,EN BANC

URBANO M. MORENO, Petitioner, G.R. No. 168550

Present: PANGANIBAN, C.J., PUNO, QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CORONA, CARPIO MORALES, CALLEJO, SR., AZCUNA, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO, GARCIA, and VELASCO, J., JJ. Promulgated: August 10, 2006 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ x

- versus -

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and NORMA L. MEJES, Respondents.

DECISION
TINGA, J.:
In this Petition[1] dated July 6, 2005, Urbano M. Moreno (Moreno) assails the Resolution[2] of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) en banc dated June 1, 2005, affirming the Resolution[3] of the Comelec First Division dated November 15, 2002 which, in turn, disqualified him from running for the elective office

of Punong Barangay of Barangay Cabugao, Daram, Samar in the July 15, 2002 Synchronized Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections. The following are the undisputed facts: Norma L. Mejes (Mejes) filed a petition to disqualify Moreno from running for Punong Barangay on the ground that the latter was convicted by final judgment of the crime of Arbitrary Detention and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of Four (4) Months and One (1) Day to Two (2) Years and Four (4) Months by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 28 of Catbalogan, Samar on August 27, 1998. Moreno filed an answer averring that the petition states no cause of action because he was already granted probation. Allegedly, following the case of Baclayon v. Mutia,[4] the imposition of the sentence of imprisonment, as well as the accessory penalties, was thereby suspended. Moreno also argued that under Sec. 16 of the Probation Law of 1976 (Probation Law), the final discharge of the probation shall operate to restore to him all civil rights lost or suspended as a result of his conviction and to fully discharge his liability for any fine imposed. The order of the trial court dated December 18, 2000 allegedly terminated his probation and restored to him all the civil rights he lost as a result of his conviction, including the right to vote and be voted for in the July 15, 2002 elections. The case was forwarded to the Office of the Provincial Election Supervisor of Samar for preliminary hearing. After due proceedings, the Investigating Officer recommended that Moreno be disqualified from running for Punong Barangay. The Comelec First Division adopted this recommendation. On motion for reconsideration filed with the Comelec en banc, the Resolution of the First Division was affirmed. According to the Comelec en banc, Sec. 40(a) of the Local Government Code provides that those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more of imprisonment, within two (2) years after serving sentence, are disqualified from running for any elective local position.[5] Since Moreno was released from probation on December 20, 2000, disqualification shall commence on this date and end two (2) years thence. The grant of probation to Moreno merely suspended the

execution of his sentence but did not affect his disqualification from running for an elective local office. Further, the Comelec en banc held that the provisions of the Local Government Code take precedence over the case ofBaclayon v. Mutia cited by Moreno and the Probation Law because it is a much later enactment and a special law setting forth the qualifications and disqualifications of elective local officials. In this petition, Moreno argues that the disqualification under the Local Government Code applies only to those who have served their sentence and not to probationers because the latter do not serve the adjudged sentence. The Probation Law should allegedly be read as an exception to the Local Government Code because it is a special law which applies only to probationers. Further, even assuming that he is disqualified, his subsequent election as Punong Barangay allegedly constitutes an implied pardon of his previous misconduct. In its Comment[6] dated November 18, 2005 on behalf of the Comelec, the Office of the Solicitor General argues that this Court [7] in Dela Torre v. Comelec definitively settled a similar controversy by ruling that conviction for an offense involving moral turpitude stands even if the candidate was granted probation. The disqualification under Sec. 40(a) of the Local Government Code subsists and remains totally unaffected notwithstanding the grant of probation. Moreno filed a Reply to Comment[8] dated March 27, 2006, reiterating his arguments and pointing out material differences between his case and Dela Torre v. Comelec which allegedly warrant a conclusion favorable to him. According to Moreno, DelaTorre v. Comelec involves a conviction for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law, an offense involving moral turpitude covered by the first part of Sec. 40(a) of the Local Government Code. Dela Torre, the petitioner in that case, applied for probation nearly four (4) years after his conviction and only after appealing his conviction, such that he could not have been eligible for probation under the law.

In contrast, Moreno alleges that he applied for and was granted probation within the period specified therefor. He never served a day of his sentence as a result. Hence, the disqualification under Sec. 40(a) of the Local Government Code does not apply to him. The resolution of the present controversy depends on the application of the phrase within two (2) years after serving sentence found in Sec. 40(a) of the Local Government Code, which reads:
Sec. 40. Disqualifications. The following persons are disqualified from running for any elective local position: (a) Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more of imprisonment, within two (2) years after serving sentence; [Emphasis supplied.] . . . .

We should mention at this juncture that there is no need to rule on whether Arbitrary Detention, the crime of which Morenowas convicted by final judgment, involves moral turpitude falling under the first part of the above-quoted provision. The question of whether Arbitrary Detention is a crime involving moral turpitude was never raised in the petition for disqualification because the ground relied upon by Mejes, and which the Comelec used in its assailed resolutions, is his alleged disqualification from running for a local elective office within two (2) years from his discharge from probation after having been convicted by final judgment for an offense punishable by Four (4) Months and One (1) Day to Two (2) Years and Four (4) Months. Besides, a determination that the crime of Arbitrary Detention involves moral turpitude is not decisive of this case, the crucial issue being whether Morenos sentence was in fact served.

In this sense, Dela Torre v. Comelec is not squarely applicable. Our pronouncement therein that the grant of probation does not affect the disqualification under Sec. 40(a) of the Local Government Code was based primarily on the finding that the crime of fencing of which petitioner was convicted involves moral turpitude, a circumstance which does not obtain in this

case. At any rate, the phrase within two (2) years after serving sentence should have been interpreted and understood to apply both to those who have been sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude and to those who have been sentenced by final judgment for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more of imprisonment. The placing of the comma (,) in the provision means that the phrase modifies both parts of Sec. 40(a) of the Local Government Code. The Courts declaration on the effect of probation on Sec. 40(a) of the Local Government Code, we should add, ought to be considered an obiter in view of the fact that Dela Torre was not even entitled to probation because he appealed his conviction to the Regional Trial Court which, however, affirmed his conviction. It has been held that the perfection of an appeal is a relinquishment of the alternative remedy of availing of the Probation Law, the purpose of which is to prevent speculation or opportunism on the part of an accused who, although already eligible, did not at once apply for probation, but did so only after failing in his appeal.[9] Sec. 40(a) of the Local Government Code appears innocuous enough at first glance. The phrase service of sentence, understood in its general and common sense, means the confinement of a convicted

person in a penal facility for the period adjudged by the court. [10] This seemingly clear and unambiguous provision, however, has spawned a controversy worthy of this Courts attention because the Comelec, in the assailed resolutions, is alleged to have broadened the coverage of the law to include even those who did not serve a day of their sentence because they were granted probation. Moreno argues, quite persuasively, that he should not have been disqualified because he did not serve the adjudged sentence having been granted probation and finally discharged by the trial court. In Baclayon v. Mutia, the Court declared that an order placing defendant on probation is not a sentence but is rather, in effect, a suspension of the imposition of sentence. We held that the grant of probation to petitioner suspended the imposition of the principal penalty of imprisonment, as well as the accessory penalties of suspension from public office and from the right to follow a profession or calling, and that of perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage. We thus deleted from the order granting probation the paragraph which required that petitioner refrain from continuing with her teaching profession. Applying this doctrine to the instant case, the accessory penalties of suspension from public office, from the right to follow a profession or calling, and that of perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage, attendant to the penalty of arrestomayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period[11] imposed upon Moreno were similarly suspended upon the grant of probation. It appears then that during the period of probation, the probationer is not even disqualified from running for a public office because the accessory penalty of suspension from public office is put on hold for the duration of the probation. Clearly, the period within which a person is under probation cannot be equated with service of the sentence adjudged. Sec. 4 of the Probation Law specifically provides that the grant of probation suspends the execution of the sentence. During the period of probation,[12] the probationer does not serve the penalty imposed upon him by the court but is merely required to comply with all the conditions prescribed in the probation order.[13]

It is regrettable that the Comelec and the OSG have misapprehended the real issue in this case. They focused on the fact thatMorenos judgment of conviction attained finality upon his application for probation instead of the question of whether his sentence had been served. The Comelec could have correctly resolved this case by simply applying the law to the letter. Sec. 40(a) of the Local Government Code unequivocally disqualifies only those who have been sentenced by final judgment for an offense punishable by imprisonment of one (1) year or more, within two (2) years after serving sentence. This is as good a time as any to clarify that those who have not served their sentence by reason of the grant of probation which, we reiterate, should not be equated with service of sentence, should not likewise be disqualified from running for a local elective office because the two (2)-year period of ineligibility under Sec. 40(a) of the Local Government Code does not even begin to run. The fact that the trial court already issued an order finally discharging Moreno fortifies his position. Sec. 16 of the Probation Law provides that [t]he final discharge of the probationer shall operate to restore to him all civil rights lost or suspended as a result of his conviction and to fully discharge his liability for any fine imposed as to the offense for which probation was granted. Thus, when Moreno was finally discharged upon the courts finding that he has fulfilled the terms and conditions of his probation, his case was deemed terminated and all civil rights lost or suspended as a result of his conviction were restored to him, including the right to run for public office. Even assuming that there is an ambiguity in Sec. 40(a) of the Local Government Code which gives room for judicial interpretation,[14] our conclusion will remain the same. It is unfortunate that the deliberations on the Local Government Code afford us no clue as to the intended meaning of the phrase service of sentence, i.e., whether the legislature also meant to disqualify those who have been granted probation. The Courts function, in the face of this seeming

dissonance, is to interpret and harmonize the Probation Law and the Local Government Code. Interpretare et concordare legis legibus est optimus interpretandi. Probation is not a right of an accused but a mere privilege, an act of grace and clemency or immunity conferred by the state, which is granted to a deserving defendant who thereby escapes the extreme rigors of the penalty imposed by law for the offense of which he was convicted.[15] Thus, the Probation Law lays out rather stringent standards regarding who are qualified for probation. For instance, it provides that the benefits of probation shall not be extended to those sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six (6) years; convicted of any offense against the security of the State; those who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of not less than one (1) month and one (1) day and/or a fine of not less than P200.00; those who have been once on probation; and those who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive provisions of the Probation Law became applicable.[16] It is important to note that the disqualification under Sec. 40(a) of the Local Government Code covers offenses punishable by one (1) year or more of imprisonment, a penalty which also covers probationable offenses. In spite of this, the provision does not specifically disqualify probationers from running for a local elective office. This omission is significant because it offers a glimpse into the legislative intent to treat probationers as a distinct class of offenders not covered by the disqualification. Further, it should be mentioned that the present Local Government Code was enacted in 1991, some seven (7) years afterBaclayon v. Mutia was decided. When the legislature approved the enumerated disqualifications under Sec. 40(a) of the Local Government Code, it is presumed to have knowledge of our ruling in Baclayon v. Mutia on the effect of probation on the disqualification from holding public office. That it chose not to include probationers within the purview of the provision is a clear expression of the legislative will not to disqualify probationers. On this score, we agree with Moreno that the Probation Law should be construed as an exception to the Local Government Code. While the Local

Government Code is a later law which sets forth the qualifications and disqualifications of local elective officials, the Probation Law is a special legislation which applies only to probationers. It is a canon of statutory construction that a later statute, general in its terms and not expressly repealing a prior special statute, will ordinarily not affect the special provisions of such earlier statute.[17] In construing Sec. 40(a) of the Local Government Code in a way that broadens the scope of the disqualification to includeMoreno, the Comelec committed an egregious error which we here correct. We rule that Moreno was not disqualified to run forPunong Barangay of Barangay Cabugao, Daram, Samar in the July 15, 2002 Synchronized Barangay and Sangguniang KabataanElections. Finally, we note that Moreno was the incumbent Punong Barangay at the time of his conviction of the crime of Arbitrary Detention. He claims to have obtained a fresh mandate from the people of Barangay Cabugao, Daram, Samar in the July 15, 2002elections. This situation calls to mind the poignant words of Mr. Justice now Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban in Frivaldo v.Comelec[18] where he said that it would be far better to err in favor of popular sovereignty than to be right in complex but little understood legalisms. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolution of the Commission on Elections en banc dated June 1, 2005 and the Resolution of its First Division dated November 15, 2002, as well as all other actions and orders issued pursuant thereto, are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The Commission on Elections is directed to proceed in accordance with this Decision. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.

DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN Chief Justice

REYNATO S. PUNO Associate Justice

LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice

ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice

ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice

MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice

RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice

ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice

ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice

MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice

CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.

ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN Chief Justice

[1]

Rollo, pp. 3-19. Id. at 20-26; Penned by Commissioner F.A. Tuason, Jr.

[2]

[3]

Id. at 27-31; Penned by Commissioner R.Z. Borra. No. L-59298, April 30, 1984, 129 SCRA 148.

[4]

Comelec Resolution No. 4801, otherwise known as the Guidelines on the Filing of Certificates of Candidacy in Connection with the Synchronized Barangay and SangguniangKabataan Elections, has a similar provision in Sec. 3(a) thereof.
[6]

[5]

Rollo, pp. 37-47. 327 Phil. 1144 (1996). Rollo, pp. 60-70. Lagrosa v. People, G.R. No. 152044, July 3, 2003, 405 SCRA 357.

[7]

[8]

[9]

Art. 86 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the penalties of reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision mayor, prison correccional and arresto mayor, shall be executed and served in the places and penal establishments provided by the Administrative Code in force or which may be provided by law in the future.
[11]

[10]

REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 43.

Presidential Decree No. 968 (1976), as amended, Probation Law of 1976. Sec. 14. The period of probation of a defendant sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than one (1) year shall not exceed two (2) years, and in all other cases, said period shall not exceed six (6) years.
[13]

[12]

Presidential Decree No. 968 (1976), as amended, Probation Law of 1976. Sec. 10. Abello v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 120721, February 23, 2005, 452 SCRA 162. Santos v. Court of Appeals, 377 Phil. 642, 652 (1999). Presidential Decree No. 968, as amended, Probation Law of 1976, Sec. 9.

[14]

[15]

[16]

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Central Luzon Drug Corporation, G.R. No. 159647, April 15, 2005, 456 SCRA 414.
[18]

[17]

327 Phil. 521 (1996).

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 01

DATE: August 29, 1995 IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8048 Article I - PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS Section 1. Title - This Rules and Regulations is promulgated by the Philippine Coconut Authority pursuant to Section 7 of Republic Act No. 8048, entitled AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE REGULATION OF THE CUTTING OF COCONUT TREES, ITS REPLENISHMENT,

PROVIDING PENALTIES THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, otherwise known as the "Coconut Preservation Act of 1995." Section 2. Guiding Policy - To prevent the imminent collapse of the coconut industry and to promote the general welfare of the coconut farmers and the Filipino people: (a) It becomes mandatory for government to step in and regulate the unabated and indiscriminate cutting of coconut trees; and (b) The state, in cooperation with the private sector, shall embark on a sustainable and efficient replanting program to replenish the dwindling number of coconut trees, complemented by coconut-based farm productivity and livelihood enterprises to increase farm income. Section 3. Definition of Terms - In addition to Section 3 of the Act, the following terms and phrases shall mean: (a) "Disease infested" refers to a severely impaired trees due to bacteria, fungus, or virus, viriod and the chances of its survival and being economically productive is nil; (b) "Pest infested" refers to a tree severely damaged by rhino beetle, spike month, caterpillar and other destructive insects and animals; (c) "Sound management practice" refers to procedures and decisions which are scientifically proven, or accepted cultural practice that enhances farm production or productivity; (d) "Sawmill" refers to a wood processing plant or implement operated mechanically and installed in a fixed site or mobile carrier where coconut wood, log or timber is cut, treated, sawn or ripped into lumber, slabs and other wood products of any size or form such as poles, piles wall wood, boards, pulp, or other finished coconut wood product; (e) "lumber dealer" refers to a person or entity engaged in the buying or selling, or both, of coconut logs, timber and/or coconut tree lumber; (f) "Registration" refers to the registration certificate issued by PCA to coconut wood sawmills, coconut wood/lumber dealers/traders/processors; (g) "Implementing Rules and Regulations" refers to the rules and regulations promulgated by PCA including guidelines, circulars, orders and memoranda issued to supplement the same. Section 4. Interpretation - This Rules shall be strictly interpreted to preserve productive coconut trees from unabated and indiscriminate cutting. Nothing in this Rules shall be applied, constructed or interpreted to circumvent, or defeat the security of tenure of the rights and benefits of farmers, tenants, farm-lessees, tillers and regular farm workers prescribed by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R.A. 6657). Article II - PROHIBITION

Section 5. Exception - Consistent with the guiding policies, the cutting of coconut trees shall be prohibited except for the causes and circumstances enumerated in Section 4 of the Act, and only upon the issuance of a permit by the PCA or its duly delegated representatives. For this purpose, illegal cutting of coconut trees shall include any form of circumvention such as uprooting of felling, poisoning, burning, and the like which lead to their eventual destruction, death or removal. Section 6. Evidence of Dispossession - (a) Cutting of coconut trees in tenanted farms in violation of this Rules shall be deemed prime facie evidence of dispossession, unlawful ejectment or deprivation of the rights and benefits of the farmer-tenants, tillers or regular farm workers under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law or its Implementing Rules. (b) Suck incident of dispossession, ejectment or deprivation shall be reported and recommended by PCA to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) for prioritization in land acquisition and distribution under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. (c) The PCA shall further recommended to DAR as a reasonable award in favor of the farmer such amount of income foregone or disturbance compensation to be paid by a landowner who violates this Rules resulting to the loss of income on the part of the farmer, tiller or farm worker. Article III - STANDARDS Section 7. Economically Unproductive - (a) Coconut trees are deemed no longer productive if: i. They have reached the age or condition of senescence which begins at the age of sixty (60) years, and that for the last proceeding three (3) calendar years, there has been no improvement or increase in their nut-bearing capacity. ii. Due to senescence as described in the preceding subparagraph, of the non-suitability of the land of area, the yield of the tree is eighteen (18) nuts or less per year. (b) For conversion, it shall be the duty of the authorized PCA Agriculturist to examine, evaluate and verify whether for the period of three (3) calendar years immediately preceding the application, the majority, of the trees in the land are senescent and economically unproductive as described in paragraph (a) [i] and [ii] of this Section. No permit shall be issued unless all the aforementioned conditions are duly established and certified by the authorized PCA Official. Section 8. Cost of Production - To determine the economic gain as a measure of productivity of a coconut tree or farm, the following shall be deducted: a) If the final product is copra: i) cost of harvesting which includes picking and filing; ii) cost of loading and hauling; and iii) cost of processing, which includes husking, splitting, scooping, and drying.

b) If the final product is green nuts, the cost in items above shall be deducted except cost of processing. c) If the final product is husked nuts, the cost in items a.i and a.ii. and cost of husking shall be deducted. This Section shall neither apply to nor include secondary crops other than coconut. Section 9. Disease Infestation - (a) Disease in coconut trees shall be a ground for cutting only upon certification by the PCA Agriculturist that: i. An epidemiological study has been conducted confirming and identifying the disease; ii. The infested trees are no longer capable of rehabilitation thru preventive measures such as a application of chemicals or nutrient support; iii. The infestation is such that it will spread and infect other trees or farms; (b) Infested trees shall be subject to quarantine and shall not be allowed for processing, sale, transport or transshipment; (c) Quarantined trees shall be disposed of by the owner thru burning under the supervision of the PCA Agriculturist. Section 10. Conversion into residential, Commercial or Industrial Areas - (a) The authority to approve or disapprove conversion of land devoted to coconut production for residential, commercial or industrial use shall be the exclusive jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform. (b) Applications for conversion under this Section shall comply strictly with the requirements and procedures of DAR Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1994, entitled "Consolidated and Revised Rules and Regulations Governing Conversion of Agricultural Land to Non-Agricultural Uses". Section 11. Hazard to Life and Property - (a) The coconut trees must situated such that they pose immediate threat, danger, or obstruction to: i. existing houses, homes, animal dwelling, business establishments, buildings; ii. plazas, playgrounds, promenades, and public places frequently by people; iii. public roads and highways, rights of way, ports, dams, irrigation, and waterways; iv. electric, telephone, communication lines or installations;

v. other properties whose value or use in greater than the coconut trees which pose the threat, danger or obstruction. (b) Cutting of trees due to the exercise of the power of eminent domain or expropriation, shall be governed by the appropriate laws, regulations ordinances. Article IV - APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO CUT Section 12. Filling of Application - Application to cut coconut trees shall be filed in writing in accordance with the form prescribed by the PCA, stating the specific causes and circumstances therefor. Section 13. Who May Apply - The following may apply for a permit to cut: (a) Landowner or duly authorized representative (b) Tenant, tiller, farm worker with the consent of the owner (c) Owner of land/property that is endangered by coconut tree/s in an adjacent or farm Section 14. Where to Apply - (a) The application shall be filed with the Provincial Coconut Development Manager in the PCA Provincial Office or the Agriculturist in the PCA Municipal station nearest the area where the trees are situated. (b) If the application involves not more than five (5) trees, it may be filed with the Barangay Chairman who shall forthwith notify the PCA Agriculturist of such application. Section 15. Supporting Documents - The application shall accompanied with the following supporting documents: (a) Any document with sufficiently identifies the applicant (i.e Community/Residence Certificates, voter's I.D.s, Driver's License, Barangay I.D./Certificate) (b) Proof of ownership or legal possession of the affected land (TCTs, Tax Declaration, Tenancy/Leasehold Agreement, Transfer Certificate from DAR Notarized Deeds of conveyance or Mortgage, etc.) (c) Other supporting documents/certificates hereinafter required under this Rules. Article V - PROCESSING OF APPLICATION Section 16. Completeness of application - (a) The PCA Agriculturist shall ascertain the completeness of the application on its face and its supporting documents.

(b) Applications failing to comply strictly with the requirements in the preceding Article shall not be acted no and shall be return to the applicant with the corresponding notice stating the reasons therefor. Section 17. Verification - (a) After ascertaining the completeness of the application, the PCA officer concerned shall verify the truth of the information contained therein, and conduct the necessary field and ocular inspection or investigation, as well as the consultations hereinafter required. (b) The PCA Agriculturist shall inform the applicant, farmers or representatives of their organization and the Barangay Chairman of the date and time of inspection and invite them to attend as witnesses. Their non-appearance after due notice shall be deemed as a waiver to witness the inspection. (c) The PCA Agriculturist shall confirm and certify the existence or non-existence of the causes and circumstances to warrant the issuance or non-issuance of a permit. Section 18. Consultations - Before any final recommendation may be made by the PCA Agriculturist, he must further satisfactorily show that: (a) Consultations have been made with i. the farmer-tenants, tillers and regular workers occupying or working on the affected farm; ii. the Barangay Chairman, and the municipal Agrarian Reform Officer, in case of conversion to other uses; and iii. at least one (1) PCA recognized/accredited farmer's organization or Non-Government Organization, whichever is existing in the locality, representing and promoting the interest of coconut farmers. (b) Proof of actual consultation must be shown in the form of a certification duly signed by the persons/organization representatives mentioned in the preceding subparagraph. Section 19. Report and Recommendation - (a) After the verification and field investigation, the PCA Agriculturist shall prepare and submit to the Provincial coconut Development Manager his full Findings and Recommendations certifying Coconut Development Manager his full Findings and Recommendations certifying the existence or non-existence of the causes, circumstances and reasons which may warrant the issuance or non-issuance of the permit, the location and area of the land, and the number of trees recommended for cutting. (b) The PCA Agriculturist shall ascertain that the recommended for cutting are properly marked and identified. (c) The Regional Manager and the affected tenant/tiller/regular farm workers shall be furnished copies of the findings and recommendations.

Article VI - PROTEST Section 20. Who May Protest - An applicant, tenant, tiller, regular farm worker, or the farmer/non-governmental organization acting for an in their behalf adversely affected by the findings and recommendations of the PCA Agriculturist, may file a written protest with the Provincial Manager of the PCA Provincial Office within five (5) days from receipt of such findings and recommendations. Section 21. Grounds for Protest - A protest may be made on any of the following grounds: (a) Where the findings and recommendations are not in accordance with the Act or this Rules; (b) Where the findings and recommendations are attended by fraud, threat or coercion; (c) Misrepresentation or serious mistake in the appreciation of facts; (d) Grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Agriculturist; and (e) Where the implementation of the recommendation will cause excessive injury and unreasonable damage to the protesting party. Section 22. Hearing - (a) The PCA Provincial Manager shall have thirty (30) days from receipt of the protest to immediately notify the parties, hear the protest and resolve the same. (b) In the hearing, the contending parties shall submit their respective sworn statements and other documentary evidence in support of or in reply to the protest, which shall be the basic for the resolution. (c) The parties shall be assisted by counsel of their own choice, provided that the hearing shall not be bound by the technical rules of procedure and evidence as prescribed by the Rules of Court. Section 23. Appeal - Any affected party may within ten (10) days from receipt of the Resolution of the Provincial Manager appeal the same to the Regional Manger who shall in turn resolve the appeal within thirty (30) days from receipt thereof. The Resolution of the Regional Manager shall be final executory for purposes of issuance or non-issuance of the permit to cut under this Rules. Section 24. Reports - All protest, appeals, actions and resolutions by the Provincial and Regional Managers shall be reported to the PCA Administrator with corresponding certified copies thereof. Article VII - ISSUANCE OF PERMIT TO CUT Section 25. Approving Authority - The Permit To Cut may be issued after review of the recommendations of the PCA Agriculturist which may be adopted or modified by the approving and issuing authorities hereinafter provided:

(a) PCA Provincial Manager - not more than 1,000 of trees or a corresponding area not exceeding ten (10) hectares; (b) PCA Regional Manager - more than 1,000 trees up to 2,400 trees or a corresponding area of more than ten (10) hectares but not exceeding twenty four (24) hectares; (c) PCA Administrator - more than 2,400 trees or a corresponding area of twenty-four (24) hectares. To prevent circumvention of the aforementioned approving and issuing authorities, only one (1) permit shall be issued at given time for a single application. Section 26. Form of Permit to cut - The Permit to Cut shall be in a serialized form containing, among others, the grounds for its issuance, the number of trees to be cut, the area or locality, the names of owners/tenants and their addresses. Section 27. Release of Permit - (a) The Permit shall be released to the applicant upon his payment to PCA of Twenty-Five Pesos (25.00) for every tree approved for cutting. (b) Once released to the applicant, the issuing officer shall furnish copies of the Permit to the following: i. office of the municipal Treasurer ii. Office of the Barangay Chairman iii. Department of Agrarian Reform thru the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO); and iv. PCA Regional Office v. Tenant, it applicable. Section 28. Date and Time Of Cutting - The recipient of the Permit To Cut shall inform the PCA Agriculturist or Provincial Manager of the date and time when the actual cutting will take place. The PCA Agriculturist or Provincial Manager shall as far as practicable do the necessary spotchecking of the land cutting. Section 29. Delegation Of Authority To Grant Permits To Cut - In conjunction with Section 6 of the Act, the authority to grant permits to cut under this Rules any be delegated to the City of Municipal mayor as the need arises and shall be initiated under any of the following circumstances: (a) upon the request of the City or Municipal mayor; (b) at the discretion of the PCA Administrator; or

(c) upon the endorsement of a PCA-accredited farmer or non-government organization. Provided that in the exercise of such delegated of such authority, the City or Municipal Mayors shall abide by the standards or criteria in this Rules which, in the absence of a local municipal agriculturist, shall be verified and certified by the PCA Agriculturist. Article VII - COLLECTION AND REMITTANCE Section 30. Payment of Fees - Payment of the fees authorized in the preceding shall be made to the PCA Provincial Collection and Disbursement Officer who shall issue the corresponding receipt. Section 31. Remittance - (a) All fees collected shall be remitted on a weekly basis to the PCA Regional Office which shall make the proper accounting thereof. (b) The Regional Office shall in turn distribute on a monthly basis the allocation of the fees to the beneficiaries for the purposes authorized in Section 5 of the Act. (c) All collections allocated for PCA shall be used to implement its replanting program in the region from where the fees were collected, subject or the approval by the PCA Administrator of proposed expenditures. Article IX - EXEMPTIONS FROM PERMIT AND FEES Section 32. Grounds For Exemption - Coconut trees which are qualified for cutting under the circumstances provided in Section 4 of the Act shall be exempt from the requirements of permit to cut and application fees, as follows: (a) Those posing imminent hazard to life or property under Section 14 Article III of this Rules, provided that the person ordering or initiating the cutting shall immediately report the cutting to the nearest PCA office; (b) Those intended for domestics and household use by the landowner, farmer, or tenant, not exceeding five (5) trees, not for sale, and not for transport beyond the barangay where they are cut; (c) Those situated in residential lots or public parks, planted purely for ornamental purposes, and not devoted to coconut production. Provided that, except in cases falling under subparagraph (a) above, applications in accordance with Section 12 Article IV of this Rules shall be filed for monitoring purposes. Article X - PROGRAM MONITORING

Section 33. Responsibility of PCA, LGUs, and Farmers Organizations - (a) The PCA shall be principally responsible in formulating specific programs and projects involving the regulation of indiscriminate cutting of coconut trees. (b) If the formulation of such programs, the PCA shall and enlist the assistance and participation of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) and other government agencies. PCA-accredited farmers organizations as well as other non-government organizations, in conducting nationwide surveys of the cutting of coconut trees affected areas, and the establishment of a data base relating thereto. Section 34. Report of Violations - The PCA Agriculturist shall inquire into all incidents of violations of the Act and this Rules by conducting spot-investigations thereof, and by gathering, receiving, verifying such incidents and reports, including persons involved, and shall immediately inform the City or Municipal Mayor, Barangay Chairman, and the deputized law enforcement agent for their appropriate preventive action. Furthermore, the PCA Agriculturist shall submit a complete report simultaneously to the PCA Provincial and Regional Managers with a copy of such report duly furnished the PCE Administrator. Section 35. Systems Monitoring - For efficient and uniform implementation and coordination, the PCA shall devise such monitoring systems and forms, and for this purpose allocate and disburse the necessary funds. Article XI - REGISTRATION Section 36. Applicability of PCA Administrative Orders No. 001 Series of 1982 and 1993 - (a) Pursuant to Section 7 of the Act, the registration of persons and entities dealing with coconut products and by-products in accordance with PCA Administrative Orders No. 001 Series of 1982 and 1993, shall except as hereinafter provided, be applicable to operators of sawmills, lumberyards, processors and dealers of coconut wood products; Provided, however, that registration under this Section shall not be issued to sawmills and lumber processors whose license have been withdrawn or cancelled by the Department of environment and Natural Resources (DENR). (b) For purpose of this Rules only, the rates of registration fees based on authorized capitalization provided for in PCA Administrative Orders No. 001 Series of 1993, are hereby amended as follows: Less than P1,000,000.00 NEW P1,000.00 RENEWAL 500.00 Over P1,000,000.00 up to NEW 3,000.00 P5,000,000.00 RENEWAL 1,500.00 Over P5,000,000.00 NEW 5,000.00

RENEWAL 2,500.00 Section 37. Coordination with Local Government Units and Other Agencies - (a) To update the PCA of the existence, identity, and operations of sawmills, lumberyards, processors and dealers of coconut wood products in the area of his jurisdiction, the PCA Provincial Manager shall from time to time consult with the City or Municipal Mayors or other agencies such as the Department of Trade and Industry - Bureau of Domestic Trade (DTI-BDT), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), and seek such information relevant in the investigation or prosecution of violations of the Act or this Rules. (b) In the event that the aforementioned persons or entities are found to have violated any provision of the Act or this Rules, the PCA may recomend to the appropriate agencies the cancellation of their registration and other sanctions authorized by law, charters, or municipal ordinances. Article XII - ENFORCEMENT Section 38. Deputation of Members of the Philippine national Police - All members of the Philippine National Police (PNP) are hereby deputized to assist in the enforcement of the Act and this Rules by investigating, apprehending, and causing the prosecution of violators thereof. By this deputation, they spot-check the cutting, transportation, and stocking of coconut trees, logs or lumber. Section 39. Confiscation - The PNP shall confiscate illegally cut coconut trees, logs or lumber, intercept their transportation, impound the vehicles used for the same, and issue the necessary receipts therefor. Section 40. Custodial Disposition - (a) The illegally cut coconut trees, logs or lumber, and the instruments and tool employed in their cutting as well as in their transportation which are confiscated by the PNP shall be deposited in the nearest PNP station or detachment, or in the nearest barangay or municipal premises. (b) The deposit shall be inventoried and duly receipt for by the proper police officer or the authorized barangay or municipal official. The report of such confiscation and custodial disposition shall be immediately made to the nearest PCA Provincial Office and to the PNP Station Commander in case the apprehending person is a PNP officer. Section 41. Progress Report By PNP On Investigations and Dispositions - The PNP shall inform the CPA Provincial Manager of the progress of its investigations. The Provincial Manager shall in turn furnish copies thereof to the PCA Administrator thru the Regional Manager. Article XIII - PENAL PROVISIONS, FORFEITURE AND DISPOSITION

Section 42. Penalties - The provision on Penalties under Section 8 of the Act is hereby adopted in too and declared an integral part of this Rules. Section 43. Forfeiture - Pursuant to Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalties of imprisonment and fine under Section 8 of the Act shall carry with them the forfeiture in favor of the Government of the illegally cut coconut trees, logs or lumber, and the instruments or tools employed in their cutting unless they be the property of a third person not liable for the offense. Section 44. Final Disposition - The illegally cut coconut trees, logs or lumber forfeited in favor of the Government shall be disposed of in accordance with the prioritization set forth in Memorandum Order No. 162 Series of 1993 as amended by Memorandum Order No. 284 of the President dated June 5, 1995. Accordingly, in the event that two (2) or more parties are requesting for disposition, priority shall be given in the following order: (a) Needy victims of disasters as certified by the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD); (b) The Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) projects related to the restoration of public facilities such as bridges, roads, etc., in times of emergencies, calamities, and disasters and pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement to be entered into between PCA and DPWH; (c) School building programs of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) and those undertaken by the Department of National Defense (DND)/AFP Engineering Brigade; (d) Health centers as may be requested by the Department of Health (DOH) and the local government unit (LGU) concerned; (e) Public markets, as may be requested by the LGU concerned; (f) Municipal buildings, as may be requested by the LGU concerned; (g) Police stations, as may be requested by the PNP and LGU concerned; (h) AFP camps, as may be requested by the DND; (i) The National Housing Authority (NHA) for the implementation of the housing program for low-salaried government employees and pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement that any be entered into between PCA and NHA; (j) LGUs which have jurisdiction over the place where the coconut trees were cut, gathered and/or confiscated; and (k) Commitments to provincial, regional and national projects.

Article XIV - REPEALING CLAUSE All Administrative Orders, Memoranda, Circulars and other issuance's insistent with this Rules and Regulations are hereby modified and repealed accordingly. Article XV - EFFECTIVITY This Rules and Regulations shall take effect immediately after their publication in two (2) newspapers of national and general circulation. ISSUED this 29th day of August 1995 at Quezon City.