OPINION OZ, 5, 292z Republika ng Pilipinas KAGAWARAN NG KATARUNGAN Department of Jusiice Manila ~ September 25, 2006 Secretary NASSER C, PANGANDAMAN ‘Secretary Department of Agrarian Reform Elliptical Road, Diliman Quezon City Attn.: Nestor R. Acosta, CESO 11 Undersecretary for Policy, Planning and Legal Affairs sir: This refers to your request for Clarificatory opinion relating to our views contained In Department of Justice (DOJ) Opinion No. 44, series of 1990, regarding the authority of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to place Under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) coverage lands already classifiad to non-agricultural uses prior to June 15, 1988, the date of effectivity of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, ‘The antecedent facts a6 stated in your request appear to be clear: Gamboa Hermanos, Inc. (GHI) and Negros Fisheries Corporation (NFC) are owners of vast tracts of land In Negros Orlental already classined as {aaientil, commercial and industrial lands, end approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) prior to 15 June 1988 "As such, the DAR granted GHI and NFC exemptions from coverage under the CARP, Subsequently, GHI and NFC, as testament to their benevolent support of the CARP, voluntarily offered thelr landholdings for sale to the government, through the DAR, “Voluntary Offer to Sell” (VOS) Is a scheme whereby the landowners voluntarily offer thelr agricultural lands for CARP coveraye, This scheme is governed by DAR Administrative Order No, 2, serles of 2005, in relation to Section 19 of R.A. No. 6657. Considering thet the landowners Inltiated the offer of the ‘subject cocerracs {UF sale under the CARP, the DAR wishes to accept the offer iy te eagemess to cover tands actually used for agricultural purposes and distribute the same to qualified beneficiaries, even if these lands are te-classified as non- agricultural in use,e OPINION WO, Or §. 9977, However, your Department Is apprehensive that the subject lands are not covered thins marvate te ete a Public and private agricultural lands. The DAR asserts that having been re-dassified as residential, commercial and Industrial and considering that the corresponding exemption ‘orders were Issued by the DAR, the landholdings of GHI and NEC hava fellen beyond the scope of Its jurisdiction, Tus, Your Department belleves that pursuant to existing laws and Gaministrative processes, specifically Executive Order No. 72, series of 1993, Office of the President Memorandum Circular No, 54, series of 1993, and Administrative Order No. 20, serles of 1992, In relation to Republic Act Nar 7603 declassification zoning ordinance to “agricultural lands* from the non- agricultural uses of the sublect properties should be passed by the Sangguniang Fanglungsod and duly approved by the HLURB In order for sald lands to be Placed within the coverage of the CARP. Meanwhile, in a subsequent letter’, you siate that the GHI and NFC raised 98 @ pivotal Issue on “whether or not agro-Industrial lands covered by exempt be voluntarily offered for sale to the CARP” without withdrawing the ‘exemption Previously granted to these lands as part of the Special Economic Zones (SEZs), Fou also state that the GHI and NFC belleve that the re-classifcation to SEZs does not immediately change or alter the nature of the landholdings Specially since they have been and remain to be for agricuttural crop production, Specifically sugarcane and that, In fact, SEZS classification allows the use of the land for agricultural crop production. Under Section 3, Chapter 1, Tite XI, of Executive Order No. 292", as amended, the DAR shall: - xxx Xxx XxX "12) Develop, implement and undertake alternative and Innovative land development schemes and land tenure systems such as but not Wmited to land consolidation, land farming, cooperative farming and agro-industrial estates”, (Emphasis supplied) Further, It Is your view that the afore-cited Executive Order Is silent on whether or not the DAR can proceed with land Bcquisition under VOS of lands lassifled as agro-Industrial estates or SEZs despite the existence of a grant of emption or whether or not there Is a need to fit the grant of exemption before the sald landholdings can be acquired by vos,” ——_______. { Local Government of 1981, *Dated Apri 10, 2008 "The $967 Administrative Code,° opinic:! no, “3, S. 200% that In view lly, you state that the offerors, GHI and NFC both claimed gun fun i cetinanes trem gage f exemption as the acqul fa Boe mandate of the DAR. They also sugges that the exemption “should not be lited i order to preserve the potential use and value of the area ing ~ voluntarily offered” for the greater benefit of the farmer-beneficiarles, Hence, this query. After a thorough reading and careful evaluation of the records submitted before this Department, the Issues can be summarized as follows: 1, Whether or not lands dassified as agro-Industrial are covered by the Aefinition of Agricultural Lands under Sectian 3(¢) of the Camnrehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988; and 2, Whether or not lands previously exempt from land reform as certified by the Department of Agrarian Reform offered for sale by the owner through a X2luntary Offer to Sell (VOS) scheme fall within the scope of the Comprerenane Agrarian Reform Law of 1988. At the outset, it must be emphasized that the subject queries are of first impression, novel and special in character, The ‘surrounding circumstances which brought about the Issues ralsed are a class of thelr ‘own, that Is, ~ Su/ Generis. There Is no avallable Philippine insprudence to date which has facts falling pauarely on the matter et hand. The resolution of the questions can, thus, only be answered when the ‘WISDOM, INTENT and OBJECTIVES of the lawmakers in Grafting the various land Feform laws enacted are taken In a holistic and Integrated manner where substantive ‘aw takes precedence over technical rules Of procedure in the application of CARL The uniqueness of the subject matter is borne by the fact that an owner of land, previously declared exempt trom the coverage of land reform Is voluntarily offering the same under the Voluntary Offer to Self Provisions of CARL. "A simplistic approach to the problem Is the literal application of the mesning/coverage of "Agricultural Land”. urider CARL and existing jurisprudence, However, a simplistic approach to the 'ssue at hand, as will be shown hereafter, will not only fall to realize the objectives of CARL but will In fact result to Injustice to the farmer beneficiaries, their families, and soclety in general, the welfare of whom are primarily sought to be protected and promted by our Constitution. On the first issue, the irresistible answer Is in the affirmative. This Department Is of the view that agro-industrlal lands are within the ambit or coverage of the definition of Agricutural Land Under the CARL, Section 3(b) and (c) of R.A, No. 6657 expressly provide, viz, "SEC. 3. For the purpose of this Act, unless the context Indicates otherwise:opinion no. yz, s. 2007 XXX XXX XXX (b) Agriculture, Agricuttural Enterprise, or ‘Agricuttural Activity means the cultivation of the soll, planting of crops, growing of trees, Including the harvesting of such ferm products. and done by Persons whether natural or juridical. (c) Agricultural Land refers to land devnted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act and not ‘or Industrial land.” (Underlining supplied) Plearly, from the above-ited provisions of the law, agricultural land is Geined by way of making reference to agricultural acthity” and by express enumeration of exclusionary classification of lands not included in sald definition, Based on the foregoing, i ie avident that the manner of determining the coverage or real meaning of ‘Agricultural Land’ is twofold, to wit: First, As “land devoted to agricuttural activity”, Again, under Section 3(b) OF R.A. No, 6657, the phrase “agricultural activity’, Is not fimited to cultivation, planting, growing, and harvesting alone, but alsa extencle to such “other farm peratinnn bimalices performed by a farmer In conjunction with such farming Speratians” done by persons whether natural or juridical, By virtue of this Provision it's clear that agricultural activity extends to other activfles beyond Planting and harvesting as long as said other activities are related to or in fonjunction with such farming operations. These actives would necessarily Indude post harvesting operations which are part and parcel of agro-industrial operations, Second. Agr o-Industrial lands are not Included In the enumeration of ©xclusion provided in the definition of Agricultural Land, Under the Late maxim Of statutory construction, expressio unlus est excluslo afters (Express Mention ls Implied Exclusion), the express mention of one thing in @ law, as a general Tule, means the exclusion of other not expressly mentioned. This rule, as a guide to probable legislative Intent, is based upon the rules of logic and the natural Workings of the human mind.* Applied to this instant case, the express Rome acon of the following classes of lands, namely, 1) Mineral 2) Forest 3) Residential, 4) Commercial or 5) Industtel, necessarily excludes thoce Iona not expressly mentioned, . ———_—______ , 8.2077 In view of the foregoing discussion, It Is clear that the present Agro- Industrial tand. being voluntarily offered by GHI/NFC to DAR Is within the rag@of the definition of "Agricultural Land” under CARL and thus, need not be 're-classified back to agricultural nor the exemption lifted, Please be guided accordingly. Very truly yours, SecretaryOFIION HO. GF, 8 200¢ dit viel of the foregoins discussion, Ik is clear that tha present Agro- industflalldhd being voluntary offered by GHI/NFC to DAR is within the owe f tid definition of "Agriculture! Land” under CARI arid thus, need not fe-Glassitied back to agricultural nor the exemption tied. fee 1. Please be guided accordir yy. Very truly yours, Y “Wooctany i3