U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

95–991PDF 2015

PROPERTY RIGHTS AND DEVELOPMENT IN

SOUTHEAST ASIA

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

AUGUST 21, 2015

Serial No. 114–94

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

MATT SALMON, Arizona Chairman 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

AMI BERA, California 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

GRACE MENG, New York 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Mr. James Carouso, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian 

and Pacific Affairs, U.S. Department of State ................................................... 10

The Honorable Jonathan Stivers, Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Asia, 

U.S. Agency for International Development ...................................................... 18

Ms. Faith Bautista, president and chief executive officer, National Asian 

American Coalition .............................................................................................. 37

Mr. Joey Quinto, publisher, California Journal for Filipino Americans ............. 41

Mr. Zosimo Laurel Contreras (litigant in Philippines property dispute) ............ 76

Mr. Richard J. Rogers, partner, Global Diligence LLP (attorney representing 

Cambodian victims before the International Criminal Court) ......................... 80

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Mr. James Carouso: Prepared statement .............................................................. 13

The Honorable Jonathan Stivers: Prepared statement ........................................ 21

Ms. Faith Bautista: Prepared statement ............................................................... 39

Mr. Joey Quinto: Prepared statement .................................................................... 43

Mr. Zosimo Laurel Contreras: Prepared statement .............................................. 78

Mr. Richard J. Rogers: Prepared statement .......................................................... 82

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 106

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 107

The Honorable Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California, and chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs: Material 

submitted for the record ...................................................................................... 108

(1)

PROPERTY RIGHTS AND DEVELOPMENT IN 

SOUTHEAST ASIA 

FRIDAY, AUGUST 21, 2015

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in the 

Ursa Major Suite, Cal Poly Pomona University, 3801 West Temple 

Avenue, Pomona, California, Hon. Matt Salmon (chairman of the 

subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SALMON. This committee will come to order. 

Chairman Royce, I welcome the opportunity to convene this subcommittee hearing with you today on Property Rights and Development in Southeast Asia. 

I always enjoy coming to California, and the Cal Poly Pomona 

campus is truly a beautiful backdrop. 

Mr. Chairman, you are very lucky to represent such a beautiful 

piece of our country, and I would like to thank our distinguished 

witnesses for their participation in the hearing. 

Today I look forward to hearing about the progress that Southeast Asian countries have made in developing rule of law and protections for property rights. Given varying structures of governance 

and levels of development among Southeast Asian countries, we 

know that large challenges remain for countries, for individuals, 

and for businesses. I hope to learn more about these obstacles as 

well. 

We are concerned about the abuse of power and gross violations 

of property rights in Cambodia. Private property rights were greatly impaired under the Khmer Rouge, though Cambodian law does 

not recognize private, state, and collective ownership by private individuals and indigenous communities. 

Despite this, land-grabbing by the government for their political 

cronies and businesses has escalated significantly over the years. 

Up to 1⁄2 million Cambodians have been reported to be displaced 

by forced land seizures. Poor and vulnerable populations have been 

identified as most harmed by forced evictions and lack of compensation for their land. Due to high court costs and lack of resources for many of those adversely affected, many disputes never 

make it to court. Those that do, end up facing an ineffective system 

to seek redress for violations and unfair treatment. 

I know that USAID has funded programs to train lawyers and 

judges and support NGOs with legal aid and property rights eduVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:54 Oct 20, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AP\082115\95991 SHIRL
2

cation, and the World Bank and other donors have funded similar 

projects. I welcome additional solutions to the tragic condition of 

property rights in Cambodia. 

The Philippines’ 1987 constitution includes many provisions 

which protect private property rights, and efforts have been made 

to protect landowners from squatters and unfair land takings. The 

Philippine Government has attempted the execution of land reform 

programs for many years, with varying degrees of success and failure. 

Despite efforts, much of the vulnerable rural population of the 

Philippines remain landless, and the population living in informal 

settlements with no enforceable legal basis to their claims continues to grow. Inconsistencies in Philippine land and property 

policies, exacerbated by a weak legal system and political or business interference, have stoked competition over land ownership 

claims and privileges. Overlapping or fraudulent land titles can 

fuel conflict, contribute greatly to instances of squatting or land 

grabbing, and hinder greater economic development. 

A tradition of government corruption in the Philippines has made 

these issues harder to address. USAID and other international organizations and NGOs have worked to improve the land rights in 

the Philippines, such as supporting the development of the Residential Free Patent Act of 2010 that streamlines titling of residential lands. These efforts advance governance and advocacy for the 

Filipino population and help those without a voice. 

Similarly, I look to our distinguished witnesses for insight on 

how we can catalyze more positive momentum in the Philippines. 

Land grabbing and insufficient protection of property rights exists 

elsewhere in Southeast Asia, and I welcome discussion about efforts to address issues in other countries as well. For instance, in 

Burma, citizens and organizations cannot own any land, since it all 

belongs to the state. Forcible and uncompensated land confiscation 

is rampant in Burma, and its drive for economic growth has stifled 

progress on the issue. I would be interested to hear from the State 

Department and USAID on what work we have done in Burma to 

aid in reversing this injustice. 

Similarly in Indonesia, property rights are inconsistent, and the 

land rights of the vulnerable and the poor are insecure. Capacity 

to interpret laws fairly and unambiguously is limited. In Vietnam 

and Laos, the land, as they say, belongs to all, but it is administered poorly and inefficiently. Here, Thailand has been a model for 

Southeast Asian nations, boasting a transparent land administration system that has issued title deeds to much of the population. 

The United States strives to be a voice of reason and to help galvanize necessary reform throughout the region. We will seek to 

promote and protect fundamental rights that are inconsistently enforced and poorly upheld in Southeast Asia. Furthermore, we will 

work with our allies to encourage the development of transparent, 

enforceable, and equitable laws that will benefit all members of 

these diverse countries. 

Members present will be permitted to submit written statements 

to be included in the official hearing record. And without objection, 

the hearing record will remain open for 5 calendar days to allow 

3

statements, questions, and extraneous materials for the record, 

subject to the length limitation in the rules. 

I now yield to Chairman Royce for his opening statement. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Salmon. 

I think we should start by thanking Cal Poly Pomona for opening 

up this hall to so many people here today. We had an opportunity 

not too long ago to have the director of USAID out here in this very 

hall, and Cal Poly Pomona gave us a forum to talk about the challenges about rebuilding after Tacloban, and specifically about legislation that this committee, my committee had passed that I had 

authored that allowed aid to go immediately, and food to be purchased locally with respect to our USAID efforts in the Philippines. 

But today I am particularly appreciative of my colleagues here 

from Congress, and the State Department and USAID being here 

again. Director Shaw I thought did a great job. We had a town hall 

meeting here last time. This time we are doing this in the form of 

a hearing in order to get into an issue that I think is very, very 

important, and that is what can we do to help change this phenomenon of land grabbing and the dislocation of people that are 

being pushed off of their land by government policy around the 

world, and specifically some of the new programs that USAID is 

championing in the Philippines and elsewhere in order to achieve 

this goal. 

I did want to mention my wife Marie used to be a professor here 

at Cal Poly Pomona, so I have had the opportunity to be up on the 

campus a number of times for international programs. But in this 

case, we are looking at how we can best promote not just the rights 

of people in parts of the Philippines right now where, because of 

the Marcos legacy, they do not really have a tradition of land title. 

This was one of the things that President Aquino was trying to 

change and is trying to change. But locally, as you go into certain 

parts of the Philippines, Marcos’ practices of seizing land and 

transferring that land into the hands of people who are well connected locally, has created an environment where, you can see by 

the concern of the community here, you can see that people, frankly, are losing their property. 

Land title reform is a big part of the solution here, and that is 

what we are going to talk about today, and we are going to hear 

from witnesses. 

We had had some successes, but as we aim, frankly, to deepen 

our engagement in Southeast Asia and transform our aid so that 

it supports sustainable economic growth, we have got to consider 

whether the underlying conditions exist to realize that growth. In 

countries where citizens are denied basic protections under the law, 

including the right to secure property and the right to basically 

have title, those conditions don’t exist. 

So if I could just speak to Cambodia for a minute, Chairman 

Salmon, over half of land holdings are held informally there, without legal title. It would help enormously if we could put into effect 

a change that would give land title to those who are farming that 

land, because as the Cambodian economy has developed, many 

Cambodians have been displaced by the Hun Sen government. The 

government and domestic and foreign businesses are responsible 

for seizing much of this land. The government has appropriated 

4

lands and homes forcibly, often for agricultural use or mining or 

logging. 

According to testimony that I am going to submit for the record 

here, the Cambodian Government of Hun Sen maintains its political and economic power, and I am going to quote Meach 

Sovannara here, his words. He is a U.S. citizen who is being held 

in prison right now in Cambodia for speaking out about land reform and other issues like this. I am going to quote him:

‘‘They maintain economic power through the control and harsh 

repression of anyone who stands in the way of their economic 

enrichment and political control, and anyone criticizing their 

policies and actions.’’

His family is with us today, Jamie Meach, who is with us, and 

her children, their children. 

Chairman, could I ask if they could stand in the front row? 

Mr. SALMON. Absolutely. 

Mr. ROYCE. Jamie, could you and your family stand? I am going 

to put your husband’s statement in the record here today with the 

support of Chairman Salmon. 

Mr. SALMON. Without objection. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you. 

So he has been imprisoned. We are also going to be talking with 

the State Department about doing what you can to get those American citizens back who are held overseas because they are speaking 

out specifically about human dignity and freedom and this issue of 

land grabbing. 

According to the Cambodian League for the Promotion of the Defense of Human Rights, three-fifths of arable land in Cambodia is 

controlled by foreign agribusiness companies. Foreign investment—

it can be beneficial—but it has to be rules based. It has to be above 

board. These large plantations fail to provide stable employment 

and adequate income for local residents who formally farm that 

land. 

In some areas of the Philippines, land ownership is informal and 

narrowly disputed among local elites and clans. Tens of millions of 

Filipinos work as lease holders or rent-paying sharecroppers. Outdated land administration laws and an inefficient land administration system have resulted in fraudulent, overlapping land titles and 

widespread land grabbing. The perpetrators are politicians and foreign investors. Besides insecure land rights, over 12 million families in the Philippines do not own the rights to their own homes. 

So there is a desperate need for proper titling, which would unlock 

vast wealth for Filipinos, as noted economist Hernando de Soto has 

testified before our committee. 

President Aquino has made considerable efforts to reform and 

clean up politics in the Philippines, but his few years in office cannot undo the years of damage done by President Marcos and the 

legacy President Marcos left, especially in some regions in the Philippines. 

Last February I led a bipartisan congressional delegation to the 

Philippines where we were able to observe the destruction done by 

Typhoon Yolanda. Several members of this committee were there 

with me, and I appreciate very much, Brad, you and Matt, and all 

5

the engagement in the Philippines. I was glad to see such a strong 

U.S. humanitarian effort. In the aftermath of natural disasters like 

this, on top of losing their homes, victims can also find themselves 

without a shred of proof to the rights to their property. 

In the Antipolo region, I was personally prevented, at gunpoint—

and this was on a trip I took prior to last year. It was 2 years ago. 

We took a delegation out there. I was prevented, at gunpoint, from 

accessing the property of a constituent by what appeared to be a 

member of a local security force. He had closed off the road. He 

closed off access of a public road to people in that area that owned 

their property. In my meeting with President Aquino I pressed him 

on the importance of protecting property rights. Filipinos as well 

as Cambodians have great economic potential. We should be working to unlock that potential. 

President Aquino is working to unlock that potential, but USAID 

needs to help us find a way at the local level to make sure that 

local governments do this as well. 

Today we will hear from victims of land grabbing. Because property rights are essential to stability and economic growth, we have 

to do all we can to encourage nations to offer these protections to 

their citizens. This would dramatically improve the lives of Filipinos, Cambodians and others in Asia, while improving our economic well-being and security. 

So again, I thank you, Mr. Salmon, and I thank our ranking 

member here as well. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. [Applause.] 

Before I recognize the ranking member, I do need to talk about 

some of the etiquette issues associated with congressional hearings. 

As Mr. Royce said, he did this before in a town hall. A hearing is 

very, very different. In fact, in a hearing, the only people that will 

be speaking will be the distinguished panel members. We have two 

panels today. The other people that will be speaking are Members 

of Congress up here on the dais that will be making opening statements and asking questions. There is no audience participation 

other than being here. 

As far as the rules of the road, so to speak, we would ask that 

if you haven’t done so already, to put your cell phones on silent. 

Also, this is not a town hall meeting, so we don’t cheer and we 

don’t boo and we don’t have public outcries. It is just the nature 

of congressional hearings. We are not trying to offend anybody. 

That is just the way that they are done. 

I would like to recognize the ranking member. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 

and Chairman Royce, the chair of the full——

[Applause.] 

Mr. SALMON. Again, we would please ask the audience if they 

would refrain from clapping or cheering. Thank you. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I want to thank you for having this hearing. I 

think field hearings are an important part of what our committee 

does. I remember Chairman Royce and I did a field hearing at the 

border focused on terrorism issues, and I look forward to our committee doing field hearings, as appropriate. I think almost every 

Member of Congress here believes that it is best to have such field 

hearings in Southern California, and at least one member here beVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:54 Oct 20, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AP\082115\95991 SHIRL
6

lieves that it is best to hold them in the 39th Congressional District. But only Marie Royce believes that, of the two major campuses in that district, the best place to have it is Cal Poly Pomona. 

Mr. ROYCE. And that is despite—if the gentleman would yield? 

Mr. SHERMAN. I yield. 

Mr. ROYCE. That is despite the fact that her husband went to the 

other campus. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Exactly, which simply demonstrates who the primary decision-maker is. [Laughter.] 

The focus of today’s hearing is on land rights in Cambodia and 

the Philippines. America has an interest in the economic and political development of Southeast Asian countries. We spend hundreds 

of millions of dollars every year to promote that economic development. It is important for our economy because these are not only 

current but future trading partners. It is also important from a national security perspective as we work to make sure that not only 

does Asia have a robust China, but that the nations on China’s periphery are also robust as well. 

Critical to that economic development is the rule of law. In fact, 

if you look around the world, those countries with the rule of law 

are doing well, and those without the rule of law are not. And particularly important is real estate law. However, millions of people 

in Cambodia and the Philippines must deal with government corruption, outdated laws, inadequate record-keeping, and I look forward to hearing from our panel as to what the United States can 

do to improve the situation. 

As to Cambodia, a nation much smaller than the Philippines, 

with only 15 million people, in 2001 Cambodia amended its law to 

allow private ownership of land. They established a framework in 

which individuals could register land and have their ownership recognized by the Land Management Ministry. 

Unfortunately, most Cambodian citizens lack either the knowledge or the means to go through the formal process of land ownership. They are either unable to fill out the necessary paperwork or 

to pay the required taxes and land fees. 

However, since 2001 Cambodian officials have used the land law 

to seize rural lands and provide them to domestic and foreign businesses, political figures, and in many cases they have done so without the consent of the lands’ inhabitants and without the consent 

of those who may turn out in justice to own the land. 

As one opposition Cambodian lawmaker explained in a New York 

Times op-ed, ‘‘Farmers only become aware of the transactions when 

the construction companies come in to remove them, bulldozers and 

security guards in tow.’’

As a result, land seizures by the Cambodian Government have 

displaced 770,000 Cambodians, nearly 6 percent of the nation’s 

population, since the year 2001. This paints a picture very different 

from most countries in the world. The government has leased almost 5 million acres of rural land, which includes three-fifths of the 

nation’s arable land, to foreign entities. 

In response to land corruption, the World Bank suspended new 

lending to Cambodia in 2011 and called on the Cambodian Government to stop wrongful eviction of civilians, and in 2012 Cambodian 

officials announced the suspension of land leasing to foreign entiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:54 Oct 20, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AP\082115\95991 SHIRL
7

ties and launched a program in cooperation with Cambodia’s Ministry of Land Management to measure land plots and to distribute 

titles to villagers. 

Nearly 500,000 such titles have, in fact, been distributed. This 

program will prevent the displacement of Cambodians in the future, but it does not solve the problems of Cambodians who have 

already been displaced from their homes. In fact, the U.N. Human 

Rights Council has found the Cambodian National Authority for 

Land Dispute Resolution to be largely ineffective in settling land 

cases. 

I know that one of our witnesses is from USAID. Jonathan, we 

look forward to your announcement on how we can help provide 

the rule of law in real estate in Cambodia. 

As to the Philippines, as Chairman Royce pointed out, we had a 

chance to visit the Philippines and discuss the rule of law and economic development with the President of that country and so many 

others. In 1988 the Philippines passed a comprehensive agrarian 

reform plan which distributed land to tenant farmers. Though this 

gives farmers the right to till a certain plot of land, it does not 

grant farmers ownership of that land. Over half of the land holdings nationwide are still held informally, without official legal title, 

and 70 percent of the farmers do not own the land they till. 

The other major problems with the land claims of the Philippines 

relate to just basic record-keeping. USAID reported in 2011 that 

outdated land administration laws and inefficient land administration and adjudication infrastructure and a poor land information 

system have resulted in problems of fraudulent overlapping and 

duplication of land titles and widespread land grabbing. 

To make matters worse, the Philippines is a nation that often 

suffers from natural disasters, including typhoons, and that can destroy paper documents in government buildings. According to a recent Oxfam report, typhoons and other natural disasters have destroyed essential land records and has provided an opportunity for 

landowners, or at least those purporting to be landowners, to evict 

tenants from land so it can be developed for commercial purposes. 

Corrupt Filipino bureaucrats and landowners have sold huge parcels to foreign companies to build an airport, a resort town, and a 

host of other facilities. 

U.S. assistance to the Philippines totaled $190 million in 2014. 

In addition to this, we signed a $334 million U.S. Millennium Challenge compact with the Philippines in 2010, so we have a real interest in economic development in the Philippines. Our money and, 

more importantly, the efforts of a generation of Filipinos will go for 

naught unless the rule of law, and particularly the rule of law involving real estate, is adhered to. 

I yield back. 

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Rohrabacher, did you have an opening statement? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I will make this short because I know we 

want to get on with the witnesses. But I, first of all, would like to 

thank Mr. Royce and Mr. Salmon for the leadership that they have 

provided on human rights issues in general. You guys have—these 

have been real heroes here, and it has been my honor to have 

worked with both of them. Ed, ever since he got to Congress as a 

8

freshman—I was already there, by the way—Ed has been the 

champion of broadcasting to people throughout the world so that 

they will know that they are not forgotten in their struggle for freedom and not forgotten by the American people. 

We supposedly, as Americans, hold freedom and the rights of 

human beings to be our number-one value. This is how we will 

prove that. We will prove it by making sure that people in these 

countries where they are oppressed get the message that we are on 

their side, but also hearings like this where we insist that human 

rights be respected for our country to deal with those governments. 

By the way, human rights, so often people think human rights 

are only elections, freedom of speech, freedom of religion. But 

human rights also means when someone owns a piece of property 

or someone has worked his life and the life of their family for generations on a piece of land, for that land to be taken away, for that 

property to be taken away is a violation, a fundamental violation 

of human rights, as is restricting someone’s right to worship God 

the way they would choose. 

So today we are reaffirming in this hearing, especially to the people of Cambodia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Burma, and other 

Southeast Asian countries, that we understand that there is a challenge there to their freedom and to the well-being of their families 

and to their human rights, and that we are on their side, and we 

want to find ways of how we can make that situation better. When 

governments think that they can take land and property away from 

ordinary people and give it to their cronies, basically crony capitalism has replaced communism as a chief oppressor. 

Vietnam isn’t a communist country anymore. Communism means 

Marxism, where nobody owns anything. They are just a corrupt 

dictatorship where they are taking care of their cronies. The same 

is true in Cambodia, and the same is unfortunately true at some 

level in the Philippines. But we know that the Filipino people, because they have a democratic process, are trying to work their way 

through it and make it better. 

Well, that is what America is all about. We come from every 

race, religion, and ethnic background, and it is up to us to make 

sure that we reach out, using that, because I can see people from 

here from all of the countries I just mentioned. It is your job to 

speak for America there to make sure that the people of your countries, where you came from, that they know that America does 

stand for these principles, and also we are very pleased to have you 

here as the American fabric. That is what makes us a strong country and a force for freedom in the world. 

So, thank you, Ed and Matt. I am looking forward to the testimony. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. 

Ms. Chu? 

Ms. CHU. Thank you, Chairmen Royce and Salmon, and Ranking 

Member Sherman, for inviting me to take part in today’s important 

hearing. And thank you for holding this hearing in Southern California, right next to my congressional district of Pasadena and 

Monterey Park. This whole area is home to so many people who 

are affected by what we will hear today, and this is an important 

9

opportunity to connect the work we do in Washington, DC, to 

home. 

I particularly want to thank today’s witnesses for sharing what 

will be heart-wrenching personal testimony on land ownership 

rights in Southeast Asia and what we can do to help. I have had 

the good fortune to speak with a few of you in the past, and I know 

that all of us will benefit from hearing your stories. 

Land ownership is a cornerstone of a nation’s economy and a necessity to rising out of poverty for many. It can encourage investment and build ties to communities. But too frequently in the developing world, weak property rights are abused to help the elite 

few or reward cronies at the expense of the most vulnerable. And 

women and those lacking education, those who need help the most, 

are often the most susceptible. 

The two countries that we are focusing on today, Cambodia and 

the Philippines, are particularly egregious offenders. We are going 

to hear just a few stories of blatant land grabs by the powerful, and 

often done through force. But I know that there are many more 

who have had similar experiences. 

In the Philippines in particular, the abuse of weak land titles 

that we have seen in the wake of Typhoon Haiyan in 2013 has 

been shocking as redevelopment becomes an excuse to push individuals out of their homes. 

The governments make the apparent argument that they are 

working for the benefit of the country, trying to bring in investment and support growth. But their disregard for land ownership 

is a setback to true and stable economic growth. Few provisions 

exist to ensure that individuals who have lost land are compensated in a fair and long-term manner, and the benefits brought 

in are going to the ultra-powerful few who already control most of 

the wealth. 

The result is that now in Cambodia, for example, three-fifths of 

the arable land is held by foreign agribusinesses. The massive displacement policies by these governments are creating large numbers of landless poor, many left to live in squatter colonies. This 

is an unacceptable situation leading to a long-term crisis. 

Combined, Cambodia and the Philippines received almost $270 

million in U.S. foreign aid in 2014. This gives us enormous leverage to encourage growth and reform that will help the vulnerable 

and not just the powerful. This is the morally right thing to do, and 

it is the right thing to do for long-term stability. 

Today I am eager to hear expert testimony on the causes and the 

breadth of the problem, as well as the tools that are at our Government’s disposal to push forward reforms. These stories from the 

second panel will drive home the urgency and humanity driving 

our need to act. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak today, and I look 

forward to hearing from each of you. 

Mr. SALMON. We are grateful to have two excellent witnesses 

from the administration, and we are really appreciative that they 

could join us on our first panel this morning. 

First we have James Carouso, the State Department’s Acting 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Asian and Pacific AfVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:54 Oct 20, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AP\082115\95991 SHIRL
10

fairs; and Jonathan Stivers, who is USAID’s Assistant Administrator of the Asia Bureau. 

We will start with Mr. Carouso. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES CAROUSO, ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC 

AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. CAROUSO. Chairman Salmon, Chairman Royce, Ranking 

Member Sherman, members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to testify before this distinguished committee on land tenure issues and their effect on Southeast Asia’s economic development, a topic of significant importance to the Department of State. 

The Assistant Secretary for the East Asia and Pacific Affairs Bureau asked me to——

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Carouso, could you pull your microphone just 

a little closer? Thank you. 

Mr. CAROUSO. Is this better? 

Mr. SALMON. Yes, thank you. 

Mr. CAROUSO. The Assistant Secretary really regrets he couldn’t 

be here today, so he sent me. 

Special thanks to Cal Poly Pomona for providing this beautiful 

venue. 

My colleague, USAID Administrator Jonathan Stivers, will speak 

to the various programs USAID supports to address land rights in 

the region. I will focus my remarks on the State Department’s efforts to improve the protection of land and property rights in 

Southeast Asia both from a human rights perspective and from a 

commercial perspective, which affects U.S. citizens and corporations abroad, as well as the countries’ economic growth. 

Land and property rights issues remain critical in much of 

Southeast Asia and have a disproportionate impact on 

marginalized populations, including women, children, and indigenous groups. Transparent and fair land tenure laws, when followed, have a direct impact on foreign investment, poverty alleviation, and social stability. Without guidelines for officially-recognized land ownership documentation and effective mechanisms for 

dispute resolution, individuals are left in unstable situations and 

vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. For these reasons, we see 

land rights as a critical element to improving respect for human 

rights, strengthening the rule of law, and encouraging economic 

growth in the region. 

When looking at land tenure issues from a human rights perspective, a major challenge in Southeast Asia is that vulnerable 

populations, particularly women and indigenous groups, often lack 

the basic documentation to show their rights to the homes and land 

upon which they live. In Cambodia, for example, at least two-thirds 

of the population, many of them poverty-stricken farmers, lack 

proper title deeds to their property. This is largely a lingering effect of the Khmer Rouge regime, which abolished all private property and, consequently, property records as a part of its efforts to 

create a collectivized agrarian society. Lack of updated records 

leaves families who are removed from their land with little legal 

recourse to prove ownership of the land or property on which they 

live and vulnerable to human rights abuses. 

11

Recognizing this challenge, the State Department’s Bureau of 

Democracy, Human Rights and Labor just recently began a new 

program to assist vulnerable communities in Cambodia, as well as 

in neighboring Vietnam. Working with local NGO partners, this 

project aims to create a multi-stakeholder, human rights-based approach to land use impact studies in communities, integrating 

these processes into land governance and dispute resolution initiatives. This builds on previous efforts from 2007 to 2010 that helped 

communities understand land rights under Cambodian law and legally document land claims to prevent eviction and ensure fair 

compensation, should the land be sold. 

A subsequent challenge to the enforcement of land rights is the 

strength of rule of law, which varies wildly throughout the region. 

Weak judicial institutions and corruption encourage private claimants to seek solutions outside of the legal system, which in turn 

hinders their ability to obtain a stable, legal solution to their dispute. It also unfairly prejudices the system toward the wealthy and 

powerful, exacerbating existing social and economic inequalities. 

The State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and 

Law Enforcement Affairs is working around the world to help countries combat corruption by working with governments and civil society to build transparent and accountable public institutions operating in the criminal justice sector, a cornerstone of strong, stable, 

and fair societies that offer a level playing field. INL works with 

these partners through training, technical assistance, and mentoring to fight corruption and promote laws and court systems that 

are fair, legitimate, and accountable. 

To take the Philippines as an example, the Philippine legal system contains a fairly robust set of laws that regulate land in urban 

and rural areas. These laws address inheritance issues, provide 

guidance on property ownership, and require registration of land titles through the judicial process. The Philippines also has institutional actors who oversee the implementation of these laws, including the Land Registration Authority and local government units 

that develop land-use development plans and zoning ordinances. 

The Government of the Philippines has also partnered with the 

World Bank and the Government of Australia to develop land administration policies and laws that formally recognize and record 

the rights of land holders through the Land Administration and 

Management Project. 

In the Philippines, the institutions and laws governing land 

rights exist, but outdated land administration laws, an inefficient 

land administration and adjudication infrastructure, a poor land 

information system, and weak judicial institutions have resulted in 

problems of fraudulent, overlapping, and duplicate land titles and 

have led to widespread accusations of illegitimate land seizures. 

These challenges have also contributed to high transaction costs in 

securing, registering, and transferring property rights, and to tenure insecurity. Inconsistent legislation and policy declarations have 

led to unsustainable land use and conflict over competing land 

uses. Over the past decades, many countries in the region, including the Philippines, have tried various versions of redistributive 

land reform programs with little or no success in an effort to redisVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:54 Oct 20, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AP\082115\95991 SHIRL
12

tribute land from the landlords of various agricultural products to 

their tenants. 

The strength of land rights has an impact on human rights as 

well as rule of law issues, but it also has a significant impact on 

a country’s commercial climate and overall economic prospects. As 

Chairman Royce indicated earlier, Hernando de Soto, a Peruvian 

economist known for his work on land rights reform and the informal economy, found that a nation cannot have a strong market 

economy without strong property rights. Many small entrepreneurs 

lack secure legal ownership of their property under a functional 

legal framework and therefore lack access to functioning financial 

markets, so they may be unable to obtain credit, sell or expand 

their business. Without the ability to monetize or collateralize their 

biggest asset, the growth potential of small-holders and entrepreneurs may be limited, and they cannot seek legal remedies to 

land conflicts in court. 

In an effort to provide accurate information to U.S. businesses 

interested in investing abroad, the State Department prepares annual, country-specific Investment Climate Statements, while the 

Department of Commerce writes Country Commercial Guides. 

These reports include a detailed discussion of the quality of a country’s legal and institutional frameworks for protecting property 

rights, including the transparency of their regulatory system, the 

legal basis for land ownership, dispute settlement mechanisms, and 

corruption. These act as a prod to these governments to do better. 

In addition to State and USAID advocacy programs and reports, 

the U.S. Millennium Challenge Corporation also considers the rule 

of law and property rights in its initial selection of partner countries. Where these issues later prove to be binding constraints to 

economic growth after a country is selected, MCC may support 

projects that address them. Currently, MCC has a partnership 

agreement known as a ‘‘compact’’ with Indonesia, will complete a 

compact with the Philippines in May 2016, and is developing a second compact with the Philippines. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify on the 

status of land rights and land tenure in Southeast Asia and on the 

various programs the State Department supports to pursue greater 

justice on these issues. I look forward to answering any additional 

questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carouso follows:]

13


95991b-1.eps
14


95991b-2.eps
15


95991b-3.eps
16


95991b-4.eps
17


95991b-5.eps
18

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. 

Mr. Stivers? 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JONATHAN STIVERS, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU FOR ASIA, U.S. AGENCY 

FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. STIVERS. Chairman Salmon, Ranking Member Sherman, 

Chairman Royce, and distinguished Members of Congress, thank 

you for the invitation to testify on the role of USAID in advancing 

secure property rights, which are fundamental to development not 

only in Southeast Asia but globally. It is an honor to be here today 

before the committee at Cal Poly Pomona, and it is also a pleasure 

to be here with my State Department colleague, James Carouso. 

Land rights are not only an economic issue but a human rights 

issue. In countries around the world, the absence of secure property 

rights protected by an effective rule of law is a major constraint to 

poverty alleviation and security. In Southeast Asia, we know from 

our decades of work and public surveys that property rights are either at the top or among the top concerns of the people of this region. 

Chairman Royce, in particular you have been a champion of this 

issue, challenging us at USAID to provide more effective assistance 

to those fighting for property rights. Thank you for your leadership. 

Strengthening land rights is central to USAID’s mission of ending extreme poverty and promoting resilient, democratic societies. 

Our activities are making a difference in the lives of many who 

have suffered injustices and are paving the way for generations yet 

to come. 

When property rights are unclear, households are less likely to 

make long-term investments in their land, investments that can 

promote economic growth and prosperity and lift people out of poverty. 

When there is unfair confiscation of land for large-scale commercial operations, it often results in damaging the environment, 

which further destabilizes rural communities. 

When women do not have the right to own or access land, their 

families and communities suffer, because women with secure rights 

to land and resources tend to better invest in their children’s nutrition and education and the future of their countries. 

When accessible and effective mechanisms for resolving land disputes are absent, conflict can erupt that undermines peace and stability. We know that some of the oldest, most complicated conflicts 

in Southeast Asia are rooted in disputes over land. 

For the purposes of the hearing today, I will provide brief 

overviews of the land tenure challenges and our initiatives in the 

Philippines and Cambodia. But, of course, I am open to answering 

questions about other countries in the region. 

In the Philippines, the U.S. Government’s Partnership for 

Growth has supported collaboration with the Government of the 

Philippines to address the country’s most serious constraints to inclusive and lasting growth. Protecting land rights is absolutely key 

to that effort. 

The results of a recent USAID assessment of key constraints to 

secure property rights identified the challenges of overlapping manVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:54 Oct 20, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AP\082115\95991 SHIRL
19

dates and lack of coordination between government institutions 

working on land issues; a low percentage of land parcels that are 

formally registered, estimated at only 50 percent due to the high 

cost and lengthy property registration processes; and delay and the 

high cost of court cases has caused a large backlog of all types. For 

example, 90 percent of the cases, of which 17 percent were land 

disputes, handled by the Supreme Court in 2012 took more than 

20 years to make their way through the system. 

In response to these challenges, USAID has been leading the 

way. Some of our current projects in the Philippines include, first, 

the JUSTICE Project, and this provides technical assistance to help 

improve the efficiency and predictability of the adjudication of 

court cases. In the largest court district in the country, which handles an estimated 15 percent of all court cases in the country, the 

median processing time has been reduced by between 60 and 78 

percent in the last few years. 

We have introduced automated case management, which wasn’t 

there before, docket decongestion and streamlined litigation procedures. 

What remains to be done is to scale up these interventions out 

of just this one district in order to have a broader impact on delay 

and congestion. We are now in the process of expanding this project 

to eight additional urban areas and hope to expand it even more 

in future years. 

Second, we have the COMPETE Project, which promotes economic growth in a variety of ways, including providing technical assistance for government agencies to enhance land tenure and access rights. Through this project, we supported the implementation 

of the Residential Free Patent Act, which was passed by the Philippine Government, which streamlines the process for obtaining 

residential land titles outside the lengthy court process, and it also 

helps facilitate the process of using these titles as collateral to obtain loans. Our support has helped establish a public land titling 

program that during its first year increased the number of residential titles issued from 5,000 to 65,000 per year. 

Third, through our Rebuild Project, we have helped restore approximately 250,000 land ownership records damaged or destroyed 

by Typhoon Haiyan. 

And last, moving forward, I am pleased to formally and officially 

announce the launch of our new SURGE Project, which stands for 

Strengthening Urban Resilience for Growth and Equity, that will 

promote land rights in the Philippines. This project has been in the 

design phase, but today we are obligating $10.6 million in the first 

year of a 5-year, $48 million program subject to the availability of 

funds in future years. This includes helping targeted cities at the 

local level, as Chairman Royce emphasized, with land use planning 

and zoning, improving land management information in coordination at the local level, and strengthening the capacity of land management offices to secure land and access rights. 

This committee’s counsel, and particularly the leadership of 

Chairman Royce, has been integral in shaping the activities under 

the SURGE Project. I am proud of the work that we have done together with this committee, former Administrator of USAID Rod 

Shaw, who was here in January to speak about this issue, the Asia 

20

Bureau in Washington, and our mission in the Philippines. I think 

this is an excellent example of how the constituents and the community can forward issues to Members of Congress who take a 

leadership role in the issue, work with the administration to 

produce real outcomes to try to improve a system that needs a lot 

of improvement. 

I look forward to further engaging with this committee as we get 

SURGE off the ground in the coming months. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you, Mr. Stivers. 

Oh, I am sorry. 

Mr. STIVERS. In Cambodia, the state retains broad powers to acquire land, including for large infrastructure and private forestry 

and agriculture, which undermines individual property rights and 

attracts irresponsible investment. Property rights in Cambodia are 

further complicated by a weak rule of law, which enables existing 

legislation to be circumvented, particularly in cases that involve 

rich and influential individuals or companies, which leads to conflict and forced displacement in Cambodia. 

USAID is focusing on empowering the reformers in Cambodia 

through support for civil society and support for indigenous peoples 

involved in land disputes. Some examples include an organization 

which we provide funding for whose advocacy resulted in the government returning land to 747 families just a few months ago. The 

Prey Lang Community Network, which is a group of indigenous 

communities advocating for the protection of the largest remaining 

lowland evergreen forest in Southeast Asia, we provided support to 

secure communal land titles and helped them earn income from a 

variety of non-timber forest products. We helped improve forest 

monitoring through extensive mapping, data collection and community patrolling, and this effort has improved monitoring and reporting of land rights violations and environmental degradation. 

And for the first time in Cambodia’s history, the government now 

formally recognizes the rights of indigenous communities through 

the issuance of communal land titles, an historic benchmark that 

USAID supported. We also supported a local NGO Open Institute 

in the development of a cell phone application that gives one minority group first-time access to nearly 70 articles of Cambodian 

land law in their native unwritten language which helps them better understand their legal rights relating to land ownership. 

Mr. Chairman, at USAID, advancing secure land rights is at the 

core of our mission and a key part of our work across sectors. Secure land rights protected by an effective rule of law are necessary 

for both democratic governance and inclusive economic growth that 

helps lift the world’s most vulnerable people out of poverty and engender more resilient societies. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward to your counsel and questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stivers follows:]

21


95991a-1.eps
22


95991a-2.eps
23


95991a-3.eps
24


95991a-4.eps
25


95991a-5.eps
26


95991a-6.eps
27


95991a-7.eps
28


95991a-8.eps
29

Mr. SALMON. Thanks, Mr. Stivers. 

I am going to start out with a question that would be directed 

to both of you, and then I will yield to the chairman. 

For many Southeast Asian countries, foreign investment from 

large corporations furthers economic growth. However, some of the 

region’s rural farmers have had their land taken away by these 

large agribusinesses, developers and others. In Cambodia alone, 

over 400,000 rural people have been displaced by acquisition of 

land by these large corporations. 

How can these countries effectively balance the desire for increased and continued economic development and that kind of prosperity with the need to protect the rights and the livelihoods of the 

poorest citizens? 

We will start with you, Mr. Stivers. 

Mr. STIVERS. Well, I think that in terms of that question, the 

issue of land rights is central to that in terms of helping farmers. 

We know the constraints to farmers in terms of being more productive and accessing their lands. Access to credit, prohibition of land 

sales, especially in the Philippines, are issues that need to be addressed in order to realize the full potential of our reform programs. Connecting rural areas to urban areas is a key part of our 

SURGE Program, for example. But if you don’t have respect for 

land rights, it is hard for farmers to realize their full economic potential in a country. 

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Carouso, do you want to take a stab at that? 

Mr. CAROUSO. Fair, adequate, and timely compensation for any 

taking of land under eminent domain is part of every modern society. Clearly the question is, are those characteristics met? Is the 

land taken for the public good, and do those who are affected have 

access to a judicial system that will fairly consider whether they 

are being compensated fairly and in a timely manner so that they 

can go on with their lives? 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield to you. 

Mr. ROYCE. Chairman Salmon, let me yield to Brad Sherman, if 

he would like to go at this time. 

Mr. SHERMAN. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program 

was enacted in the Philippines in 1988. It had the declared objective of redistributing public and private agricultural lands to farmers and farmworkers who are landless and have perhaps an equitable title of ownership, and it was designed to empower agrarian 

reform. 

Is the CARP legislation still substantially in place today? How is 

the land distributed in the Philippines among the government, private landowners, tenant farmers, small landowners? How does the 

government decide which lands are public and which are private? 

Mr. STIVERS. In terms of overall, I think the World Bank estimates that about 50 percent of the land in the Philippines is for 

private use. I’m sorry, 47 percent for private use and about 50 percent for public use. But 50 percent of that——

Mr. SHERMAN. So the government owns half the land? 

Mr. STIVERS. For public use, yes. I should say 47 percent is private. Now, the problem with that statistic is that 50 percent of 

30

land parcels are registered, so it is hard to know the specifics of 

those kinds of statistics. But that is from the World Bank. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I interrupted you and asked a multi-part question. 

Mr. STIVERS. In terms of cultural programming in the Philippines, USAID doesn’t have actual agricultural programs in the 

Philippines outside of some work that we do. But certainly the lack 

of land rights poses challenges to farmers there, as I mentioned in 

response to Chairman Salmon’s question. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Carouso, are there particular large international companies that are benefitting in the Philippines from 

land seizure? And perhaps you could address Cambodia as well. 

Mr. CAROUSO. I am not aware of any particular large foreign entities in the Philippines taking advantage. It is mainly a Philippines issue. There is a large, powerful Philippine group that 

seems to control much of the economy. Part of the problem is that 

there are so many laws and regulations at the Federal and local 

and provincial level that people have a hard time understanding 

the law and who has jurisdiction. One of the things that AID’s programs are trying to do is help streamline and make sensible all 

these laws. 

In Cambodia, my understanding is it is mainly Chinese and Vietnamese entities that are buying up these large parcels for basically 

corporate-style farming. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Do they then employ the people who had traditionally worked the land as farmworkers, or where do they get 

their labor? 

Mr. CAROUSO. I don’t know the answer to that, but typically Chinese like to employ Chinese. But I don’t know if that is——

Mr. SHERMAN. Does the Cambodian Government allow Chinese 

farmworkers to work for these companies, or we don’t know? 

Mr. CAROUSO. I will have to get the answer for you, sir. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Stivers, I don’t know if you have a comment 

about that. 

Mr. STIVERS. No, I don’t know how to answer that question. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Stivers, what can USAID do to help modernize land title registration in the Philippines? 

Mr. STIVERS. Well, I think the first thing we can do as we move 

forward with this new SURGE Program, which I think is absolutely essential in terms of working with local communities, local 

governments in terms of making the system more efficient, our approach really has been a holistic approach which is focused on the 

judiciary and the administrative issues in terms of land titling, focusing on constraints to economic growth more generally, and then 

resilience to natural disasters. I think between that approach, in 

addition to tackling corruption, of course, which is a major issue, 

is the way to move forward. 

In terms of the courts, it is making the court system more efficient. It is challenging, but the court system is the way to resolve 

land disputes, and that is the appropriate way, and we need to 

help the Philippines make that system work better, and that is 

what we are doing with our JUSTICE Act. 

Administratively, trying to make sure that the government and 

the local governments have the capacity to respond to land disputes, issue land titles so that people can have their land regVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:54 Oct 20, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AP\082115\95991 SHIRL
31

istered appropriately. It is a lot of technical assistance, which is 

what USAID is best at in terms of how to, how do we do this, and 

I think that is where we have a comparative advantage over other 

countries especially and we can make a difference. 

Funding is always a consideration in terms of how much we can 

provide. We can work in one court system, but as the people in this 

room know full well, the challenge is so great and we have so much 

that we can do, but the best we can do is take our small projects 

and try to expand them the best we can. 

Mr. SHERMAN. The Philippines, and even more so Cambodia, are 

relatively poor countries in Southeast Asia. Are there other countries in Southeast Asia with similar economics that are doing a better job? And if so, why are they able to do a better job of making 

the rule of law apply to real estate? Are the kinds of problems we 

have talked about here observed in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, 

or is this a region-wide problem with developing countries? We 

have the two examples we focused on here today. Are they far more 

egregious? 

Mr. STIVERS. I would say that in terms of—there is a great need 

in Southeast Asia on this issue, a great need in all the countries 

that USAID works in in Southeast Asia—Timor-Leste, Indonesia. 

Burma surely has huge land rights issues and land-grabbing 

issues. 

We have focused on the countries where we believe we can make 

the most difference, the Philippines number one. But I think there 

is a great need to try to expand to other countries because this is 

almost the number-one concern over all other issues in many countries, and we see that from public surveys. So we would like to do 

more, yes, in other countries. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. SALMON. The Chair will recognize Chairman Royce. 

Mr. ROYCE. I think one of the reasons it is the number-one concern is the testimony that I think, James, you mentioned, 

Hernando de Soto’s work. He did a lot of work in the Philippines, 

and part of that was to try to determine how we could get those 

building blocks down so that people could borrow against property 

and create economic growth and how you would really have the 

fundamentals necessary. His work is still a best seller. ‘‘The Mystery of Capital’’ is the name of it, especially for students here. ‘‘The 

Mystery of Capital, Why It Succeeds in the West and Fails Everywhere Else.’’ It is a book on economics by the individual who 

helped do land reform in the Philippines, by this economist 

Hernando de Soto. 

When we look at the situation after Tacloban, and our committee 

was there on Tacloban, we asked questions at the time about what 

could be done to ensure that individuals did not lose their land 

after the consequences of being displaced. I recently saw a story in 

the Philippines Enquirer that indicated that on the neighboring island of Sicogon there were 6,000 families who were prevented from 

returning to their homes by a company that claimed that it owned 

the underlying rights. It was a developer. The developer says, well, 

I own the underlying rights to the land on which the families lived. 

And, as they say in the press, these reports may be the first signs 

32

of the onslaught of an age-old problem fundamental to many conflicts in disaster- and poverty-stricken areas—access to land. 

So if we could follow up on that case, I will be in contact with 

you. 

Second, I understand USAID conducted an assessment in the 

Antipolo region in the Philippines and identified numerous challenges in the land tenure and titling system there. What were 

those challenges, quickly, if you could explain them, and I will ask 

USAID this question, Jonathan. How can they be addressed? And 

what, if anything, can USAID continue to do to help address these 

problems? 

Mr. STIVERS. Well, thank you. It was about 1 year ago, actually 

today, that we sent a scoping mission out to the Antipolo region to 

look at the cases there and see if they were reflective of the broader challenges to get a better sense of the challenges faced in that 

region and how to make our assistance more effective in terms of 

tackling these issues. 

The findings revealed that there is unresolved rival property 

claims, growing private real estate investment in that area, and institutional gaps in land administration at the local level. Some of 

the challenges I mentioned in my testimony. Overall, it is reflective 

of what is going on in the country, frankly. 

Overall, overlapping mandates and lack of coordination between 

government institutions; the fact that only 50 percent of land parcels in the country are registered; and delay and the high cost of 

court cases. I think USAID is taking the right approach in terms 

of trying to address this issue as holistically as possible in terms 

of trying to make the courts more efficient, trying to promote economic growth and government administration, and dealing with 

the issues that you mentioned in relation to displacement from Typhoon Haiyan. 

Thank you for providing the leadership in order to give USAID 

the space to move forward on these issues in a very difficult budget 

environment that we have. 

Mr. ROYCE. One of the other things that struck me when I was 

out there is that local security forces, private security forces seemingly, have a role or have taken a role through use of force in asserting claims by developers. I wondered, have these security forces 

been held accountable for such acts? And how often, in what circumstances, and at what level are these cases being raised by the 

U.S. Embassy in Manila? I have raised the issue on three occasions, but I just wondered in terms of the Embassy itself, do you 

have a dialogue going on? Maybe James could speak to that issue. 

Mr. CAROUSO. Sure. Mr. Chairman, following your visit, Ambassador Goldberg called on the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the Secretary of Justice, and key folks at the Presidential Palace, all the 

way to the top, pointing out that this is an indication of a severe 

lack of rule of law, that private security forces could act with such 

impunity. 

The interesting change over time is it is no longer the official security, the official police and military. It is the privatized. But the 

problem is, then, how does someone seek justice to push back? That 

is the missing gap that the new program should fix. 

33

Mr. ROYCE. My time is almost up, but I would ask one other 

question along this line. How is it possible, taking Hernando de 

Soto’s theory, that the reason we have created such incredible opportunity here in the United States is because of our ability, something we don’t really understand, our ability under land title to 

borrow against that property? Therefore, any of us can basically 

start a business. Is it possible with the situation as it is in parts 

of the Philippines, where people do not have access to clear title, 

is it possible for them to go out and borrow against that home or 

that farm in order to raise the capital to have collateral, to have 

that access to the capital that they are going to use to develop 

something or to build on the land? What is that circumstance like 

in these areas where this is still a gray area? 

Mr. CAROUSO. I would suggest that having the land title is absolutely essential to that, and the fact that people don’t have land 

title and there are competing claims is a barrier to getting credit. 

Mr. ROYCE. Therefore to economic growth, to development. 

Mr. CAROUSO. Right. 

Mr. ROYCE. To opportunity for the next generation. That is why 

it is so important. 

But I have exceeded my time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. 

Dr. Chu? 

Ms. CHU. Mr. Carouso, in 2013 the World Bank ranked the Philippines 108th out of 189 countries in the world for ease of doing 

business. Now, the good news is that they improved 30 places since 

2012. The bad news is that they are 108th, and that reflects the 

country’s continuing problem with poor revenue collection, inadequate spending on social services and infrastructure, government 

corruption and instability. 

What kind of return on our investment are we seeing in the Philippines, and what is the administration’s view of this stance, the 

world standing by the World Bank? Is there any progress really 

going on with the Aquino government? 

Mr. CAROUSO. Congresswoman, this is an issue that we point out 

to our Philippine colleagues constantly, that if they want to continue the very impressive economic growth they have achieved over 

the past few years, they have got to do better, and they acknowledge that. The fact that they have improved 30 places is quite significant, and we attribute that to the fact that the Philippine people elected President Aquino on the basis of he was a reformer, he 

was going to fight corruption, he was going to fight the big landowners, but it is a tough job. What the United States Government 

has been trying to do is support him in that effort, help him as 

much as we possibly can, while recognizing that it is, obviously, up 

to the Philippine people to do that. 

To be blunt, the fight we have to some degree on improving the 

ease of doing business is that there is a sense of nationalism, that 

if foreigners invest, that means somehow Filipinos, even poor Filipinos, don’t have those opportunities. So we are trying hard to explain that foreign direct investment is an economic driver that lifts 

all the boats, not taking away any benefits from domestic entities. 

Mr. STIVERS. And if I could just answer also, the umbrella of all 

of our work in the Philippines is under something we call the PartVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:54 Oct 20, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AP\082115\95991 SHIRL
34

nership for Growth. In 2011 we entered this agreement with the 

Philippines Government to address the binding constraints to economic growth and development. It is only in four countries that we 

have this worldwide, and it is those key countries that we hope to 

be the next generation of the emerging markets where we can kind 

of tackle the governance issues, plus the economic growth competitiveness issues and combine them together under a plan and a rubric. 

Since that time we have seen real GDP growth average almost 

7 percent since that agreement. As you mentioned, the world competitiveness rankings have increased, although not high enough, of 

course. But the world’s leading credit agencies have upgraded Philippines sovereign credit ratings. 

There has been a lot of success. Land rights, of course, is key to 

making this work. But in terms of a strong ally in the region, in 

terms of the Philippines, trying to help the Philippine Government 

have a better rule of law, a stronger rule of law to improve their 

competitiveness and economic growth is kind of under the umbrella 

of Partnership for Growth, and we have seen some success, not 

enough. We have to do a lot more to help them. 

Ms. CHU. In fact, Mr. Stivers, it was 37 years ago that the Philippines senate passed a comprehensive agrarian reform plan. But 

since then, you, the USAID, has reported that the majority of the 

world population remains landless and there is confusion over land 

titles, leading to a continuing problem with land grabbing, and 

much of this has to do with the outdated and contradictory laws 

and the powerful who are taking over these lands. 

So, we know that there are more than just resources. There are 

legal problems that are getting in the way of getting land to the 

world’s poor. Which of your programs would most accelerate the 

process, since it has been 37 years since they passed it, with not 

much progress? 

Mr. STIVERS. Well, I would suggest our COMPETE Program that 

I mentioned in my testimony. But I think in terms of moving forward, the SURGE Program that I mentioned, which we are launching now, is going to have a real focus on the population centers outside of the Manila metro area which have not experienced the same 

economic growth as the Manila area. So focusing on those issues, 

connecting some of the rural to urban areas, and working on the 

land titling and land rights issues are key to that. That is what we 

think will make some progress moving forward. 

Ms. CHU. And lastly, let me ask about Cambodia, Mr. Stivers. 

Last month, about 200 Cambodian villagers protested outside the 

Cambodian Parliament building demanding a resolution to their 

land dispute cases. According to the reports, lawmakers responded 

that the National Assembly is not the court, so they cannot decide 

who are the winners and losers. 

While we want to maintain the independence of the courts, are 

there legislative solutions that can be put forward to make the judicial system more favorable to vulnerable populations? And what 

do you think about the feasibility of the UNHRC’s proposal of an 

independent body to resolve these disputes? 

Mr. STIVERS. The rule of law and human rights are the major 

focus of our policy in Cambodia and a serious, serious concern. We 

35

believe that it is less an issue of the law, what the law says, because the laws are actually not bad in terms of how they are written, but in the implementation and practice of those laws. So that 

is where we are focused in terms of trying to empower the reformers and a lot of these civil society organizations who are pushing 

for real change in terms of their individual land disputes, their 

group land disputes, and they have had a strengthened voice over 

the years. 

So we believe that is the right way to focus our assistance in 

Cambodia. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. 

Mr. Rohrabacher? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. 

Just a few details here on some specific points that have been 

made. 

There are many problems in Vietnam, for example, where we 

don’t have political freedom, and economic freedom is basically 

based on cronyism with the ruling elite, with the ruling political 

elite, and you have now an economic elite. 

There is no foreign aid to Vietnam, is there? 

Mr. STIVERS. We provide foreign assistance to the people of Vietnam in a number of sectors. We do not provide any assistance to 

the government. We do health work in Vietnam, yes, and some 

other sectors. In terms of rule of law and things of that sort, yes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Do we have an aid? How much money are we 

spending in Vietnam? 

Mr. STIVERS. The USAID, in Fiscal Year 2014, it was $95 million, total, of which half of it was health and fighting infectious diseases. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Health and infectious disease. 

Mr. STIVERS. Yes, PEPFAR——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So they are repressing their people, and they 

are using their own money for instruments of repression, and we 

are using our money to aid them, to make sure their people are 

taken care of with infectious diseases. Actually, they have plenty 

of money to take care of their people with infectious diseases. It is 

just that they don’t spend it on that. They spend it on repression 

and other types of repression like having a huge police force and 

military force to make sure that the thumb is down on their people. 

What about Cambodia? How much do we give in foreign aid to 

Cambodia? 

Mr. STIVERS. We provided, in Fiscal Year 2014, $66 million, of 

which about half of that was in the health sector also. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. 

Mr. STIVERS. And about $20 million of that was in democracy 

and government, empowering the reformers, those sorts of issues. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. I understand the last point, and I 

think it is important for us to understand that when we do invest 

in countries by helping people and NGOs, et cetera, that are demanding human rights, that that does edge that country in the 

right direction. 

When we start taking over the actual obligations of the dictatorship to take care of its people, like in responding to infectious disVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:54 Oct 20, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AP\082115\95991 SHIRL
36

eases, I think we are actually bolstering the dictatorship itself. I 

know that we would like to be able to be the benefactor to everyone 

around the world who lives in a dictatorship, but I don’t think that 

is right, and I don’t think it will lead us to more of a democratic 

society. 

We have two types of government that we are talking about. In 

the Philippines you have a democratic society. In the Philippines 

you have a democratic government, but it is not in the area of respecting the rights of its ordinary citizens in terms of their property rights. They fall far short of what we consider to be the standard. 

Helping governments like the Philippines is not something that 

I find objectionable, but I do find it objectionable that we are providing any type of assistance that would take away the burden of 

that government to their own people of dictatorships like Cambodia. Hun Sen has only been there, I guess, about 30 years now. 

Let me just note that also and for the record, we are not going 

to forget Sovannara Meach. An American citizen now is imprisoned 

in Cambodia by this vicious dictator. We will not forget him, and 

I would hope that our Embassy and also our people who are involved with aid and trying to develop trade relationships with 

these countries will not forget, especially when an American citizen 

is put in jail, much less their own citizens, which we should care 

about. But when they have one of our own and we move forward 

with ordinary relations, it is unconscionable. 

So I would hope that—I like what I have heard so far. You are 

paying attention to this issue. Actually, you have some very fine 

ideas that we are about to implement. We are going to watch very 

closely. 

Again, I want to thank Mr. Royce for his leadership, and Mr. 

Salmon for his leadership, and we will be watching. So, thank you 

very much. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. 

Thank you to the distinguished panel. We would like to allow you 

to go ahead and excuse yourselves from the dais. We would like to 

seat the second panel and move forward as quickly as we possibly 

can. Thank you. 

Mr. CAROUSO. Thank you. 

Mr. STIVERS. Thank you. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. 

[Pause.] 

Mr. SALMON. All right. We are fortunate this morning to also 

hear from a second panel of witnesses with personal knowledge of 

property rights in the region. 

First, Ms. Faith Bautista is the president and CEO of the National Asian American Coalition. Welcome here today. 

Mr. Joey Quinto is the publisher of the California Journal for Filipino Americans. Thank you, Joey. Glad to have you here today. 

Mr. Zosimo—did I say that right?—Zosimo Contreras joins us as 

the current litigant in a property dispute in the Philippines. 

And Mr. Richard Rogers is a law partner at Global Diligence 

LLP and represents Cambodian land-grabbing victims before the 

International Criminal Court. 

37

We thank the panel for joining us this afternoon, and we will 

start with you, Ms. Bautista. 

STATEMENT OF MS. FAITH BAUTISTA, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL ASIAN AMERICAN COALITION 

Ms. BAUTISTA. Thank you, and thank you so much for doing this. 

As far as I am concerned, you have a lifetime supply of lumpian 

and pancet for doing this for the Filipino community. So, thank 

you. 

I am the CEO and president of one of the largest pan-Asian 

American advocacy organizations in the U.S. We are also the most 

prominent Asian American proponent of home ownership in America and work closely with thousands of generally small and medium-sized Asian American businesses such as the Island Pacific 

Supermarkets. 

I am here to represent the Belisario family and the Belisarios of 

the world that reside in the U.S. There are thousands of these families who are U.S. citizens and are, in effect, subsidizing the Philippine Government and its corrupt officials and cronies who continue to misappropriate property titles from Philippine American 

citizens. I wish to give a personal example and also wish to disclose 

that I am a domestic partner of one of the victims. The example 

I wish to describe is the Belisario family who now resides as citizens in the U.S., including my boyfriend. 

Here is the tale that could happen only in a foreign nation where 

corruption is considered the usual law of the land. Forty-four properties of the Belisario family were illegally seized by the Philippine 

Government or those acting as its agent. For example, titles were 

transferred from the legitimate owners to non-legitimate owners, 

often without any documentation. 

The Belisario family’s mother and father died in the Philippines, 

and their six sons and daughters moved to the U.S. more than 30 

years ago. These five children—I am sorry, one is still in the Philippines. These five children have spent at least 2 years each in the 

Philippines unsuccessfully seeking to regain their illegally seized 

land and properties. 

I have a complete list of these properties and the records that 

demonstrate that they own the property and that the properties 

were illegally seized. I am providing it to the committee today. 

Some of the property was illegally seized through illegal use of eminent domain powers. There is even evidence that the Philippine 

Government admits to some of the illegal seizures and the millions 

of dollars—hundreds of millions of pesos—due the Belisario family. 

For example, a bank in the Philippines has some of the documents 

but will not release the documents. This is apparently due to orders of the Philippine Government or those who contend that they 

are acting under the authority of the Philippine Government. 

I am unclear that the estimated $20 million to $30 million due 

the Belisario family will ever be repaid, and I am unsure how the 

U.S. Government can ever make the Philippine Government compensate families such as the Belisarios. However, I have the following recommendations which could benefit many thousands of 

Filipino American families in the U.S. 

38

First, every Filipino American who believes their property was illegally seized at any time since the Philippines became independent in 1946 should be able to provide a simple form to the Secretary of the Treasury, Jacob Lew, or the USAID, documenting 

their grievance and setting forth the amount due to them. 

Second, the Secretary of the Treasury or the USAID shall be 

granted the authority to request directly from the President of the 

Philippines that the Philippine Government promptly and comprehensively respond to each complaint filed by an American citizen. 

Third, from funding from the billions of dollars each year that 

the U.S. provides to the Philippines in various subsidies, the Philippine Government shall jointly, with the Secretary of the Treasury 

and leading Filipino American community organizations, appoint 

an independent auditor or special monitor to examine each claim 

and provide prompt reports with a specific resolution. This is a 

method the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury is very familiar with. 

That is, Treasury frequently uses special monitors to examine 

records of major banks as they relate, for example, to improper 

foreclosures. 

Since I have personally worked and met with the Secretary of 

the Treasury, the chair of the Federal Reserve, and the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency, I would be happy to offer further suggestions to this committee and to appropriate Federal Government officials. I am also prepared, at my own personal expense, to assist 

any independent special monitor in developing effective auditing 

mechanisms. I estimate that this could result in billions of dollars, 

or hundreds of billions of pesos, being returned to hard-working 

Filipino American citizens. 

And I just want to let all of you guys know, we have an office 

in Washington, DC, and I really appreciate Congressman Chu, 

Chairman Salmon, Chairman Royce, and all of you, that you really 

do care for the Southeast Asian. We are great citizens in this country, and thank you again for your help. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bautista follows:]

39


95991e-1.eps
40


95991e-2.eps
41

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. 

Mr. Quinto? 

STATEMENT OF MR. JOEY QUINTO, PUBLISHER, CALIFORNIA 

JOURNAL FOR FILIPINO AMERICANS 

Mr. QUINTO. Good morning, Chairman Salmon, Chairman Royce, 

Ranking Member Sherman, Congressman Rohrabacher, Congresswoman Chu. I am Joey Quinto, publisher of California Journal for 

Filipino Americans. 

I am here today because I am a land-grabbing victim, in particular a victim of land-locking by a well-connected and powerful 

military general in the Philippines. 

My family has two properties in Antipolo, Philippines. But a retired military general has been blocking the access road for many 

years now, so we and the more than 700 land parcel owners could 

not enter our properties. 

The general, who has a two-story house, gates and fences with 

security personnel blocking the access roads, does not own land in 

Antipolo as per the Assessor, and does not have a building permit 

as per the Antipolo City Hall. 

The general is a chairman of a savings and loan. The Central 

Bank is the regulator. Under Republic Act 8791, it states that all 

directors of a supervised institution should possess honesty and integrity. I requested the Philippine Central Bank to open an inquiry, but they declined my request. 

I also have given the documents to some government agencies, 

but none of the agencies have done any action to stop the general 

from blocking the access road. This is lack of government accountability, no rule of law, and no respect of property rights. 

The Department of Environment and Natural Resources tried to 

do their inspection to our properties, but they were stopped by the 

security personnel of the general. 

In another circumstance, the mayor stated in a letter to the ombudsman that the City Hall’s personnel, together with the Philippine National Police and the SWAT team, tried to enter but they 

were stopped by the security personnel of the military general. 

Clearly, this general has the power to stop the Philippine laws 

from being enforced. He is either above the law or simply being tolerated by the Philippine Government. 

The Philippine Republic Act 6713 requires all public officials and 

employees to respond within 15 days to any communications sent 

by the public. Disappointingly, numerous government agencies 

have been disregarding Republic Act 6713. In fact, I have been requesting the police chief for a copy of the letter the general has 

given him addressed to the Philippine Central Bank. But for more 

than 130 days now, the said letter has not been given to me. 

The Department of Interior of the Local Government, the DILG, 

is a national government agency that has direct jurisdiction to the 

police and local government. I requested the DILG to call on the 

police chief to give me a copy of the letter from the general, but 

they were helpless. Even the mayor, who finally issued a violation 

of illegal structures to the general, has not acted completely 

against him. It has been more than 15 days now that I have reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:54 Oct 20, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AP\082115\95991 SHIRL
42

quested a condemnation letter and removal of the illegal structures 

of the general, but I have not received any reply. 

I also requested the DILG to call on the mayor to execute the notice of removal of illegal structures, but they have not exercised 

their jurisdiction to the mayor. 

The culture of delay and no response could be considered a violation of Republic Act 6713. The general is just one of the many abusive individuals in the Philippines. 

Let me now cite some victims who are suffering because of land 

grabbers. 

Mr. Pablo left the Philippines because the land grabbers wanted 

to kill him. This is with a police report. 

Mr. Cabrillos has been trapped in a corrupt court system. It has 

been 15 years of no progress on his fight for his land. 

Mrs. Bolozzos stated that the land grabber burned her house 

with the intention of killing her. 

And a family in Cebu did not get any protection and help from 

the police against a military officer who built fences around their 

property. 

The Philippine Government should follow the guidelines of the 

U.S. grants that come from American taxpayers. 

With the help of the U.S., I hope that the rule of law, property 

rights, transparency, good governance, and government accountability could be enforced in the Philippines so land grabbing could 

be resolved. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Quinto follows:]

43


95991c-1.eps
44


95991c-2.eps
45


95991c-3.eps
46


95991c-4.eps
47


95991c-5.eps
48


95991c-6.eps
49


95991c-7.eps
50


95991c-8.eps
51


95991c-9.eps
52


95991c-10.eps
53


95991c-11.eps
54


95991c-12.eps
55


95991c-13.eps
56


95991c-14.eps
57


95991c-15.eps
58


95991c-16.eps
59


95991c-17.eps
60


95991c-18.eps
61


95991c-19.eps
62


95991c-20.eps
63


95991c-21.eps
64


95991c-22.eps
65


95991c-23.eps
66


95991c-24.eps
67


95991c-25.eps
68


95991c-26.eps
69


95991c-27.eps
70


95991c-28.eps
71


95991c-29.eps
72


95991c-30.eps
73


95991c-31.eps
74


95991c-32.eps
75


95991c-33.eps
76

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. 

Mr. Contreras? 

STATEMENT OF MR. ZOSIMO LAUREL CONTRERAS (LITIGANT 

IN PHILIPPINES PROPERTY DISPUTE) 

Mr. CONTRERAS. Greetings, U.S. Congressman Ed Royce, U.S. 

Congressman Matt Salmon, and members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 

My name is Zosimo Laurel Contreras. I am here today to represent my family and to express my great disappointment and 

heartache about our land in the city of Tagatay, Philippines. The 

land I am referring to was inherited by my mother, Adelina Laurel, 

from her father, my grandfather, Conrado Laurel. 

To give you a little background on my family, my grand-uncle, 

Jose P. Laurel, was the President of the Philippines; and his son, 

who served as Vice President of the Philippines, Salvador Laurel, 

is my second cousin. 

This inherited land is very, very important to us, as it would be 

for any family. 

Early last year in January 2014, I went to the Philippines to 

visit our property with my cousins. I was shocked when I saw 

fences, block walls, and pineapple plantations on our land. Despite 

our 2001 court order for the land grabbers to vacate, they continue 

to occupy the land. While I was taking pictures of our property, 

someone came over to me and harassed and intimidated me, asking 

what I was doing and why am I taking pictures. I told them this 

is our property, and they told me the land is theirs. They told me 

that I own the title, but they own the land. They warned me not 

to go there anymore. 

On June 15 of 2014, I visited our land again and saw a big house 

being constructed on the property, and there was no permit. Immediately after, we went to the mayor’s office in Tagatay City to complain about the land grabbers’ activity. The mayor’s office sent a 

letter to the settlers to cease and desist the construction. We also 

sent letters to the land grabbers to vacate the property by July 30 

of 2014, and they told us that we have to have a court order to execute the removal of the land grabbers on our property. At that 

time, we had our court order which gave us authority to remove 

them. They told us we need to leave and threatened us. We were 

outnumbered and intimidated by them as they told us to go home. 

The police, who were with us at the time, just stood there and 

didn’t help. We felt disappointed we didn’t have help from our local 

government authorities. 

On another occasion, my cousin and I went to our land to have 

it surveyed and noticed the land grabbers removed the land markers. She then hired a surveyor to have the markers replaced and 

was harassed and threatened by the land grabbers, who were carrying guns. They told my cousin that she should not continue surveying the land. 

I was also advised by my cousins and brothers in the Philippines 

that I should not go there alone because of the dangerous situation 

that might cause harm on me. The land grabbers had machetes, 

guns, and we are outnumbered by them. 

77

I am here to graciously ask for your assistance to work with the 

Philippine Government and help my family keep our precious land 

which has been inherited through so many generations. We need 

your help. We cannot let the land grabbers control us. We cannot 

continue to feel helpless. Where is the justice? Where is the rule 

of law in our Philippine Government? 

This is a serious situation. We should not be afraid to protect 

and visit our own land. As a responsible landowner, my family and 

I continue to pay all the taxes on the property; however, no one is 

representing us. The police, who were with us, acted helpless and 

scared. Where is the respect for the property owners, and who will 

protect our rights? 

Please, please help us and the rest of the property owners who 

are victims of these land grabbers. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Contreras follows:]

78


95991f-1.eps
79


95991f-2.eps
80

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. 

Mr. Rogers? 

STATEMENT OF MR. RICHARD J. ROGERS, PARTNER, GLOBAL 

DILIGENCE LLP (ATTORNEY REPRESENTING CAMBODIAN 

VICTIMS BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT) 

Mr. ROGERS. Good morning, Chairman Salmon and members of 

the committee. Thank you very much for inviting me here to speak 

about property rights in Cambodia and about the problems of land 

grabbing. 

I would also like to express my appreciation to the Cambodian 

communities who have traveled from far and wide to be here at 

this hearing today to show their support for your important work. 

Mr. Chairman, the current Cambodian regime, which has been 

in power for 30 years, appears to have two very basic but interrelated objectives, and they are the maintenance of power at all 

costs and the self-enrichment of the ruling elite, primarily through 

land grabbing. 

Unfortunately, to achieve these objectives, the ruling elite have 

committed human rights violations on a massive scale, often under 

the guise of development. And of all the human rights concerns 

that plague Cambodia, land grabbing is by far the most prevalent 

and probably the most destructive. 

According to groups monitoring the land crisis, from the year 

2000 to the end of 2013, land grabbing had adversely affected, in 

one way or another, over 770,000. New research suggests that the 

situation is actually getting worse, not better. In 2014, there were 

an additional 50,000 people affected by land conflicts. 

So the total number is now around 830,000, increasing by about 

1,000 people per week, which amounts to a staggering 5.5 percent 

of the entire Cambodian population. 

Mr. Chairman, a significant proportion of these people have already been forcibly evicted, and while we don’t have a precise nationwide figure for this population displacement, it is thought to 

run into the hundreds of thousands. The evictions themselves are 

often violent, with private security firms, police and the army using 

live ammunition, tear gas and bulldozers to drive out villagers who 

protect their homes with sticks and stones. 

Residents have been shot or beaten, entire villages have been 

burned to the ground, and evictees are often sent to live in squalid 

resettlement camps. 

Not surprisingly, the Cambodian Government claims that the 

economic land concessions they award to private businesses bring 

economic benefits to the local communities. But research by the 

U.N. and others suggests that, more often than not, they actually 

have the opposite effect. The way that these development projects 

are implemented leaves ordinary Cambodians with a loss of traditional livelihoods, with a lack of clean water and sanitation, with 

food shortages and malnutrition, and with crushing unemployment. 

In fact, those who profit are a tiny group of ruling elite made up 

of senior members of the ruling party, senior members of state security forces, as well as the government-connected business elite. 

Unfortunately, the Cambodian judicial system is part of the problem and not the solution. There is a decent legal framework to regVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:54 Oct 20, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AP\082115\95991 SHIRL
81

ulate land use in Cambodia, including the economic land concessions. The problem is that the laws are simply ignored both by the 

government and by the judiciary when there is money to be made. 

In fact, the ruling elite have relied heavily on corrupt and biased 

judges to implement the land grabs, intimidate the poor, and crush 

their opponents. 

So no one really expects the Cambodian courts to be fair with the 

massive land grabbing and illegal displacements that have occurred over the last 15 years. 

Mr. Chairman, it is widely accepted that the forced evictions 

were illegal in the sense that they breached Cambodian national 

laws, as well as international human rights conventions. But do 

they also violate international criminal law? 

Well, as the lawyer for a group of Cambodian victims, I was 

asked to advise whether or not the land crimes have become so serious that a case could be brought before the International Criminal Court in the Hague. While land grabbing is not an international crime per se, forcible transfer of populations can be. It can 

be a crime against humanity if it is sufficiently widespread and 

part of a state policy. 

After analyzing thousands of pages of reports and evidence, we 

found that when the mass evictions over the last 15 years are considered together, when they are looked at cumulatively, the situation meets all the legal elements of crimes against humanity. 

So in October 2014, we filed a communication to the prosecutor 

of the ICC asking her to open an investigation, and we are now 

waiting to see if she accepts the case and moves it to the next 

stage. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, in my written submission I outlined 

three recommendations that I thought could help address the problems of land grabbing. First is the adoption of a rule of law accountability act for Cambodia, or even better perhaps is the adoption of the global Magnitsky Act and its application to Cambodia. 

I understand that there is a bill already being considered in the 

House and the Senate. 

Secondly is increased funding and support for Cambodian NGOs 

who monitor the land grabbing. 

And thirdly is the prohibition of U.S. funding or military training 

for Cambodian military units that take part in illegal forced evictions. 

Mr. Chairman, there are few populations around the world who 

have suffered more mass atrocities and are more deserving of justice than the Cambodian people. At the very least, they deserve a 

stable home. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rogers follows:]

82


95991d-1.eps
83


95991d-2.eps
84


95991d-3.eps
85


95991d-4.eps
86


95991d-5.eps
87


95991d-6.eps
88


95991d-7.eps
89


95991d-8.eps
90


95991d-9.eps
91


95991d-10.eps
92


95991d-11.eps
93


95991d-12.eps
94


95991d-13.eps
95


95991d-14.eps
96

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. 

We now go to questions. 

Mr. Rogers, I would just ask one question. I know some of the 

members up here have other obligations, so we will try to move it 

along as quickly as we possibly can. 

Mr. Rogers, you are pressing a case, then, with the Hague. What 

is your expectation, and what do you think the timing is of them 

responding back to you as to whether or not they are going to take 

jurisdiction? And if they decline, do you have other venues that you 

can pursue legally? 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I think we stand a very good chance. One has 

to remember that the ICC has limited resources and many difficult 

issues to deal with, so it simply can’t open every case. But I think 

that this is a particularly strong case. The numbers are incredibly 

high. We are probably talking about 300,000 or 400,000 people affected by a law that is explicitly listed in the ICC statute, and that 

is forcible transfer of population. 

So there is a very compelling argument that they should move 

forward with this case. I also think that the evidence is very 

strong, primarily because the NGOs in Cambodia on the ground 

have been very courageous for many years and have been doing an 

excellent job obtaining very credible evidence. 

So I think there is a good chance that they will move forward, 

at least to the next stage, which is called a preliminary examination. But if they do move to that stage, then the Cambodian ruling 

elite will realize that they are being watched, and if something 

doesn’t change, then the next move will be issuing indictments and 

possibly arrest warrants. So even getting to that next stage will 

make a huge difference to the human rights situation in Cambodia. 

Mr. SALMON. Would it be possible, if it does go to that first 

phase, and if—I mean, I know these are a lot of ‘‘ifs’’ and 

hypotheticals, but is it possible that the Cambodian Government 

could contact you and offer some kind of a settlement to fix the 

issues with these people? 

Mr. ROGERS. It is not the way that this procedural system works. 

It is not a case like a domestic case, where you can withdraw. 

Mr. SALMON. No, I understand that. Oh, okay, so you couldn’t 

withdraw. 

Mr. ROGERS. I cannot withdraw. 

Mr. SALMON. Okay. Once you pursue a criminal action, it is on 

cruise control, basically, then? 

Mr. ROGERS. Absolutely. It is there before the prosecution, and 

it is information for them to act on. So I can’t say you no longer 

have the right to this information. 

Mr. SALMON. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. ROYCE. I will defer to Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Sherman? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Ms. Bautista, the problems for land grabbing in 

the Philippines, are they widespread throughout the country or focused only in some of the provinces? 

Ms. BAUTISTA. Throughout the country, sir. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Okay. 

97

Mr. Quinto, is there such a thing as title insurance in the Philippines, or basically the system is so chaotic that title insurance 

companies aren’t willing to ensure even a small portion of the title? 

Mr. QUINTO. Thank you for that question, Ranking Member. I 

have spoken to the former president of the First American Title 

Company. They were hired by the World Bank to fix the titling system in the Philippines. After a month they came back, and I asked 

them why, don’t you want to be paid? They said, Joey, it is hopeless. Once they come in there, Ranking Member, if someone claims, 

they have to pay for the losses. They said the first thing they have 

to do is stop the corruption. 

There are instances wherein one property, the same property, 

has 10 owners, and they found out this cannot be done by the other 

9. They would not go into a public office and put it into the computer. Someone inside the office would do it. That is corruption. 

So when they came back here, they told me, Joey, it is hopeless. 

The first thing is they have to stop the corruption. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Is corruption widespread throughout the judicial 

and legal system, or is it particularly—what we are seeing here is 

real estate title, but are you talking about a corrupt judiciary? Is 

it as corrupt in non-real estate cases, or is real estate a special 

province of corruption? 

Mr. QUINTO. It is hard to speak for other instances, Ranking 

Member, but in terms of real estate losses, just like Mr. Cabrillos, 

he gave us a certified and under-oath letter that he was encouraged by the Philippine Government to sue, and he sued the land 

grabbers. The only thing, it has been 15 years now and the paper 

is not moving at all. So the land grabbers, they control the judicial 

system. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Now, the land grabbers, when they get the land, 

do they then collect rent from tenant farmers who were previously 

living there? Do they displace those who are living and working the 

land and bring in other people? Who is physically using the land 

in these cases? And I realize my question focused more on rural 

land than urban, but what do the land grabbers physically do with 

the people who had been using the land? 

Mr. QUINTO. With the example of Mr. Cabrillos, Ranking Member, they are still paying the taxes because they know if they default it will go to tax sale, so they are wise. 

In my case, we still continue to pay the property taxes. 

Mr. SHERMAN. But who is living on the land? What is the land 

being used for? 

Mr. QUINTO. You know, they are waiting for us to give up on 

paying the property taxes so that they could buy from the city hall. 

Mr. SHERMAN. What is on the land? Is somebody farming this 

land? Are there buildings on the land? How is the land being used 

at the present time? 

Mr. QUINTO. I will talk about my specific case, Ranking Member. 

It is beside a golf course, and it is not my fault if that golf course 

was designed by Arnold Palmer. They know how precious is that 

land. Right now, the value is zero because we cannot use it. 

Mr. SHERMAN. So this is urban land that is left unused, it would 

have great development potential. 

98

Perhaps I can ask Mr. Contreras, the land that you are aware 

of, is it urban or rural? Is it used, or is it completely unused because of the property dispute? 

Mr. CONTRERAS. It is rural or urban. It is a city. It is Tagatay 

City. It is a resort city. 

On our land, to answer your question about what they are doing 

to the land, they do plant pineapples, trees, bananas, and they stay 

there. And when you ask them to leave, they threaten you. In fact, 

we sent a court order to move out. Even the Tagatay City, the 

mayor helped us to send that letter. We distributed that to them, 

and they just ignored it. And whenever we come there again, people are looking at us, what kind of cars we are driving. They look 

at us. They know who we are. So after that, they all gathered 

around and circled us and threatened us. That is not the kind of 

life we are looking for in the Philippines. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Democracy in the Philippines doesn’t mean anything unless people can vote for a government that is willing to 

control what happens on the ground. 

Mr. CONTRERAS. That is true. 

Mr. SHERMAN. If you vote for a government that meets in a 

building and discusses laws that will be ignored, you might as well 

vote in a beauty contest. The winning side, you call in the phone 

number and this one or that one will wear the crown, but whoever 

wears the beauty crown doesn’t have any influence on people’s 

lives. 

If I had more time I would talk to you about why the government 

allows this to happen, but I think we have other questioners. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. 

Mr. Royce? 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Chairman Salmon. 

To pick up on the comment that Mr. Sherman is making, this is 

somewhat like the situation that you might hear about in the 

United States in some small town where, regardless of what the 

Federal Government does, you have well-connected developers who 

decide that they want a certain piece of property and then manage 

to manipulate the local political system in order to gain that and 

to push people out of their property. 

So what you have in the Philippines right now is a circumstance 

where President Aquino has this as part of his reform program, 

and you have USAID on the ground trying to push this reform program, but we have a legacy problem here, as explained to me at 

least by some of the experts who have looked at this. This legacy 

problem goes back to Marcos and the decision that Marcos made, 

back when he introduced corruption at such a massive level. 

What he did, what he decided to do, was to reward well-connected generals and commodores and those who were connected to 

him politically by going in and destroying part of the titling process 

so that he could transfer to his allies or put in motion a system 

where he could reward his political allies and family members and 

so forth. 

The consequences of that is to reverse that now when it occurs 

at the local level you are going against something that has become, 

in some areas, apparently, habitual, where those who are well-conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:54 Oct 20, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AP\082115\95991 SHIRL
99

nected in local government are used to being approached by developers, right? 

How much is this costing the Philippines? De Soto spent a lot of 

time researching this problem on the ground. He put that cost at 

$130 billion worth of human capital, as he calls it ‘‘dead capital.’’ 

This is the anchor on real development in the Philippines because 

of the inability to get over this problem, the corruption at this local 

level, which then prevents people from taking the decisions they 

would otherwise make because of the anarchy that has been created there. 

So the question I was going to ask Mr. Quinto, on my trips to 

the Philippines to address other issues and this issue of land grabbing, one of the things I have found is that it is the local governments that are not enforcing the law. What more could be done in 

order to try to make certain that the local government enforces the 

law and cleans up the registry in terms of land title? 

Mr. QUINTO. Chairman Royce, to answer the question about how 

the local government could implement or enforce a law, the DLIG, 

the Department of Interior of the local government, is a national 

agency that has direct jurisdiction to the local government, to the 

mayor, to all the local employees over there. But the problem is the 

DILG is not enforcing their jurisdiction, their mandate. It is mandated by law for them to exercise their jurisdiction. 

So I think it is also the local government and the national government or the Federal Government. When it comes to President 

Aquino, he wants to be successful in the anti-corruption initiative, 

but the problem is there are so many people in the Philippines who 

do not want him to be successful. 

Since the United States is giving $1⁄2 billion to the Philippines 

as foreign aid, that is an investment that is coming from the American taxpayers. I remember when the Millennium Challenge Corporation CEO answered your question about putting conditions on 

foreign funding. She said if the property rights would be an issue, 

she would look at it. I think it is about time for the United States 

to put conditions on the funding of the Philippines until they reform. This was done during the Aroya administration as well, 

wherein they put conditions until they reformed, so there is historical data to that. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you. 

I had one last question, and that goes to Mr. Rogers, and this 

goes to your issue of forcible transfer of populations. When we look 

at the fact that so much of the violence that is perpetrated leaves 

in its wake young Cambodians that are often susceptible to trafficking, I think you made the observation that we are talking about 

more than one crime here. By moving 800,000 people out of having 

any means of support, you have left them in a position of extreme 

vulnerability in a part of the world where trafficking is not only a 

practice, but my chief of staff, Amy Porter, has been twice over to 

Phnom Penh on this trafficking issue of underage girls, and it 

turns out the mayor of the city was apparently involved because 

the police chief—I don’t know about the mayor. I know the police 

chief was directly involved because he owned the brothel, okay? 

So you have, again, someone in Hun Sen, a Hun Sen police chief. 

When you have that level of corruption—and I will just give you 

100

this example. Four thousand residents surrounding Boeung Kak 

Lake, as you know, were evicted from their homes to make room 

for a company owned and controlled by a senator of the Hun Sen 

party. Residents who protested their homes being seized and destroyed were beaten with electric batons, according to the press. 

Several mothers and grandmothers were arrested and tried during 

a 3-hour trial. So that is the court system going to work against 

the local population. 

So, what is the status of the individuals that were affected by 

this seizure of property? I was going to ask you how typical this 

incident is and tie it into the fact that so many of these younger 

people can end up in trafficking. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you for the question. You are absolutely 

right that the nightmare doesn’t end at the point of eviction. People, when they lose their land, they fall deeper into poverty, and 

this is particularly the case with these rural agrarian societies. 

Land is everything. It is their means of creating wealth. It is what 

they pass down to their children. When it is taken away from 

them, not only does the unemployment rate skyrocket, it is double 

the national average, but the increased poverty makes them vulnerable to other human rights violations such as trafficking. That 

undoubtedly happens because trafficking is, of course, a byproduct 

of poverty. 

I am glad you mentioned the Boeung Kak Lake case because in 

that case a CPP senator was awarded the land illegally—because 

it was public land, it wasn’t private land—and, indeed, about 4,500 

people were evicted from their homes violently. There was a group 

of women, mothers and grandmothers, who protested. They were 

called the Boeung Kak Lake 13. One or two of them, who are here 

today, have actually spent time in prison. That is one of the most 

famous cases, but it is actually quite typical. I think it is only so 

famous because it happened right in the center of Phnom Penh. 

Unfortunately, around the rural areas that are much harder to access for expats and for journalists, this type of thing is happening 

all the time, as well as the consequential human rights violations 

and probably trafficking. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. 

Dr. Chu? 

Ms. CHU. Mr. Quinto and Mr. Contreras, thank you for your powerful testimony and telling us about your personal experience, the 

experience of your family with regard to this land grabbing. I find 

your stories to be utterly outrageous. 

I was wondering if you could talk more about how you feel about 

your personal safety, your physical safety in trying to assert your 

rights in trying to stop this land grabbing, and in trying to get your 

land back as you try to fight the system. Do you fear for your personal safety, and do you think other families in the Philippines feel 

this way as well? 

Mr. QUINTO. Thank you for that question, Dr. Chu, Congresswoman Chu. A lot of families in the Philippines do not want to be 

telling their stories because they fear the land grabbers. They have 

powerful guns. For the Philippine Americans, it is about time for 

101

the Philippine Americans also to know they are Americans, and no 

one, no American should be hurt anywhere in the world because 

America would look for that person, because Philippine Americans, 

Cambodian Americans, we are all Americans. So they could hurt 

us, but America would find them. 

When it comes to our personal safety, me myself, I am fearful. 

I am dealing with this general. If the Philippine Government is 

scared of him, how much more me? I would not say I am brave. 

I am scared of him, because imagine the powerful Philippine Government is not moving at all. They are scared of him. 

So, yes, we are fearful to face the land grabbers. But it is also 

the job of the Philippine Government—in fact, the Consul General 

of the Philippines also told the Philippine Government, he asked 

them in an interagency meeting, he asked them who is the government? Is he the government, or are we the government? Why could 

we not implement and enforce the laws? And no one answered the 

question. 

Ms. CHU. Mr. Contreras? 

Mr. CONTRERAS. For my safety, when I visited the Philippines, 

especially when we visited our lands out there, because when we 

go there, they know what car we are driving, and when they find 

out we are there, a lot of people that live in that neighborhood 

come around you and threaten you. I would say that I am fearful 

myself. It is not an easy thing to go there anymore. 

I was there three times last year, and I had a horrible experience 

going there. Sometimes I said I might as well give it up, give it up, 

but I can’t because I inherited that land and I have the right to 

own it. That is how I feel about that. I don’t know if I will go back 

there again, but I will. I promise, I will go there. 

Ms. CHU. Mr. Quinto, I wanted to follow up on what you said 

about the Millennium Challenge Corporation which provides foreign assistance. It seems like there is an opportunity right now. 

This MCC currently has a compact with the Philippines that is set 

to expire in May 2016 and is in the early stages of negotiating a 

second compact. 

What could we in Congress do to improve the situation with regard to land grabbing? I know that the MCC is not part of this 

hearing, but what, in your opinion, could we do to help the situation? 

Mr. QUINTO. When Chairman Royce asked that question to Ms. 

Hyde, the CEO of the Millennium Challenge in the budget hearing 

on the conditions, the CEO of the Millennium Challenge, Ms. Hyde, 

said that if the land tenure is a problem, she will look into it, because all of the money that is coming from Millennium Challenge, 

the $1⁄2 billion, has guidelines, which is government accountability, 

rule of law, respect for property rights. And if they are not following those guidelines, the Philippines is in violation of the compact, the agreement. 

While we want the Philippines to be progressive, we also want 

everyone to have economic opportunity, not only for the few but for 

everyone. The land grabbing victims are not having any economic 

opportunities. 

So, to answer the question, in fact, Congressman Ted Lew sent 

a letter to Ms. Hyde, and she responded to communicate also this 

102

thing to the State Department. So they are waiting for the State 

Department also to make an action. 

Opportunity is here now. If you put conditions to the upcoming 

compact, I think the Philippines would reform in a few hours. They 

would say, ‘‘We’ll do it.’’ They would not wait for 1 year because 

there is a condition. America doesn’t want American taxpayers that 

goes to waste, because if the Philippine Government would not follow the guidelines of the foreign funding, that is called wasteful 

spending. 

So I think conditions should be put on the next compact that is 

coming to the Philippines. 

Ms. CHU. So it sounds like other Congress members could also 

write letters to MCC saying that there should be such conditions. 

Mr. QUINTO. Yes, because I think MCC CEO is also waiting for 

an answer from the State Department. The land grabbing victims—what I have been telling the Philippine Government, Congresswoman, is if these people would be able to get into their land, 

it would create employment. The biggest problem in the Philippines now is employment. I said who would be the carpenter? 

Who would be the plumber? Who would be the electrician? Do you 

think the owners? They would hire contractors. And these farms, 

do you think they would be the ones taking care of all this livestock? They would hire people, and they would have more income. 

They have problems with tax collection, low tax collection. They 

would have more tax collection. They would have more employment 

being built. 

So this is the same thing as what Hernando de Soto reported to 

Congressman Royce, creating a bigger economy. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. 

Mr. Rohrabacher? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, thank you very much. This has been 

very fascinating for me to listen to your tales of woe, and they are 

tales of woe, and I sympathize, and I know all Americans sympathize with the little guy who is being oppressed by the big guy. 

That is what we are hearing about. 

We do have that problem in our own country, however, and let 

us note that we have a major problem with eminent domain abuse 

in our country. So while we are looking at the problems overseas, 

I hope we all take to heart that we won’t permit this to happen 

here. 

It is interesting that I have a friend who came here from a country, from Ethiopia, when his family left when the communists took 

over, and the communists took over his father’s business, and he 

came here and now spends his entire time in a law firm that defends American property owners against abusive use of eminent domain to steal their property right here in our country. 

So we have to take that into consideration, that we are not perfect here, but we have a perfect ideal. We have the ideal of what 

America is supposed to be and what our Founding Fathers meant 

it to be, and that motivates us not only to hear but to side with 

people in other countries who share that vision, that ideal of humankind. 

103

Mr. Royce was absolutely correct about rule of law basically 

when it comes to title. If you do not have a title, as Mr. Royce 

pointed out, there is no collateral. If there is no title, there are no 

loans. If there are no loans, there are now businesses being created. And if there are no businesses being created, there are no 

jobs being created. So this is a very vicious cycle that starts with, 

number one, a respect for the rule of law, and then, because you 

have to have a judge that is giving you a proper assessment, a 

legal assessment and decision about the title itself. 

So what we are talking about here is unless we correct the basic 

problems that we are talking about today, there will be no prosperity. In the Philippines, where they have a large degree of freedom when it comes to freedom of speech and freedom of religion 

and freedom of the press, or Cambodia where they don’t have a 

large degree, or Vietnam where they have none of them, we know 

that these countries will not prosper and people will not live well 

unless that type of basic reform happens. 

I would like to go into one last area of questioning, and I am just 

sort of probing here. Who ended up with the land there, what you 

were talking about, Mr. Rogers, in Boeung Kak Lake? Who ended 

up with that land? 

Mr. ROGERS. It is a senator who is a senator in the ruling party, 

the CPP, that has a company called Pheapimix, who owns huge 

tracts of land throughout Cambodia and is being given many, many 

concessions. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Did they sell any of that land, or the lake, 

did they sell any of it to the Chinese? 

Mr. ROGERS. Not that I know of. I think it is still in the process 

of being developed. They are filling in the lake with sand, which 

is causing terrible floods in Phnom Penh, and they are going to develop it themselves as far as I know. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. It has been my understanding that China is 

pumping large amounts of money into the Philippines and into 

Southeast Asia, and I am just wondering whether or not that 

money, for example that senator that you are talking about, whether or not he plans to sell that to somebody who may have already 

contracted with him to get that property. Our friends from the 

Philippines, are there any negative situations being caused by Chinese investment that you know of? No? Okay. I am just probing, 

trying to find out where we can document that, because I have 

been told by several people that that is becoming a problem, that 

this Chinese investment comes with the corruption of local officials, 

who then do the bidding of a very powerful foreign investor rather 

than watching out for the interests of their own people. 

Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, both Mr. Chairman. 

I have enjoyed it. This has been very illuminating, and I hope that 

again we don’t forget any American citizen who is incarcerated 

anywhere in the world where they are trying to promote the values 

that we believe in. We know there is one case in Cambodia that 

we are not going to forget, and we hope that justice is done to our 

friends in the Philippines as well. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. 

104

I thank the members of the committee. Some traveled greater 

distances, some not so much. 

We appreciate the staff who have come here today. 

We appreciate the great witnesses that we have had. 

And I can’t tell you how much I appreciate what a polite and 

wonderful group of attendees have been here today. I am sure 

many are from Cambodia and many from the Philippines. We are 

just thrilled to have you here today and really appreciate your 

courtesy. 

Rest assured, this is a serious issue. The chairman of the full 

committee has a penchant for staying with something until it gets 

resolved. He is very well known for that in Congress, and we are 

thrilled to be here with him today. 

With that having been said, we are going to adjourn the committee. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(105)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

106

f


95991n.eps
107

f


95991m.eps
108

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE EDWARD R. ROYCE, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND CHAIRMAN, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS


95991g-1.eps
109


95991g-2.eps
110


95991g-3.eps
111

Æ


95991g-4.eps