LETTERS FROM THE AGNO

Much money in extended boundaries
March L. Fianza

For centuries, Palestinians have occupied Gaza recognizing the area as their land since time immemorial. Neighboring Israelites claimed otherwise. Thus, the relationship sparked a protracted shooting war between the military camps of two countries whose citizens are closely interrelated and whose blood flow from one vein,.

On the other side of the globe, Taiwan continuously asserts her independence as a separate country established by her Kuo Min Tang fathers who revolted against the motherland. Every now and then Mainland China , politically or otherwise, makes its presence felt over Taiwan which it merely considers as one of its provinces.

In this tired and weary world, we find that the longest conflicts involving nations are all about overlapping claims over land. In our own country, we do not have to look far. For hundreds of years our Muslim brothers in Mindanao have fought for their land just like the tribal communities in the Cordillera.

At a certain point, some intruders come to admit their mistake and be apologetic to the extent of offering compensation for what they may have acquired through deceit. Only recently, the governments of America and Australia had the courage to return to the Indians the lands that the early colonizers ‘grabbed’ when they came to settle from Europe .

In most cases, land problems arise upon the entry of friendly settlers but in the end, are proven to be land grabbers or squatters. It is the other way around in some cases where honest settlers who buy into certain communities become the victims of deceit by no other than their neighbors.

But more unique land disputes involve local governments where one encroaches on the political boundaries of another for many reasons. The basis for such acts may be economics or the increase of land area and (voting) population which justify an increase in internal revenue allotment. The worst thing to happen is when overlapping of boundaries benefit the private interests of public officials.

Every now and then, I happen to travel to places and accidentally stumble on information that I find worthy of discussion. For example, I attended the fiesta of the sitio of Lawigen, Barangay Dalupirip, Itogon in 2003. As our group hiked nearer to the sound of fiesta gongs, I was told that Lawigen, identified as a sitio of Dalupirip, was at the same time a barangay of Kayapa, Nueva Vizcaya.

That is not the only case that involves Kayapa in boundary disputes with her neighbors. Barangay Tinongdan, the neighbor of Dalupirip, has a sitio near Domolpos. That one also is a barangay in Kayapa. Tinongdan and Dalupirip in Itogon share common boundaries with Kayapa.

On another front in Nueva Viscaya, the town of Kayapa is involved in a dispute with Aritao, the neighboring municipality. Barangay Baan of Aritao has a set of duly elected barangay officials. But another set of officials exists and claims that Baan is within Kayapa. In other words, Baan has two sets of barangay officials.

What is happening to Kayapa? Why does it have boundary conflicts around her? And as if having two sets of officials is okay – even an educated school administrator was overheard by ordinary folks say that the situation of Baan is better than the others as it can receive two government allotments. The school administrator is then saying that it is “okay to be deceitful.”

Truth is that not only has Baan two sets of officials, it also has two elementary schools constructed side by side under its name, however under the billboard, the names Kayapa and Aritao are indicated. I wonder if the schools receive two sets of fund allotments. If so, then maybe the teachers and school workers should also sign for two sets of allowance vouchers – one from Kayapa, one from Aritao.

Debates in order to resolve the issue have started a few years back. The officialdom of Aritao has records that support their more than a hundred years existence as a town. Even records kept by the Spanish colonizers recognize the fact that the town has been there ever since.

As for Kayapa, even its officials in the past know that the town is young. Therefore, it can not claim the lands that it has overlapped over the years. A census on the population and income of the controversial Kayapa barangays alone can easily question their existence. The DILG must do its job to correct these figures.

By the way, the situation in Kayapa has been helpful to many of its politicians in the past. I now wonder how many votes were cornered by them in the areas that overlapped Tinongdan and Dalupirip in Itogon?

If such is the Kayapa case, we can not put the blame on her tax payers. In fact, I was told that hundreds of hectares of land were registered because the farmers were allegedly intimidated to tax declare the properties. Pray that they were not used as dummies.

Of course, any little boy who is familiar with his arithmetic knows that payment of taxes over tax declared properties is income for the municipality and for someone’s pocket. And whose pocket or who that someone is – do not ask me. Ask anyone from Bokod because I can only make suspicions. – marchfianza777@yahoo.com