June 7, 2002
DAR OPINION NO. 16-02
MEMORANDUM
TO : Director Renato F. Herrera
DAR Region IV
Capitol Compound, Pasig City
SUBJECT : Request for Legal Opinion
This refers to your letter dated 18 October 2001, requesting for opinion on the queries posed therein relative to some issuances promulgated by this Department that are allegedly being used by landowners in preventing field personnel from covering under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program landholdings which have pending protests on coverage, or applications for conversion, exemption, or exclusion, hereunder summarized as follows: EHACcT
1. Which should be followed, the codal provision in Section 68 of R.A. No. 6657, or the provision in Section 14 of DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of 2000?
2. If the former, can it be followed regardless of whatever level the case is pending? Or is it only after the Office of the President has rendered a decision favorable to coverage?
3. If the latter, how can it be reconciled with Section 68, R.A. No. 6657? When is a case considered to be resolved with finality such that coverage can proceed, in relation to Section 68 of R.A. No. 6657?
At the outset, please be clarified that there is no conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of Section 14 (a-c), DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of 2000 and Section 68 of R.A. No. 6657. Section 68 of R.A. No. 6657 contemplates a different situation from that of Section 14, DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of 2000. The former provides that no injunction, restraining order, prohibition or mandamus shall be issued by the lower courts against the government agencies named therein, including the DAR, in their implementation of CARP. In other words, CARP coverage may proceed notwithstanding the issuance by the lower courts of the aforesaid injunction, restraining order, prohibition or mandamus in matters concerning the implementation of CARP brought before said courts (e.g., subject agrarian law implementation cases). Section 55 of R.A. No. 6657 further provides, quote:
"SECTION 55. No Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction. — No court in the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction against the PARC or any of its duly authorized or designated agencies in any case, dispute or controversy arising from, necessary to, or in connection with the application, implementation, enforcement, or interpretation of this Act and other pertinent laws on agrarian reform."
Section 14 (a-c) of DAR Administrative Order No. 06, series of 2000, on the other hand, speaks of the effects of filing with the DAR of agrarian law implementation (ALI) cases, such as application or petition for exemption, exclusion, conversion, retention, or protest against coverage, on land acquisition and distribution. Under said section of the guideline, particularly paragraphs b and c thereof, the coverage and land compensation process may continue, except that the Certification of Deposit (COD) to the PARO shall not be issued until the application, protest or petition is finally resolved. The rationale for this is given in DAR Opinion No. 9, series of 1999 which is to preclude the government from incurring unnecessary wastage of valuable time, effort and resources incident to the coverage in case the petition, application or protest will later be resolved against the coverage of the land in issue.
The position rendered in said DAR Opinion is, however, qualified under the provisions of Section 14 of DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of 2000, as the latter spells out the effects of the filing of aforesaid applications, petitions or protests at various stages of land acquisition and distribution, namely: a) before the issuance of notice of coverage; b) where the claimfolder is pending with DAR (i.e., after issuance of the notice of coverage); and c) where claimfolder is already pending with the LBP.
Given all the above as they relate to your queries, it is clear that the provisions of Section 68 of R.A. No. 6657 and Section 14 of Administrative Order No. 6, series of 2000 may both be effected as distinctly contemplated therein.
Concerning your last query, in ALI cases mentioned in Section 14 of DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of 2000, they should first be resolved with finality pursuant to existing applicable rules of procedure before complete coverage may be effected. On the other hand, insofar as lands subject of cases which were brought before the lower courts as contemplated in Sections 55 and 68 of R.A. No. 6657 are concerned, where there are no ALI cases filed with the DAR, CARP coverage thereof may proceed to its completion.
We hope to have clarified the matters.
(SGD.) VIRGILIO R. DE LOS REYES
Undersecretary for Policy, Planning and
Legal Affairs Office