ON THE ROAD TOWARDS A SUCCESSFUL

AGRARIAN REFORM:
An Immersion-Based Account Aimed at Addressing Problem Areas
and Providing Solutions for the Filipino Farmers in Brgy Pandan,
Dingle, Iloilo.

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirement in Agrarian Laws and Social Legislation

Submitted to:

ATTY. CIRILO YURO JR.

Submitted by:

Daniel B. Amular Jr.

May Leony Jalipa

Celso Lacson Jr.

LLB – 2C

October 20, 2015

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction and Statement of the Problem 3

II. Agrarian Reform Community of the Municipality of Dingle 3

III. Respondents: Their Experiences, Struggles, Achievements and Aspirations 5

IV. Analyses: Defects in Law and/or its Implementation, Problem Areas, Impact of the

Program 9

V. Recommendations 10

VI. Conclusion 13

VII. Appendices (printed and attached) 14

2
 I. THE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW: Background and Purpose

Land is a sensitive, even sacred, issue in many parts of the world. "I shall never
sell the land! Bit by bit, I will dig up the fields and feed the earth itself to the
children and when they die I will bury them in the land, and I and my wife and
my old father, even he, we will die on the land that has given us birth."
–Pearl S. Buck
What is Land Reform? At its essence, land reform is about redistributing arable land, whether
previously collectivized by the state or held by rich farmers. The distribution usually proposes to
take from the rich and give to the poor. The process sometimes involves compensation schemes, but
in many places, farmers are forced by the government to give up their land at prices the owners
regard as unfair. Other times, large-scale landowners are simply evicted without their consent. The
goals of land reform are multifold: reducing poverty, expanding rural development, or returning land
to its previous owners. Often, land reform is a consequence of post-colonial or post-communist
economic and social needs. Other times it is driven more by ethnic and racial divisions, or an interest
in manipulating political sentiment, than by any desire to redistribute land equitably.1

The harsh reality is that 75 percent of those 25 percent of Filipinos who are below the
poverty line are in the rural areas, many of them farmer beneficiaries of CARP which focused
excessively on land acquisition and distribution (LAD) instead of the goal of improving the
farmers’ standard of living. Despite the distribution of 4,542,968 hectares to over 2,653,254
Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs), the income differences between the ARBs versus other
farmers resulted in a negligible 2 percent improvement over the half century covered. Another tell-
tale sign of the negative effect of CARP was a severe reduction in investment and credit flowing into
agriculture.2

Sharing the sentiment of Dr. De Vera, faculty of the School of Management of the
University of Asia and the Pacific, there is a need to “revitalize agricultural productivity and attain
inclusive economic growth in the rural areas” of the Philippines.3

The question whether or not the purpose of land reform has been addressed in the
Philippines, depends on one’s actual experience with farmers, and on data taken from economic
indicators. Thus, the need for this paper.

II. Municipality of Dingle, Iloilo

Dingle is one of the 42 towns of Iloilo Province within Region VI. This 4th class Municipality
is composed of 33 barangays. It is 36 kilometers away from the City of Iloilo where existing ports,
airports and major commercial centers is located. It is bounded on the north-east by the town of
Barotac Nuevo; on the south-east by the towns of Pototan and Barotac Nuevo; on the northwest by
the town of San Enrique and on the southwest by the town of Dueñas.
The Municipality of Dingle has a total land area of 10,151 hectares. 8,355 hectares or
82.28% of the total land area is devoted to agricultural crops, forests and agro-forestry area.
There are ten major crops identified in the municipality, namely: rice, corn, lowland
vegetables, highland vegetables, coconut, sugar cane, highland fruit crops, banana, coffee, and cut

1
“Q&A: Land Reform” by Lionel Beehner, accessed from
http://www.nytimes.com/cfr/international/slot1_122405.html?_r=0
2
“Land Reform in the Philippines” by Bernando Villegas, accessed from http://www.mb.com.ph/land-reform-in-the-
philippines-part-i/
3
Ibid.

3
flowers. Rice and sugar cane occupy the widest area and also the highest in terms of production
compared with other crops.
Eight hundred seventy one hectares and nine hundred ninety three square meters (871.9593
Has.) are covered by CARP. This involved 1,140 farmer beneficiaries found in different barangays
of the Municipality.
A 85.4231 hectare land area which is formerly owned and registered in the name of Central
Santos Lopez Lot 3141 situated at Sitio Lulwangan, Dingle, Iloilo is a special area which was
subjected to CARP coverage. This area was classified under the Government Financed Institution
(GFI) which was foreclosed by the Philippine National Bank and consolidated under the Asset
Privatization Trust (APT) and titles for individual farmlots were already distributed to farmer
beneficiaries.
The livestock and poultry farms are classified into commercial and semi-commercial. The
total area occupied by these farms is more less 7,607 sq. m. with the total value of P3,980,800.00
and the total employment size of thirty seven.
In the field of fisheries, there are existing fish ponds or fish cages found in different
barangays owned by private persons. Genetically improved tilapia and African Hito are seeded in the
farms. The fishpond owned by Hermont at Brgy. Ilajas occupies one hectare and is the biggest in the
municipality. It has the total value of P180,000.00. Also there are fishponds found in different
barangays like San Matias, Camambugan, Matangharon, Lincud, Tanghauan, Potolan, Bongloy,
Poblacion and Nazuni. These cover a total value of production estimated at P1,400,000.00.
Agricultural support facilities (Pre and Post-Harvest) available in the Municipality of Dingle
are the following:
1. Irrigation Facilities – NIA Dam located at Brgy. Morobora covers 1,238 Has. SWIP at
Brgy. Potolan covers 51 Has. SDD situated at Brgy. Agtatacay covers 23 Has. Commercial
irrigation at Tulatula-an covers 15 Has. and GIPA covers 106 Has. located at Brgy. Gutao,
Potolan, Ilajas ans Agsalanan. STW and OSP covers 767 Has. in all barangays.
2. Farm to Market Roads – covers 67,484 kilometers, with the total area covered of 4,820.5
sq. m. benefiting 2,992 farmers. These farm to market roads are rough roads and need
maintenance and improvement to enable all types of transportation to pass without difficulty
in hauling farm products.
3. Warehousing – the municipality has three (3) rice mills with storage or warehouse facilities
including dryers (solar and mechanical). Hermont can mill 20 cavans per hour with a storage
capacity of 36,000 cavans. The Dingle MPC (FACOMA) can mill 18 cavans per hour and
has a storage capacity of 8,000 cavans. The Richard Ganzon rice mill could mill 14 cavans
per hour with the storage capacity of 8,000 cavans.
4. Other support programs
a. The municipality has 4 Solar Dryers situated Brgy. Libo-o, Licu-an, Namatay, and
Agsalan. There are 29 registered cooperatives, 11 rural improvement clubs, 2-4 H clubs
and 1 People’s Economic Council.
b. Twenty three (3) deep wells, 4,827 jetmatic pumps, 15 big tractors, 234 rice threshers,
29 power tillers, 131 water pumps and 273 hand tractors.

At present, there are agricultural facilities and other services extended to farmers. The
municipality has 2 agricultural and technical institutions serving the community. DATeC situated in
Brgy. San Matias has a breeding station at Brgy. Bongloy and Potolan, and Dingle Family Farm
School located at Brgy. Libo-o offers technical assistance to farmers. The Municipal Agriculture
Office extends extension services to all farmers in the 33 barangays.

As to loan/credit services, the LBP Passi Branch, the FMCI, Farmers’ Marketing Cooperative
and LBK – Private Corporation extended more or less P17.8 million to farmer beneficiaries. These
programs are supervised, monitored and evaluated by the office of the Municipal Agriculturist
through its extension technologists.

4
 Seminars are conducted by the office of the Municipal Agriculturist in coordination with
veterinary companies in the province and in the region to upgrade stocks. Artificial insemination is
conducted in cooperation with the Philippine Carabao Center (PCC) and other private farms.4

II.a AGRARIAN REFORM COMMUNITY (ARC)

The Agrarian Reform Community is altogether called ‘ABSIPA’ because it is composed of

three barangays from the municipality of Dingle, namely: Abangay, Sinibaan, and Pandan. It was
constituted in the year 1993 from the initiative of the DAR together with the help of the early
farmer-beneficiaries.
Thise cluster of barangays can be located 1 kilometer before the town proper, Brgy Pandan
being the nearest. The ARC has a farmers’cooperative that extends loans and other financial
assistants to members who

III. RESPONDENTS
To give us a well-rooted understanding of the implementation of the Agrarian Law, we
conducted a survey by means of a face to face interview using a specially designed questionnaire
that would bring out honest responses from our respondents (see appendices). At the same time
with made use of the same DAR Questionnaire used by DAR employees in data gathering (see
Appendices).
We decided to narrate more than just statistical data, but actual life experiences of our
respondents to give us a more grounded grasp of the struggles, achievements, frustrations and
aspirations of the tenants, farmer beneficiaries, and cooperative members.

1. BENEDICTO APUD
Benedicto Aquilino Apud is a 75 years old farmer-beneficiary who was granted an
Emancipation Patent last 1990 under the Presidential Decree 27 with a total land area of 0.9159
hectare. The amortizations of his landholding have already been fully paid in the past.
Benedicto is a bona fide resident since birth of Brgy. Pandan, Dingle, Iloilo. His wife is
already deceased but all their five (5) children (Ariel Apud, Arlene Apud, Ame Apud, Joebert Apud,
and Annie Apud respectively) are still alive and some are married and living with their respective
families. The Emancipation Patent title is specifically registered under his name, but due to advanced
age and physical state, his five children jointly manage the land awarded to him.
Rice is the mainstay crop planted in his landholding during the whole crop year, with an
average of three (3) cropping seasons per year. For 25 years now, Benedicto has been a bona fide
member of the ABSIPA, the designated Agrarian Reform Community (ARC) of the said barangay.
Farming the land of other landowners, according to Benedicto, has been their only source of income,
such income is only enough to provide for their basic daily needs and for the eventual education of
their children, who all turned out to be professionals in different fields.
The quality of their lives before and after the award of the Emancipation Patent have greatly
improved in terms on the number of meals/day, clothing, kind of shelter, household appliances,
transportation equipment, etc. Their first child, Mr. Ariel Apud, 54 yo, finished Bachelor of Science
in Marine Engineering. The second child is Ms. Arlene Apud, 52 yo, is a Bachelor of Laws graduate.
The third among the siblings is Ms. Ame Apud, 49 yo, is a graduate of Bachelor of Elementary
Education. The fourth child is Mr. Joebert Apud, 47 yo, is a mechanic. The last of the brood is Ms.
Annie Apud, 43 yo, a medical technologist. Based upon the achievements of his children, Benedicto
is indeed very thankful to the government for the benefits of the agrarian reform program.

4
Land Use Plan of the Municipality of Dingle, Iloilo

5
 Furthermore, there has been not a single case or dispute with other people or any act of
disturbance of his peaceful possession regarding his landholding. However, having said this fact,
their possession and tillage of the land also faced numerous hardships especially during the first
years of the granting of the titile, such as low rice production and unhealthy crops. Upon personal
inquiry, Benedicto himself had cited numerous challenges and problems that beset them in the past,
either from private persons, or from the public officials who are mandated to implement the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program in the spirit of social justice and equality. Despite all
these criticisms and fault-finding, Benedicto and his family are forever thankful for the small piece
of land awarded to him which bore innumerable blessings and opportunities to achieve a better life
for him and his family without leaving his motherland to seek a greener pasture, a pasture greener
than the one he tilled before.

2. ROSITA PASTERA

Rosita Pastera was one of the tenants in the landholding of Manuel Benedicto. Through the
passage of Presidential Decree No. 27 (Tenant Emancipation Law) which, Manuel Benedicto’s
landholding was covered and distributed to his tenants. Rosita Pastera was identified as qualified
farmer beneficiary and eventually was awarded with Emancipation Patent consisting of 5,000 sq. m.
of the area she was actually cultivating on Manuel Benedicto’s landholding.

Manuel Benedicto’s landholding was covered by agrarian reform program pursuant to PD 27,
in which the landowner is entitled to retain 7 hectares. Upon the passage of RA 6657, the
landowner’s children are given preferential right to retain 3 hectares of such landholding subject to
conditions provided by law. It so happen that Manuel Benedicto has 8 children. These children filed
petition for exclusion from CARP coverage, which incited an agrarian dispute between them and the
farmer beneficiaries awarded with EP. This dispute reached the DARAB. To resolve such dispute,
the DARAB granted Benedicto siblings’ petition for exclusion and thus cancelling all issued EPs in
favor of the farmer beneficiaries. The farmer beneficiaries were instead became leaseholders in the
retained area of the landowner’s children. Rosita Pastera, being now a leaseholder, continued their
former agreement with the landowner that the sharing in the rice production or harvest is 75%-25%.
Rosita Pastera retains 75% of the total harvest while the remaining 25% is given to the landowner as
payment for the lease rental. She shouldered all expenses for farm implements, seedlings, fertilizers,
pesticide, herbicide and other farm cost.

At the age of 80, Rosita died in 1980. She was then succeeded by her son Noel Pastera as
leaseholder. Noel Pastera continued cultivating on the same term of 75%-25% sharing. His main
source of income is farming. However, he engaged in swine-raising to augment their economic
status and so that they would have a source of income during off season (agricultural).

He is able to harvest thrice a year if irrigation is continuous and only twice a year if irrigation
is not available due to irrigation repair and maintenance. This irrigation is provided by the landowner
without any government intervention. All expenses pertaining to repair and maintenance of this
irrigation facility are shouldered by the landowner. There was no farm to market road available in
his landholding. During the harvest he, with the help of his household members, have to carry the
rice cavans passing through the “kahon” and place these rice cavans in the tricycle to be transported
to the market.

He has not attended any seminars or training intended for CARP beneficiaries due to lack of
awareness of the existence of these seminars or trainings. He attested that his mother, Rosita Pastera,
used to avail of the credit facilities with the Land Bank of the Philippines for buying of farm inputs
and implements. However, when he succeeded the lease holding, he preferred loaning money from
private persons for the purchase of farm inputs and implements. He pays his loan on installment
basis, only during the harvest. He had not received any farm facilities such as fertilizer, seedlings,
pesticides or herbicide. Nevertheless, he indicated that his mother, the original leaseholder, had
experienced receiving fertilizers from DAR.

6
 There was no big change in their living condition brought about by the agrarian reform
program. Partly because they remain tenants or lessees of the landowner’s retained landholding.
Rosita Pastera, the original leaseholder, was able to send most of her children to school only on the
elementary level and one was able to step on college but was not able to graduate therefrom. While
Noel Pastera, the successor-leaseholder, is sending two of his daughters to high school, his other
daughter is a housewife and his son helps him in managing and cultivating the farm.

3. DEOGRACIAS DEATRAS
Mr. Deogracias Deatras is a 53-year old farmer-beneficiary who was given a Certificate of
Land Ownership Award (CLOA) by the government just last year with a total land area of three (3)
hectares. The certificate is transferred to his name upon the death of his parents, who were the
original titleholders. Moreover, the amortizations of the lands were already fully during the time
while his parents were still tilling and cultivating the lands.
Deogracias has been a long time resident since birth of Brgy. Pandan, Dingle, Iloilo. He is
married with two children. The CLOA is specifically registered under his name and he himself is the
actual cultivator-tiller of the said piece of land. Rice is the mainstay crop planted in his landholding
during the whole crop year, with an average of three (3) cropping seasons per year. He has been a
bona fide member of the ABSIPA, the designated Agrarian Reform Community (ARC) of the said
barangay. Since his marriage with his wife, farming the land has been one of their main sources of
income, which gave them a decent quality of life by providing them their basic needs, the education
of their children, and other necessary appurtenances of life.
The landholding, simply put, is a principal property that makes them stay afloat in the current
and riptides of this often harsh and oppressive existence. The quality of their living before and after
the award have greatly improved in terms of the number of meals/day, clothing, kind of shelter,
household appliances, transportation equipment, etc. Deogracias is grateful because there has been
no legal case or any agricultural dispute against anybody or any instance of denial of his peaceful
possession since the awarding of the landholding.
However, having stated this fact, his possession and tillage of the land has not been an easy
one. The lack of fertilizer for proper growth of his crops proves to be a usual problem for him during
the entire crop year. Also, the long dry season poses a grave danger to his landholding. Mr. Deatras
laments the lack of government support for thousands of ordinary farmer-beneficiaries like him. He
had cited numerous obstacles and gross practices that still exist, either from private persons or from
the public officials of the government themselves who are mandated to implement the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program in the spirit of social justice, fairness, and right conduct.
With due fairness to the government, the farmer-beneficiaries have been continually provided
with farm to market roads, irrigation system, and credit and loans schemes. Despite all these, he and
his family are perennially thankful for the small piece of land awarded to him which bestowed them
enough blessings by opening doors of opportunities and a belief that life is ripe with any
possibilities. Unlike what his surname suggests, he prays that their lives, thru the help of CARP, may
go forward and upward.

4. ERENEO SOLATETE PASTERA

Ereneo Solatete Pastera is an 86 years old farmer-beneficiary who was granted an
Emancipation Patent under PD 27 in the year 1987 with a total land area of 0.2686 hectare. He is
still paying the amortizations of the landholding due to some failures to pay in the past on its due
date.
Mr. Pastera is a resident since birth of Brgy. Pandan, Dingle, Iloilo. His wife is already
deceased but all their three children (Gena P. Preching, Rey Pastera, and Leo Pastera respectively)

7
are still alive and living with their respective immediate families. The Emancipation Patent title is
specifically registered under his name and peaceful possession but due to advanced age and physical
state, his three children are now the actual cultivators or tillers of the land awarded to him.

Rice is the mainstay crop planted in his landholding during the whole crop year, with an
average of two (2) cropping seasons per year. Mr. Pastera has been a bona fide member since 1993
of the ABSIPA, the designated Agrarian Reform Community (ARC) of the said barangay. Since his
marriage with his wife, farming the land of other landowners has been their only source of income,
which proved to be sufficient for sustaining their daily needs and the education of their three
children. The quality of their lives before and after the award of the Emancipation Patent have
greatly improved in terms on the number of meals/day, clothing, kind of shelter, appliances,
transportation equipment, etc. Their first child, Mrs. Gena Preching, 50 yo, is a retired chemical
engineer who used to work in a construction firm. The second child is Mr. Rey Pastera, 46 yo, the
actual tiller of their family’s landholdings. The last of the brood is Mr. Leo Pastera, 42 yo, is a
government employee. Mr. Pastera is grateful because there has been no legal case or any
agricultural animosity in the span of three decades since the award of the landholding to him.

However, having said this fact, their possession and tillage of the land has also not been a
bed of roses or a stroll in the park. Mr. Pastera himself had cited numerous challenges and problems
that beset them in the past, either from private persons or from the public officials of the government
themselves who are mandated to implement the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program in the
spirit of social justice and equality. Despite all these, Mr. Pastera and his family is perpetually
thankful for the small piece of land awarded to him which bore innumerable blessings and
opportunities.

5. NENITA SOBREVEGA DAGOHOY

Nenita Sobrevega Dagohoy of Pandan, Dingle is a 70 years old leasehold tenant of a 2.5
hectares riceland in Pandan since 1968. As a leaseholder, she pays the landowner 12 sacks of rice
every cropping. During harvest time she employs workers and pays them P200 each. In between
cropping seasons they cultivate mongo to keep the land productive.
She has three children, and all of them have finished their education which was made
possible by the land they till. One of her sons is a teacher in Cambodia, her daughter Winnie resides
in Dingle and is also a leasehold tenant over a 9,000 square meter of rice land. Aside from rice
production, she gets income from her farm animals such as pigs, and ducks.
What is unique about Nenita is that she has been a barangay secretary for 19 years, and is
also the current BARC chairman. As BARC Chairman she attends to agrarian issues particularly on
tenant-landowner relations such as non-payment of rentals, situations where landowners take
possession of the land, quarrels between landowners and tenants. In situations where mediation fails
or no settlement is reached, she refers the parties to the DAR. She also plays a vital role in the
identification of farmer beneificiaries, and in cases of sale of lands, issues clearances and
certification as required by the DAR. She also assists in DAR activities and projects in their area.
All in all, Nenita has good things to say about the CARP, for it has helped her in maintaining
good relations with the landowner, it has improved her economic condition and that of her family.
The CARP through the DAR and the DA has helped her and her family through the trainings and
seminars they provide such as Integrated Pest Management, Palamayanan Project, Darag Chicken
growing, Piggery and Duck Raising and the like. However she recalls that support from the CARP
has waned by 2014, and in the current year, they have not received any support by means of
equipment or post-harvest facilities. It was in 1998 that she recalls receiving a Hand Tractor and a
Water Pump Engine from the DAR
The existence of a cooperative has helped them in getting loans for their agricultural
production needs. However she relayed that the problem faced by the cooperative is the non-

8
payment of loans of many members. Given this, they are not anymore allowed by the cooperative to
borrow because of outstanding and unpaid loan of many cooperative members.

6. JIMMY CERALBO
Jimmy Ceralbo now tills the land that his family has been tilling for at least 60 years now.
They do not own the land, neither is he a farmer beneficiary . The parcel of land is a mere 7,000
square meter rice land. His wife revealed that they used to pay 11 sacks of rice per cropping, but this
was increased to a staggering 22 sacks per cropping to offset the four years that the landowner
refused to receive the rental because the landowner wanted to take possession of the land again in
violation of their lease agreement. To continue tilling the land, a new leasehold contract was
executed but they will now be paying 22 sacks or double the amount per cropping for the next six
years. This was the settlement reached by the parties.
Considering that a 7,000 square meter can make effectively produce 40 sacks of rice per
cropping, 22 sacks as rental is so much of a burden for the family that they had to take out loans
from financing institutions to pay for agricultural inputs and to make ends meet for their family. That
comes with an 8% monthly interest. They can no longer benefit from the extension of loan form
their Pandan Multi-purpose Cooperative because of the many unpaid outstanding loans of many
members.
For the Ceralbo family, farming is not enough. The wife tends to the field while the husband
drives a public utility jeepney for a measely P140/day wage. She is worried about the increasing
costs of agricultural inputs such as urea and herbicides. Furthermore this is aggravated by the fact
that their cooperative charges higher than the regular agri supply stores.
The Ceralbo couple hopes that things will get better for them, and yet they don’t really have a
choice but to suffer the burden of the tillage of the soil. For the sake of their children, they have to
work. Even if “nadalman na sa utang, sige gihapon nga panguma kag hatag sang patubas sa tag-iya”,
otherwise they will lose the land.

IV. ANALYSES: DEFECTS IN LAW AND/OR ITS IMPLEMENTATION, PROBLEM

AREAS, IMPACT OF THE PROGRAM

The issue whether or not Land Reform succeeded in creating a dent in improving the lives of
farmers in the countryside, by providing them with productive land as a means to support their
family’s needs, as well as addressing the country’s need for food security were answered partly in
our immersion with the Agrarian Reform Community in Pandan, Dingle, Iloilo.
From the interviews and interactions with the farmer beneficiaries, leasehold tenants and
agrarian reform officers in the municipality, one can say that most, if not all of them were able to
support their children through school and have them earn degrees. Some of their children even work
abroad and never came back, while some stayed and continued to till the land. Hearing that, it may
be enough to say that yes, their lives improved. But that issue on education can be addressed by
other social development agencies of the government and education and learning agencies.

problems cited by the farmer-beneficiaries:

1. Not aware/have not attended in seminars conducted by the DAR
2. Have not availed of the free farm outputs from the government
3. Ignorance of support services provided by DAR
4. Large part of the income from farm produce are basically used for payment of existing debts
5. Lack of information dissemination about the rights and privileges of farmer beneficiaries
under the agrarian reform program

9
6. No post-harvest facilities from the DAR.
7. Has never attended any seminars conducted by the DAR
8. No post-harvest facilities from the DAR.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS:
It has been twenty-seven years since the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law was passed.
The five-year extension under the CARPER has also already expired. Yet there is no denying that
the lives of our farmers remained the same today. They are still living in a state of destituteness,
and the promise of a better life under CARL and CARPER was never realized.5
There is therefore no need to further extend a law and its program that never realized its
ultimate objective. While this is the case, what is now needed are mechanisms to help mitigate the
problems created by agrarian reform and focus on areas for improvement. It is not enough that we
criticize, what is called upon us is to put words into actions.

We have outlined a few recommendations in this paper that will help address specific
problem areas:

A. Support and Funding Mechanisms

The need for support and funding are the common denominator of all our respondents. This
is the problem encountered by farmer beneficiaries and farm tenants who do not have the means of
providing capital to make their land productive.
The problem stems from the fact that as farmer beneficiaries they have the obligation to
repay the government for the land, as leaseholders, the have the obligation to pay for the rental of the
land. As landowners, economic difficulties and indebtedness are the root cause.
Chapter XIV (Financing) of the CARP expressly states:
SECTION 63. Funding Source. — The initial amount needed to implement
this Act for the period of ten (10) years upon approval hereof shall be funded from the
Agrarian Reform Fund created under Sections 20 and 21 of Executive Order No. 229.
Additional amounts are hereby authorized to be appropriated as and when needed to
augment the Agrarian Reform Fund in order to fully implement the provisions of this
Act. Sources of funding or appropriations shall include the following: a) Proceeds of
the sales of the Assets Privatization Trust; b) All receipts from assets recovered and
from sales of ill-gotten wealth recovered through the Presidential Commission on
Good Government; c) Proceeds of the disposition of the properties of the Government
in foreign countries; d) Portion of amounts accruing to the Philippines from all sources
of official foreign grants and concessional financing from all countries, to be used for
the specific purposes of financing production credits, infrastructures, and other support
services required by this Act; cdt (e) Other government funds not otherwise
appropriated. All funds appropriated to implement the provisions of this Act shall be
considered continuing appropriations during the period of its implementation.

SECTION 64. Financial Intermediary for the CARP. — The Land Bank of the
Philippines shall be the financial intermediary for the CARP, and shall insure that the
social justice objectives of the CARP shall enjoy a preference among its priorities.

5
“Extending Agrarian Reform Law: Same Old Story Equals Same Result”, published in the International Coalition of
Human Rights of the Philippines web page.

10
 Funding and credit needs to be supervised. Mere lending without proper financial
management will bring the borrower farmer to financial ruin, and ultimately lose his land in the
process. The agrarian reform program should not just settle on its laurels after acquisition and
distribution of farm lands. It should now focus on helping farmers in making their lands productive
and helping them keep their land.
A system for government funded subsidy or incentive is also desired for private lending
institutions and a system of accountability for lending institutions that force unconscionable rates
and interests on farmer borrowers

B. Speedy Adjudication of Land Valuation and Distribution Cases

The Agrarian Reform Program is beset with a multitude of cases pending in agrarian courts
and in the appellate courts waiting for resolution. This is a battleground for landowners and the
DAR, and has caused severe injustice to many landowners. While the main purpose of the agrarian
law is on acquisition and equitable distribution of land to as many as possible, it should also be just
and speedy in terms of its compensation for those who lost their land.
Let us learn from the Japanese Agrarian Reform: “Under Japan's 1946 land reform, landlords
who owned more than the permitted amount had to sell the excess land to the government at a fixed
price. The government then sold it at the same price, giving first preference to any tenant who had
been farming the land. Japan’s land reform succeeded for two reasons. The first reason is that the
Occupation had the power to impose and enforce a law that hurt the interests of a very powerful
class of people, wealthy landlords, in order to bring about social and economic change. The second
reason is more complex. At the time the land reform law was passed in October, 1946, it provided
reasonable compensation to the landlords who had to sell their land to the government.” 6

C. Incentive System Based on Land Productivity

An Incentive System Based on Land Productivity is desired by the authors of this paper. This
system aims at improving agricultural output of family sized farms through an incentive program
based on crops and agricultural land area farmed. This aims at positive and creative competition
among farmers as they will be challenged to produce more because of the incentive that will be
given.
Probable incentives are as follows: (1) Higher price per kilo for palay because of the quality
of grains that they produce, (2) discounted rates for fertilizers, agro chemicals, and seeds (both
hybrid and certified seeds), (3) rewards program that will allow them to own or rent farm
implements, machineries for agricultural production, among others, (4) acknowledgement among
peers by means of certificates and rewards, (5) opportunity to be able to travel and experience
similar high-producing farms in the country for exchange of knowledge and skills.
This will not just benefit the farmers, but the entire agricultural sector as well. It creates a
new knowledge base on best practices in agriculture and farming.

D. Education and Skills Training

This aspect of the Agrarian Reform Law was nice on paper but lacked implementation. The
DAR and the DA are the lead agencies tasked to implement this in a continuous andconsistent
manner. The Education and Skills Training can best be achieved through tie-ups or consortiums
with State Universities such as the University of the Philippines and Western Visayas State
University. This allows for experts from the Agriculture Departments of UP, and WESVARDEC of
WVSU in partnership with technical persons from DAR and DA to work hand in hand in creating
education and training modules that will be meaningful and economically feasible for specific
farmers in specific areas.

6
“Why Japan’s Land Reform Succeeded.”
http://www.crosscurrents.hawaii.edu/content.aspx?lang=eng&site=japan&theme=work&subtheme=AGRIC&unit=JWO
RK099

11
 Commitment and consistency are key elements in education and skills training. It is not
enough that they will be handed a seminar or a lecture, and then they go home. What is needed is
commitment by all sectors involved in providing adequate knowledge as tools for these farmers so
they may improve their lot from the increased economic benefits of farming.
E. A new law providing for the supervision, implementation, and monitoring of agrarian
lands for the purpose of increasing its productivity and enhanced employment
opportunities in the agriculture sector.

This desired law aims at preventing a return into landlordism. Now that the state has distributed
land, and within a few years most if not all shall be fully paid, and have passed the period required to
prevent them from selling their land, a return to landlordism may be possible. Also to be considered
is the growing population of the country and the need for residential spaces, this law should also take
into consideration the possibility of losing agricultural lands to conversion.
In the case of Japan, “although by 1949, 1.76 million farms had been transferred to 4.7
million new owners, the process was deemed not fully secured. Additional legislation in the form of
the 1952 Agricultural Land Law concreted particular terms in order to prevent a return to
landlordism. It fixed both the definition of owner-cultivator and the market terms for the transfer of
farmland. Farmers could sell to other farmers but not to corporations. Mobility of agricultural
proprietors was hampered because residence relocation automatically invoked absenteeism and
hence mandatory purchase by the state. In addition, the Law entrenched the administrative powers of
the local agricultural committees.”7
Bernardo Villegas in his article relayed that it was Dr. Ramon De Vera, who, based on the
famous scholarly paper of National Scientist Dr. Raul Fabella, former Dean of Economics of the
University of the Philippines, arrived at the conclusion that what fifty years of Philippine land
reform accomplished was to increase the number of “landed poor.” 8 What can one who has land,
but has no means to till it? There is one consequence, “agrarian return”, as coined by our law
professor Atty. Cirilo Yuro, Jr. Agrarian Return happens when a farmer-beneficiary becomes
incapable of tilling and making his land productive for economic or oppressive reasons agrees to sell
his land or his rights to another, particularly the former landlords as they have the better means to
manage and bring the lands to economic health. This situation is now going on. Unless this is
address, we will regress into the olden times where the few rich shall again re-acquire their lands to
the detriment of these farmer beneficiaries.

Provisions in the Agrarian Reform Law has loopholes allowing farmer beneficiaries to
alienate, and for prospective owners to acquire, either through sale, indebtedness or through a
leasehold scheme the distributed farm lands of the Agrarian Reform Program.

The desired law should have a system of supervising the distributed lands through accurate
database, monitoring and ensuring productivity of the lands. This prevents the intrusion of
prospective owners and corporations from taking over agrarian lands. The law should contemplate
on ways to prevent unintended developments from intruding into agrarian and agricultural lands as
these can hamper the agricultural productivity and lead to conversion of farm lands into residential
and commercial lands.

The urgency of the food security issue should be likewise addressed by provisions that will
protect farmers welfare and economic standing, and provide for support to ensure continued
productivity and economic viability of farmlands. As the need arises, the law shall provide the state
the power to provide incentives for needed crops whether for domestic consumption or for export
needs.

7
“Reconsidering Land Reform and Agricultural Policy in Japan” by Mark Stevenson Curry, accessed from:
http://openasia.asia/reconsidering-land-reform-and-agricultural-policy-in-japan-1120
8
“Land Reform in the Philippines” by Bernando Villegas, accessed from http://www.mb.com.ph/land-reform-in-the-
philippines-part-i/

12
 The law further should have its needed appropriation to enable it to run and sustain itself.
Provisions in the law enabling for a specific fraction from the national budget to help alleviate and
support the farmers and the agricultural sector.

Furthermore, the law should have provisions acknowledging the participation of private
investments in the implementation of the food security program, but shall not infringe on the rights
of farmers and shall protect the agriculture sector.

F. Enhanced Support of the Local Governement Units (LGUs)

Lastly, the local government units are key in assisting agrarian lands, its farmers, landowners
and stakeholders in creating a system of cooperation, support and sustainability. Agriculture is a key
area and should be a matter of national policy. The protection, preservation and fulfillment of the
rights of farmers and landowners should be an important agenda.
The vast resources of our country need to be honed for our economic progress and
industrialization. Through the local government units, they can provide the national government
with data to address concerns in policy making. The LGUs on the other hand shall be the eyes and
feet of the national government in implementing and assisting key units and agencies in agriculture,
and in the preservation of agrarian lands.
With proper administration, there is much to be gained. There will be the desired
sustainability and economic viability of agriculture. Food security will not remain a dream, but can
be realized with the proper means.

VI. CONCLUSION
Agrarian reform remains an unfinished business under the 1987 Philippine Constitution. As
a key social justice mechanism, CARP and CARPER have yet to fulfill their promise. Article XII,
Section 4 of the Constitution provides that “the State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform
program founded on the right of farmers and regular farm workers, who are landless, to own directly
or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farm workers, to receive a just share of the
fruits thereof.”
According to DAR, as of end-2013, the official land acquisition and distribution balance is a
total of 790,671 hectares from 80,867 landholdings. This means that the department needs to
distribute 197,667.8 hectares per month from March to June 30, 2014 to stick to the ‘deadline’.
There are still 206,536 hectares of lands with no Notices of Coverage (NOCs). The Notices of
Coverage kicks off the land distribution process for private agricultural lands under compulsory
acquisition, which is now the main mode of acquisition under CARPER. This landholdings comprise
the bulk of remaining lands to be distributed—470,274 hectares of lands or 60 percent of the total
land distribution balance.
Further, coconut, rice and sugar cane lands comprise more than two-thirds of lands that still
need to be distributed under CARPER. Based on DAR’s figures, as of January 2013, there are
262,524 hectares of coconut lands, 178,690 hectares of rice lands and 145,802 hectares planted to
sugarcane that are up for distribution.
Unfortunately, the national land reform program is now at a dire state, ultimately, as a result
of DAR’s halfhearted commitment to act decisively for the interests of its primary constituency—
small, landless farmers. CARP is on the verge of death at the hands of the present DAR, under
Secretary Virgilio delos Reyes. Delos Reyes promised to distribute more than 1.2 million hectares
of lands, targeting 200,000 for 2011; 180,000 hectares for 2012; 260,000 hectares for 2013; and
200,000 hectares for 2014. This leaves around as much as 360,000 hectares of undistributed land or
30 percent of the total balance by June 2014.

13