1. Land
Use
Conflict
in
the
Philippine
Resources
Industry
Land
use
is
associated
with
human
rights
issue.
Resource
developers
must
respect
the
rights
of
host
communities
affected
including
farmers
and
indigenous
peoples.
They
should
obtain
permission
not
only
from
landowners
but
also
from
occupiers
or
users
before
commencing
development
and
be
aware
of
the
obligation
to
protect
sources
of
food
and
water.
In
consultation
with
the
community,
both
government
and
project
proponents
must
engage
a
process
to
compensate
fairly
for
adverse
effects,
identify
strategies
to
manage
environmental
and
social
consequences,
and
if
possible,
avoid
displacement
or
resettlement
of
people
Land
and
natural
resource
issues
often
times
are
the
main
causes
of
conflict.
Land
conflicts
especially
when
related
to
access
to
land
or
insecurity
of
tenure
commonly
become
violent
when
linked
to
wider
processes
of
political
exclusion,
social
discrimination,
economic
marginalization,
and
a
perception
that
peaceful
action
is
no
longer
a
viable
strategy
for
change.
The
globalization
of
economies
has
generated
a
surge
in
investments
related
to
land
and
other
natural
resources
The
Philippines
is
no
stranger
to
violence
in
relation
to
land
and
natural
resources
conflict.
(Toolkit
and
Guidance
for
Preventing
and
Managing
Land
and
Natural
Resources
Conflict,
2012).
The
exploitation
of
natural
resources
and
the
concomitant
environmental
degradation
exacerbated
by
climate
change
intensify
the
perceived
‘land
scarcity’.
Unresolved
disputes
will
continue
to
prevent
the
resources
from
being
developed
sustainably
creating
uncertainty
and
prolonged
conflicts.
Land
and
Resource
Governance

2. The
World
Bank-­‐supported
2013
report
entitled
“Improving
Land
Sector
Governance
in
the
Philippines:
Implementation
of
Land
Governance
Assessment
Framework”
(“LGAF”)
aims
to
provide
a
tool
for
diagnosis
of
land
governance
issues,
establishment
of
benchmarks
and
monitoring
progress
over
time.
The
report
identified
several
key
challenges
that
were
expected
to
highlight
the
importance
of
improving
land
governance
in
the
Philippines.
These
are:
First,
the
country
has
one
of
the
fastest
growing
population
in
Asia,
which
is
expected
to
place
undue
pressure
on
the
use
of
land
and
its
rational
and
equitable
allocation
among
competing
uses.
Second,
investments
in
agriculture
and
property
development
are
being
stymied
by
continuing
property
rights
problems
and
inconsistent
policy.
Third,
smaller
sized
farms
resulting
from
completion
of
land
redistribution
pose
challenges
in
improving
productivity
to
meet
food
security.
Fourth,
degradation
of
the
country’s
forests
and
natural
resources
has
continued,
affecting
the
poor
greatly,
due
to
their
dependence
on
these
resources.
Fifth,
as
the
country
scales
up
public
investments
in
infrastructure
to
promote
inclusive
growth,
it
becomes
more
crucial
to
set
clear
and
equitable
policies
on
expropriation
and
safeguards
for
those
whose
properties
would
be
affected.
Finally,
the
challenges
of
creating
an
improved
environment
for
private
investments
are
associated
with
having
a
well-­‐functioning
land
market
that
is
backed
up
by
access
to
reliable
land
information,
an
efficient
and
complete
registry,
and
clear
and
transparent
procedures
for
rights
registration
and
transactions
on
real
property.
According
to
the
LGAF
report,
the
Philippines
fared
high
on
the
strength
of
its
legal
framework
for
land
rights
recognition.
In
the
rural
areas,
the
Comprehensive
Agrarian
Reform
Act
of
1988,
Commonwealth
Act
141
or
the
Public
Land
Act,
Republic
Act
636
and
the
recently
issued
Republic
Act
10023
put
in
place
the
policies
for
recognition
of
rights
of
more
than
90%
of
the
country’s
rural
population.
The
Indigenous
Peoples’
Rights
Act
(“IPRA”)
on
the
other
hand,
laid
out
the
policy
for
recognition
of
customary
rights
and
the
systems
and
procedures
for
mapping
and
registration
of
ancestral
lands
relying
on
both
documentary
and
non-­‐documentary
forms
of
evidence.
The
Forestry
Code
and
National
Integrated
Protected
Areas
System
Act
both
recognize
the
public
goods
aspects
of
forestlands
serving
as
the
rationale
for
maintaining
these
lands
under
the
public
domain.
The
report
also
noted
that
there
is
strong
public
participation
in
the
formulation
of
land
policies,
owing
to
the
vibrant
civil
society
sector,
and
the
democratic
space
created
by
the
legislative
process.
In
the
Philippines
the
key
land
administrative
agencies
are:
1)
the
Land
Management
Bureau
under
the
Department
of
Environment
and
Natural
Resources
(“DENR”)
recommends
policies/programs
for
the
administration
of
alienable
and
disposable
lands;
2)
the
Land
Registration
Authority
(“LRA”)
under

3. the
Department
of
Justice
(“DOJ”)
issues
patents
and
certificates
of
title
and
registers
land
transaction
documents
(a
Registry
of
Deeds
is
attached
to
the
LRA
in
every
city
and
province);
3)
the
Department
of
Agrarian
Reform
(“DAR”)
implements
the
comprehensive
land
reform
program
of
the
government
by
providing
land
tenure
security
to
landless
farmers
through
land
acquisition
and
distribution
of
Certificates
of
Land
Ownership
Award;
4)
the
National
Commission
on
Indigenous
Peoples
(“NCIP”)
assists
indigenous
cultural
communities
in
securing
title
to
their
lands
and
approves
any
proposed
disposal,
utilization,
management
or
appropriation
of
ancestral
lands
and
processes
Certificate
of
Ancestral
Land
Titles
and
Certificate
of
Ancestral
Domain
Titles;
and
5)
local
government
units
develop
land-­‐use
and
development
plans
and
zoning
ordinances.
However
according
to
the
LGAF
study,
among
the
areas
where
Philippines
is
struggling
to
meet
good
governance
criteria
is
the
strong
horizontal
overlaps
in
mandates
of
key
agencies
including
the
DAR,
DENR,
LRA,
and
NCIP
in
issuing
original
titles,
review
and
approval
of
survey
plans,
and
maintenance
of
land
records.
This
overlap
affects
efficiency
in
service
delivery
and
prohibits
access
by
the
public
and
government
agencies
to
complete
and
reliable
land
records.
Furthermore,
the
current
state
of
records
and
overlapping
mandates
create
confusion
among
the
public
and
create
long-­‐standing
disputes
owing
to
contradictory
rulings
issued
by
the
agencies.
An
example
is
the
ongoing
dispute
in
Baguio
City
resulting
from
conflicting
land
titles
issued
by
the
LRA
and
the
NCIP
covering
the
same
property.
This
is
clearly
a
case
of
legal
pluralism,
which
occurs
when
different
land
tenure
regimes,
each
with
their
own
legal
framework,
have
legal
authority
over
land
rights
and
are
each
legitimized
to
resolve
conflict.
It
gives
rise
to
situations
where
there
are
contradictions,
ambiguities
or
ignorance
over
statutory
and
customary
rules
and
legal
norms.
Legal
pluralism
causes
confusion
as
to
which
legal
system
should
be
and
can
be
appealed
to
in
a
given
conflict.
(Food
and
Agriculture
Organization,
2006)
The
LGAF
study
also
revealed
that
the
processes
for
appeal
of
land
dispute
rulings
are
lengthy
and
expensive.
Cases
decided
by
the
Supreme
Court
in
2012
showed
that
in
more
than
90%
of
the
cases
it
took
more
than
20
years
for
cases
to
be
resolved
with
finality.
Land-­‐related
cases
take
a
very
long
time
to
be
resolved,
in
many
cases
spanning
decades,
and
in
some,
outliving
the
parties
involved.
The
study
also
noted
a
lack
of
reliable
data
on
property
markets
where
record
systems
are
unsystematic
and
unreliable
as
to
land
ownership,
locations,
boundaries,
actual
land
uses
and
land
values.
There
is
no
complete
set
of
cadastral
maps
that
shows
titled
and
untitled
properties
on
alienable
and
disposable
lands.
The
USAID
Country
Profile
on
Property
Rights
and
Resource
Governance
Philippines
(2010)
made
similar
observations
that
despite
legislation
and
various

4. land
reforms,
the
majority
of
rural
people
remain
landless
and
there
is
a
swelling
urban
population
living
in
informal
settlements.
The
country
profile
noted:
“Outdated
land
administration
laws,
an
inefficient
land
administration
and
adjudication
infrastructure,
and
a
poor
land
information
system
have
resulted
in
problems
of
fraudulent,
overlapping
and
duplication
of
land
titles
and
to
widespread
land-­‐grabbing.
They
have
also
contributed
to
high
transaction
costs
in
securing,
registering
and
transferring
property
rights,
and
to
tenure
insecurity.
Inconsistent
legislation
and
policy
declarations
have
led
to
unsustainable
land
use
and
conflict
over
competing
land
uses.
Resolving
Land
Conflicts
Land
tenure
conflicts
are
characterized
as
multilayered
and
multidimensional
and
best
understood
in
the
light
of
their
historical,
social,
environmental,
economic
and
political
contexts.
They
are
often
nested
within
bigger
conflicts
that
may
be
difficult
to
see
and
temporal
in
nature,
changing
over
time.
(Food
and
Agriculture
Organization,
2006)
The
Lincoln
Institute
of
Land
Policy
(2013)
identified
three
principal
approaches
to
resolving
disputes:
• Rely
on
power.
Use
one’s
leverage
to
force
or
coerce
someone
to
act.

5. • Adjudicate
rights.
Rely
on
an
arbiter
to
decide
who
is
right.
Set
up
adjudicatory
processes
to
determine
who
has
legally
enforceable
right
and
who
does
not.
• Reconcile
interests.
Try
to
satisfy
needs,
concerns,
and
fears
of
every-­‐one
involved.
Power-­‐
and
rights-­‐based
systems
are
designed
to
adjudicate
rights,
not
reconcile
interests.
Such
systems
are
less
likely
to
produce
durable
outcomes
because
results
can
be
overturned
when
the
power
balance
changes.
In
local
communities,
the
power
balance
in
the
local
government
units
is
always
shifting
with
new
elections
and
court
challenges.
While
such
approaches
may
allow
for
quick
decisions,
the
results
of
those
decisions
are
not
likely
to
last
or
satisfy
many
of
the
people
involved,
and
they
might
be
challenged
through
administrative
and
judicial
appeals.
The
Lincoln
Institute
proposes
the
mutual
gains
approach,
which
is
based
on
all
stakeholder
interests
as
well
as
the
necessary
technical
information.
It
involves
stakeholders
along
with
appointed
and
elected
decision
makers
and
generates
information
relevant
and
salient
to
stakeholders.
The
approach
requires
strong
community
and
public
engagement
skill
along
with
strong
technical
planning
skills,
and
engages
the
public
above
and
beyond
sharing
information
and
views.
The
mutual
gains
approach
to
preventing
and
resolving
land
use
disputes
is
not
a
single
process
or
technique.
It
draws
from
the
fields
of
negotiation,
consensus
building,
collaborative
problem
solving,
alternative
dispute
resolution,
public
participation,
and
public
administration.
The
result
is
a
more
public,
collaborative
process
designed
to
tease
out
the
range
of
interests
and
criteria,
compare
various
alternatives,
and
determine
which
of
those
alternatives
meet
the
most
interests.
Similarly
the
US
Bureau
of
Land
Management
(Collaborative
Stakeholder
Engagement
and
Appropriate
Dispute
Resolution,
2009)
adopts
a
collaborative
stakeholder
engagement
and
appropriate
dispute
resolution
(“ADR”)
for
preventing
or
resolving
disputes
outside
the
conventional
arenas
of
administrative
adjudication,
litigation,
or
legislation.
Bureau
policy
is
to
seek
to
use
collaborative
stakeholder
engagement
and
ADR
processes
as
standard
operating
practice
for
natural
resources
projects,
plans,
and
decision-­‐making.
By
preventing,
managing,
and
resolving
conflicts
or
disputes
through
these
processes,
the
Bureau
and
stakeholders
can
realize
savings
of
time,
budget
dollars,
and
public
resources.
The
existing
land
use
system
in
the
Philippines
relies
on
the
adjudication
of
rights,
not
the
reconciliation
of
interests.
On
the
other
hand,
the
mutual
gains
approach
which
have
yet
to
be
adopted
in
the
country,
encourages
contending
parties
to
focus
on
mutual
interests
and
strive
to
achieve
mutual
gains,
minimizing
the
destructive
nature
of
land
use
conflicts.

6.
Improving
Land
Governance
in
the
Philippines
Several
initiatives
are
being
undertaken
by
the
Philippine
government
to
improve
land
governance
as
an
effective
instrument
for
addressing
the
interconnected
issues
affecting
the
sector
The
Senate
Economic
Planning
Office
in
its
Policy
Brief
“Requisites
of
a
Land
Use
Policy”
(October,
2005)
identified
five
main
uses
of
land:
economic
and
commercial
uses,
food
production,
shelter,
environment
preservation
and
preservation
of
indigenous
peoples.
However,
these
uses
cannot
be
pursued
exclusively.
This
means
that
compromises
and
conflicts
arise
whenever
one
implements
one
specific
land
use
over
the
other.
Economic
and
commercial
use
of
land
may,
at
times,
be
in
conflict
with
the
food
production
role
of
land.
For
example,
indiscriminate
land
conversions
from
agriculture
to
non-­‐agricultural
purposes
that
persist
around
the
country
pose
the
danger
of
food
insufficiency
for
the
Filipinos.
At
present,
the
growing
population
of
the
country
has
resulted
in
an
increasing
demand
for
housing.
Because
of
the
limited
space
available
for
mass
housing,
there
is
now
congestion
particularly
in
urban
areas,
and
this
is
where
the
use
of
land
for
shelter
comes
in
conflict
with
other
interests.
Due
to
the
rapid
need
of
urban
centers
for
housing
and
the
lack
of
a
national
land
use
policy
to
guide
planners,
lands
allocated
for
other
purposes
near
these
areas
(such
as
agricultural)
are
utilized
for
housing.
According
to
the
DENR
(1997),
the
Philippines’
natural
resources
“have
been,
and
continue
to
be,
subjected
to
numerous
yet
conflicting
uses
that
include
forest
production
(for
wood
and
other
forest
products
like
resin,
pulp
and
paper),
food
production,
human
settlements,
watershed,
tourism/recreation,
mineral
production,
energy
production,
biodiversity
conservation,
industrial
site,
and

7. other
economic
activities
or
any
combination
of
the
above.”
Increasing
population,
resource
exploitation,
hyper-­‐urbanization
and
industrialization
have
put
much
pressure
on
the
biological
and
physical
well
being
of
the
environment.
The
enactment
of
IPRA
raised
some
issues
on
property
rights
especially
regarding
ancestral
lands
rich
with
mineral
and
energy
resources.
At
the
House
of
Representatives,
Rep.
Kaka
Bag-­‐ao
filed
House
Bill
No.
04382
entitled
“National
Land
Use
and
Management
Act
of
Philippines”
on
12
May
2014.
The
bill
was
approved
by
the
House
on
Third
Reading
on
02
June
2014
and
transmitted
and
received
by
the
Senate
on
04
June
2014.
In
the
Senate,
Sen.
Loren
Legarda
filed
a
corresponding
Senate
Bill
07
entitled
“An
Act
Instituting
a
National
Land
Use
Policy”
on
01
July
2013.
This
has
been
a
two-­‐decade
old
proposal
to
ensure
the
proper
allocation
of
land
to
various
uses
and
that
land
conversion
and
development
are
guided
by
a
framework
to
meet
the
country’s
long
term
requirements
for
food
security,
settlements,
industrial
and
economic
development,
among
others.
A
long
process
towards
harmonization
of
implementing
policies
and
procedures
of
the
DENR,
DAR,
NCIP
and
DOJ/LRA
in
the
issuance
of
tenurial
instruments
in
public
lands
was
completed,
leading
to
a
Joint
Administrative
Order
in
2012.
The
order
aims
to
address
not
only
overlapping
jurisdiction
among
the
land
agencies
but
also
operational
issues
and
conflicting
claims
in
the
implementations
of
their
respective
programs.
The
government
should
also
consider
setting
up
of
dedicated
land
courts
and/or
land
adjudication
boards
to
speed
up
the
resolution
of
land
cases.
Serious
reforms
in
the
administration
of
justice
system
including
the
organization
of
court
records
to
help
in
monitoring
of
land
cases
are
warranted
to
minimize
the
social
and
financial
costs
of
delays.
The
persistence
of
strong
horizontal
overlaps
among
land
agencies
will
continue
to
deprive
the
public
access
to
reliable,
up-­‐to-­‐
date
records
discouraging
investments
and
affects
land
market
activity
preventing
the
realization
of
the
full
potential
of
land
and
the
resources
thereat.
Conclusion
More
often
concession,
exploration
and
development
rights
given
by
the
central
government
through
the
market
economy’s
land
titling
and
resource
contracting
system
are
inconsistent
with
other
property
rights.
Government
regulators
and
resource
developers
must
carry
out
due
diligence
to
be
informed
as
to
the
laws,
regulations,
treaties
and
standards,
and
also
international
standards
of
practice
associated
with
land
use
and
conflict
management.
Inconsistent
legislation
and
policy
declarations
have
led
to
conflict
over
competing
land
uses
linked
with
overregulation,
overlapping
policies
and
jurisdictions
and
weak
monitoring
for
compliance.
The
government
must
strive
to
secure
property
rights
for
land
tenure
holders
and
resource
contractors,
implement
consistent
land
and
resources
policies,
and
provide
incentives
for
improved
sustainable
resource
management.

8. Fernando
“Ronnie”
Penarroyo
is
the
Managing
Partner
of
Puno
and
Penarroyo
Law
(fspenarroyo@punopenalaw.com).
He
has
negotiated
numerous
land
access
agreements
with
local
government
units,
landholders,
indigenous
peoples
and
host
communities
on
behalf
of
land
development,
mineral
and
energy
companies.