From: petrescd@acf3.nyu.edu (Deivy Marck Petrescu)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.brazil,soc.culture.latin-america,talk.environment
Subject: From CPT(Pastoral Land Commission)/BRAZIL
Date: 2 Sep 92 18:07:02 GMT
Organization: New York University



PASTORAL LAND COMMISSION
Phone: (062) 224 44 36
Fax:  (062) 225 49 67
Address: Caixa Postal 749 - 74001 - Goiania-GO - Brasil


AGRARIAN REFORM COMES BACK TO THE CONGRESS

The  last   events  happened   in  land   struggles   clearly
demonstrate the  lack of a political will, by the authorities
at different  levels of  the  Governament,  for  solving  the
serious social  problems attaining  land  people.  The  final
report of  CPI (Parlament  Commission of  Inquire)  on  rural
violence concluded  that the State is not only conniving, but
is also  an active  agent  of  this  violence.  The  shameful
conviction of  6 landless  farmers in RS (absolved for proofs
absence, but  convicted because  their presence  in "Praca da
Matriz" caused  the dead  of a soldier), the unconstitutional
actions by  Policy in MS, impeding the return of thousands of
brasilian families  which  emigrated  towards  Paraguay,  and
other recent  events, are  the incontestable demonstration of
the violence  and impunity of large estate (latifundium), the
connivance and  participation of  the State  and  the  unjust
situation to which millions of workers are submitted.

As a reaction to these facts, made heavier by the inoperation
and connivance  of the  laws judged  and Justice  Department,
rural workers  are actively  pretending that  their rights on
accessing lands and on better life conditions are guaranteed,
pressing  the   National  Congress   to  review  and  discuss
constitutional law articles related with Agrarian Reform.

The discussion  of the Law Project n.11, taken in the Chamber
of Deputies,  which regulates  articles 184,  185 and  186 of
Federal Constitution  about the  Agrarian Reform, well proved
the force  relationship that  exists therein. Otherwise, this
was been  already evident  from the  time of  the creation of
Federal  Constitution   itself,  when  landowners  and  their
representatives  in   the  Congress  made  unpracticable  the
Agrarian Reform  by the creation of the "productive property"
concept   (proprietade    produtiva)   excluding    it   from
dispossession for  social interests  (art.  185,  II,  single
paragraph).

The text,  approved on  the 6th  of June  by the  Chamber  of
Deputies, is  a proof  that, since  the creation  of  Federal
Constitution till  now, did  not things  change very  much in
solving the  serious land social problems, beginning from the
large land  concentration question. The text, in spite of its
ambiguity,  maintains   the  same   aim   that   guided   the
Constitutional articles, because:

1 - the fundamental question on implementation of an Agrarian
Reform through  an institutional  way, exactly  lays upon the
definition of  what a  productive property  is and  into  the
requirements related  to the  accomplishment  of  its  social
function. These points are not well clarified in the approved
text.  In   its  article   n.2,  the   text  determines  that
accomplishment of  social function  is a  requirement of  the
property rigths.  A landed  property, that doesn't accomplish
it, is  susceptible of  dispossession,  but  "complying  with
article 185  of Federal  Constitution". The  defence  of  the
social function  of property  is annulled  with art.  185  of
Constitution,  in  which  "the  productive  property  is  not
susceptible of dispossession, for the Agrarian Reform aims".

The single  paragraph of  the same  article  of  the  Federal
Constitution  refers   to  the   principles  related  to  the
accomplishment of  the  social  function  of  the  productive
property. These  principles would be fixed in the regulation,
but this  didn't happen.  The official  text leaves a seriuos
gap. The  definition of  productive property consists only of
the requirements  of Efficiency  Degrees in  Land Exploration
and Use,  that are  eminently economic  aspects, leaving  the
social function aspect aside. Therefore, questions are solved
by  the   Justice  Department's   decision,  but   to  become
fundamental they  would be  clearly defined in the text. This
process is at least hazardous.
Expecially  if   we   consider   the   conservative   profile
demonstrated by  the Justice Department, that is in favour of
the advantagies  of the  fews against  of the  rigths of  the
majority.

One of the reasons of struggling for a regulamentation of the
Agrarian Reform  Law is  to envisage  the excuse, used by the
Justice   Department,   of   the   impossibility   of   lands
dispossession   because of  lack of  regulamentation  by  the
constitutional articles  related to this topic. Unfortunately
in  this  way  there  is  no  progress  because  the  Justice
Department will  be responsible for the interpretation of the
text  about   the  accomplishment   of  the  social  function
requirements in a productive property.

2 -  Moreover, the text provides owners skills to escape from
dispossession. This  is the  case of  art. n  7, incised  and
single paragraph,  when regulates  that the  landed property,
comproving the establishment of a technical project, will not
be passible of dispossession, for the Agrarian Reform aims.

In the same way, art.n. 6 paragraph 7, disposes that a landed
property will  not  loose  the  qualification  of  productive
property if,  for major  force, casually or for renovation of
pasture, leaves  to present  in  this  year  the  degrees  of
efficiency in exploration.

Obviously, in these articles is claimed the proof of experts'
technical reports,  and it would not be different. But now it
is important  to remember  the large  farms benefitted by the
subsidies,  that   created  ghost   projects  and  never  had
fiscalization  proving  the  use  and  application  of  these
impulses. The  large farms located in rural border areas also
benefitted of  these articles.  In fact  it is  enough to  be
inscribed  into  projects,  for  example,  for  environmental
preservetion, not to become susceptible of despossession.

3 -  Starting  from  the  idea  that  a  landed  property  is
dispossessed if  it doesn't  accomplish  a  social  function,
dispossession would  consist of  a punishment  of the  faulty
owner.

However, art.  12 determines  an indemnity  to propiciate the
dispossessed with  a "replacement  of the corresponding value
of the  property lost  for social  interests".  This  article
transforms dispossessions  into pure  lands purchases made by
the Federal  Organisms. This purchasing process moves through
society the  burden of  lazy lands,  that will  be bought  by
means  of   public  capital.   Moreover,  art.  5,  asserting
"previous and  honest indemnity",  offers a  chance for  land
estates speculation in place of dispossession processes.

4 -  On the other side the text is partial in line C, incised
III of  art. 4, where only small and medium property will not
be susceptible  of dispossession  when its  owner doesn't own
another rural property. But, what does it happen when a small
or  medium   owner  owns   two  properties   and  both   were
accomplishing the  social function  requirements? Will be one
of these  passible of dispossession? Therefore the text seems
to be  more than a defence of property. IT WAS ESTABLISHED TO
DEFEND THE LAND ESTATE.

5 - Finally, articles 3 and 13 don't leave doubts on what the
"agrarian reform"  (or better  , the  distribution of  public
lands) could  be in public lands and, once again, the crucial
problem of land concentration in the State will not be faced.

The law project, approved by the Federal Chamber (it has also
to pass  through the Senate and be confirmed by the President
of the  Republic) could  mean  a  political  success  of  the
progressive branches  in the  Congress because,  in  a  first
study, it  leaves few chances to implement an Agrarian Reform
project. Although, the lack of clearness of the text can open
a gap  to interpret the law in favour of the landless farmers
struggle. For  this, it  is important to enhance, in the land
struggling process,  the pressure  both  at  Executive  level
(responsible  for  the  Dispossession  Decrets)  and  Justice
Department level,  to interpret  and apply  the law  starting
from its  social and  human  aspects,  above  the  positivist
aspect, in favour of the LIFE RIGHT.

After the  National Congress,  the law  project went  to  the
Senate. The conservative parties removed the "urgent urgency"
label of  the Agrarian  Reform from  their agenda. This means
that the  law project  probably will not be voted during this
year.  In   this   way,   authorities'   position,   in   not
dispossessing  because  of  lack  of  law's  regulations,  is
reinforced. Various  groups of civil society are pressing the
Senate to  approve the  law proposal, already approved by the
Federal Chamber. However, the present political situation, in
which  the  president  of  the  Republic  is  involved  in  a
corruption impeachment,  leaves out of priority all the other
national demands.



                                                            
            CPT National Office

                                                            
            Goiania, August 26th 1992