MARAWI CITY (MindaNews / 05 July) – The Marawi Compensation Board (MCB) has received a total of 14,495 compensation claims from July 4, 2023 to July 3, 2024 from survivors of the 2017 siege whose homes and establishments were destroyed or damaged and from relatives of civilians who were slain during that five-month war.
July 3, 2024 was the last day for filing of claims as mandated by Republic Act 11696 or the Marawi Siege Victims Compensation Act of 2022.
The MCB ceases to function five years after the effectivity of the Implementing Rules and Regulations or by June 10, 2028.
Lawyer Maisara Latiph, MCB chair, told MindaNews on Thursday that a total of 14,495 claims had been filed as of July 3.
Out of this number, 8,393 were multiple claims (death, structure, personal); 5,701 for personal property; 209 for structure and 192 for death.
As of June 27, the nine-member MCB en banc has resolved 563 claims, approved 448, awarded 139 and disapproved 117.
The 139 claims that have been awarded totalled P222.18 million. Add to that the approved claims whose compensation is in the process of being downloaded to the claimants and the total is P723.6 million.
speaks to MindaNews inside her office in Marawi City on 26 June 2024. MindaNews photo by MANMAN DEJETO
The law provides that any person who is a lawful owner of residential, cultural, commercial structures, and other properties located in in Marawi’s MAA (Most Affected Areas) or OAA (Other Affected Areas), and all the heirs of “those who died and legally presumed dead” may file a claim with the Board for tax-free compensation.
The 250-hectare MAA comprises 24 barangays in what was previously referred to as ‘Ground Zero,’ the main battle area between government forces and the Maute Group and Abu Sayyaf, while the OAA comprises eight barangays.
Latiph said the highest amount that would be released for those whose claims have been approved is P37.2 million for a hospital that was relatively new before the siege, while the lowest is around P150,000 for repair.
Relatives of civilians who died or are presumed dead are entitled to receive P350,000.
“Unjust valuation”
In May, displaced residents protested what they described as “unjust valuation” of their properties destroyed or damaged during the five-month war.
Drieza Lininding, chair of the Moro Consensus Group, said then that at least 300 of the displaced residents signed a position paper during a rally held at the Rizal Park questioning the use of a Lanao del Sur provincial ordinance setting the fair market value of properties in the province as the “sole basis” for computing the value of structures lost or destroyed during the war.
Section 15 of RA 11696 provides that the Board shall determine the monetary compensation “whichever is the lower amount of either the fair market value of the residential, cultural, commercial structures, or other real properties or the value of its total area per storey equivalent to an amount to be determined in the implementing rules and regulations of this Act.”
Claimants are required to present “competent evidence of the loss or destruction, ownership, as well as the fair market value of the personal properties.”
Latiph explained that the law provides that valuation shall be based on whichever is lower between the replacement cost or repair cost and the fair market value.
“So yung board is constrained. We are forced by law to choose the lowest amount between the fair market value and the replacement or repair cost. Replacement kapag total, repair kapag partial damage. So yung board does not have any discretion given to it by law. The law already spoke na lowest between the two. So when you say fair market value, doon sa law din, we are paying structure, we’re not paying for the land. So … kapag fair market value, may obsolescence, may physical deterioration. So meron silang tinatawag na age of building, life of the building. Kasama talaga siya sa valuation.”
Latiph said that the suggestion of a senator to “creatively” interpret the law is not possible because “yung law very strict siya. FMV (fair market value) or replacement cost, whichever is lowest.”
“The purpose of the law is to be fair”
At the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee on Rebuilding Marawi on May 21, Senator Ronald dela Rosa, chair of the Senate Special Committee on Marawi Rehabilitation and Victims’ Compensation, said “the purpose of the law is to be fair” and that “if fairness is not achieved through this particular provision,” they are “open to any amendment.”
Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong, chair of the House of Representatives’ Ad Hoc Committee on Marawi Rehabilitation and Victims’ Compensation asked: “should we retain fair market value or revisit and amend that provision?”
Basilan Rep. Mujiv Hataman said “the issue of compensation is both legal and humanitarian.”
“Compensation is a human rights issue,” he stressed.
Senator Alan Peter Cayetano, in a statement after the May 21 meeting, said the point of compensation “is to return them to their situation before the Marawi war. So if they built their house and it was worth P3 million ten years before the Marawi Siege, and then at the Marawi Siege it was at P15 million, I have to give them the equivalent of P15 million now to return them to their status before the war because that is just compensation,” he added.
“Kung ako ay nag-ipon or three generations minana ko yung bahay na worth P5 million noong binomba, then you will now only give me P5 million and I can only build half of that house, I will feel na doble ang injustice para sa akin. Binomba na kami, ganyan pa ang trato niyo sa amin,” he said.
Latiph told MindaNews that when the basis is FMV, one has to resort to the valuation of the assessor. But they could not use the Marawi City Assessor’s fair market value because it is dated 2011 and it is very low at around P4,000 per square meter while Lanao del Sur’s Provincial Assessor’s valuation is as of 2021 and could go as high as P19,200 per square meter, depending on the structure. Marawi City is part of Lanao del Sur.
Latiph said the provincial valuation is more favorable to Marawi’s Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs or bakwits) because it’s higher.
In determining FMV, depreciation cost of the structure is included. If the FMV is one million pesos, this would be less 27% so if the structure’s FMV costs a million pesos, personal property is estimated at 270,000 pesos. The 27% is the optional standard valuation used by the Office of Civil Defense during disasters.
She said those who are protesting prefer replacement cost to FMV.
Latiph said the board has submitted to Congress the proposal to amend the law by deleting FMV from Section 15 so that the basis for compensation will no longer be whichever is lower between FMV and replacement cost but based only on replacement cost.
The Joint Oversight Committee members said they were willing to amend to ensure the compensation is just.
As of July 5, however, a check on the websites of the Senate and House shows no bill has been filed to amend RA 11696.
At least 150 per month
RA 11696 was signed into law on April 13, 2022 by then President Rodrigo Duterte.
Duterte, who was ending his six-year term by June 30, 2022, did not constitute the nine-member MCB but left it to President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. who took seven months before he named the Board members in late January 2023.
The Board approved the IRR in May 2023 and it took effect the following month, on June 10.
It took the MCB around six months to settle down. From July to December 2023, Latiph said, they had to discuss whether payment would be done in full or partial, what will be the basis for fair market value given that the business establishments and house owners could no longer produce receipts that were among those destroyed by fire during the siege.
The Board started adjudicating in August 2003, starting with the death claims.
“Death Benefits, then the rest of the claims either structure or personal properties depending on the dates filed,” Latiph said last year, adding they will be adjudicating “based on the chronological order upon which the filed and processed claims were received by the Board Secretariat.”
Latiph said some claims were disapproved because the claimants could not provide substantial evidence. “They were not able to present competent evidence to prove their claim,” she said.
She cited as an example that for the death claim, a claimant said this person was killed during the siege but no one could testify where that person was last seen in Marawi. For the structures, during the hearing, the claimant could not point to where his house in the 3D map.
The nine-member board is divided into three divisions, each of which has a quota of 50 claims to adjudicate or a total of at least 150 per month.
Latiph said additional staffing would help hasten the process and they hope Congress will allocate funding for additional staff for 2025. Congress allocated a billion pesos each in the 2023 and 2024 General Appropriations Act for compensation and reparation.
Latiph clarified that the MCB does not have in its possession the money for compensation. It is the Department of Budget and Management that has the money and releases the money to the claimants, she said. (Carolyn O. Arguillas / MindaNews)
