• DAP and DAR

    2

    DAR made full page announcements in the leading dailies that notwithstanding the expiry of our Agrarian laws as of June 30, 2014. DAR still did not end because under Sec. 30. “pending cases or proceedings” may still be continued. And so DAR made midnight notices of coverage by publication (not by personal service nor by registered mail as required) so as to cover more lands.

    DAR says that it has enough savings and can therefore go on and acquire new lands. They better read the latest Supreme Court decision declaring the acts of Budget Secretary Abad and President Aquino as “unconstitutional” This is because they used or transferred “savings” to finance projects without the proper appropriation law. The court effectively went back to the old doctrine when a budget has not been used up for a certain purpose, the saving goes back to the government to be appropriated properly and not by the Executive branch which implemented projects. Without a new law how can there be an appropriation of savings? Cross-Border to the DAR? Equally illegal.

    Atty. Alberto Po
    [This letter was sent to The Times from El Haciendero Private Hotel in Jaro, Iloilo, (contact@elhaciendero.com), whose Ms. Lovelyn Barnes emailed it to us with the explanation that “one of our guests has asked us to send to you his letter attached.”]

    Share.
    loading...
    Loading...

    Please follow our commenting guidelines.

    2 Comments

    1. In any sale transaction which covers land, when a sale is declared privately or by force thru land reformed as done, it is but fair that the owner must be compensated for the price of the land. My land was reformed and for 30 years, I was not paid a single cent. My tenants who were benefited, never paid me for my share over the land, neither were they paying the land bank to whom they were supposed to remit what their Emancipation Patent requires. Many tenants believe that the Emancipated lands were offered free by the government. Implementators of Land Reform never hammer the compensation aspect of this land distribution, as an injustice to land owners. .

    2. How about ownership of agricultural lands? Is it still confined within the retention limits?