The raging issue of the valuation of the properties of the victims of the 2017 Marawi siege for purposes of compensation continues to occupy the minds of the desolate evacuees languishing in temporary shelters.

Recall that there were protests and an indignation rally against the process of valuation being employed by the Marawi Compensation Board (MCB), an executive body with quasi-judicial functions tasked to process and evaluate the claims for compensation of the victims.

In sum, some victims griped undervaluation while the MCB reasoned out that they did their valuation within the parameters set by Republic Act 11696 or the Marawi Siege Victims Compensation Act of 2022 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. There appeared to be an impasse on the issue.

This concern was the principal mover for the calling recently by the Joint Oversight Committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate on the Marawi Rehabilitation of a hearing that was attended by members of the MCB, civil society organizations, the government bodies concerned, and local government officials.

After an exchange of opinions, there crystallized a need to amend some provisions of the law that restricted or impeded the MCB. But the legislative mill grinds at a snail’s pace and amending the law under the normal process of legislation is cumbersome and tedious. The Solomonic suggestion was to initiate the enactment of a Joint Congressional Resolution by both Houses which, if approved by the President, has the effect of a law. A consensus was arrived at to resort to this process.

The idea found support from a cross-section of Maranaw society like the traditional leaders and ulamas or Muslim clerics and concerned groups.

For its part, the Sangguniang Panglunsod of Marawi City passed a resolution expressing full support for the Joint Congressional Resolution that would allow the MCB to use the Replacement or Repair Cost or any scheme to compute the assessed values of the damaged properties that would be reasonable, just and fair.

There were off-the-cuff suggestions that the amendments be done with the idea of granting fair and just compensation to the victims. While they deserve compensation as mandated by law, are the awards within the standards of reasonableness? Are they proximate to being “just compensation” as contemplated in the Constitution and jurisprudence?

Do the monetary awards dovetail with the spirit and intention of the authors of the Compensation Law?

In an informal gathering of like-minded lawyers, some of the amendments that they wanted to be proposed were to allow the MCB to use the replacement or repair cost along with a formula the MCB might devise and adopt in computing valuations, instead of the fair market value scheme.

They likewise proposed that the phrase “whichever is lower” in the law and IRR referring to the payment of compensation be expunged or modified as this defeats the intention of the law to grant reasonable compensation to the victims.

Another idea is a provision that would allow the MCB to recompute the compensation already paid to claimants and adjust it if it should come out later that they deserved more than what they earlier received.

We see the enthusiasm of the solons in sympathizing with the plight of the internally displaced persons or IDPs. In fact, they were very vocal in expressing their support for any move that would alleviate the plight of the evacuees by giving them fair and reasonable compensation.

This piece is a clarion call to the leaders of the Muslims and civil society groups to increase the decibel of their voices by asking for an amendment to the Compensation Law through the enactment of a Joint Congressional Resolution that would give the MCB the mandate to grant “just and fair” compensation.

amb_mac_lanto@yahoo.com