Land Tenure and Conflict

Resolutions Options from Wao,

Upi and Midsayap
by Elmer Mercado, EnP and Ms. Bane Agbon
WB BBL Land Conflict Study
31 March 2017
Two studies of land conflict resolution experiences

§ Case 1: North Upi, Maguindanao

§ Tri-people community-based option (LGU-initiated)

§ Case 2: Midsayap, North Cotabato

§ Inter-agency task force

§ Case 3: Muncipality of Wao, Lanao del Sur

§ Corporate initiated
Mayor’s Council of North Upi, Maguindanao
 Background

§ Upi is a highland municipality covering 74,000 hectares, largely

agricultural, home to home to Tedurays, Maguindanaoans and
settlers (generally labeled as Christians) from Luzon and Visayas;

§ Trust among the groups has been fragile. The 1970’s was a period of
intense conflict – Upi became the base of the dreaded Ilaga militia
group headed by Feliciano Luces, more popularly known as
Kumander Toothpick, which targeted Moro communities at the height
of the rebellion of the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF).
Retaliatory attacks came from the Moro-led armed militia group,
Blackshirts. The Tedurays were caught in the middle, succumbing to
the pressure to join either;
 Mayor’s Council

§ Initially an advisory body on peace and development formed in 2001,

it was later tasked to settle local disputes, supported by an EO
signed in 2002;
§ invoked Local Government Code of 1991 which allows for indigenous
systems of settling disputes in areas where indigenous groups are a
majority; and the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997
which upholds right of indigenous communities to use own justice
systems and conflict resolution institutions. Not encumbered by the
limitations imposed on Katarungang Pambarangay;
§ Composition: six members, two from each major inhabitant group.
They are well-respected leaders (usually imams or religious persons
from Moros, kefeduwans or moral leaders for Tedurays, respected
leaders among settlers). Chosen by groups and receive
appointment from the mayor;
§ Coverage: disputes among Upi residents and residents vs non-
residents; civil and criminal (even heinous crimes such as rape and
murder);
§ Representation in sessions depend on the ethnic affiliation of the
disputants. For instance, if both are Tedurays, the Teduray members
of the Council co-chair the deliberations. In cross-group disputes, the
Council selects members from each group to preside;
§ Customary laws and practices govern internal rules of procedures
and settlement options. Among Tedurays, their adat (customary
law) defines what they ought and ought not to do. Resolution of
conflicts is governed by the Timuay justice system and preference is
given to Tiyawan (conciliation) process led by Kefeduwans 
or moral
leaders.
§ Among Moros, Islamic teachings, Sharia’h law and customary laws
are the guideposts. First option is also conciliation by walay na
kukuman or Council of Elders, an adhoc body of respected persons,
(datu or imam). Blood money is a recognized form of settlement. For
the settlers, the reference is the formal justice system;
 Land conflicts and issues brought to the Council are:

§ Boundary disputes - most common and usually about encroachment

on one’s property by structures;
§ Conflicting ownership claims, sometimes spurious, wherein a
claimant presents fake documents. Some cases were on wrong
identification of location of the land.
§ More difficult cases are due to the issuance of multiple government
instruments on the same property or multiple sale of the same
property or a portion thereof;
§ In land disputes, the work of the Council is to pacify the disputants
and convince them to opt for amicable settlement. The issue of land
ownership is not tackled extensively, focusing more on reaching
compromise agreements on land use or ownership.
 Concerns on land dispute settlement

§ Since land disputes are a battle of documents and narratives,

customary laws are difficult to enforce because they can always be
contested by the state’s land policy doctrine. On the other hand, the
imposition of this policy dispossessed the native inhabitants and
caused the inter-ethnic frictions.
§ The Council has opted to tilt the balance in favor of documentary
evidence and the findings of the LAM agencies but are not equipped
to appreciate the evidence and do not have the mandate to resolve
land issues. The role of the Council is primarily on amicable
settlement to keep or rebuild harmonious relations, not to settle
issues on land ownership or right to use.
§ Resilience of amicable settlements reached by these local conflict
resolution mechanisms will be measured by the extent to which their
decisions are treated as binding through time by other parties of
interest. 

Inter-Agency Task Force (IATF) to Resolve Land
Conflicts in Midsayap, North Cotabato
 Background

§ Midsayap’s original inhabitants were Moros who were descendants of

Sultan Ali Bayao whose lineage can be traced to Sultan Dipatuan
Kudarat I. By 1927, with government’s support, waves of settlers
from Luzon and Visayas arrived;
§ Midsayap shares the story of conflict of Upi and most of Mindanao.
The 1970’s onwards witnessed bloody clashes between government
forces and Moro liberation fronts, the hostilities worsening when
martial law was declared. Militia groups on both sides (Ilonggo-led
Ilaga vs Blackshirts on the Moro side) were constantly engaged in
violent confrontations, leading to massive displacements. When they
returned in 1989, their land has been occupied by other groups,
mostly Ilocanos, Ilonggos and Cebuanos. This resulted in deep
resentments and more violent conflicts;
 IATF (Inter-agency task force)

§ Most severely and repeatedly affected by the series of violent

attacks. Residents of six neighboring barangays (villages) of
Midsayap, namely Natularan, Tugal, Lower Glad, Rangaban, Nes,
and Mudseng.
§ The Barangay Chairpersons of these villages formed NaTuLaRaN
Mu Peace Council, (acronym coming from the first letters of the
barangays), envisioned to amicably settle land disputes in any of the
member- barangays. The Katarungang Pambarangay system takes
first responsibility at conflict settlement. When conciliation fails, the
case is brought to the Peace Council;
§ Despite the work of the NaTuLaRaN Mu Peace Council, the violent
attacks went unabated, mostly due to land conflicts; prompted the
Council to seek the help of national government. On 23 February
2007, PAPP Secretary Jesus Dureza issued a memorandum order
creating the IATF within the auspices of the formal peace process
with the MILF.
§ DENR XII RED was designated as the TF Chair. Member offices
represented by the Regional Directors or local heads were DA, DAR,
the Joint Government and MILF Coordinating Committee on the
Cessation of Hostilities (JCCCH), AFP, PNP, local government of
Midsayap/NaTuLaRaN Mu Peace Council, and OPAPP/Mindanao
Economic Development Council (now MINDa).
§ First task: assess the land issues that trigger full-blown armed
conflicts in affected barangays. Major source of conflicts was the
influx of outsiders, driving out the legitimate landowners. Several
parcels were contested, boundaries overlapped, all lot markers gone
and some owners mistakenly identified the location of their property;
§ Land resolution process: Systematic Adjudication (SA).
§ Land adjudication process to settle the issue of land rights on a
whole-of-locality basis, with the ultimate objective of registering all
untitled lands in the area by defining land boundaries and
examining if the claims for land titles were valid;
§ Those that disagreed or refuse to accept findings of SA were
subjected to ADR process led by the CENRO. Documentary
evidence basis of resolution of claims (wth flexibility).
§ The relocation survey and monumenting covered 311 lots with a total
of 1.994.3464 hectares in the three barangays. Total cost was Php
3.5 million, funded by DAR. Six months after the IATF had its first
meeting, 90% of the residents of Rangaben and 60% in Mudseng
have returned to the lots they rightfully owned. In some areas,
disputants refused to settle at that time;
§ SA allowed the mediators and claimants to see the impact of parcel-
by-parcel settlement of disputes on the entire community.
(Increasingly, DENR saw the impact of local government participation
in land titling and adjudication of land disputes towards achieving
stability. Thus, it issued DENR Administrative Order 2011-06, tasking
the Department to provide maps and all other technical information
on the land (by parcel) covered by municipality and train the LGU to
understand and use the information to assess applications for titles,
conduct inspection of the land and do background check on the
applicant, assist in the adjudication and recommend actions to
DENR);
§ With government in the driver’s seat, its processes and documents
settled the disputes. The extent to which these reflect the history of
the land ownership is expected to affect the acceptance and
durability of the decisions.
 Observations/Recommendations

§ The modality of land dispute settlement demonstrated by the IATF is

the use by the state of it authority to compel LAM agencies to work
together to enforce its land ownership policies within the ambit of a
peace process and in partnership with local peace mechanisms.
§ It showed how a national government-led community-wide parcel-by-
parcel adjudication of disputes on boundaries and ownership is
possible. Prudence has to be exercised though, in enforcing these
formal land laws, even by the local conflict resolution mechanism,
since the state continues to be identified as a key player in the
widespread dispossession of lands of native inhabitants.
§ In the context of transitional justice, which is pursued within conflict
transformation and justness in dealing with the past, framing the
settlement within the state’s land policies is not an immediately
operable course of action.
§ The resolution of land disputes need to understand, acknowledge
and address the history and nature of unjust dispossession of land
rights and customary land tenure and be mindful that it does not
create new fissures or surface old tensions in the already fragile
relations in the community. The role of the community must go
beyond being sources of information and spectators.
§ Claimants and the entire community must be actively involved in
defining processes to obtain durable and acceptable solutions,
including the state land laws.
Wao, Lanao del Sur
 Background

§ Prior to the first influx of non-Moro settlers from Luzon and Visayas in
the early 50’s, the early settlers of Wao were composed of Iranun
and Maranao natives. They established their early community near
the creek called “Lia Wao”, which means a “high place”, now the
present-day location of the town’s poblacion. It was the center of
trading activities from nearby communities and other ethnic tribes in
Lanao, Cotabato and Bukidnon. Among the native leaders of Wao at
the time were Sultan Mamaco Saripada and Datu Tuao Pagol.
§ Early 1950’s = 1st batch of ‘migrants’ = “pioneers” of 60 families; part
of “land for landless” program of government.
§ Early 1960’s = Wao was officially created as municipality;
§ Early 70’s -80’s = sectarian violence and conflict; precipitated by
military assault on town hall during the Mayorship of Sultan Mamaco.
 Land issues in Wao

§ Land displacement of native Iranuns/Maranao arising from

Muslim-Christian armed conflicts of 1970’s-80’s and
succeeding secessionist wars by MNLF;
§ Land distribution/grants given by the national government
§ 1960’s land grants
§ 1970’s: PD 27 agrarian reform program
§ Timber license agreement no.10 (Timber Industries of the Philippines,Inc) =
18,000 hectares of Wao’s forestlands.
§ SPDA – 1981, Proc 2046
§ More than 25,000 hectares of land (Wao and Bumbaran) were
reserved under the “ administration and disposition” of SPDA for “agro-
industrial cooperative settlement purposes” and as a “relocation sites
for returning combatants, affected Muslims and other landless farmers”
initially arising from the MNLF rebellion in the late 70’s.
§ Approximately 10,756.28 hectares or about 40% of the total area is in
the municipality of Bumbaran, while 16,026.47 hectares or about 60%
of the area is in the municipality of Wao
§ 6 bgys of Wao and 6 bgys of Bumbaran
§ Almost all the forestlands in Wao (around 18,000 hectares) are part of
the reserved public lands under the SPDA.
Legal Coverage: PD 1703

§ Sec. 7. Availability and Utilisation of

Public Lands -“ Upon request by the
Authority and certification by the
President, the Bureau of Lands and
Bureau of Forest Development, shall
immediately make available and
deliver necessary public lands for the
Authority’s priority projects. The
Authority is hereby empowered and
authorised to hold, administer, utilise,
encumber, or otherwise deal with
such lands in the pursuit of the said
priority projects”.
Land Allocation Map, Wao CLUP
EO 149, s2006 - Reactivation of SPDA under oversight of
OPAPP
§ all assets and funds returned (transferred to MPDF under EO 229,
s2002) to SPDA

§ “approve policies and implementing guidelines needed to

accomplish purpose and objectives of SPDA” -Sec. 2(a)

§ Implementing arm for the “economic catch-up plan” of the 1996

GRP-MNLF Peace Agreement - Sec.3

§ Coordination with ARG-ARMM in implementation of projects

“within ARMM” - Sec.4
 SPDA development projects.

§ As a government owned and controlled corporation (GOCC), the

SPDA exercises corporate powers and functions. Hence, it can
initiate and engage in various development projects with all its
assets, including in the Wao-Bumbaran area, with the private sector,
LGU, or any interested sector/group including NGOs and people’s
organization either in joint-venture or management agreements.

§ 8 economic development modules inside SPDA (Wao and Bumabaran);

§ one module (early 1990’s) was the KAICs ( Kapatiran Agro-industrial
Cooperative Settlement) = 3,059 hectares; intended to be a housing
settlement and agricultural livelihood program for former MNLF combatants
and residents of conflict-affected communities with a usufruct agreement
with the SPDA
§ Currently, SPDA has proposed to transform SPDA area into a “MinSEZA” –
Mindanao Special Economic Zone Area = ““agro-production and processing
zone/complex” for both local and foreign private businesses and quasi-
government firms as economic locators”
 Corporate-initiated

§ Unifrutti agro-industrial project – established a local corporate

partnership (Wao Development Corporation) with local Wao farmers
(Moros/non-Moros) operating existing 800 hectares (target expansion
to 1,200 hectares) agro-industrial pineapple production plant; intends
to expand area of operations but limited land available;
§ Pioneered work in Datu Paglas in establishing a “successful” private
corporation operating in Muslim Mindanao that worked with local Muslim
communities including former combatants;
§ Part of the firm’s work with the communities included supporting firming-up
land ownership/claims of local Muslim groups/families/households.
Land issues and concerns
 Land issues and concerns

§ Land occupation claims and status (2003).

 Land tenure options
Option A:Option A:

q Private sector (Unifruitti) negotiate with SPDA (a JVA, co-

management, sharing agreement) for agri-cooperative
development for existing occupants/farmers and other
affected combatants/Muslim communities; identified
areas within reserve area
q Private sector organise cooperative or common
agreement with target beneficiaries/farmer-contractors in
area;
q Private sector - put up all necessary facilities for
production and processing

33
Option B:
q new PP for identified areas inside SPDA under new
agency/authority (e.g. NDC or MinDA, ARMM, DENR or
BDA) or creat new SPDA (or legitimise BDA ala-SPDA)
q Presidential proclamation and identification of
administrative/management body and intended
uses/functions allowed
Option C:
q issuance of usufruct rights (either collective or
individual); based on community agreements
facilitated by local community/tribal leaders;

Option D:
q legislation release as A&D and option for titling by
existing occupants and returning combatants
(MNLF 1997 Agreement)
 General observations of the 3 cases

§ Land issues/cases are mostly tied to current/existing land

ownership/claims
§ Historically-linked to land disposition/displacement
§ Inter-people/tribal conflicts
§ Territorial jurisdiction
§ individual/household/family-based
§ Land resolution options
Sukran! Mabuhay!