Farmers' groups have asked the Philippine Supreme Court to halt the government's move to allow agricultural land transfers to be registered without clearance from the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), warning that the policy could trigger land consolidation and displace farmers.

In a statement dated Oct. 2, the MAGSASAKA Party-list and the Federation of Free Farmers (FFF) said they had filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the high court, seeking to strike down DoJ Opinion No. 16, Series of 2026. The petitioners also asked the tribunal to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) barring the Land Registration Authority (LRA) and local registrars from registering agricultural land transfers without DAR clearance.

The petition was filed on Friday by MAGSASAKA Party-list Chairman Argel Joseph T. Cabatbat and FFF Board Chairman Leonardo Q. Montemayor.

At the center of the dispute is a legal opinion issued by Justice Secretary Fredderick A. Vida, which the groups said found that the five-hectare retention limit under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, or Republic Act No. 6657, was “no longer relevant and required” because the June 30, 2014 deadline for land acquisition under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Extension Reforms Law, or Republic Act No. 9700, had already lapsed. According to the petitioners, the opinion would allow the LRA to bypass the DAR's Land Transfer Clearance mechanism, the checkpoint through which the agency vets agricultural land transactions for compliance with agrarian reform rules before registration. RA 6657, enacted in 1988, is the statute under which the government acquires and distributes private agricultural land to landless farmers, with the five-hectare cap limiting how much of their holdings landowners may keep.

Justice spokesman Raphael Niccolo L. Martinez did not immediately reply to a Viber message requesting comment.

Mr. Cabatbat and Mr. Montemayor argued that the Department of Justice (DoJ) committed grave abuse of discretion, contending that the lapse of a statutory funding deadline did not extinguish what they described as a permanent constitutional mandate on agrarian reform, a duty they trace to the 1987 Constitution, which directs the State to undertake an agrarian reform program.

“By sweeping away the requirement for a DAR clearance in land transfers, the government is opening the floodgates for unregulated land conversion, mass displacement of tillers, and a severe national food security crisis,” the groups said.

Citing the potential scale of the impact, they said the removal of the clearance requirement could affect 1.2 million agrarian reform beneficiaries and 1.8 million hectares of privately owned agricultural land, which they warned could be exposed to corporate reconsolidation and real estate speculation.

The petitioners also flagged what they described as earlier administrative efforts to drop the DAR clearance requirement. They said the DAR had drafted an unnumbered administrative order in January seeking to remove the requirement, but the measure met resistance after it was leaked. According to the groups, DAR Secretary Conrado M. Estrella III acknowledged signing the document but described it as a “preparatory” measure. The LRA subsequently sought the DoJ's legal opinion on the matter, they said.

The petitioners maintained that only Congress has the authority to remove the five-hectare retention limit or abolish DAR clearance requirements, arguing that the DoJ's action violated the separation of powers.

They urged the high tribunal to issue a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction, warning that agricultural land could continue to be registered and consolidated while the legal dispute remains unresolved. Whether the court grants that relief will determine if registrars may keep processing agricultural land transfers without DAR clearance while the case is heard.

“Once these lands are registered, reconsolidated, and converted to non-agricultural uses, the injury to the nation's agrarian architecture becomes absolute and irreversible,” they said. — Erika Mae P. Sinaking