November 6, 2001
DAR OPINION NO. 23-01
MEMORANDUM
TO : PARO PEDRO GUMBAO
Capitol Site, Pagsabangan Road
Mankilam Tagum, Davao del Norte
SUBJECT : Request For Clarification In Case The Beneficiary Screening Committee Will Have Different Opinions On Who Will Qualify And Will Be Disqualified As ARB And Whether Field Supervisors Are Entitled To Become ARBs
In connection with the request of then PARO Saturnino D. Sibbaluca for clarification on the issue of whether or not a simple majority will rule or suffice "if the Beneficiary Screening Committee will have different opinions on who will qualify or be disqualified" as ARB, DAR Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1998 entitled, "Rules and Regulations on the Acquisition, Valuation, Compensation and Distribution of Deferred Commercial Farms" provides, insofar as pertinent, the following:
a) Section 6 (e)
" . . . the Beneficiary Screening Committee shall prepare an updated list of potential beneficiaries on the basis of the proofs presented during the public hearings and taking into consideration the order of priority prescribed in Section 22 of RA. 6657. . . ."
b) Section 6 (f)
"Resolution of Protests. — Any interested party may, within ten (10) days from posting of the updated list/waiting list, file a protest in writing with the Beneficiary Screening Committee on the qualification or disqualification of those appearing on the said lists . . . The Regional Director shall resolve the case within 15 days from receipt on the basis of substantial evidence showing the qualification or disqualification of the beneficiary . . . " (emphasis and emphasis supplied)
It is clear from the foregoing that the qualification, identification and selection of agrarian reform beneficiaries is not on the basis of the policy of majority rule per se but rather on the proofs presented (i.e., substantial evidence) taking into consideration the order of priority prescribed in Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657. It is not the discretion of the committee but the compliance with the prescribed requisites that is determinative.
On the issue of whether or not field supervisors are entitled to become ARBs, DAR Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 1993 (Supplemental Guidelines on Administrative Order No. 10, Series of 1990, and Other Issuances on the Rights of Farmworkers) pertinently provides:
"II.E. All farmworkers, regardless of classification, but excluding those holding managerial or supervisory positions in the agricultural enterprise or corporation, are qualified as CARP beneficiaries.
However, farmworkers who had been previously identified as qualified beneficiaries but were promoted to managerial or supervisory positions prior to land transfer may still qualify as awardees if they give up their managerial or supervisory positions.
Item X.I of Joint DAR-CDA-DA Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 1997, entitled: "Rules and Regulations Governing Membership Issues and Concerns of Farmworkers and Employee Beneficiaries in Agrarian Reform Plantation-Based Cooperatives", further provides:
"In both leaseback and non-leaseback arrangements, identified worker-beneficiaries in a cooperative who were promoted to managerial or supervisory positions in the plantation company (for leaseback arrangement) or the cooperative itself (for non-leaseback arrangement) after land transfer shall remain as ARBs even without giving up their position."
Under the above-quoted Administrative Orders, farmworkers who had been previously identified as qualified beneficiaries but were promoted to managerial or supervisory positions prior to land transfer may still qualify as awardees if they give up their managerial or supervisory positions. On the other hand, farmworkers who had been previously identified as qualified beneficiaries but were promoted to managerial or supervisory positions after land transfer may still qualify as awardees even without giving up their positions.
Please be guided accordingly.
(SGD.) VIRGILIO R. DE LOS REYES
Undersecretary for Legal Affairs, and Policy and Planning