What is DAR up to? - 4

The names of the DAR personnel who tried to enter the farm in Aranda, Hinigaran are important because they will all be included in the case to be filed by the landowner before the Ombudsman and the Civil Service Commission for Cris Gaston for his “dirty finger” exhibition. The complainant, Federico Infante Jr., considered (as all decent people would consider) Gaston's actuation to be a vulgar expression even for a man on the street. Had Gaston exhibited his sexual expression on a woman, he would also have been dragged before the court for sexual harassment.

Just a thought: can this be sexual harassment also if directed towards a male? This is a good legal issue but we leave that to countries where same sex relationships are legal.

Infante mistook Gaston for a lawyer although the DAR personnel just took up law at a local school and is hoping to be a lawyer. With a case hanging over his head, that dream may turn into a whiff of thin air. He needs to clear his name of this charge.

The landowner also approached Baldonado to inquire about the status of his petition for retention that had not been acted upon by DAR since two years ago. He said Baldonado ignored this inquiry and insisted they would continue with their survey.

Infante then moved over to his share of the Feria property which is just adjacent. It was then, he claimed, that he saw the TFM members armed with bladed weapons, locally called talibong join the DAR survey team. The soldiers moved away from the group, disengaging thus from the TFM. The DAR went ahead and surveyed the road, anyway, but not the land itself.

Andy Feria, the owner of the other parcel arrived and from him Infante learned about Gaston. The DAR personnel turned out to be a classmate of Feria and yet, Infante claims, it was Gaston who was insistent for DAR to enter Andy Feria's property. Does Gaston have anything against Feria?

It was then that the PNP got the message to back out and they began to stay away. The PNP personnel informed Infante that they do not want to get involved when cases are filed against DAR personnel and they have superior officers who directed them and should be responsible. They did not want to be caught in the bad situation. Indeed, they were just following orders. The responsibility rests with their superiors or whoever issued the order.

That the legal resistance of the landowner got immediate response from the PNP superior officers indicates that these officials knew that their presence there is not legally tenable or defendable. I suspect they reread their guidelines that their presence in this activity must be approved from the top in Camp Crame and not just the Provincial Director, or even their regional commander.

Anyway DAR withdrew by 4 p.m. and Infante began the process for a case to be filed with the Ombudsman.

Colonel Francisco Delfin, commander of the 303 rd Infantry Brigade sent me a letter dated July 11 explaining the reason for the presence of his troops in the DAR forcible entry in the land owned by the Arguelles family in Ma-ao. As our readers will recall this incident was the subject of my June 29 column that started the chain of events that caused DAR to abort its plan to enter several lands until the end of this month.

I learned this is just the first phase of DAR's forcible entry relying on bully tactics with the presence of the PNP and the army. At least five (so far) cases will be filed, not just with the Ombudsman but with regular court. Some of the cases are being prepared by their lawyers in Manila.

In his letter, Col. Delfin said that their presence there was “to support the PNP personnel” to maintain peace and order “in DAR's land survey.” This is normal because the army has a duty to assist as it considered the DAR's claim as regular.

However, DAR apparently misinformed or consciously misled the army. DAR Provincial Agrarian Reform Program Officer II, Lucrecia S. Taberna claimed in her letters (June 16) to Delfin that the lands subject to their survey were covered under CARP and that (June 25 letter) “heirs of former landowners and hired security guards” were disrupting their work.
Events and documents show both claims are unfounded and exaggerated but good enough to mislead the army. Why is DAR resorting to this?*

back to top