21st CREBA Annual National Conventioncreba.ph/conventionspeech/RGVPresentation.pdf21st CREBA Annual...

Presented by:

HON. RODOLFO G. VALENCIA (RGV)Representative, 1st District, Oriental Mindoro

Chairman, Committee on Housing and Urban Development

21st CREBA

Annual National ConventionThe Legend Hotel, Palawan

October 17-19, 2012

HB 6231:

“AN ACT CREATING THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, DEFINING ITS MANDATES, POWERS AND FUNCTIONS, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.”

BILL STATUS & UPDATES

CREBA AnnualNational Convention

The Legend Hotel, PalawanOctober 17-19, 2012

A. Background

• Date Filed : July 1, 2010

• Date Read : July 27, 2010

• Primary Referral : Government Reorganization

• Secondary Referral : Housing and Urban Development

• Bill Status : From HB 0384

Substituted by HB 06231

• Mother Bill Status : Unfinished Business

(Period of Interpellation)CREBA Annual

National ConventionThe Legend Hotel, Palawan

October 17-19, 2012



H6545:

“AN ACT INSTITUTING A NATIONAL LAND USE AND MANAGEMENT POLICY, PROVIDING THE IMPLEMENTING MECHANISMS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES “-The National Land Use and Management Act of the Philippines (NLUMA)

BILL STATUS & UPDATES

A. Bill Status

• Principal Author - BAG-AO, KAKA J.

• Date Filed - Sept. 6, 2012

• Date Read - Sept. 10, 2012

• Submitting Committees - Land Use, Appropriations

• Date Approved on 2nd Reading - Sept. 11, 2012

• Date Approved on 3rd Reading - Sept. 20, 2012

• Bill Status - Approved by the House on Sept. 20, 2012, transmitted and received by the Senate on Sept. 26, 2012



QUICK COMPARISON BETWEEN H6545 & HB 6231

Particulars H 6545 (NLUMA) HB 6231 (DHUD)

Date Filed July 1, 2010 (HB 414) July 1, 2010 (HB 0384)

Committee Hearings/Actions Started

Sept. 9, 2011 Feb. 23, 2011

No. of Committee Hearings/Actions

7 18

Approved by Committee on Appropriations

Aug 23, 2012 March 21, 2012

Committee Report Filed Sept. 6, 2012 May 29, 2012

Approved on 2nd Reading Sept. 11, 2012 Pending

Approved on 3rd Reading Sept. 20, 2012 Pending

Received by the Senate Sept. 26, 2012 Pending



• It defines Land Use as the manner of allocation, utilization, management and development of land.

• Standardization of the classification of land use for: Protection Land Use; Production Land Use; Settlements Development; and

Infrastructure Development.

• Creation of the National Land Use Policy Council (NLUPC) as the highest policy-making body on all matters pertaining to land use and management.

• The NLUPC shall be headed by the secretary of NEDA

Salient Features of H6545



H6545 Postures as an Omnibus Land Use Bill

1. Its concerns and issues have been addressed by manyother laws passed earlier by the Philippine Congress.

2. It creates yet another agency composed mostly ofcabinet secretaries to be headed by the NEDA Secretarywhich shall function as the highest policy-making bodyon all matters pertaining to land use and management,with responsibilities already given to other agencies byearlier laws.



3. It also claims a number of concerns as if these arebeing identified for the first time.

Such, for example, is the institutionalization of landuse and physical planning as a mechanism todetermine appropriate land use and allocationpatterns for sectoral development concerns.

Actually, these concerns have been addressed byearlier laws and have, in fact, been entrusted by suchlaws to the responsibility of specific agencies.




4. Some of the sectoral concerns addressed by H6545:

a) Environmental Integrity

b) Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate-Risk

c) Planning

d) Food Security

e) Water Resources

f) Energy Self-Sufficiency

g) Affordable Housing

h) Rights of Indigenous Peoples

i) Conservation of the Country’s Natural Heritage

j) Permanent Forests

k) Critical Watersheds, and

l) Biodiversity




There are already laws that address the above listed sectoral concerns.

These are also entrusted by law to the care of certain specific agencies.

H6545 is redundant, usurpatory, and over-reaching.

It serves as a mere camouflage for perpetuating the CARP, and diverts attention from the real issues and problems on the ground

H6545, a Redundancy



Principal Laws on Land Use

• RA 6657, or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1987

• RA 9700 – Extension of the CARP

• RA 8435, or Agriculture & Fisheries Modernization Act of 1997

• RA 7279, or the Urban Development & Housing Act of 1992

• RA 7916 or the PEZA Law



• RA 7160 - The Local Government Code of 1991

• The charter of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and various laws

• Certain laws designate certain specific lands or areas for tourism development and confer upon the Department of Tourism jurisdiction over the same.

– RA 8435 – Agri & Fisheries Modernization Act of 1997– RA 8550 - Revised Fisheries Code of 1997 – PD 1067 - Water Code of the Philippines– PD 1084 - Creation of Public Estates Authority(PEA)

– CA 452 - Pasture Land Act

– RA 9729 - Climate Change Act of 2009

– RA 9275 - Clean Water Act of 2009

– RA 10121 - Disaster Risk Reduction and Mgt Act of 2010

– RA 7161 - Banning of cutting of mangroves/forest charges

– RA 10066 - National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009

– EO 263 - Adoption of CBFM as country’s sustainable forest policy

– EO 72 & MC 54 (1993); EO 204 (2000); EO 841 (2009)

– on Compliance with CLUPs by LGUs

Other Existing Laws Related to Land Use



Other Existing Laws Related to Land Use

• Public Land Act (CA 141) of 1936 – first (public) land use management policy

– PD705 - Revised Forestry Code (1976)– RA 7076 - People’s Small Scale Mining Act of 1991– RA 7586 – National Integrated Protected Areas

System Act of 1992

– RA 7942 - Mining Act of 1995– RA 8371 – Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997



The Problem is not with the Laws; the Problem is Poor & Ineffective Enforcement.

Evidences of the NLUMA Bias Vs. Other Sectors Outside of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform

1st Evidence:

The Declaration of Policies mandates that land use and physical planning shall ensure protection of agricultural lands and “highest priority to the completion of the CARP”.

Question:

Why is CARP implementation singled out and accorded highest priority?




2nd Evidence:“Priority areas for agricultural development are the CARP, CARPable areas and the NPAAAD”.

Under the DAR’s rules and procedures, practically all lands are CARPable, even as the NPAAAD covers virtually all lands.

NPAAAD – National Protected Area for Agriculture and Agri-industrial Development.




• As any land can be made suitable for agriculture (with the application of technology), any land can be embraced by the NPAAAD.

• Thus, in effect, other than timber lands, mineral lands or natural parks, practically all of the country’s lands will be reserved for agricultural development.




What is covered by the NPAAD?

1. All irrigated areas;

2. All irrigable lands already covered by irrigation projects with firm funding commitments;

3. All alluvial plains;

4. Lands highly suitable for agriculture whether irrigated or not;




What is covered by the NPAAD?

5. Agro-industrial croplands or lands planted to industrial crops that support the validity of existing agricultural infrastructure and agro-based enterprises;

6. Highlands or areas located at an elevation of five hundred (500) meters or above and have the potential for growing semi-temperate and high value crops;

7. All agricultural lands that are ecologically fragile the conversion of which will result in serious environmental degradation; and

8. All mangrove areas and fish sanctuaries




3rd Evidence:

Agricultural lands may be reclassified by LGUs for non-agricultural uses “through the local planning and zoning process”, but “subject to the requirements and procedures for conversion”.

QUESTION: If the NLUMA is truly meant to “harmonize” interests in land, why is the DAR – an administrative agency whose mandate is solely to promote the interest of the peasantry through the CARP – being made the final arbiter of land allocation and planning by LGUs which are, in contrast to the DAR, mandated to promote the interests of not just the peasantry but the entire local citizenry?




4th Evidence: In “spatial allocation for different land uses, the LGUs shall first exclude areas under protection land use, national parks, energy resource lands, and prime agricultural lands”, the latter having the same definition as the NPAAAD.

QUESTION: If all these lands are to be excluded in land use allocation by LGUs, what lands will remain available or allowed for residential, commercial, institutional and other non-agricultural development?




5th Evidence: As far as housing and residential use is concerned, the proposed law allocates merely those “agricultural lands as designated in the CLUP which are no longer economically feasible for agricultural use”.

QUESTIONS:

a) Exactly when does an agricultural land become no longer feasible for agricultural use;

b) Given the population growth rate and demographic trends and needs, exactly how much and at what rate can lands be released for the various needs; and

c) What about non-residential use? CREBA AnnualNational Convention



QUESTIONS:

d) How will the Philippines solve the increasinghousing need estimated at 5.7 Million (2011-2016), proliferation of informal settlers, and theprojected target of 1,500,000 housing units(2012-2016)?




6th Evidence: NPAAAD lands are protected from conversion; irrigated and irrigable lands as well as lands with potential for high value crops are given full protection from conversion; and all lands subject to CARP are protected from conversion pending installation of agrarian reform beneficiaries, but thereafter may be converted subject to Section 65 of RA 6657.



R.A. 6657 – Comprehensive Agrarian Reform law of 1988Sec. 65 – The Conversion of Lands


• In other words, practically all lands cannot be allowed for conversion or development for non-agricultural uses – including priority infrastructure projects – except when already in the hands of agrarian reform beneficiaries.

WHY?




• QUESTION:

Where is equity or justness in a provision that obviously favors the peasantry while denying the rest of the citizenry the right to the beneficial use of land, when out of the country’s population of close to 100 million only some 5.7 million are farmers and fisherfolk, as against some 23.8 million who live in slums and 40 million subsisting below the poverty line?



Evidences of the Bias Vs. Other Sectors Outside of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform

7th Evidence: A national mapping program shall be implemented through the creation of an Inter-Agency Technical Committee, with the completed maps integrated in the national framework for physical planning. Accurate maps are essential to correct, rational and equitable implementation of the land use plan.

The proposed NLUMA concedes that no such mapping program exists to date.

So, WHY is a blanket conversion ban or moratorium already to take effect upon effectivity of the law?




• QUESTION:

Exactly how will a judicious and impartialdetermination be made as to whether or not theconversion ban is applicable to a particular piece ofland, when there is yet no credible land informationsystem that identifies, locates, demarcates andaccurately determines the attributes of all the landswhich are supposed to be “protected fromconversion”?



Sec. 55. Creation of the National Land use Policy Council(NLUPC).

• The NLUPC shall exercise the powers andresponsibilities identified under this Act.

• NLUPC shall act as the highest policy-makingbody on land use and resolve land use policy conflictsbetween or among agencies, branches or levels ofthe government.




Sec. 82. Fine for Failure to Commence or Complete theDevelopment of Agricultural Lands with ApprovedConversion Order.

a) Failure to commence within one (1) year from thedate of the conversion order.

1. Six percent (6%) for the first three (3) hectares;

2. Fifteen percent (15%) for the next three (3)

hectares; and

3. Thirty percent (30%) for the remaining area.




In such case, the order of conversion shall be revoked byoperation of law. The land shall revert to its originaluse as agricultural land and shall be covered by theDAR through compulsory acquisition for distributionto qualified beneficiaries.

Failure to complete sixty percent (60%) of the approvedconversion plan within a specified time frame shallresult to the automatic revocation by the DAR of theconversion plan on the undeveloped portion. Theland shall be reverted to its original use asagricultural land and shall be covered under theCARP for land distribution.




• H 6545 Poses a Grave Threat & Major Disincentive to Much-Needed & Continuing Investments in Important Sectors of the Philippine Economy.

EFEECTS ON PHILIPPINE ECONOMY



• The drivers of the Philippine economy are

bothered by H 6545. It sends very disturbing

signals to investors, funds managers, industrialists, and business managers – both foreign and local.

• Not only does it disregard and violate the letter and spirit of the Philippine Constitution.

• Its provisions are backward, parochial, and exclusivist.

EFEECTS ON PHILIPPINE ECONOMY



H6545 will negatively affect:

1. Philippine global competitiveness;

2. The sustained real estate and housing boom;

3. The dynamic growth of the BPO industry;

4. The confidence that sustains the continuing inflow of OFW remittances;

5. The resurgence of tourism and agribusiness, along with industrial linkages; and

6. Many other enterprises that are contributing to the vibrancy of our national economy.



CREBA & The Private Sector Deserve to Be Heard!

The times call for an objective assessment of the situation on the ground and an open mind towards solutions offered to us by science, technology, and modern management.



REJECTION

OR

COMPROMISE?



The Inescapable Impression

• It is obvious that the NLUMA is being givenpriority over DHUD.

WHY?

• DHUD was on the Top 20 priority legislationsapproved by LEDAC and the House ofRepresentatives targeted to be approved by year2012.

WHAT HAPPENED?




• Given its flaws and the patent bias in favor of the peasantsector, the proposed NLUMA (H6545) partakes of the natureof class legislation, the enactment of which will provokechallenges to its various provisions that violate the “dueprocess” and “equal protection” clauses of our Constitution.

• Per RA 7160, The Local Government Code of 1991, all LGUsare mandated to complete their Comprehensive Land UsePlan (CLUP) and update the same. It is obvious that conflictwill arise between LGUs and the NLUPC which is designatedas the highest policy-making body on all matters pertaining toland use and management.



• Short of outright rejection, can the proposed NLUMA be revised in order to:

• Uphold and comply with the constitutional principles of equity and fairness; and

• Apply the positive lessons gained from our own national experience and the best practices and successes of other progressive nations?

• Is a compromise possible between the proponents of H6545 and the Private Land Sector?




• A National Land Use & Management System, worthy of the name, must be consistent with the fundamental law of the land, which is the Philippine Constitution.



Art. III : On the National Economy & Patrimony

• “Section 1. The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services produced by the nation for the benefit of the people; and an expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for all, especially the under-privileged.

“…In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy and all regions of the country shall be given optimum opportunity to develop.”



To reiterate -

• What we need now, and urgently, is not another law as purported by the proposed National Land Use & Management Act, that is unduly biased towards the peasantry sector and against other legitimate sectors of society.



The Urgency of the Moment: the CLUPS

• In the meantime, the urgency of the moment is toempower and assist our local government units tocomplete their respective Comprehensive Land UsePlans, or update these regularly.

The CLUPs are needed to provide solid and scientificbasis for the development programs and projects thatLGUs will consider and approve in their respectivejurisdictions, for the benefit of all their citizens andirrespective of the specific sector to which each citizenbelongs.



We need the Department of Housing and Urban Planning & Development now!

• At the national level, the long-proposed Department ofHousing and Urban Planning and Development shouldbe immediately established and organized.

• The agencies under its supervision shall include abeefed-up, fully capacitated Housing and Land UseRegulatory Board that shall provide the overallcoordinative technical planning support for all the LGUsin the land.



HON. RODOLFO G. VALENCIA (RGV)Representative, First District, Oriental MindoroChairman, Committee on Housing and Urban Development

Governor, 1992-2001 ( 3 Terms)

Congressman, 1st District, 1988-1992, 2004-2010

Ten Outstanding Young Men of the Philippines

(TOYM) Awardee

Consistent Outstanding Congressman Awardee

Consistent Outstanding Governor Awardee

Former Chairman, (MIMAROPA) Former Chairman, Southern Tagalog Tourism Council

THANK YOU & GOOD DAY!

21st CREBA Annual National Conventioncreba.ph/conventionspeech/RGVPresentation.pdf21st CREBA Annual...

Documents

Transcript of 21st CREBA Annual National Conventioncreba.ph/conventionspeech/RGVPresentation.pdf21st CREBA Annual...