Batangas Governor Hermilando Mandanas on Thursday vowed to help the agrarian reform beneficiaries, or ARBs, facing eviction from the lands they are tilling in Nasugbu, Batangas.

The lands are being repossessed by the Roxas and Company Inc., a publicly listed company, on the strength of a Consolidated Order of the Department of Agrarian Reform relocating the ARBs.

“We will help them. They can of course talk to me. As a matter of fact, I am talking to them. In terms of relocation, we will help them,” said Mandanas during the general membership meeting of the Rotary Club of Manila at the Manila Polo Club, where he was the guest speaker.

However, Mandanas said the local government can no longer intervene given the decision rendered by the Supreme Court for the DAR to address the issues raised against the ARBs by the company in trying to repossess three haciendas.

Agrarian Reform Undersecretary for Legal Affairs Napoleon Galit earlier said that the resolution of the land dispute between the farmers groups and Roxas and Co. Inc., covering Haciendas Palico, Banilad, and Caylaway, all in Nasugbu, Batangas, was already ruled by the SC, under GR 127876, dated 17 December 1999, in favor of Roxas and Co. Inc.

The decision invalidated the certificates of land ownership award or CLOAs issued to the farmers. Amid the decision, Mandanas said they will still help the CLOA holders and ARBs negotiate with the DAR or Roxas Inc., or both.

“Within that SC decision, I am sure we will be able to make an amicable settlement. I call on them to approach me. I will listen to them, but I must also listen to the Roxases,” Mandanas said.

The governor said it was not the first time that he helped CLOA holders in Nasugbu, as he also helped the ARBs when they had a problem with a sugar plantation in the municipality.

Meanwhile, the affected ARBs are still waiting to see if the motion for reconsideration they filed with DAR Secretary Conrado Estrella III would be approved or not.

DAILY TRIBUNE contacted the DAR to find out the status of the ARBs’ motion for reconsideration, but it had not received a response at press time.

DAR officials have said that the consolidated order was final and executory. The ARB’s lawyer, Mario Cerro, has maintained that the order was still appealable to the Office of the President.

Cerro maintained that the award of 1,322 hectares to the landowner was contrary to the intention and spirit of the land distribution as mandated in the CARP Law.

“It should be emphasized that the application for exemption and conversion of RCI has been decided with finality in 2009. With the alleged compromise agreement, RCI, in effect, retains landholding beyond what is ordained in the law — a five-hectare limit. Is the DAR now allowing conversion for the RCI landholding? Is this not a blatant disregard of the 2009 SC ruling negating the Court’s ruling on the application for conversion of RCI,” Cerro said, in reaction to the DAR’s statement.

Cerro said that what was worse, upon analyzing the map attached to the Consolidated Order, it appeared all the beneficiaries in Hacienda Caylaway and Banilad were displaced.

“The whole of Hacienda Caylaway is in green, meaning (it belongs to) RCl, and no part is awarded to any of its beneficiaries. This can also be observed in the neighboring Hacienda Banilad, which is almost all parts green, save for a small parcel of land. Are there no beneficiaries in Hacienda Caylaway and Banilad? Are the beneficiaries in Hacienda Palico aware that portions of what they cultivate now will be shared by all displaced beneficiaries from the two neighboring haciendas?” Cerro said.

“Such questions need resolution by the wise and learned Secretary and not to go against his sworn mandate to protect the farmers and the land they till, especially with the President’s directive to ultimately hasten the distribution of land to the landless. In light of the pending Motion for Reconsideration filed by the affected beneficiaries of Hacienda Caylaway and Banilad, the finality of the Order should be held in abeyance, especially (given) the deception of their former counsel and the directives by the Supreme Court and by what is ordained in the law on land distribution,” Cerro said.