March 17, 1997

DAR OPINION NO. 26-97

Mr. Rodolfo T . Inson

Director III for Operations

Department of Agrarian Reform

Regional Office No. XI

Quimpo Avenue, Ecoland

Davao City

Dear Director Inson:

This has reference to your letter seeking clarification on the queries posed therein, to wit:

1.         Whether farmworkers retrenched or separated from employment before the award of CLOA are qualified as farmer-beneficiaries under CARP;

2.         Whether farmworkers retrenched or separated from employment after the award of CLOA cease to qualify as farmer-beneficiaries under CARP;

3.         Whether office workers and workers holding supervisory positions in commercial farms may be considered as farmworkers as defined under R.A. No. 6657 and therefore qualified as farmer-beneficiaries; and

4.         How to treat qualified beneficiaries who refuse to apply or be identified as such; whether certain deadlines may be imposed within which they may apply for identification; and whether for reasons of their continued refusal, a declaration of forfeiture of such rights as FBs has a binding force against them pursuant to law.

Anent your first query, please be informed that under II-A of DAR Administrative Order No. 2, series of 1993, qualified farmworkers include those found to be directly working on the land at the time the DAR conducts actual investigation and documentation. This means that the retrenchment or separation of a farmworker prior to the award of the CLOA does not necessarily disqualify him from being an ARB, provided he possesses the basic qualification of willingness, aptitude and ability to cultivate and make the land as productive as possible.

Anent your second query, Joint DAR-CDA Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 1995 (copy attached) expressly provides, quote: "Loss of employment with the cooperative/association or lessee (in the case of lease back arrangements) and loss of membership, with the cooperative shall not result automatically in the forfeiture of status as an ARB. However, cessation of employment and membership must combine with circumstances amounting to abandonment of tillage in order to disqualify an ARB. Such being the case, retrenchment or separation alone is not a ground for delisting qualified farmer-beneficiaries under CARP for the law further requires abandonment to constitute a valid cause for disqualification.

As regards your third query, II-E of A.O. No. 2, Series of 1993 provides that 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 have 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.

As to your last query, as soon as the MARO has knowledge of the refusal of a beneficiary under R.A. No. 6657, he shall conduct a verification for the purpose of ascertaining the reasons for such refusal. In this regard, all efforts shall be exerted to convince the farmer to become a beneficiary and to comply with his obligation as such. If, despite efforts at explaining to him the implications of his decision, the farmer persists in said refusal, the MARO shall document the same and the reasons therefor and submit his report and recommendation to the PARO, who shall in turn make his report and recommendation to the Regional Director. The Regional Director shall decide on whether said refusal constitutes a ground for the farmer's disqualification from being a beneficiary under CARL.

Please be guided accordingly.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) ARTEMIO A. ADASA, JR.

Undersecretary for Legal Affairs, and Policy and Planning