DAVAO CITY – Policy advocacy group Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center is wary of the proposed Investors Lease Act as it could undermine Philippine land lease policies and bring adverse impact to smallholders and indigenous communities.
A FARMER removes weeds in her carrot farm in Barangay Managa, Bansalan, Davao del Sur. (Keith Bacongco)
In a statement, LRC Senior Legal Fellow Ryan Roset said that the bill, which was apparently fast-tracked since it was filed four months ago, is an appalling liberalization of the policy on lease of lands by foreign investors and turns its head on long-time efforts for greater economic independence and sovereignty.
Roset said that Senate Bill No. 2717 and House Bill No. 10755 which aim to attract foreign investments could loosen Philippine land lease policies by extending the period of lease of land to foreign entities to 99 years.
The House of Representatives and the Senate approved separate bills last week that seek to allow foreigners to lease land up to 99 years from 75 years.
HB No. 10755 is one of the Marcos administration’s priority bills under the Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council (LEDAC).
It says that it is State policy to encourage foreign investments consistent with the constitutional mandate to conserve and develop the nation’s patrimony.
It declares that the State adopts a flexible and dynamic policy on the granting of long-term lease on private lands to foreign investors for the establishment of industrial estates, factories, assembly or processing plants, agro-industrial enterprises, land development for industrial or commercial use, tourism, agriculture, agroforestry, ecological conservation, and other similarly productive endeavors.
Roset said the proposed law could undermine the 1987 Constitution.
“The Investors Lease Act circumvents the prohibition on the transfer of lands under the 1987 Constitution to uphold the conservation of our national patrimony and ensure that agricultural resources remain in the hands of Filipino citizens. The prohibition, however, is not limited to the sale of lands to foreigners but also covers leases of lands amounting to the transfer of substantially all the rights of dominion,” Roset said.
Thus, the 99-year lease period practically transfers the rights of dominion over the national patrimony to foreign entities since it would practically handcuff Filipinos to the terms of the long-term leases, he added.
According to the National Economic and Development Authority, allowing foreign investors to lease Philippine land for as long as 99 years could improve the country’s prospect as an investment destination, matching its regional neighbors, Assistant Director Bien A. Ganapin told the committee hearing.
The proposed law also allows foreign entities to sublease these lands and tend to abuse prevailing market rates for financial gains.
LRC, a known legal advocacy on environment and Indigenous Peoples rights, said that the proposed Investors Lease Act would also allow foreign investors to maximize the increases in property value for 99 years while the original Filipino lessor is restricted to the original lease agreement.
“Even worse, any long-term lease agreements made under this bill cannot be modified, canceled, or altered except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law,” the group added.
LRC said that such shifts in policy could put adverse impacts on smallholders as well as indigenous cultural communities as their lands could be exploited for foreign investment projects.
Roset said the country’s remaining lands and forests have become an endangered resource amid the worsening impact of climate change.
The proposed Investors Lease Act could accelerate the transformation to large-scale agribusinesses owned by wealthy transnational and multinational corporations while gradually turning many smallholders into landless or nearly landless informal wage workers, the lawyer added.
“Rather than elevating the plight of the poor and marginalized, this policy direction would only reinforce and amplify existing inequalities, especially among indigenous communities, who continue to seek proper recognition of their ancestral domains, despite the submission of requirements.”