DOJ OPINION NO. 008, s. 1995

                                                                                               January 16, 1995

Mr. Guido Alfredo A. Delgado

President

National Power Corporation

Cor. Quezon Avenue & Agham Road

Diliman, Quezon City

Sir :

This has reference to the request for opinion of that office concerning the payment of financial assistance to the farmers/tenants who were displaced as a result of the construction of the Masinloc Coal Fired Thermal Power Plant Project (MCFTPP) of the National Power Corporation (NPC) at Bani, Masinloc, Zambales.

It is stated that the National Power Corporation (NPC) has been paying the displaced farmers/tenants on the basis of Section 18 of Executive Order No. 1035 which provides for the grant of financial assistance in the amount "equivalent to the value of the gross-harvest for one (1) year on the principal and secondary crops of the area acquired, based on the average annual gross harvest for the last three (3) preceding crop years, provided that in no case shall the financial assistance be less than P15,000.00 per hectare".

On the other hand, the farmers/tenants believe that the provision applicable is that of DAR Administrative Order No. 18, series 1989, which provides for the payment of disturbance compensation "equivalent to five (5) times the average of the gross harvests on their landholding during the last five (5) preceding calendar years, pursuant to Section 36 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended by Section 7 of R.A. No. 6389" (See Rule V [f]).

However, NPC believes that E.O. No. 1035, and not DAR A.O. No. 18, which should apply since the MCFTPP is an infrastructure project and is not a voluntary conversion of agricultural lands pursuant to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program to which DAR A.O. No. 18 applies.

We find the contention of NPC well-taken.

We understand that the displaced farmers/tenants contemplated in the instant case refer to those occupants whose lands were acquired by NPC through negotiated sale or expropriation for its infrastructure projects.

Specifically, the said lands were used to provide site or right of way for the MCFTPP. In this regard, the existing law that governs acquisition by the government of private or real properties or rights thereon for infrastructure and other government development projects is E.O. No. 1035. There is therefore no doubt that E.O. No. 1035 should apply in the instant case. This is clear and explicit from the provision of Section 17 of the said law which provides that:

"SECTION 17.         Relocation/Resettlement of Tenants/Occupants Affected by Property/ROW [Right of Way] Acquisitions. In case where the land to be acquired for the project would involve displacement of tenants, farmers and other occupants, the Ministry of Human Settlements, Ministry of Agrarian Reform and other concerned agencies shall extend full cooperation and assistance to the implementing agency/instrumentality concerned in the relocation and resettlement of such displaced tenants and occupants."

In relation thereto, the provision of Section 18 of the same law specifies the amount of financial assistance to be given to the displaced tenants/farmers, to wit:

SECTION 18.          Financial Assistance to Displace Tenants/Occupants. . . . The amount of financial assistance to be given to tenants/farmers of agricultural lands . . . shall be equivalent to the value of the gross harvest for one year on the principal and secondary crops of the area acquired, based on the average crop harvest for the last three preceding years; Provided, That in no case shall the financial assistance be less than P15,000.00 per hectare.

Well-settled is the rule that where a provision of law speaks categorically, the need for interpretation is obviated, no plausible pretense being entertained to justify non-compliance. All that has to be done is to apply it in every case that falls within its terms (Allied Brokerage Corporation vs. Commissioner of Customs, 40 SCRA 555).

Besides, it is pertinent to note that one of the major causes of delays in the implementation of national infrastructure projects that result in a big drain on the government's financial resources is the processing of acquisition of private properties or rights-of-way thereon and E.O. No. 1035 was purposely issued to simplify procedures and expedite the acquisition of properties and easements required in the implementation of said infrastructure projects (see Whereas Clauses). Hence, it is only right and proper for NPC to place reliance upon the provisions of E.O. No. 1035.

Finally, DAR A.O. 18 provides for the rules and procedures governing conversion of private agricultural land and implements the provision of Section 65 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R.A. No. 6657) authorizing the reclassification or conversion of agricultural land and its disposition upon the initiative of the beneficiary or landowner "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 purpose". Clearly, Section 65 does not contemplate acquisition by the government of agricultural lands to provide the needed sites or easements of right of way for national infrastructure projects where conversion is merely incidental to the purpose of such acquisition. The rule is that a meaning that does not appear nor is intended to be reflected in the statute cannot be placed therein (Manikad vs. Tanodbayan, 127 SCRA 724). The payment of disturbance compensation in cases of conversion under DAR A. O. No. 18 has, therefore, no applicability in the instant case.

Please be guided accordingly.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) DEMETRIO G. DEMETRIA

Acting Secretary