Title
Supreme Court
Supplemental Guidelines on ARB Screening, DAR AO 4 2008
Law
Dar Administrative Order No. 04, S. 2008
Decision Date
Jun 16, 2008
The Supplemental Guidelines to DAR A.O. No. 7 facilitates the identification and selection of agrarian reform beneficiaries in sugarlands and plantation farms, emphasizing the importance of respecting farmers' security of tenure and providing procedures for addressing issues related to refusal or failure to sign the Application to Purchase and Farmers Undertaking (APFU).

Law Summary

Policy Statements

  • Qualified beneficiaries per Section 22 of RA 6657 and residing in the barangay/municipality are automatically included in the preliminary ARB list after proof of tenancy/farmwork status as of June 15, 1988.
  • Acceptable documentary proofs include leasehold contracts, payroll, SSS records, illegal dismissal cases, pay slips, affidavits from farm officials or workers, and other probative sources.
  • Persons disqualified under Section 5 of DAR A.O. No. 7 (2003) shall not be included despite submitted documents.
  • Contesting a person's qualification carries the burden of proof on the contesting party.
  • Potential ARBs must submit essential documents proving their qualifications within 15 days of list posting.
  • Failure to submit required documents results in exclusion from the list; existing DARMO documents will be used if available.
  • Cases on qualifications are treated as Agrarian Law Implementation cases per DAR A.O. No. 3 (2003).
  • Qualified ARBs who pass screening sign the Application to Purchase and Farmers Undertaking (APFU); refusal without coercion is deemed waiver and results in disqualification and delisting.
  • Disqualified ARBs are replaced through a nomination process by the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) and selection by the Beneficiary Screening Committee (BSC).
  • Landowners’ retention rights waiver leads to acquisition and reallocation of land even if tenants refuse to sign APFU; refusal considered waiver; continued occupation construed as CARP implementation impediment.
  • Refusal or failure to be identified or registered contradicts the willingness qualification for beneficiaries under RA 6657.
  • Refusal to sign APFU due to harassment does not cause automatic disqualification but hinders CARP implementation; proper notices must be given.
  • Provisions to secure tenure shall not obstruct CARP execution.

Operating Procedures

  • The BSC or MARO, with BARC assistance, will investigate whether refusal to sign APFU is due to threats or harassment.
  • If no threat is found, refusal to sign APFU equals unwillingness and leads to disqualification.
  • If threat is documented, efforts will be made to resolve the issue and encourage signing or nomination of qualified immediate household members as replacements.
  • Notice will be sent allowing 30 days to sign the APFU or nominate replacements; failure to act within the period results in automatic waiver.
  • DAR shall then select other qualified ARBs, prioritizing immediate household members.
  • Follow-up actions adhere to DAR A.O. No. 2, series of 2005.

Sanction

  • DAR officials or employees who fail to comply without justification face immediate administrative and/or criminal action under Sections 73 and 74 of RA 6657 and other laws.

Effectivity

  • This Administrative Order supplements DAR A.O. No. 7 (2003) and takes effect 10 days after publication in two general circulation newspapers.
  • All inconsistent orders, circulars, and issuances are repealed or modified accordingly.

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.