It is a great honor to speak before each individual in this room, knowing that each one is willing to devote his or her time to understand the agrarian situation in our country. May I say that this fills me with hope!

Last March, Time Magazine’s cover story entitled "China’s Rural Rage" reported an incident in mid-January, in Panlong, Guandong Province, wherein more than 1,000 villagers brandishing pitchforks were met by policemen carrying electric batons. The protest was held because the local government seized a communal farmland so that they can lease the land to a Hongkong textile factory. The casualties included a 13-year-old girl who was, according to the villagers, beaten to death and 20 others who were seriously injured. The villagers were not at all surprised by the violent episode. After all, 87,000 of such incidents have occurred in various parts of China’s countryside in 2005 alone. I was, however, rather disturbed. Whatever happened to China’s glorious economic growth and its newfound status as a superpower? What of its history — the difficult, violent but eventually successful overthrow of the landowning class some forty years ago? And what does it take to make agrarian reform work?

The agrarian reform program in our country is widely criticized and beset by bitter conflicts. Landowners have described it as "confiscatory," while farmers have given it the tagline, "Land for the landed." Beyond this difference of opinion, the conflict has at times escalated into bloodshed, not too different from the incident in Panlong. Or, come to think of it, not too different from other historical precedents. Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, the plebian tribune who proposed the Lex Sempronia Agraria, a body of laws recommending the redistribution of large parcels of public land, was assassinated by the conservative faction of the Senate. The political turmoil caused by his attempts to legislate agrarian reform contributed to the decline of the Roman empire. Pliny the Elder would later write, "Land monopoly ruined Rome." Even the land reform policies of the much-honored Greek statesman Solon, which he was able to implement in the wealthy city-state of Attica, were not above reproach. His critics have dismissed them as the incessant canceling of debts and re-dividing of land because these policies failed to effect any change in the conditions of the poor and benefited those closest to him, who had known of these policies beforehand, and sold their lands in time and borrowed money knowing debts would be cancelled. It is truly hard to look for success stories as far as agrarian reform is concerned. The triumphs are often short-lived, the casualties cannot bear imagining, and the results are too disheartening.

Even the Old Testament speaks clearly about agrarian justice. The heavy taxation imposed on the Hebrew peasantry, the unlawful dispossession of land, as seen in the story of Naboth’s vineyard, are among the injustices against which prophets like Isaiah, Micah, and Elijah, vigorously protested. As agrarian reformers, these prophets never incited any human acts of vengeance nor any revolt against authority, even when this authority was misused. They kept their message plain and simple – that each man should be able to cultivate and peacefully dwell in his own land. This message was effective enough. For in spite of the prevalent slave-owning culture of the Punics, Greeks, and Romans, history recognizes the contemporaneous existence of a free Jewish landowning peasantry.

The idea that each farmworker should have his own land is held no less sacred in Hebraic law than in our own. Section 4, Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution affirms that, "The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farm workers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land sharing." This provision was carefully phrased so as to balance the duty of the State to implement an agrarian reform program and the due regard for property rights. The tension between property rights and the obligation to undertake land reform is neither ignored nor allowed to defeat our land reform objectives; it is used to move the government’s programs in a balanced way.

Among the many problems which may hinder agrarian reform from moving forward is the filing of harassment cases against beneficiaries and DAR officials. Nevertheless, the law provides remedies for such circumstances. There is a general prohibition found in Section 73 of Rep. Act No. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, on the willful prevention or obstruction of the implementation of the CARP by any person, association or entity. Moreover, Section 52 of the same law authorizes the DAR to impose reasonable penalties, including but not limited to fines or censures to parties filing frivolous or dilatory appeals from the decisions or orders on the local and provincial level. Furthermore, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, under the Rules of Court, can deny petitions which are patently without merit. Moral damages are even allowed under Article 2219 of the Civil Code when the claimants can prove that they have been falsely charged in any legal proceeding, that the complainant knew that the charge was false and had acted with malice, and the damages suffered by the claimant (Tiongco v. Deguma, G.R. No. 133619, 26 October 1999, 317 SCRA 527). Article 21 of the Civil Code also states that "any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage." DAR officials, as public officers, enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their functions. A strict observance of the rules and the proper documentation of their transactions would ensure that, even if charged, their acts would be adjudged as valid.

The filing of unfounded suits is a problem that the overburdened courts have been aggressively trying to solve, not just in agrarian reform cases. In cases where the suit is patently without legal nor factual basis, the courts are more than willing to remove these from their caseload. In some cases, the parties themselves delay the proceedings by their continued requests for extensions. Other cases are quite difficult to resolve so that the court really needs to further hear the parties before giving out a just and well-reasoned decision.

One possible way to forestall the filing of harassment cases is to anticipate these cases. If one can reasonably predict the cases that may be filed, a defense can be easily prepared or steps may be taken to altogether avoid the case. Familiarity with law and jurisprudence is therefore necessary. Mastery of the law, though, cannot be achieved in one afternoon.

The acts punished under Section 73 of Republic Act No. 6657 include the ownership or possession of agricultural lands in excess of the total retention limits, conversion by the landowner of his agricultural land into non-agricultural uses for the purpose of dispossessing his tenant farmers, and the forcible entry or illegal detainer by persons who are not qualified beneficiaries. Section 27 of Republic Act No. 3844, the Agricultural Land Reform Code, prohibits agricultural lessees to employ sub-lessees on his landholding; and to contract work on other landholdings or to acquire and personally cultivate an economic family-size farm, if the first landholding is of sufficient size. Section 31 of the same law (Republic Act No. 3844) enjoins agricultural lessors from requiring agricultural lessees to pay taxes on the landholding or any consideration that the landowner is obligated to pay in connection with the land; and forbids them from discouraging or interfering with the formation and maintenance of unions and organizations.

There are also some provisions found in the Revised Penal Code that may be used against the pattern of violence, harassment and intimidation incidental to agrarian disputes. Among these are the provisions on murder, homicide, physical injuries, grave and light threats, grave and light coercions and unjust vexation. Destruction of property, such as acts falling under the provisions on malicious mischief and arson, are likewise penalized. Libel, slander, incriminating against persons, intriguing against honor, or any other crimes against honor or reputation, may be filed as well.

Agrarian reform is said to be hindered by the so-called indiscriminate reclassification of agricultural lands. It might be fitting to note that the Supreme Court in the fairly recent case of Sta. Rosa Realty v. Amante (G.R. Nos. 112526 and 118838, 16 March 2005, 451 SCRA 432), upheld the redistribution of the Canlubang Sugar Estate to farmer beneficiaries and reiterated the doctrine that an ordinance re-classifying land should be given prospective application; it should not change the nature of existing agricultural lands in the area nor the legal relationships existing over such lands.

The case of Angel v. Inopiquez (G.R. No. 66712, 13 January 1989, 169 SCRA 129) is also relevant. The Court, taking into account the harmful effects of dilatory appeals, applied Sections 16 and 18 of Presidential Decree No. 946 "Reorganizing the Courts of Agrarian Relations, Streamlining their Procedures and for other purposes" and ordered the reinstatement of the agricultural tenant to the landholding in question pending the appeal filed by the landowner. The Court qualified that the only instance when the perfection of an appeal may stay the decision in an agrarian case is when the appealed decision directs the ejectment of the tenant.

In the very recent case of Estribillo v. DAR (G.R. No. 159674, 27 June 2006), the Supreme Court placed more weight in the principle of social justice over compliance with procedural rules and upheld the indefeasibility of Emancipation Patents and Certificates of Land Ownership Award.

The Supreme Court, however, when necessary, does not hesitate in strictly applying the law. In Romero v. Tan (G.R. No. 147570, 27 February 2004, 424 SCRA 108), the Court excluded from the protection and beneficence afforded by our agrarian laws the petitioners who were actually businessmen leasing a vast area of fishponds. And while the Courts have excluded persons who are not qualified beneficiaries from entering and cultivating a landholding, the Court clarified in Musa v. Ador (G.R. No. 141396, 9 April 2002, 380 SCRA 347) that even if one is not a tenant, he is not automatically disqualified from being a qualified beneficiary. The identification of actual and potential beneficiaries is vested in the DAR Secretary. Again, the Court in this case held that the procedural rules, particularly on the modes of service and filing of pleadings, may be relaxed in agrarian cases in the interest of substantial justice. Clearly, the controlling dictum is that the Rules of Court are of secondary applicability in agrarian cases.

Similarly, the Supreme Court in Catorce v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. L-59762, 11 May 1984, 129 SCRA 210) justified its leniency regarding the rules on prescription by declaring that, "The Agricultural Land Reform Code has been designed to promote economic and social stability. Being a social legislation, it must be interpreted liberally to give full force and effect to its clear intent, which is to achieve a dignified existence for the small farmers and to make them more independent, self-reliant and responsible citizens, and a source of genuine strength in our democratic society."

Genuine agrarian reform does not require the Supreme Court to always decide in favor of a landless farmer, but the Court must always decide based on the law. Make no mistake, the position of the Supreme Court as regards agrarian reform is fixed and mandated by no less than the Constitution, Section 21, Article II of which reads, "The State shall promote comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform." It is abundantly clear in our Constitution that the State must implement land reform and ensure a just and equitable distribution of land. To read this as an open inducement to rash actions that transgress the law guarantees a land reform program which does not promise any lasting effect, nor any real rewards. Any decision lacking in legal basis, even if favorable to farmer beneficiaries, would be a mere paper victory. It creates a defective legal mechanism which puts into doubt that the farmers will keep and enjoy the benefits of the land in peace long after the decision is rendered.

We have the opportunity to make land reform work by knowing and following the law. There are legal remedies available for whatever problems we may have. And the Supreme Court is absolutely serious about its commitment to an agrarian reform that upholds the principles of justice, makes redistribution a reality, and drives the growth of our economy.

Thank you for giving me the privilege of delivering the keynote address. I join you in your efforts to make agrarian justice prevail in our country. And, again, I wish you all a pleasant afternoon.

God bless you all!