpoint the systems within each country that are breaking down. This way we are able to discover and explain why and how violations take place, and how they can most effectively be addressed. On this path, larger audiences have opened up to us and become involved: international NGOs and think tanks, national human rights commissions and United Nations bodies.  The program and its coordinators have become a well-used tool for the international media and for human rights education programs. All this helps pave the way for radical reforms to improve, protect and to promote human rights in the region.