Duterte’s Boracay Land Titles: Legal Misstep or Social Justice?

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo

IN A move that could reshape the legal landscape surrounding land distribution in the Philippines, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) recently invalidated the Certificates of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs) issued by former President Rodrigo Duterte to members of the Ati community in Boracay. This decision has reignited a long-standing debate on the legality and morality of land distribution policies in the country, pitting the rights of indigenous communities against strict legal frameworks and procedural requirements.

Historical Context: The Shift to Another Administration

Boracay, known for its pristine beaches and vibrant tourism industry, has been a contentious site for land ownership and development issues for decades. During Duterte’s administration, a comprehensive rehabilitation of the island was undertaken, including the controversial closure of the island for six months in 2018. Amidst these efforts, Duterte sought to address the long-standing claims of the Ati community, an indigenous group native to the area, by awarding them CLOAs for land in Boracay.

However, this decision was fraught with legal complexities. Duterte’s issuance of CLOAs in 2019 came five years after the expiration of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) under Republic Act 6657, which ended on June 30, 2014. The shift in administration from Duterte to Marcos has brought these legal issues to the forefront, as the current DAR, under Secretary Conrado Estrella III, has now declared these CLOAs invalid.

Challenging Duterte’s Land Titles

The DAR’s invalidation of the CLOAs is grounded in several key legal arguments:

Expiration of CARP: The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), which provided the legal framework for land distribution under CARP, ceased to operate after June 30, 2014. According to DAR, the issuance of CLOAs in 2019 falls outside the legal purview of CARP, making these titles legally indefensible. The Supreme Court has consistently held that laws must be applied as written, and any actions taken outside the timeframe specified by the law are void ab initio (void from the beginning).
Lack of Notice of Coverage: CARP mandates that lands subject to agrarian reform must be covered by a Notice of Coverage before they can be distributed. The DAR argues that no such notice was issued for the lands in question before the 2014 deadline. This procedural lapse is critical, as the Supreme Court has previously ruled in cases such as Republic v. Gingoyon (2006) that strict compliance with procedural requirements is essential for the validity of land distribution under CARP.
Unsuitability for Farming: The Bureau of Soils and Water Management declared the property unsuitable for farming, which is a key criterion for land distribution under agrarian reform laws. The DAR’s decision is bolstered by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Department of Agrarian Reform v. Delos Reyes (2014), which emphasized that land must be suitable for agriculture to qualify for distribution under agrarian reform.
Private Land Exclusion: The land in question is private, making it ineligible for coverage under Executive Order No. 75 (EO 75), which was issued by Duterte in 2019. EO 75 mandates the distribution of government-owned lands suitable for agriculture but does not extend to private lands. The DAR’s interpretation aligns with the principle that private property cannot be appropriated without due process, a principle upheld by the Supreme Court in Republic v. Court of Appeals (1994).

Opposing Standpoints: Duterte and the Ati Community’s Counter-Arguments

On the other side of the legal debate, Duterte and the Ati community present compelling counter-arguments:

Indigenous Rights: The Ati community may argue that their ancestral domain rights, as recognized under the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997, supersede the provisions of CARP and EO 75. The Supreme Court, in cases like Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources (2000), has upheld the rights of indigenous peoples to their ancestral lands, which could provide a legal basis for the Ati’s claim to the Boracay land.
Equity and Social Justice: Duterte’s decision to award the CLOAs could be framed as an act of social justice, aimed at correcting historical injustices against the Ati community. The Supreme Court, in Laguna Lake Development Authority v. Court of Appeals (1994), has recognized that equity and social justice can sometimes serve as grounds for deviating from strict legal rules, particularly in cases involving marginalized communities.
Good Faith and Reliance: The Ati community could argue that they accepted the CLOAs in good faith, relying on the government’s representations. The principle of estoppel, which prevents a party from going back on their word if the other party has relied on it to their detriment, could be invoked. The Supreme Court has applied this principle in cases like Board of Liquidators v. Kalaw (1972), where government actions created legitimate expectations for the parties involved.

Legal Analysis: Weighing the Arguments

Objectively assessing the legal arguments, the DAR appears to have the upper hand based on the clear provisions of the law and existing Supreme Court precedents. The expiration of CARP, lack of Notice of Coverage, and the private nature of the land all point to the invalidity of the CLOAs. The DAR’s strict adherence to the legal framework, supported by relevant case law, makes their position robust.

However, the counter-arguments based on indigenous rights and equity are not without merit. The Ati community’s claims, grounded in the IPRA and principles of social justice, could find sympathetic ears in the judiciary, particularly if the courts are inclined to prioritize substantive justice over procedural technicalities.

Recommendations

To the DAR and the Government:

Explore Alternative Solutions: Given the potential backlash from invalidating the CLOAs, the government should expedite efforts to find alternative lands for the Ati community. The proposed relocation to a former military reservation, as mentioned by Secretary Estrella, is a step in the right direction.
Engage in Dialogue with the Ati Community: The government should initiate a dialogue with the Ati community to address their concerns and ensure that their rights and welfare are safeguarded. This could include providing additional support for their relocation and livelihood programs.

To the Ati Community:

Pursue Legal Remedies: The Ati community should consider challenging the DAR’s decision in court, particularly under the IPRA. They should seek legal representation to present their case effectively.
Engage in Advocacy: Beyond the courts, the Ati community should engage in advocacy to raise public awareness about their plight and build support for their cause. This could involve partnerships with civil society organizations and indigenous rights groups.

In conclusion, while the DAR’s legal position appears strong, the situation calls for a balanced approach that respects the law while also addressing the legitimate concerns of the Ati community. This case underscores the complexities of land reform in the Philippines, where legal, historical, and social justice issues intersect in ways that challenge both the government and the judiciary.