Session Eight Conversion of Agricultural Lands CONVERSION The actual change of the land use from agricultural, to residential,

l, industrial or commercial, of lands which could have potentially been covered under the CARP Sec 65, RA 6657 Section 65. Conversion of Lands. After the lapse of five (5) years from its award, when the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes, or the locality has become urbanized and the land will have a greater economic value for residential, commercial or industrial purposes, the DAR, upon application of the beneficiary or the landowner, with due notice to the affected parties, and subject to existing laws, may authorize the reclassification or conversion of the land and its disposition: provided, that the beneficiary shall have fully paid his obligation. Conversion of Agricultural Lands: What is the difference between exemption, conversion and reclassification? Ros, et al. vs DAR, et al. G.R. No. 132477, August 31, 2005 FACTS:Petitioners are the owners/developers of several parcels of land. By virtue of a MunicipalOrdinance, these lands were reclassified as industrial lands. As part of their preparation for thedevelopment of the subject lands as an industrial park, petitioners secured all the necessary permits andappropriate government certifications.However, the DAR disallowed the conversion of the subject lands for industrial use and directed thepetitioners to cease and desist from further developments on the land.Petitioners filed with the RTC a Complaint for Injunction with Application for TemporaryRestraining Order and a Writ of Preliminary Injunction. However, the RTC, ruling that it is the DAR whichhas jurisdiction, dismissed the complaint.When the case was brought to the SC, it was referred to the CA. However, the CA affirmed thedismissal of the case. Hence, this petition. ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the DAR has the primary jurisdiction over the case. After the passage of Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as Comprehensive AgrarianReform Program, agricultural lands, though reclassified, have to go through the process of conversion, jurisdiction over which is vested in the DAR.The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) is mandated to or disapprove applicationsfor conversion, restructuring or readjustment of agricultural lands into non-agricultural pursuantto Section 4(i) of Executive Order No. 129-A, Series of 1987.Section 65 of R.A. No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, likewise empowers the DAR to authorize under certain conditions, the reclassification orconversion of agricultural lands.It being settled that jurisdiction over conversion of land is vested in the DAR, the complaint forinjunction was correctly dismissed by the trial and appellate courts under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the courts from resolving a controversy overwhich jurisdiction has initially been lodged with an administrative body of special competence. Foragrarian reform cases, jurisdiction is vested in the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR); morespecifically, in the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB). 2. Whether or not the RTC can issue a writ of injunction against the DAR. Section 68 of Rep. Act No. 6657 provides: SEC. 68. Immunity of Government Agencies from Undue Interference. No injunction, restrainingorder, prohibition or mandamus shall be issued by the lower courts against the Department of AgrarianReform (DAR), the Department of Agriculture (DA), the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in their implementation of the program

CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE AND BUILDERS ASSOCIATIONS, INC. (CREBA),petitioner, vs. THE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, respondent. [G.R. No.183409. June 18, 2010.] Nature: This case is a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition (with application for temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction) under Rule 65 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, filed by herein petitioner Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Associations, Inc. (CREBA) seeking to nullify and prohibit the enforcement of Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Administrative Order (AO) No. 01-02, as amended by DAR AO No. 05-07, and DAR Memorandum No. 88, for having been issued by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction as some provisions of the aforesaid administrative issuances are illegal and unconstitutional. Facts: :Oct 1997 Sec of DAR issued DAR A.O. entitled Omnibus Rules and Procedures Governing Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Non Agricultural Uses : said AO embraced all private agricultural lands regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced and all untitled agri lands and agri lands reclassified by LGU into non-agri uses after 15 June 1988 : March 1999, Sec DAR issued Revised Rules and Regulations on Conversion of Agri Lands to Non Agri Uses, it covers the following: (1) those to be converted to residential, commercial, industrial, institutional and other non-agricultural purposes; (2) those to be devoted to another type of agricultural activity such as livestock, poultry, and fishpond the effect of which is to exempt the land from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) coverage; (3) those to be converted to non-agricultural use other than that previously authorized; and (4) those reclassified to residential, commercial, industrial, or other non-agricultural uses on or after the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657 on 15 June 1988 pursuant to Section 20 of Republic Act No. 7160 and other pertinent laws and regulations, and are to be converted to such uses.

: The 2 earlier AOs was further amended by an AO issued Feb 2002 - 2002 Comprehensive Rules on Land Use Conversion; c overs all applications for conversion from agricultural to non-agricultural uses or to another agricultural use. : The AO was amended again in 2007 t include provisions particularly addressing land conversion in time of exigencies and calamities : To address the conversion to lands to non agri, Sec of DAR suspended processing and approval of land conversion through DAR Memo 88 : Creba claims that there is a slowdown of housing projects because of such stoppage Issues: WON DAR AO is unconstitutional CREBA: SEC DAR gravely abused his discretion : RA 6657 and 8435 defines agri lands as lands devoted to or suitable for the cultivation of the soil, planting of crops, growing of fruit trees, raising of livestock, poultry or fish, including the harvesting of such farm products, and other farm activities and practices performed by a farmer in conjunction with such farming operations done by a person whether natural or juridical, and not classified by the law as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land : However, he issued an AO included in this definition - lands not reclassified as residential, commercial, industrial or other nonagricultural uses before 15 June 1988 : In effect, lands reclassified from agricultural to residential, commercial, industrial, or other non-agricultural uses after 15 June 1988 are considered to be agricultural lands for purposes of conversion, redistribution, or otherwise : This is violation of RA 6657 bec there is nothing in Section 65 of Republic Act No. 6657 or in any other provision of law that confers to the DAR the jurisdiction or authority to require that non-awarded lands or reclassified lands be submitted to its conversion authority : It also violates Section 20 of Republic Act No. 7160, because it was not provided therein that reclassification by LGUs shall be subject to conversion procedures or requirements, or that the DARs approval or clearance must be secured to effect reclassification. : The said Section 2.19 of DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended, also contravenes the constitutional mandate on local autonomy under Section 25, Article II and Section 2, Article X of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. : There is deprivation of liberty and property without due process of law because under DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended, lands that are not within DARs jurisdiction are unjustly, arbitrarily and oppressively prohibited or restricted from legitim ate use on pain of administrative and criminal penalties. More so, there is discrimination and violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution because the aforesaid administrative order is patently biased in favor of the peasantry at the expense of all other sectors of society. SC: DISMISSED JURISCIDTION / PROCEDURAL : Although RTC, CA and SC have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writes of certiorari and prohibition etc but such concurrence doesnt give the petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum : Heirs of Hinog v Melicor and People v Cuaresma THERE IS HIERARCHY OF COURTS. A direct invocation of the Supreme Courts original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important rea sons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition : petitioner failed to specifically and sufficiently set forth special and important reasons to justify direct recourse to this Court and why this Court should give due course to this petition in the first instance, hereby failing to fulfill the conditions set forth in Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog v. Melicor. The present petition should have been initially filed in the Court of Appeals in strict observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts : Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 are: (1) the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board, or an officer exercising judicial or quasijudicial functions; (2) such tribunal, board, or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law : The Secretary of Agrarian Reform does not fall within the ambit of a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. He was exercising quasi-legislative functions; there was no adjudication of rights : It is beyond the province of certiorari to declare the aforesaid administrative issuances unconstitutional and illegal because certiorari is confined only to the determination of the existence of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. AUTHORITY OF DAR SEC : Section 5(c) of executive order 129-A authorized the DAR to establish and promulgate operational policies, rules and regulations and priorities for agrarian reform implementation. Section 4(k) thereof authorized the DAR to approve or disapprove the conversion, restructuring or readjustment of agricultural lands into non-agricultural uses. Similarly, Section 5(l) of the same executive order has given the DAR the exclusive authority to approve or disapprove conversion of agricultural lands for residential, commercial, industrial, and other land uses as may be provided for by law. Section 7 of the aforesaid executive order clearly provides that the authority and responsibility for the exercise of the mandate of the [DAR] and the discharg e of its powers and functions shall be vested in the Secretary of Agrarian Reform

: DAR AO As amended, merely refers to the category of agricultural lands that may be the subject for conversion to non-agricultural uses and is not in any way confined to agricultural lands in the context of land redistribution as provided for under Republi c Act No. 6657 Doj Opiniion recognizes that DAR has been given the authority to approve land conversion : The authority of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform to include lands not reclassified as residential, commercial, industrial or other non-agricultural uses before 15 June 1988 in the definition of agricultural lands finds basis in jurisprudence. In Ros v. Department of Agrarian Reform, this Court has enunciated that after the passage of Republic Act No. 6657, agricultural lands, though reclassified, have to go through the process of conversion, jurisdiction over which is vested in the DAR. However, agricultural lands, which are already reclassified before the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657 which is 15 June 1988, are exempted from conversion : Alarcon v. Court of Appeals ruled that reclassification of lands does not suffice. Conversion and reclassification differ from each other. Conversion is the act of changing the current use of a piece of agricultural land into some other use as approved by the DAR while reclassification is the act of specifying how agricultural lands shall be utilized for non-agricultural uses such as residential, industrial, and commercial, as embodied in the land use plan, subject to the requirements and procedures for land use conversion. In view thereof, a mere reclassification of an agricultural land does not automatically allow a landowner to change its use. He has to undergo the process of conversion before he is permitted to use the agricultural land for other purposes : Effectivity of RA 6657 is the cut off period for automatic classification : Roxas & Company, Inc. v. DAMBA-NFSW and the Department of Agrarian Reform, reclassification of lands denotes their allocation into some specific use and providing for the manner of their utilization and disposition or the act of specifying how agricultural lands shall be utilized for non-agricultural uses such as residential, industrial, or commercial, as embodied in the land use plan. For reclassified agricultural lands, therefore, to be used for the purpose to which they are intended there is still a need to change the current use thereof through the process of conversion. The authority to do so is vested in the DAR, which is mandated to preserve and maintain agricultural lands with increased productivity. Thus, notwithstanding the reclassification of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses, they must still undergo conversion before they can be used for other purposes. : Republic v. Estonilo, only a positive act of the President is needed to segregate or reserve a piece of land of the public domain for a public purpose. As such, reservation of public agricultural lands for public use or purpose in effect converted the same to such use without undergoing any conversion process and that they must be actually, directly and exclusively used for such public purpose for which they have been reserved, otherwise, they will be segregated from the reservations and transferred to the DAR for distribution to qualified beneficiaries under the CARP : power of the LGUs to reclassify agricultural lands is not absolute. The authority of the DAR to approve conversion of agricultural lands covered by Republic Act No. 6657 to non-agricultural uses has been validly recognized by said Section 20 of Republic Act No. 7160 by explicitly providing therein that, nothing in this section shall be construed as repealing or modifying in any manner the provisions of Republic Act No. 6657 : DAR AO does not also violate the due process clause, as well as the equal protection clause of the Constitution. In providing administrative and criminal penalties in the said administrative order, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform simply implements the provisions of Sections 73 and 74 of Republic Act No. 6657 (Prohibited acts and omissions) and Section 11 of Republic Act No. 8435 (Penalty for agricultural inactivity and Premature conversion) : The issuance of said Memorandum No. 88 was made pursuant to the general welfare of the public, thus, it cannot be argued that it was made without any basis, therefore it is constitutional. Sec 20 of RA 7160 (Local Govt. Code) Section 20. Reclassification of Lands. (a) A city or municipality may, through an ordinance passed by the sanggunian after conducting public hearings for the purpose, authorize the reclassification of agricultural lands and provide for the manner of their utilization or disposition in the following cases: (1) when the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes as determined by the Department of Agriculture or (2) where the land shall have substantially greater economic value for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes, as determined by the sanggunian concerned: Provided, That such reclassification shall be limited to the following percentage of the total agricultural land area at the time of the passage of the ordinance: (1) For highly urbanized and independent component cities, fifteen percent (15%); (2) For component cities and first to the third class municipalities, ten percent (10%); and (3) For fourth to sixth class municipalities, five percent (5%): Provided, further, That agricultural lands distributed to agrarian reform beneficiaries pursuant to Republic Act Numbered Sixty-six hundred fifty-seven (R.A. No. 6657). otherwise known as "The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law", shall not be affected by the said reclassification and the conversion of such lands into other purposes shall be governed by Section 65 of said Act.

(b) The President may, when public interest so requires and upon recommendation of the National Economic and Development Authority, authorize a city or municipality to reclassify lands in excess of the limits set in the next preceding paragraph. (c) The local government units shall, in conformity with existing laws, continue to prepare their respective comprehensive land use plans enacted through zoning ordinances which shall be the primary and dominant bases for the future use of land resources: Provided. That the requirements for food production, human settlements, and industrial expansion shall be taken into consideration in the preparation of such plans. (d) Where approval by a national agency is required for reclassification, such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Failure to act on a proper and complete application for reclassification within three (3) months from receipt of the same shall be deemed as approval thereof. (e) Nothing in this Section shall be construed as repealing, amending, or modifying in any manner the provisions of R.A. No. 6657. Memo Circular No. 54 s. 1993, Office of the President (Prescribing the Guidelines governing Sec. 20 of RA 7160 Authorizing Cities And Municipalities to Reclassify Agricultural Lands to Non-Agricultural Uses.) MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 54

PRESCRIBING THE GUIDELINES GOVERNING SECTION 20 OF RA 7160 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991 AUTHORIZING CITIES AND MUNICIPALITIES TO RECLASSIFY AGRICULTURAL LANDS INTO NON-AGRICULTURAL USES

WHEREAS, RA 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC), provides that cities and municipalities may reclassify agricultural lands into non-agricultural uses within their respective jurisdictions, subject to the limitations and other conditions prescribed under Section 20 of the LGC; TIEHSA WHEREAS, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the LGC provides that cities and municipalities shall continue to prepare their respective comprehensive land use plans, enacted through zoning ordinances, subject to applicable laws and rules and regulations; WHEREAS, the IRR also prescribes that such plans shall serve as the primary and dominant bases for future use of land resources and reclassification of agricultural lands; WHEREAS, the IRR further provides that the requirements for food production, human settlements, ecological balance, and industrial expansion shall be considered in the preparation of comprehensive land use plans; WHEREAS, EO 129-A, s. of 1987, mandates the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to approve or disapprove the conversion, restructuring or readjustment of agricultural lands into non-agricultural uses; WHEREAS, the said EO has also vested in DAR exclusive authority to approve or disapprove conversion of agricultural lands for residential, commercial, industrial, and other land uses; WHEREAS, Section 65 of RA 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (CARL), likewise empowers DAR to authorize, under certain conditions, the reclassification or conversion of lands awarded to agrarian reform beneficiaries; WHEREAS, pursuant to the pertinent provisions of EO 129-A (1987), EO 229 (1987), and RA 6657, DAR issued various rules and regulations governing the conversion or reclassification of agricultural lands into non-agricultural uses; WHEREAS, there is a need to harmonize the provisions of Section 20 of the LGC with those of EO 129-A (1987), EO 229 (1987), RA 6657, and other national policy issuances and other pertinent laws to ensure a more rational and holistic approach to land use, taking into account the objectives of the CARL and the decentralized framework of local governance; NOW, THEREFORE, I, FIDEL V. RAMOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, upon the recommendation of the Oversight Committee created under Sec. 533 of the LGC, do hereby order and direct. SECTION 1. Scope of Limitations

(a) Cities and municipalities with comprehensive land use plans reviewed and approved in accordance with EO 72 (1993), may authorize the reclassification of agricultural lands into non-agricultural uses and provide for the manner of their utilization or disposition, subject to the limitations and other conditions prescribed in this Order. (b) Agricultural lands may be classified in the following cases: (1) when the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes as determined by the Department of Agriculture (DA), in accordance with the standards and guidelines prescribed for the purpose; or (2) where the land shall have substantially greater economic value for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes as determined by the sanggunian concerned, the city/municipality concerned should notify the DA, HLRB, DTI, DOT and other concerned agencies on the proposed reclassification of agricultural lands furnishing

them copies of the report of the local development council including the draft ordinance on the matter for their comments, proposals and recommendations within seven (7) days upon receipt. (c) However, such reclassification shall be limited to a maximum of the percentage of the total agricultural land of a city or municipality at the time of the passage of the ordinance as follows: (1) (2) (3) (d) For highly urbanized and independent component cities; fifteen percent (15%); For component cities and first to third class municipalities, ten percent (10%); For fourth to sixth class municipalities, five percent (5%).

In addition, the following types of agricultural lands shall not be covered by the said reclassification: caCSDT (1) (2) (3) Agricultural lands distributed to agrarian reform beneficiaries subject to Section 65 of RA 6657; Agricultural lands already issued a notice of coverage or voluntarily offered for coverage under CARP; Agricultural lands identified under AO 20, s. of 1992, as non-negotiable for conversion as follows: (i) All irrigated lands where water is available to support rice and other crop production;

(ii) All irrigated lands where water is not available for rice and other crop production but within areas programmed for irrigation facility rehabilitation by DA and National Irrigation Administration (NIA); and (iii) All irrigable lands already covered by irrigation projects with firm funding commitments at the time of the application for land conversion or reclassification. (e) The President may, when public interest so requires and upon recommendation of the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA), authorize a city or municipality to reclassify lands in excess of the limits set in paragraph (d) hereof. For this purpose, NEDA is hereby directed to issue the implementing guidelines governing the authority of cities and municipalities to reclassify lands in excess of the limits prescribed herein. SECTION 2. Requirements and Procedures for Reclassification

(a) The city or municipal development council (CDC/MDC) shall recommend to the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan, as the case may be, the reclassification of agricultural lands within its jurisdiction based on the requirements of local development. (b) Prior to the enactment of an ordinance reclassifying agricultural lands as provided under Sec. 1 hereof, the sanggunian concerned must first secure the following certificates from the concerned national government agencies (NGAs): (1) A certification from DA indicating (i) the total area of existing agricultural lands in the LGU concerned;

(ii) that such lands are not classified as non-negotiable for conversion or reclassification under AO 20 (1992); and (iii) that the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes in the case of Sec. 1 (b-1). (2) A certification from DAR indicating that such lands are not distributed or not covered by a notice of coverage or not voluntarily offered for coverage under CARP. (c) The HLURB shall serve as the coordinating agency for the issuance of the certificates as required under the preceding paragraph. All applications for reclassification shall, therefore, be submitted by the concerned LGUs to the HLRB, upon receipt of such application, the HLRB shall conduct initial review to determine if: (1) the city or municipality concerned has an existing comprehensive land use plan reviewed and approved in accordance with EO 72 (1993); and (2) the proposed reclassification complies with the limitations prescribed in SECTION 1 (d) hereof.

Upon determination that the above conditions have been satisfied, the HLRB shall then consult with the concerned agencies on the required certifications. The HLRB shall inform the concerned agencies, city or municipality of the result of their review and consultation. If the land being reclassified is in excess of the limit, the application shall be submitted to NEDA. Failure of the HLRB and the NGAs to act on a proper and complete application within three months from receipt of the same shall be deemed as approved thereof. (d) Reclassification of agricultural lands may be authorized through an ordinance enacted by the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan, as the case may be, after conducting public hearings for the purpose. Such ordinance shall be enacted and approved in accordance with Articles 107 and 108 of the IRR of the LGC. STIHaE (e) Provisions of Sec. 1 (b-2) hereof to the contrary notwithstanding, the sanggunian concerned shall seek the advice of DA prior to the enactment of an ordinance reclassifying agricultural lands. If the DA has failed to act on such request within thirty (30) days from receipt thereof, the same shall be deemed to have been complied with. Should the land subject to

reclassification is found to be still economically feasible for agriculture, the DA shall recommend to the LGU concerned alternative areas for development purposes. (f) Upon issuance of the certifications enumerated in Section 2 (b) hereof, the sanggunian concerned may now enact an ordinance authorizing the reclassification of agricultural lands and providing for the manner of their utilization or disposition. Such ordinance shall likewise update the comprehensive land use plans of the LGU concerned. SECTION 3. Review of Ordinances Reclassifying Agricultural Lands

All ordinances authorizing the reclassification of agricultural lands shall be subject to the review and approval by the province in the case of a component city or municipality, or by HLRB in the case of a highly urbanized or independent component city in accordance with EO 72 (1993). SECTION 4. Conversions Use of the Comprehensive Land Use Plans and Ordinances as Primary Reference Documents in Land Use

Pursuant to RA 6657 and EO 129-A, action on applications for land use conversions on individual landholdings shall remain as the responsibility of DAR, which shall utilize as its primary, reference documents the comprehensive land use plans and accompanying ordinance passed upon and approved by the LGUs concerned, together with the National Land Use Policy. SECTION 5. Monitoring and Evaluation of Land Reclassification by LGUs Concerned

Within six (6) months from the issuance of this Order, the HLRB shall design, in coordination with DA, DAR, Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), NEDA, League of Provinces, League of Cities and League of Municipalities, and install a monitoring and evaluation system for the reclassification of agricultural lands authorized by cities and municipalities. The HLRB shall submit semestral reports to the Office of the President. A copy thereof shall be furnished the DA, DAR, DILG, NEDA, League of Provinces, League of Cities, and League of Municipalities. SECTION 6. Transitory Provision

Provisions of Secs. 1 (a) and 2 (b) to the contrary notwithstanding, cities and municipalities with land use plans approved not earlier than 01 January 1989, may authorize the reclassification of agricultural lands in accordance with the limitations and conditions prescribed in this Order. However, when the LGU has not reclassified up to the said limitations, further reclassification may be exercised only within five years from the approval of the plan. Thereafter, all reclassifications shall require approval from the President pursuant to Sec. 1 (e) of this Circular. SECTION 7. Effectivity

This Circular shall take effect immediately. DONE in the City of Manila this 8th day of June in the year of Our Lord, Nineteen Hundred and Ninety-three.

Reference: DAR Administrative Orders No. 1, s. 2002 2002 Rules and Regulations on the Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Non-Agricultural Uses The Hon. Carlos Fortich et. al. vs. The Hon. Renato Corona GR. No. 131457, April 24, 1998 (Decision, Opinion and Resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration) FACTS: On November 7, 1997, the Office of the President (OP) issued a win -win Resolution which reopened case O.P. Case No. 96C-6424. The said Resolution substantially modified its March 29, 1996 Decision. The OP had long declared the said Decision final & executory after the DARs Motion for Reconsideration was denied for having been filed beyond the 15 -day reglementary period. The SC then struck down as void the OPs act, it being in gross disregard of the rules & basic legal precept that accord fina lity to administrative determinations. The respondents contended in their instant motion that the win -win Resolution of November 7, 1997 is not void since it seeks to correct an erroneous ruling, hence, the March 29, 1996 decisioncould not as yet beco me final and executory as to be beyond modification. They further explained that the DARs failure to file their Motion for Reconsideration on time was excusable .

ISSUE:Was the OPs modification of the Decision void or a valid exercise of its powers and prerogatives? 1. Whether the DARs late filing of the Motion for Reconsideration is excusable. 2. Whether the respondents have shown a justifiable reason for the relaxation of rules. 3. Whether the issue is a question of technicality.

HELD: 1.No.Sec.7 of Administrative Order No. 18, dated February 12, 1987, mandates that decisions/resolutions/orders of the Office of the President shallbecome final after the lapse of 15 days from receipt of a copy therof xxx unless a Motion for Reconsideration thereof is filed within such period. The respondents explanation that the DARs office procedure made it impossibleto file its Motion for Reconsideration on time since the said decision had to be referred to its different departments cannot be considered a valid justification. While there is nothing wrong with such referral, the DAR must not disregard the reglementary period fixed by law, rule or regulation. The rules relating to reglementary period should not be made subservient to the internal office procedure of an administrative body. 2.No. The final & executory character of the OP Decision can no longer be disturbed or substantially modified. Res judicata has set in and the adjudicated affair should forever be put to rest. Procedural rules should be treated with utmost respect and due regard since they are designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases to remedy the worsening problem of delay in the resolution of rival claims and in the administration of justice. The Constitution guarantees that all persons shall have a right to the speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative bodies. While litigation is not a game of technicalities, every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to ensure an orderly & speedy administration of justice. The flexibility in the relaxation of rules was never intended to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. A liberal interpretation & application of the rules of procedure can only be resorted to in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances. 3.No. It is a question of substance & merit. A decision/resolution/order of an administrative body, court or tribunal which is declared void on the ground that the same was rendered Without or in Excess of Jurisdiction, or with Grave Abuse of Discretion, is a mere technicality of law or procedure. Jurisdiction is an essential and mandatory requirement before a case or controversy can be acted on. Moreover, an act is still invalid if done in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. In the instant case, several fatal violations of law were committed. These grave breaches of law, rules & settled jurisprudence are clearly substantial, not of technical nature. When the March 29, 1996 OP Decision was declared final and executory, vested rights were acquired by the petitioners, and all others who should be benefited by the said Decision. In the words of the learned Justice Artemio V. Panganiban in Videogram Regulatory Board vs CA, et al., just as a losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party also has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of his/her case.

Session Nine- Mechanisms for Program Implementation The Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (Secs. 41, 42, 43, 49) CHAPTER XI Program Implementation Section 41. The Presidential Agrarian Reform Council. The Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) shall be composed of the President of the Philippines as Chairman, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform as Vice-Chairman and the following as members; Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture; Environment and Natural Resources; Budget and Management; Local Government: Public Works and Highways; Trade and Industry; Finance; Labor and Employment; Director-General of the National Economic and Development Authority; President, Land Bank of the Philippines; Administrator, National Irrigation Administration; and three (3) representatives of affected landowners to represent Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao; six (6) representatives of agrarian reform beneficiaries, two (2) each from Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao, provided that one of them shall be from the cultural communities.

Section 42. Executive Committee. There shall be an Executive Committee (EXCOM) of the PARC composed of the Secretary of the DAR as Chairman, and such other members as the President may designate, taking into account Article XIII, Section 5 of the Constitution. Unless otherwise directed by PARC, the EXCOM may meet and decide on any and all matters in between meetings of the PARC: provided, however, that its decisions must be reported to the PARC immediately and not later than the next meeting. Section 43. Secretariat. A PARC Secretariat is hereby established to provide general support and coordinative services such as inter-agency linkages; program and project appraisal and evaluation and general operations monitoring for the PARC. The Secretariat shall be headed by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform who shall be assisted by an Undersecretary and supported by a staff whose composition shall be determined by the PARC Executive Committee and whose compensation shall be chargeable against the Agrarian Reform Fund. All officers and employees of the Secretariat shall be appointed by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform. Section 49. Rules and Regulations. The PARC and the DAR shall have the power to issue rules and regulations, whether substantive or procedural, to carry out the objects and purposes of this Act. Said rules shall take effect ten (10) days after publication in two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.

The Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee (Sec. 44-45) Section 44. Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM). A Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM) is hereby created in each province, composed of a Chairman, who shall be appointed by the President upon the recommendation of the EXCOM, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer as Executive Officer, and one representative each from the Departments of Agriculture, and of Environment and Natural Resources and from the LBP, one representative each from existing farmers' organizations, agricultural cooperatives and non-governmental organizations in the province; two representatives from landowners, at least one of whom shall be a producer representing the principal crop of the province, and two representatives from farmer and farmworker-beneficiaries, at least one of whom shall be a farmer or farmworker representing the principal crop of the province, as members: provided, that in areas where there are cultural communities, the latter shall likewise have one representative. The PARCCOM shall coordinate and monitor the implementation of the CARP in the province.t shall provide information on the provisions of the CARP, guidelines issued by the PARC and on the progress of the CARP in the province. Section 45. Province-by-Province Implementation. The PARC shall provide the guidelines for a province-by-province implementation of the CARP. The ten-year program of distribution of public and private lands in each province shall be adjusted from year by the province's PARCCOM in accordance with the level of operations previously established by the PARC, in every case ensuring that support services are available or have been programmed before actual distribution is effected. The Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (Secs. 46-48) Section 46. Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC). Unless otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of Executive Order No. 229 regarding the organization of the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) shall be in effect. Section 47. Functions of the BARC. In addition to those provided in Executive Order No. 229, the BARC shall have the following functions: (a) Mediate and conciliate between parties involved in an agrarian dispute including matters related to tenurial and financial arrangements; (b) Assist in the identification of qualified beneficiaries and landowners within the barangay; (c) Attest to the accuracy of the initial parcellary mapping of the beneficiary's tillage; (d) Assist qualified beneficiaries in obtaining credit from lending institutions; (e) Assist in the initial determination of the value of the land; (f) Assist the DAR representatives in the preparation of periodic reports on the CARP implementation for submission to the DAR; (g) Coordinate the delivery of support services to beneficiaries; and (h) Perform such other functions as may be assigned by the DAR.

(2) The BARC shall endeavor to mediate, conciliate and settle agrarian disputes lodged before it within thirty (30) days from its taking cognizance thereof.f after the lapse of the thirty day period, it is unable to settle the dispute, it shall issue a certificate of its proceedings and shall furnish a copy thereof upon the parties within seven (7) days after the expiration of the thirty-day period. Section 48. Legal Assistance. The BARC or any member thereof may, whenever necessary in the exercise of any of its functions hereunder, seek the legal assistance of the DAR and the provincial, city, or municipal government. The Department of Agrarian Reform (Executive Order 129-A, dated July 26, 1987 The DAR Adjudication Board (Sec. 13, EO 129-A) Sec. 13. Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board. There is hereby created an Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board under the Office of the Secretary. The Board shall be composed of the Secretary as Chairman, two (2) Undersecretaries as may be designated by the Secretary, the Assistant Secretary for Legal Affairs, and three (3) others to be appointed by the President upon the recommendation of the Secretary as members. A Secretariat shall be constituted to support the Board. The Board shall assume the powers and functions with respect to the adjudication of agrarian reform cases under Executive Order No. 229 and this Executive Order. These powers and functions may be delegated to the regional offices of the Department in accordance with rules and regulations to be promulgated by the Board. Financing the Program Sec. 63 of RA 6657, in relation to Secs. 21 and 22 of EO 229 Sec. 21. Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance. The Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance shall be strengthened and shall be responsible for developing guidelines, plans and programs for legal assistance including developing, maintaining and coordinating para-legal services for those who will be affected by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. It shall be headed by a Director and assisted by an Assistant Director. Sec. 22. Bureau of Agrarian Reform Information and Education. There is hereby created the Bureau of Agrarian Reform Information and Education which shall absorb the functions of the Agrarian Reform Education Service which is abolished by this Executive Order. The Bureau of Agrarian Reform Information and Education, to be headed by a Director and assisted by an Assistant Director, shall be responsible for developing and conducting continuing training and education programs for the acquisition of knowledge, value formation, and development of skills and favorable attitudes among benefeciaries and personnel of the Department and other agencies, and the increase of awareness, participation and acceptance of agrarian reform by the public through the dissemination of information and communication materials. Section 63. Funding Source. The initial amount needed to implement this Act for the period of ten (10) years upon approval hereof shall be funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund created under Sections 20 and 21 of Executive Order No. 229. Additional amounts are hereby authorized to be appropriated as and when needed to augment the Agrarian Reform Fund in order to fully implement the provisions of this Act. Sources of funding or appropriations shall include the following: (a) Proceeds of the sales of the Assets Privatization Trust; (b) All receipts from assets recovered and from sales of ill-gotten wealth recovered through the Presidential Commission on Good Government; (c) Proceeds of the disposition of the properties of the Government in foreign countries; (d) Portion of amounts accruing to the Philippines from all sources of official foreign grants and concessional financing from all countries, to be used for the specific purposes of financing production credits, infrastructures, and other support services required by this Act; (e) Other government funds not otherwise appropriated. All funds appropriated to implement the provisions of this Act shall be considered continuing appropriations during the period of its implementation.

RA 8532. (1998) Augmenting the Agrarian Reform Fund with an Additional Fifty Billion Peso Budget Section 1. Sec. 63 of Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 is hereby amended to read as follows: "Sec. 63. Funding source. The amount needed to implement this Act until the year 2008 shall be funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund. "Additional amounts necessary for this purpose are hereby authorized to be appropriated in excess of the initial funds, amounting to Fifty billion pesos (P50,000,000,000.00) provided under Sections 20 and 21 of Executive Order No. 229. "The additional amount hereby authorized to be appropriated shall in no case exceed Fifty billion pesos (P50,000,000,000.00). "Sources of funding or appropriations shall include the following: "a) Proceeds of the sales of the Assets Privatization Trust; "b) All receipts from assets recovered and from sales of ill-gotten wealth recovered through the Presidential Commission on Good Government; "c) Proceeds of the disposition of the properties of the Government in foreign countries, for the specific purposes of financing production credits, infrastructure and other support services required by this Act; "d) All income and collections arising from the agrarian reform operations, projects and programs of CARP implementing agencies; "e) Portion of amounts accruing to the Philippines from all sources of official foreign aid grants and concessional financing from all countries, to be used for the specific purposes of financing production, credits, infrastructures, and other support services required by this Act; "f) Yearly appropriations of no less than Three billion pesos (P3,000,000,000.00) from the General Appropriations Act; "g) Other government funds not otherwise appropriated."

RA 9700, Sec. 21 amending Sec. 63 of RA 6657 Section 21. Section 63 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows: "SEC. 63. Funding Source. - The amount needed to further implement the CARP as provided in this Act, until June 30, 2014, upon expiration of funding under Republic Act No. 8532 and other pertinent laws, shall be funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund and other funding sources in the amount of at least One hundred fifty billion pesos (P150,000,000,000.00). "Additional amounts are hereby authorized to be appropriated as and when needed to augment the Agrarian Reform Fund in order to fully implement the provisions of this Act during the five (5)-year extension period. "Sources of funding or appropriations shall include the following: "(a) Proceeds of the sales of the Privatization and Management Office (PMO); "e)All receipts from assets recovered and from sales of ill-gotten wealth recovered through the PCGG excluding the amount appropriated for compensation to victims of human rights violations under the applicable law; "(c) Proceeds of the disposition and development of the properties of the Government in foreign countries, for the specific purposes of financing production credits, infrastructure and other support services required by this Act;

"(d) All income and, collections of whatever form and nature arising from the agrarian reform operations, projects and programs of the DAR and other CARP implementing agencies; "(e) Portion of amounts accruing to the Philippines from all sources of official foreign. aid grants and concessional financing from all countries, to be used for the specific purposes of financing productions, credits, infrastructures, and other support services required by this Act: "(f) Yearly appropriations of no less than Five billion pesos (P5,000,000,000.00) from the General Appropriations Act; "(g) Gratuitous financial assistance from legitimate sources; and "(h) Other government funds not otherwise appropriated. "All funds appropriated to implement the provisions of this Act shall be considered continuing appropriations during the period of its implementation: Provided, That if the need arises, specific amounts for bond redemptions, interest payments and other existing obligations arising from the implementation of the program shall be included in the annual General Appropriations Act: Provided, further, That all just compensation payments to landowners, including execution of judgments therefore, shall only be sourced from the Agrarian Reform Fund: Provided, however, That just compensation payments that cannot be covered within the approved annual budget of the program shall be chargeable against the debt service program of the national government, or any unprogrammed item in the General Appropriations Act: Provided, finally, That after the completion of the land acquisition and distribution component of the CARP, the yearly appropriation shall be allocated fully to support services, agrarian justice delivery and operational requirements of the DAR and the other CARP implementing agencies."