The Secretariat for Agricultural, Territorial and Urban Development (Sedatu) made clarifications to a note published on Sunday. Below we publish your clarification as well as the reporter’s response on each point.
On the note they publish today on the Political Animal portal, I would like to make a clarification.
An interview was offered on Friday, September 4 on the subject. In it, the Director General of Rural Property of Sedatu specified information that we believe is not reflected in the note published today. On the contrary, it would see a bias in which Sedatu benefits individuals over the property in question. Which is absolutely false.
The note is entitled «Despite denunciation of owners, Sedatu analyses regularizing properties for invaders of the Coatepec forest»
We specify that:
– So far, no party has legally credited owning the land. This matter is part of the procedure being carried out. It cannot be assumed that someone owns the property, much less that Sedatu recognizes the property without having done the right process.
– We do not analyze «regularizing premises to invaders». The deslinde is under way, which is the faculty of the Sedatu. The objective is to know the condition of the property and act in accordance with law, whether private, social or nation property.
– On the subject of eviction, it is a judicial matter and must be resolved by the competent authorities. The Sedatu performs a procedure to know the legal status of the property.
– Sedatu does not question the authenticity or falsity of documents; because it is not something that motivates the process that takes place. Precisely research is being made to define the status of the terrain. This process can be requested by any citizen. If it is found to be private property, it will be respected, as has always been done.
– We do not ask that people in the area be told not to be invasive, it is simply not for us to use adjectives. If they are responsible for any crime, the judicial authorities must issue a sentence, which has not yet been done. In the meantime, the presumption of innocence is entitled, and the Sedatu is entitled to respond to the applicants’ request.
As emphasized several times during the interview. The Sedatu is carrying out the administrative process, and has opened the channels for the interested parties, which will allow to know the legal status of the property.
All processes that are followed are done in accordance with law, safeguarding the national interest, respecting social and private property, and protecting premises of high environmental value, if applicable.
Audio from the interview is sent, emphasizing the process that Sedatu follows in these cases https://drive.google.com/file/d/16XavalR-o9kPap0y1J1_EpGeRHKWD-V9/view?usp=sharing
We respectfully request that this clarification be considered by the means you direct, so that your audience can know the full truth.
The following clarifications are made on the explanatory note sent by the Sedatu:
It cannot be stated that the information provided in the interview is not reflected in the published note, when it appears, even verbatim, the explanation that the civil service gives regarding the procedure that Sedatu will initiate, as can be read in the following paragraphs:
As part of its explanation, the Sedatu official adds that if the deslinde procedure was announced it is because the applicants requested the disposal of this property, but for this application to proceed it must first be as if it is a national land (as the invaders presume); that is, it does not have legally issued title of property.
«The procedure is then to determine whether that property can be declared national land or not, and no matter who appears as a holder, it is enough for someone to request it, but we have to find out if it is wasteland and that is why the notice of deslinde is published and people are notified so that if someone thinks they have a better right to come and enforce it,» he says.
These paragraphs rightly state that the Sedatu will perform a deslinde to know the condition of the property, and this is presented in the note in the civil service’s own words.
On the subject of eviction, the note does not state that carrying it out is the responsibility of the Sedatu. What is noted is that despite complaints from the owners, the authorities have not proceeded with it.
With regard to the sedatu not questioning the authenticity or falsity of documents, the note is textual, even with question and answer the explanation given by the civil service on the constancy of possession and the deeds of the propietarios.
In questioning why Sedatu accepted this record denounced as false, Estela Ríos, Director General of Rural Property, replies: «First of all, we had no idea that this record was false, we do not know if it is false, and for us that record of possession is inconsedent, the procedure for declaring a national land can be initiated at the request of part or ex officio, we are entitled to that.»
AP: And these grounds are not privately owned?
ER: So far no one has credited us with owning it.
AP: Not with writes?
ER: The scriptures, because there are then false scriptures, we also have to find out the authenticity of those scriptures, then there are deeds after writings that do not have a legal basis or that are manufactured, I say I do not think this is the case, but we will investigate it.
In addition, it is never said that the Sedatu points to or qualifies as invaders those who are occupying the premises.
Finally, the note reiterates that the Sedatu is carrying out the procedure, of which the deslinde is part and which will be done in accordance with law.
The owners’ claims that they are concerned that sedatu will act to favor those who are occupying the premises are their claims and are quoted.
Political Animal Reporter
What we do at Animal Politics requires professional journalists, teamwork, dialogue with readers and something very important: independence. You can help us keep going. Be part of the team.
Subscribe to Animal Politics, receive benefits and support free journalism.#YoSoyAnimal