Among the imponderables in the State of the Nation Addresses (SoNAs) during previous and present administrations is the resistance of Congress, specifically the Senate, to pass the crucial National Land Use Act (NLUA).
Efforts of more than three decades to enact the proposal had proved futile largely due to the tacit opposition of members of Congress whose business interests would be restricted by the law.
Yet, economic managers have underlined the immediate need for the law as the improper use of land affects food security. Uncontrolled development basically leads to land grabbing which results in the indiscriminate conversion of prime lands to non-agricultural uses.
The rapid growth in the wealth of Filipino families due to the stream of cash transfers from relatives working abroad plus the boom in the business process outsourcing (BPO) sector that has become the ideal source of industry dispersals consequently induced the gobbling up of open land.
The BPO trend, however, has its price as formerly agricultural communities with huge expanses of land become targets of developers out to exploit the demand for properties to house not only call centers but also the collateral beneficiaries such as fast food stores and other services outlets.
The breakout happened due to the increased demand for English-speaking Filipinos, the supply of which is practically unlimited.
Passing the NLUA has become a struggle mainly as a result of the lobby by real estate developers who are against limits to the conversion of farms to non-agricultural or non-agrarian purposes.
Even the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations made its case for the law, asserting there is a “longstanding need for the National Land Use Act.”
Without the law, the government think tank Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) counted 30 overlapping environmental and ecological protection laws and policies on the use of water and land management that are exploited by property developers who grow their businesses at the expense of food production.
The NLUA seeks to delineate clear land use parameters, outlines long-term planning strategies, and mandates reviews of sustainable land use at all levels of government which clashes with the interest of property developers.
The PIDS said existing mechanisms such as land zoning and reclassification provide some avenues for land use regulation “but their efficacy is limited.” The National Land Use Committee (NLUC), which is tasked with resolving land use conflicts at the national level, “lacks enforcement powers and struggles to impose sanctions on non-compliant parties.”
Protracted disputes and the need for presidential intervention, as seen in past conflicts over land use conversion, become the rule rather than the exception, according to PIDS.
Not only farmlands are threatened, according to a PIDS study. “Evidence of environmental degradation demonstrate the negative externalities that arise from the production and consumption of forest products and watershed services,” it said.
Land use conflicts within ancestral domains also pose challenges to peace, development, and cultural preservation.
In a likely left-handed compliment directed at the Senate, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. thanked the House of Representatives for giving “urgent attention” to the bill proposing the NLUA through House Bill 8162.
President Marcos then said before his second SoNA that he would persuade Congress to immediately pass the marooned NLUA which was a priority bill.
“Allow me to reiterate the urgency of enacting a [national] land use policy for our country, which is a priority legislative agenda of this administration,” the Chief Executive said.
Those words fell on deaf ears in the Senate as it continued to resist the enactment of the law.
The failure of the upper chamber to pass the crucial measure reflects on its members’ priority for vested interests over the public welfare.