Land  Use  Conflict  in  the  Philippine  Resources  Industry    Land   use   is   associated   with   human   rights   issue.   Resource   developers   must  respect  the  rights  of  host  communities  affected  including  farmers  and  indigenous  peoples.  They  should  obtain  permission  not  only  from  landowners  but  also  from  occupiers   or   users   before   commencing   development   and   be   aware   of   the  obligation   to   protect   sources   of   food   and   water.     In   consultation   with   the  community,  both  government  and  project  proponents  must  engage  a  process  to  compensate   fairly   for   adverse   effects,   identify   strategies   to   manage  environmental   and   social   consequences,   and   if   possible,   avoid  displacement  or  resettlement  of  people    Land   and   natural   resource   issues   often   times   are   the   main   causes   of   conflict.  Land  conflicts  especially  when  related   to  access   to   land  or   insecurity  of   tenure  commonly  become  violent  when  linked  to  wider  processes  of  political  exclusion,  social  discrimination,  economic  marginalization,  and  a  perception  that  peaceful  action   is  no   longer  a  viable  strategy  for  change.  The  globalization  of  economies  has  generated  a  surge  in  investments  related  to  land  and  other  natural  resources  The   Philippines   is   no   stranger   to   violence   in   relation   to   land   and   natural  resources  conflict.   (Toolkit  and  Guidance  for  Preventing  and  Managing  Land  and  Natural  Resources  Conflict,  2012).  The  exploitation  of  natural   resources  and  the  concomitant  environmental  degradation  exacerbated  by  climate  change  intensify  the   perceived   ‘land   scarcity’.   Unresolved   disputes  will   continue   to   prevent   the  resources  from  being  developed  sustainably  creating  uncertainty  and  prolonged  conflicts.        

   Land  and  Resource  Governance    

The   World   Bank-­‐supported   2013   report   entitled   “Improving   Land   Sector  Governance   in   the   Philippines:   Implementation   of   Land   Governance   Assessment  Framework”     (“LGAF”)   aims   to  provide   a   tool   for  diagnosis   of   land  governance  issues,   establishment   of   benchmarks   and   monitoring   progress   over   time.   The  report   identified   several   key   challenges   that   were   expected   to   highlight   the  importance  of  improving  land  governance  in  the  Philippines.  These  are:          First,  the  country  has  one  of  the   fastest   growing   population   in   Asia,   which   is  expected   to   place   undue   pressure   on   the   use   of   land   and   its   rational   and  equitable  allocation  among  competing  uses.          Second,  investments  in  agriculture  and  property  development  are  being  stymied  by  continuing  property  rights  problems  and  inconsistent  policy.            Third,   smaller  sized  farms  resulting  from  completion  of  land  redistribution  pose  challenges  in  improving  productivity  to  meet  food  security.            Fourth,  degradation  of  the  country’s  forests  and  natural  resources  has  continued,  affecting  the  poor  greatly,  due  to  their  dependence  on  these  resources.          Fifth,   as   the   country   scales  up  public   investments   in   infrastructure   to  promote  inclusive  growth,   it  becomes  more  crucial   to  set  clear  and  equitable  policies  on  expropriation  and  safeguards  for  those  whose  properties  would  be  affected.          Finally,   the   challenges   of   creating   an   improved   environment   for   private  investments   are   associated  with   having   a  well-­‐functioning   land  market   that   is  backed  up  by  access  to  reliable  land  information,    an   efficient   and   complete  registry,   and   clear   and   transparent   procedures   for   rights   registration   and  transactions  on  real  property.    According   to   the  LGAF   report,   the  Philippines   fared  high  on   the   strength  of   its  legal  framework  for  land  rights  recognition.  In  the  rural  areas,  the  Comprehensive  Agrarian   Reform   Act   of   1988,   Commonwealth   Act   141   or   the   Public   Land   Act,  Republic   Act   636   and   the   recently   issued   Republic   Act   10023   put   in   place   the  policies   for   recognition   of   rights   of   more   than   90%   of   the   country’s   rural  population.  The   Indigenous  Peoples’  Rights  Act   (“IPRA”)   on   the  other  hand,   laid  out   the   policy   for   recognition   of   customary   rights   and   the   systems   and  procedures   for   mapping   and   registration   of   ancestral   lands   relying   on   both  documentary   and  non-­‐documentary   forms  of   evidence.     The  Forestry  Code   and  National  Integrated  Protected  Areas  System  Act  both  recognize   the  public  goods  aspects  of  forestlands  serving  as  the  rationale  for  maintaining  these  lands  under  the  public  domain.    The  report  also  noted  that  there  is  strong  public  participation  in  the  formulation  of  land  policies,  owing  to  the  vibrant  civil  society  sector,  and  the  democratic  space  created  by  the  legislative  process.      In   the   Philippines   the   key   land   administrative   agencies   are:   1)   the   Land  Management   Bureau   under   the   Department   of   Environment   and   Natural  Resources   (“DENR”)   recommends   policies/programs   for   the   administration   of  alienable  and  disposable  lands;  2)  the  Land  Registration  Authority  (“LRA”)  under  

the   Department   of   Justice   (“DOJ”)   issues   patents   and   certificates   of   title   and  registers  land  transaction  documents  (a  Registry  of  Deeds  is  attached  to  the  LRA  in   every   city   and   province);   3)   the   Department   of   Agrarian   Reform   (“DAR”)  implements   the   comprehensive   land   reform   program   of   the   government   by  providing  land  tenure  security    to  landless  farmers  through  land  acquisition  and  distribution   of   Certificates   of   Land   Ownership   Award;   4)   the   National  Commission   on   Indigenous   Peoples   (“NCIP”)   assists   indigenous   cultural  communities  in  securing  title  to  their  lands  and  approves  any  proposed  disposal,  utilization,   management   or   appropriation   of   ancestral   lands   and   processes  Certificate   of   Ancestral   Land   Titles   and   Certificate   of   Ancestral   Domain   Titles;  and   5)   local   government   units   develop   land-­‐use   and   development   plans   and  zoning  ordinances.    However   according   to   the   LGAF   study,   among   the   areas   where   Philippines   is  struggling  to  meet  good  governance  criteria  is  the  strong  horizontal  overlaps  in  mandates   of   key   agencies   including   the   DAR,   DENR,   LRA,   and   NCIP   in   issuing  original   titles,   review   and   approval   of   survey   plans,   and   maintenance   of   land  records.    This  overlap  affects  efficiency   in  service  delivery  and  prohibits  access  by   the   public   and   government   agencies   to   complete   and   reliable   land   records.  Furthermore,   the   current   state   of   records   and   overlapping   mandates   create  confusion  among  the  public   and   create   long-­‐standing   disputes   owing   to  contradictory  rulings  issued  by  the  agencies.    An  example  is  the  ongoing  dispute  in   Baguio   City   resulting   from   conflicting   land   titles   issued   by   the   LRA   and   the  NCIP  covering  the  same  property.    This  is  clearly  a  case  of  legal  pluralism,  which  occurs  when  different  land  tenure  regimes,   each  with   their   own   legal   framework,   have   legal   authority   over   land  rights   and   are   each   legitimized   to   resolve   conflict.   It   gives   rise   to   situations  where   there   are   contradictions,   ambiguities   or   ignorance   over   statutory   and  customary  rules  and   legal  norms.  Legal  pluralism  causes  confusion  as   to  which  legal   system   should   be   and   can   be   appealed   to   in   a   given   conflict.   (Food   and  Agriculture  Organization,  2006)    The   LGAF   study   also   revealed   that   the   processes   for   appeal   of   land   dispute  rulings  are  lengthy  and  expensive.  Cases  decided  by  the  Supreme  Court  in  2012  showed  that  in  more  than  90%  of  the  cases  it  took  more  than  20  years  for  cases  to  be  resolved  with  finality.   Land-­‐related   cases   take  a   very  long  time  to   be  resolved,   in   many   cases   spanning   decades,   and   in   some,   outliving   the   parties  involved.        The  study  also  noted  a   lack  of   reliable  data  on  property  markets  where  record  systems   are   unsystematic   and   unreliable   as   to   land   ownership,   locations,  boundaries,   actual   land   uses   and   land   values.   There   is   no   complete   set   of  cadastral   maps   that   shows   titled   and   untitled   properties   on   alienable   and  disposable  lands.      The   USAID   Country   Profile   on   Property   Rights   and   Resource   Governance  Philippines  (2010)  made  similar  observations  that  despite  legislation  and  various  

land  reforms,  the  majority  of  rural  people  remain  landless  and  there  is  a  swelling  urban  population  living  in  informal  settlements.  The  country  profile  noted:    

“Outdated   land   administration   laws,   an   inefficient   land   administration  and  adjudication  infrastructure,  and  a  poor  land  information  system  have  resulted   in  problems  of   fraudulent,  overlapping  and  duplication  of   land  titles   and   to   widespread   land-­‐grabbing.   They   have   also   contributed   to  high  transaction  costs  in  securing,  registering  and  transferring  property  rights,   and   to   tenure   insecurity.   Inconsistent   legislation   and   policy  declarations   have   led   to   unsustainable   land   use   and   conflict   over  competing  land  uses.    

 

   Resolving  Land  Conflicts    Land   tenure   conflicts   are   characterized   as   multilayered   and   multidimensional  and   best   understood   in   the   light   of   their   historical,   social,   environmental,  economic   and   political   contexts.   They   are   often   nested   within   bigger   conflicts  that  may  be  difficult   to   see   and   temporal   in   nature,   changing   over   time.   (Food  and  Agriculture  Organization,  2006)    The  Lincoln  Institute  of  Land  Policy  (2013)  identified  three  principal  approaches  to  resolving  disputes:      

• Rely  on  power.  Use  one’s  leverage  to  force  or  coerce  someone  to  act.    

• Adjudicate   rights.   Rely   on   an   arbiter   to   decide   who   is   right.   Set   up  adjudicatory   processes   to   determine   who   has   legally   enforceable   right  and  who  does  not.    

• Reconcile  interests.  Try  to  satisfy  needs,  concerns,  and  fears  of  every-­‐one  involved.  

 Power-­‐  and  rights-­‐based  systems  are  designed  to  adjudicate  rights,  not  reconcile  interests.   Such   systems   are   less   likely   to   produce   durable   outcomes   because  results   can   be   overturned   when   the   power   balance   changes.   In   local  communities,  the  power  balance  in  the  local  government  units  is  always  shifting  with  new  elections  and  court  challenges.  While  such  approaches  may  allow   for  quick   decisions,   the   results   of   those   decisions   are   not   likely   to   last   or   satisfy  many   of   the   people   involved,   and   they   might   be   challenged   through  administrative  and  judicial  appeals.      The  Lincoln  Institute  proposes  the  mutual  gains  approach,  which  is  based  on  all  stakeholder  interests  as  well  as  the  necessary  technical  information.    It  involves  stakeholders   along  with   appointed   and   elected   decision  makers   and   generates  information  relevant  and  salient  to  stakeholders.    The  approach  requires  strong  community   and   public   engagement   skill   along   with   strong   technical   planning  skills,  and  engages  the  public  above  and  beyond  sharing  information  and  views.    The  mutual  gains  approach  to  preventing  and  resolving  land  use  disputes  is  not  a  single   process   or   technique.   It   draws   from   the   fields   of   negotiation,   consensus  building,   collaborative   problem   solving,   alternative   dispute   resolution,   public  participation,   and   public   administration.   The   result   is   a   more   public,  collaborative   process   designed   to   tease   out   the   range   of   interests   and   criteria,  compare   various   alternatives,   and   determine  which   of   those   alternatives  meet  the  most  interests.    Similarly   the   US   Bureau   of   Land   Management   (Collaborative   Stakeholder  Engagement   and   Appropriate   Dispute   Resolution,   2009)   adopts   a   collaborative  stakeholder   engagement   and   appropriate   dispute   resolution   (“ADR”)   for  preventing   or   resolving   disputes   outside   the   conventional   arenas   of  administrative  adjudication,   litigation,  or   legislation.  Bureau  policy  is  to  seek  to  use   collaborative   stakeholder   engagement   and   ADR   processes   as   standard  operating  practice  for  natural  resources  projects,  plans,  and  decision-­‐making.  By  preventing,   managing,   and   resolving   conflicts   or   disputes   through   these  processes,   the   Bureau   and   stakeholders   can   realize   savings   of   time,   budget  dollars,  and  public  resources.    The   existing   land   use   system   in   the   Philippines   relies   on   the   adjudication   of  rights,  not   the   reconciliation  of   interests.    On   the  other  hand,   the  mutual   gains  approach  which  have  yet   to  be  adopted   in   the   country,   encourages   contending  parties   to   focus   on   mutual   interests   and   strive   to   achieve   mutual   gains,  minimizing  the  destructive  nature  of  land  use  conflicts.      

   Improving  Land  Governance  in  the  Philippines    Several   initiatives   are   being   undertaken   by   the   Philippine   government   to  improve   land   governance   as   an   effective   instrument   for   addressing   the  interconnected  issues  affecting  the  sector    The  Senate  Economic  Planning  Office  in  its  Policy  Brief  “Requisites  of  a  Land  Use  Policy”   (October,   2005)   identified   five   main   uses   of   land:   economic   and  commercial   uses,   food   production,   shelter,   environment   preservation   and  preservation   of   indigenous   peoples.   However,   these   uses   cannot   be   pursued  exclusively.   This   means   that   compromises   and   conflicts   arise   whenever   one  implements  one  specific  land  use  over  the  other.  Economic  and  commercial  use  of   land  may,   at   times,   be   in   conflict  with   the   food  production   role   of   land.   For  example,   indiscriminate   land   conversions   from   agriculture   to   non-­‐agricultural  purposes   that  persist  around   the  country  pose   the  danger  of   food   insufficiency  for  the  Filipinos.  At  present,  the  growing  population  of  the  country  has  resulted  in  an  increasing  demand  for  housing.    Because  of  the  limited  space  available  for  mass   housing,   there   is   now   congestion   particularly   in   urban   areas,   and   this   is  where   the  use  of   land   for  shelter  comes   in  conflict  with  other   interests.  Due   to  the  rapid  need  of  urban  centers   for  housing  and  the   lack  of  a  national   land  use  policy   to   guide   planners,   lands   allocated   for   other   purposes   near   these   areas  (such  as  agricultural)  are  utilized  for  housing.        According   to   the   DENR   (1997),   the   Philippines’   natural   resources   “have   been,  and  continue  to  be,  subjected  to  numerous  yet  conflicting  uses  that  include  forest  production  (for  wood  and  other  forest  products  like  resin,  pulp  and  paper),  food  production,   human   settlements,   watershed,   tourism/recreation,   mineral  production,   energy   production,   biodiversity   conservation,   industrial   site,   and  

other   economic   activities   or   any   combination   of   the   above.”     Increasing  population,  resource  exploitation,  hyper-­‐urbanization  and  industrialization  have  put  much  pressure  on  the  biological  and  physical  well  being  of  the  environment.  The   enactment   of   IPRA   raised   some   issues   on   property   rights   especially  regarding  ancestral  lands  rich  with  mineral  and  energy  resources.      At   the  House   of   Representatives,   Rep.   Kaka   Bag-­‐ao   filed  House   Bill   No.   04382  entitled  “National  Land  Use  and  Management  Act  of  Philippines”  on  12  May  2014.      The   bill   was   approved   by   the   House   on   Third   Reading   on   02   June   2014   and  transmitted   and   received   by   the   Senate   on   04   June   2014.   In   the   Senate,   Sen.  Loren  Legarda  filed  a  corresponding  Senate  Bill  07  entitled  “An  Act  Instituting  a  National   Land   Use   Policy”   on   01   July   2013.     This   has   been   a   two-­‐decade   old  proposal   to   ensure   the   proper   allocation   of   land   to   various   uses   and   that   land  conversion  and  development  are  guided  by  a   framework   to  meet   the  country’s  long   term  requirements   for   food  security,   settlements,   industrial  and  economic  development,  among  others.      A  long  process  towards  harmonization  of   implementing    policies  and  procedures  of  the  DENR,  DAR,  NCIP  and  DOJ/LRA  in  the  issuance  of  tenurial  instruments  in  public  lands  was  completed,  leading  to  a  Joint  Administrative  Order  in  2012.    The  order  aims  to  address  not  only  overlapping  jurisdiction  among  the  land  agencies  but  also  operational  issues  and  conflicting  claims  in  the  implementations  of  their  respective  programs.    The  government  should  also  consider  setting  up  of  dedicated  land  courts  and/or  land   adjudication   boards   to   speed  up   the   resolution   of   land   cases.   Serious  reforms   in   the   administration   of   justice   system   including   the   organization   of  court  records  to  help  in  monitoring  of  land  cases  are  warranted  to  minimize  the  social  and  financial  costs  of  delays.  The  persistence  of  strong  horizontal  overlaps  among  land  agencies  will  continue  to  deprive  the  public  access  to  reliable,  up-­‐to-­‐date   records   discouraging   investments   and   affects   land   market   activity  preventing  the  realization  of  the  full  potential  of  land  and  the  resources  thereat.          Conclusion    More  often  concession,  exploration  and  development  rights  given  by  the  central  government  through  the  market  economy’s  land  titling  and  resource  contracting  system  are  inconsistent  with  other  property  rights.    Government  regulators  and  resource  developers  must  carry  out  due  diligence  to  be  informed  as  to  the  laws,  regulations,  treaties  and  standards,  and  also  international  standards  of  practice  associated  with   land  use  and  conflict  management.   Inconsistent   legislation  and  policy   declarations   have   led   to   conflict   over   competing   land   uses   linked   with  overregulation,  overlapping  policies   and   jurisdictions  and  weak  monitoring   for  compliance.   The   government   must   strive   to   secure   property   rights   for   land  tenure   holders   and   resource   contractors,   implement   consistent   land   and  resources   policies,   and   provide   incentives   for   improved   sustainable   resource  management.      

Fernando  “Ronnie”  Penarroyo  is  the  Managing  Partner  of  Puno  and  Penarroyo  Law  (fspenarroyo@punopenalaw.com).   He   has   negotiated   numerous   land   access  agreements  with  local  government  units,  landholders,  indigenous  peoples  and  host  communities  on  behalf  of  land  development,  mineral  and  energy  companies.