Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 86
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery A Research for Budget Transparency Forum-Agrarian
Rationalizing Public
Expenditures in Agrarian
Justice Delivery
A Research for Budget Transparency Forum-Agrarian
Reform
September 2011
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Quezon City
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery The Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development is

The Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development is grateful to the following people and organizations in helping make this research possible:

The World Bank Philippines-Budget Transparency Forum Department of Agrarian Reform Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance
The World Bank Philippines-Budget Transparency Forum
Department of Agrarian Reform
Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance
Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
Finance, Management and Administrative Office
Department of Agrarian Reform Camarines Sur Provincial Office
Department of Agrarian Reform Capiz Provincial Office
Department of Agrarian Reform South Bukidnon Provincial Office
Department of Agrarian Reform Dumalag Municipal Office
Department of Agrarian Reform Maramag Municipal Office
FMAO Assistant Secretary Felix Perry Villanueva
Our Partner Civil Society Organizations
BALAOD-Minadanaw, Inc.
Pambansang Kilusan ng mga Samahang Magsasaka (PAKISAMA)
People’s Organizations
Banasi Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association (BARFBA)
Consolacion Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Multi-Purpose Cooperative (CARBMPC)
Kapunungan sa Mamumuong Mag-uuma sa Philippine Greenhills (KAMMPHIL)
Research Consultants
Prof. Rainier V. Almazan
Ms. Cristina David
Mr. Edwin P. Nerva
Prof. Antonio B. Quizon

Research Team

Joe-Anna Marie V. Casidsid Joselle P. Concepcion Edel S. Garingan

Joe-Anna Marie V. Casidsid Joselle P. Concepcion Edel S. Garingan Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 2
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 2
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

ABBREVIATIONS

ACO

AJD

ALA

ALI

AO

ARB

ARO

BALA

BALA

BARC

BLAD

CARP

CARPER

CBCP

CLOA

COA

COCAR

CSO

DAR

DARAB

DBM

DBM

EP

FMAO

GAA

LAD

MARO

MC

MFO

PARAD

PARAD

PARO

PBD

PCGG

PhilDHRRA

Agency Central Office Agrarian Justice Delivery Agrarian Legal Assistance Agrarian Law Implementation Administrative Order Agrarian Reform Beneficiary Agency Regional Office Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance Barangay Agrarian Reform Council Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program with Extension and Reforms Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines Certificate of Land Ownership Award Commission on Audit Congressional Oversight Committee on Agrarian Reform Civil Society Organization Department of Agrarian Reform Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board Department of Budget and Management Department of Budget and Management Emancipation Patent Finance Management and Administrative Office General Appropriations Act Land Acquisition and Distribution Municipal Agrarian Reform Office/r Memorandum Circular Major Final Output Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board Provincial Agrarian Reform Office/r Program Beneficiaries’ Development Presidential Commission for Good Governance Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources in the Rural Areas Policy Planning and Legal Affairs Office Republic Act Results-Based Organizational Performance Indicator Framework Regional Development Council Statement of Allotment, Obligations and Balance

Council Statement of Allotment, Obligations and Balance PPLAO RA RB-OPIF RDC SAOB Center for Agrarian Reform
PPLAO RA RB-OPIF RDC SAOB
PPLAO
RA
RB-OPIF
RDC
SAOB
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 3
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 3
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

LIST OF GRAPHS AND TABLES

1 The Budget Process

2 Historical Account of Budget Allocation for Agrarian Justice Delivery

3 Percentage Share of AJD out of the Total CARP Budget

4 Targets and Accomplishments in the Adjudication of Agrarian Cases (2005-2009)

5 Targets and Accomplishments in the Resolution of Judicial Cases (2005-2009)

6 Targets and Accomplishments in the Resolution of Quasi-Judicial Cases (2005-2009)

in the Resolution of Quasi-Judicial Cases (2005-2009) 7 Number of Accomplished Adjudication Cases vis-à-vis

7 Number of Accomplished Adjudication Cases vis-à-vis Number of Adjudication Cases Represented

(2005-2009)

8 Targets and Accomplishments in the Resolution of ALI Cases (2005-2009)

9 Targets and Accomplishments of Agrarian Justice Delivery for 2011 10 Relationship of Budget Allocation to Target Accomplishments in AJD 11 Relationship of Manpower Complement to Performance Accomplishments in ALA, CY-2010 12 Relationship of Manpower Complement to Performance Accomplishments in Adjudication, CY-2010 13 Proposed Budget Scenario for CARP-AJD for FY 2012 14 FY 2010 Indicative Targets and Budget 15 Cost Parameters for ALI Cases 16 Cost Parameters for Quasi-Judicial Cases 17 Cost Parameters for Judicial Cases 18 Reported Targets and Accomplishments of ALA in CY 2010 19 Illustration of Case and Cost Variance in ALA for CY 2010 20 Resulting Unit Cost from Accomplished ALA Cases for CY 2010 21 Camarines Sur ALA Targets vis-à-vis Total Regional Targets for CY-2010 22 Budget Allocation for Camarines Sur-ALA for CY 2010 23 2010 Targets and Accomplishments of DAR-Camarines Sur in AJD 24 Statement of Allotment, Obligations and Balance for FY 2010 of DAR-Camarines Sur AJD Units 25 Discrepancies in the Obligated Funds and Projected Expenditures out of Cost per Unit for AJD Cases in Camarines Sur, CY 2010 26 Capiz Agrarian Legal Assistance Targets vis-à-vis Total Regional Targets for CY 2010 27 Budget Allocation for Capiz-ALA for CY 2010 28 2010 Targets and Accomplishments of DAR-Capiz in AJD 29 Statement of Allotment, Obligations and Balance for FY 2010 of DAR-Capiz AJD Units 30 Discrepancies in the Obligated Funds and Projected Expenditures out of Cost per Unit for AJD Cases in Capiz, CY 2010 31 South Bukidnon Agrarian Legal Assistance Targets vis-à-vis Total Regional Targets for CY 2010 32 Budget Allocation for South Bukidnon-ALA for CY 2010 33 2010 Targets and Accomplishments of DAR-South Bukidnon in AJD 34 Statement of Allotment, Obligations and Balance for FY 2010 of DAR-South Bukidnon AJD Units Discrepancies in the Obligated Funds and Projected Expenditures out of Cost per Unit for AJD Cases in South Bukidnon, CY 2010 Summary of Poverty and Agricultural Profiles of Camarines Sur, Capiz and Bukidnon The AJD Situation of Camarines Sur, Capiz and South Bukidnon in CY 2010 Percentage Share of Camarines Sur, Capiz and South Bukidnon to Regional Targets in CY 2010 Accomplishment Rates of Camarines Sur, Capiz and South Bukidnon in AJD for CY 2010 Manner of Counting “Accomplishments” of AJD Cases

41 Allotted Unit Costs for AJD Cases in Camarines Sur, Capiz and South Bukidnon for CY 2010

42 SAOB of Camarines Sur, Capiz and South Bukidnon for Agrarian Legal Services (Fund 101 & 158), 2010

43 SAOB of Camarines Sur, Capiz and South Bukidnon for Adjudication of AR Cases (Fund 158), 2010

44 Total Discrepancies between Fund Obligations and Projected Expenditures out of Reported AJD Case Accomplishments of Camarines Sur, Capiz and Bukidnon for CY 2010

35

36 37 38 39 40
36
37
38
39
40
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 4
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 4
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

1. BACKGROUND

1.1. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program

The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) is one of the more concrete results of the 1986 People Power Revolution. This has been the government’s response to the clamor of landless tillers throughout the country for a genuine distributive agrarian reform program. According to RA 6657, CARP purposed “for a more equitable distribution and ownership of land.” To achieve this, the program has three major objectives:

1.2. Operationalizing CARPER
1.2. Operationalizing CARPER

(1) Land Tenure Improvement (LTI), which seeks to improve the tenurial status of farmers and farm workers through land acquisition and distribution (LAD) and leasehold operations; (2) Agrarian Justice Delivery (AJD), which intends to provide effective and timely legal support to agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARB) in the course of agrarian-related disputes; and (3) Program Beneficiaries Development (PBD), which “aims to capacitate ARBs and provide them access to the necessary support services to make their lands more productive, enable them to venture in income generating livelihood projects and actively participate in community governance.” 1

These objectives are anchored on the belief that the provision of access to land, agrarian justice, and support services will eventually lead to the alleviation of rural poverty and to the development of communities in the countryside. From 1988 to 2008, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) has posted significant accomplishments in the above three CARP components. In spite of this, the backlogs remained substantial. As of 2008, the year which marked the conclusion of RA 6657, DAR was yet to distribute 1,057,217 hectares of land. 2 The need to facilitate the distribution of these backlogs and improve certain provisions of the program marked the passage of RA 9700 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program with Extension and Reforms (CARPER) Law. The major reforms included provisions for increased budgetary allocation for the program amounting to PhP 150 billion for 2009-2014, the phasing schedule of LAD to prioritize larger tracts of land, the increased participation of women in agrarian related issues, the indefeasibility clauses for Certificate of Land Ownership Awards (CLOA) and Emancipation Patents (EP), the recognition of the legal standing of farmers in any agrarian related disputes, the exclusive jurisdiction of DAR over all agrarian related cases in the country, and the sanctions to individuals or groups, which would impede the implementation of the program.

which would impede the implementation of the program. The CARPER is put into operational terms through

The CARPER is put into operational terms through a Results-Based Organizational Performance Indicator Framework (RB-OPIF). DAR prepares and submits the RB-OPIF to the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) in the course of translating the three objectives (LTI, AJD and PBD) into performance indicators, which will then reflect cost parameters and basis for fund allocation and periodic monitoring. 3 The OPIF aims to “identify, delineate and integrate sectoral LTI, AJD and PBD niches (in terms of Major Final

1 DAR Official Website. Accessed 28 July 2011 2 ---- (2008). Land Acquisition and Distribution Scope and Accomplishment under CARP by Region as of December 2008. Accessed 28 July 2011 from www.neda.gov.ph 3 DAR (2010). The DAR’s OPIF Journey from CARP to CARPER. Presentation for the OPIF Assessment Workshop: Lessons, Gains and Opportunities. Accessed 28 July 2011 from www.dbm.gov.ph

Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 5
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 5
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

Outputs) that contribute to the attainment of organizational outcomes.” 4 The RB-OPIF likewise serves as the basis for the preparation of the annual work and financial plan of DAR units.

Below is an illustration of the Results-Based Organizational Performance Indicator Framework for CARPER: 5

Performance Indicator Framework for CARPER: 5 1.3. Agrarian Justice Delivery (AJD) in Focus The transition
1.3. Agrarian Justice Delivery (AJD) in Focus
1.3. Agrarian Justice Delivery (AJD) in Focus

The transition from CARP to CARPER marked the “embedding of a performance-oriented culture in DAR.” 6 The outcomes and outputs are translated into specific performance plans of each DAR unit, which in turn serves as basis of quarterly performance evaluation. The three MFO are interrelated with one another, such that failures or inefficiencies in one MFO affect the other MFOs and thus have substantial impact to the fulfillment of the societal goal of the program.

Agrarian Justice Delivery (AJD) is one of the three program components and MFOs of CARP. It is comprised of two sub-components: (a) representation, wherein DAR lawyers and Legal Officers handle cases both in the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) and regular courts; and (b) adjudication, an authority vested to the DARAB, which has the primary and exclusive jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate all agrarian-related cases. 7 In the past years, AJD has received the lowest allocation in the DAR budget, albeit it has the highest percentage of accomplishments compared to LAD and PBD.

the lowest allocation in the DAR budget, albeit it has the highest percentage of accomplishments compared

However, increasing number of reports on cancelled CLOAs, eviction of farmers from their landholdings, and unscrupulous land conversion issues taint the validity of these reported accomplishments. Aside from these issues, it can be noted that while DAR reported a 98 percent accomplishment in agrarian justice delivery in 2010 (CARP Briefer and Statistical Handbook, 2010), these accomplishments are not reflected in the completed land tenure services provided for agrarian reform beneficiaries, which should have been the major outcomes of these dispute- and case-resolutions. For instance, DAR posted in 2010 that out of

4 Ibid.,

5 DBM Official Website, Accessed 28 July 2011

6 DAR (2010). The DAR’s OPIF Journey from CARP to CARPER. Presentation for the OPIF Assessment Workshop: Lessons, Gains and

Opportunities. Accessed 28 July 2011 from www.dbm.gov.ph

7 DAR (2003). DARAB Rules of Procedure, 2003. Accessed 28 July 2011 from www.dar.gov.ph

Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 6
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 6
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

40,296 uninstalled beneficiaries, only 20,000 have been installed. In the course of analyzing the effectiveness of agrarian conflict resolution mechanisms, one should take into account that installation of CLOA-holders is one of the major outcomes for the resolution of ALI cases. DAR likewise registered a mere 49% accomplishment in the re-documentation of distributed but not yet documented lands and subdivision of collective CLOA – activities, which should have been the common outcomes of resolutions pertaining to petitions for farmer inclusion and exclusion, fixing and collection of amortization payments and other disputes concerning amortization, among others.

1.4. Research Objectives
1.4.
Research Objectives

Landholdings under dispute are characterized by parties of unequal bargaining capacity (assuming that the landowner or the ones with vested interest over the land have more resources than the tillers, and thus have the greater capacity to sustain a long legal battle). This inequality is furthermore highlighted for farmers who could not physically till the land that has been awarded to them. Abuses (physical or emotional) are seldom taken into account, and the amount of time, money and effort that the agrarian reform beneficiaries usually wage in the course of the dispute settlement have not been accounted for in the past. To put it bluntly, a mechanism to ensure that accomplishments are not confined “on paper” is still lacking.

It is in fact, difficult to assess the actual accomplishment of DAR basing on the generation and awarding of CLOA alone. The improvement of the farmers’ land tenure could not push through if there are agrarian related-disputes that taint the validity of DAR-issued CLOAs. For one, not all CLOA-holders have access to the land that has been awarded to them, and conflicting land claims and issues further complicate matters for agrarian reform beneficiaries and other similarly marginalized social segments of the rural population.

DAR has yet to prove that its budgetary allocation for the program makes for an efficient and effective resolution of cases, especially since according to the Department of Agrarian Reform’s (DAR) official website (www.dar.gov.ph), all agrarian cases throughout the country are handled by a personnel complement of 1,272 – and only 174 of whom are lawyers. In 2010, only 4.7 percent of the Department’s over-all budget is allocated to the agrarian justice delivery component of the agrarian reform program, and in 2011 until 2014, the proposed budgetary allocation for agrarian justice was only pegged at 2 percent.

It should be noted however, that while land acquisition and distribution is the primary mandate of DAR according to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), it has the exclusive jurisdiction over all agrarian related cases in the country. Hence, in cases of abuses and misrepresentations, the agrarian reform beneficiaries and other tillers only have DAR to turn to. It is also noteworthy to consider that the agrarian justice delivery component of CARP will remain, even if the department succeeds in accomplishing its targets in land acquisition and distribution on 2014.

its targets in land acquisition and distribution on 2014. This research entitled, “ Rationalizing Public

This research entitled, “Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery” seeks to examine the budget allocated on the agrarian justice delivery component of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP); how it is used in settling agrarian-related cases and disputes; and whether it is responsive to the actual legal and other conciliation and mediation needs of the identified farmer- beneficiaries of the program. The research has likewise taken into account, the cost of specific judicial (or quasi-judicial) proceedings, and how much the farmers, the government, and other stakeholders invest in the process; especially when the dispute prevents agrarian reform beneficiaries from making the land productive. In the course of the analysis, the research has strived to embark on the full accounting of agrarian justice delivery as a program component of CARP; and its actual impact to the farmers and farm workers in the rural communities, as primary targets of all agrarian reform efforts of the government. Through this research, it is

Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 7
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 7
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

hoped that the public – particularly the helping sector such as the government units and civil society organizations, will gain deeper insights on the dynamics of land disputes and conflicts, and how they affect livelihood conditions and poverty situations of the farmers and farm workers in the rural areas.

Specifically, the research aims to:

a.

Determine the budget process and allocations for the agrarian justice delivery component of CARP, from the national DAR office to three municipal offices representing Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao;

b. Determine whether there is sufficiency/ insufficiency or efficiency/ inefficiency in the AJD budget spending;
b. Determine whether there is sufficiency/ insufficiency or efficiency/ inefficiency in the AJD
budget spending; and
c. Determine the impact of sufficiency/ insufficiency or efficiency/ inefficiency in the AJD budget
spending to the livelihood conditions and poverty situations of CARP beneficiaries
2. METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES
Research Objectives
Macro
Mezzo
Micro
1. Interview with point
persons from:
a. Bureau of Agrarian
Legal Assistance
b. Department
of
Agrarian
Reform
Adjudication Board
1.
Interview
with
point
Determine the budget
process and allocations
for the agrarian justice
delivery component of
CARP, from the national
DAR office to three
municipal offices
representing Luzon,
Visayas, and Mindanao;
c.
Bureau
of Land
persons from:
Acquisition
and
a.
DARPO,
PARAD,
and
Distribution
MARO-Bukidnon
d.
DAR-Finance
b.
DARPO,
PARAD,
and
Management
and
MARO-Capiz
Administrative Office
c.
DARPO,
PARAD,
and
MARO-Camarines Sur
2. Secondary data
analysis of:
2. Secondary data
a. AJD Allocation per
analysis of:
province vis-à-vis
number of targets
a. Statement of Allotment,
Obligations and Balances
b. 2010 GAA and other
sources of funding for
AJD
of DAR Provincial Offices
in Capiz, Bukidnon, and
Camarines Sur
c. Historical allocations
on AJD (2005-2011)
b. Performance Targets
vs.
Actual
1. Interview with point
persons from:
Accomplishments of DAR
Provincial Offices in
a. DAR-Finance
2. Determine whether
there is sufficiency/
insufficiency or
efficiency/ inefficiency in
the AJD budget spending;
Management
and
Capiz, Bukidnon, and
Camarines Sur
Admin. Office
b. Bureau of Agrarian
Legal Assistance
c. Department
of
Agrarian
Reform
Adjudication Board
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 8
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 8
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

2. Secondary data analysis of:

a. 2009 audited financial statement of DAR

b. 2010 unaudited list of

DAR expenses c. Organizational Performance Indicator Framework of CARP and CARPER

1. Interview farmer-groups farmer leaders from: a. Bgy. San Maramag, Bukidnon b. Bgy. Dumalag, Capiz
1.
Interview
farmer-groups
farmer leaders from:
a. Bgy.
San
Maramag, Bukidnon
b. Bgy.
Dumalag, Capiz
c.
Bgy.
Banasi,
Camarines Sur
2. Accounting of:
b.
livelihood
c. Foregone income
Cost of Production

with

and

Miguel,

Consolacion,

Bula,

a. Case-related expenditures:

a.1. Transportation expenses a.2. Lawyers’ Fees a.3. reproduction and distribution of case documents a.4. Other expenses during ceremonial installations (food for the PNP, DAR Officials, priest’s stipends, banners, etc.)

3. Impact of inefficiency/ insufficiency to the livelihood of farmers

Alternative modes of

insufficiency to the livelihood of farmers Alternative modes of Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 9
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 9
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

3. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

3.1. Nature of Land Conflicts in the Philippines

Olano 8 presented the “nature of land-related conflicts in the Philippines within the context of the prevailing agrarian situation throughout the country” in an article entitled “Land Conflict Resolution: Case Studies in the Philippines.” The article premised that the nature of most land conflicts in the country is reflective of the slow implementation of the agrarian reform law, since the passage of CARP during the Aquino administration in 1988. Olano sought to prove this premise by presenting two land conflicts in the sugar haciendas of Bukidnon and Negros. He summed up the three major sources of agrarian unrest in the country:

o o the development of the sugar industry in Luzon, based on tenanted haciendas, and
o
o the development of the sugar industry in Luzon, based on tenanted haciendas, and then
o the emergence of modern plantations and commercial farms in the southern island of
Mindanao represents confrontation between wage laborers and corporate management in
modern agribusiness plantations.” 9
3.2. DAR’s Assessment on the Delivery of Agrarian Justice through CARP

“the emergence of agrarian institutions in Central Luzon and Southern Tagalog regions in the Philippines represents disputes between tenants and landlords;

Negros Islands, based on centrally managed haciendas employing hired labor, represent confrontations between wage laborers and haciendero planters in traditional plantations; and

According to Olano these agrarian unrests are further worsened by the ignorance of key institutions in the agrarian reform law, the conflicting policy climate of agrarian reform, and an ill-equipped bureaucracy that has to play the proactive role of engaging the public to respect the underlying philosophies of land distribution. Olano recommended for the fast-tracking of land acquisition and distribution efforts to prevent the escalation of land related conflict, support and maintenance of grassroots initiatives on dispute- resolution, strengthening of the capacities of the Barangay Agrarian Reform Council in terms of conflict mediation and creation of a National Land Management Council comprised of representatives from government agencies and civil society organizations to “identify, monitor and intervene in major land cases.” 10

According to the Country Paper presented by former Secretary Nasser Pangandaman in the International Conference for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ICARRD), DAR receives an average of 35,000 cases every year. “The number of cases had been increasing every year, and lack of manpower has contributed to delays in resolution of cases and in the accumulation of backlogs.” 11 The former secretary added that DAR has been widely challenged by the landowners in terms of their primary jurisdiction in agrarian related cases before trial courts. This, however, has already been addressed by an amendment in the agrarian reform law, which afforded DAR with the sole jurisdiction over all agrarian related cases in the country.

jurisdiction over all agrarian related cases in the country. This country paper likewise presented evidences that

This country paper likewise presented evidences that being an agrarian reform beneficiary per se does not reduce the chances of being poor. Rather, a primary determinant of poverty reduction is the length

8 Olano, J.N.D. (2002). “Land Conflict Resolution: Case studies in the Philippines.” Land Reform, Land Settlement and Cooperatives. FAO Corporate Document Depository. Accessed 23 June 2011 from www.fao.org.ph 9 Ibid., 10 Ibid., 11 DAR (2006). Philippine Agrarian Reform: Partnerships for Social Justice, Rural Growth, and Sustainable Development: Country Paper on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development in the Philippines. Country Paper presented by Sec. Nasser Pangandaman in the International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ICARRD), Porto Alegre, Brazil on 7-10 March 2006. Accessed 23 June 2011 from www.icarrd.org

Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 10
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 10
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

of time one becomes an ARB. Access to credit and market infrastructures play a major role in poverty alleviation – feats that would not be achievable in the course of an agrarian dispute. The period of waiting over the result of the dispute settlement – whether through judicial or quasi-judicial means has significant impact to the livelihood of farmers, who could not till the land; and in cases where lands are left idle – to the farm’s productivity rate and to the revenue that the local government ought to be getting from land property taxes. Because agrarian reform rests upon the principle of alleviating poverty in the countryside, it would be vital to ensure that the process of land distribution would be completed by actual physical occupation of the land and not merely by the awarding of certificate of land ownerships to farmers. Because CARP is also anchored with the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in terms of alleviating poverty, it is necessary that the accomplishments for land distribution, agrarian justice and support services are not only registered on paper, but are actually felt by the very targets of the program.

3.3. Post-2008 Agrarian Justice Delivery
3.3. Post-2008 Agrarian Justice Delivery

DAR has likewise identified bottlenecks in the implementation of the government’s agrarian reform program, which remain to be major issues in the countryside until today. These bottlenecks include landlords’ resistance and difficulties in land valuation, second generation land distribution and ownership issues (i.e., the subdivision of collective CLOAs), dominance of trade-lenders, which have “transformed the unequal landlord-tenant relations into unequal trader-farmer relations,” and repayment problems for some credit cooperatives and farmers’ organizations (which can be attributed to the lack of support services and input and output infrastructures). These issues, however, can be addressed by an agrarian justice mechanism that takes cognizance – not only to the felt needs and issues, but, more importantly, to the existing power dynamics that affect the swift implementation of LAD and PBD.

Adriano 12 sought to evaluate the post-2008 scenario of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program in relation with its accomplishments in its three major program areas: (1) land acquisition and distribution; (2) program beneficiaries’ development; and (3) agrarian justice delivery. At the time of the author’s writing, the transition scenario for CARP was still unclear. Adriano evaluated the proposed bills for the extension of the agrarian reform program of the government. He emphasized the need to provide more focus on the agrarian justice delivery component of the program, to ensure that not only the targets are reached, but are facilitated properly. All the proposed bills pertaining to the extension of CARP called for the strengthening of DARAB and other AJD units, and the hiring of more lawyers and training of more paralegals to address the case backlogs in agrarian reform. The Akbayan bill, however, (which became the basis of the RA 9700, CARPER Law) was said to be the only bill filed in Congress which included the following provisions:

Among others, it proposes to: (a) strengthen the DARAB with the inclusion of senior DAR officials in the Board; (b) vest DAR with exclusive jurisdiction over all matters involving agrarian reform implementation, including the power to ‘summon witnesses, administer oath, take testimonies, require submission of reports, and issue subpoena to enforce its writs through sheriffs or duly deputized officers;’ (c) empower ARBs to file cases before the courts concerning their individual or collective rights under the CARP and providing that their usufruct rights over the land shall not be diminished even pending the awarding of CLOAs; (d) hold DAR responsible for assigning legal counsels to represent litigant farmer, farm worker or tenant in court; (e) provide that only DAR should have sole jurisdiction on cases related to CARP implementation; (f) disallow regular courts to take cognizance of cases filed by landowners against ARBs related to CARP implementation prior to the resolution of whether such cases are of tenancy relations, agrarian disputes, or within the application of the agrarian laws by

disputes, or within the application of the agrarian laws by 12 Adriano, F.D. (2008). “CARP Institutional

12 Adriano, F.D. (2008). “CARP Institutional Assessment in a Post-2008 Scenario: Toward a New Rural Development Architecture.” Philippine Institute for Development Studies Discussion Paper Series No. 2008- 06. Accessed 23 June 2011 from www.dirp3.pids.gov.ph

Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 11
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 11
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

DARAB or in other cases, the PARAD; and (g) stop the regular courts from issuing restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction against PARC, DAR, or any other agencies tasked to implement CARL.” 13

These seven points underscore the importance of an efficient and effective mechanism for the settlement of agrarian related disputes throughout the country. Other recommendations include the need for the “improvement of the system and processes of handling legal cases, including the establishment of a legal database system for better monitoring purposes.” 14 Templating, or the formulation of standard reply procedures to guide DAR personnel in the conduct of legal cases was also recommended.

in the conduct of legal cases was also recommended. This post-2008 scenario was eventually realized when

This post-2008 scenario was eventually realized when RA 9700 or CARPER was signed into law in 2008. Bello, in an article in the Philippine Daily Inquirer noted that while CARPER has been dubbed as a compromise legislative measure, it is still “a step forward in the long struggle for agrarian reform in the country.” 15 According to Bello, while the government was able to distribute close to 6 million out of the 8.1 million hectares of agricultural lands in the country, most of these lands were public lands, and only 17 percent of private landholdings were actually transferred to tenants as of the year 2008. Bello identified implementation loopholes, such as the Stock Distribution Option (SDO) which heavily undermined the basic principles of equity through land distribution, landowners’ subdivision of landholdings among members of their families and other relatives, selling the land to dummies, and converting croplands to commercial and industrial uses. Aside from this, landowners have constantly challenged the validity of government-issued CLOA in courts through various legal instruments, which eventually resulted to the eviction of farmers from the lands that have been awarded to them. Several agrarian-related hostilities have been documented in the past, which include the assassination of peasant activists and the employment of private armies to prevent farmers from their actual occupation of the landholdings.

The absence of a strong mechanism for the delivery of agrarian justice inexorably comes to mind in the light of these issues. The AKBAYAN Bill for CARP, which became the basis for CARPER sought to address this by including provisions that may ensure that not only will the swift delivery of agrarian justice be achieved; but also, and more importantly, that the farmers will really benefit from the fruits of CARP, which will then lead to the improvement of the poverty situation in the countryside.

The shift of CARP implementation to CARPER was complemented by the adoption of the Organizational Performance Indicator Framework (OPIF) of DAR, in the course of its strategic/ medium term planning. According to a presentation made by DAR in the OPIF assessment workshop at the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) office in 2010, the shift to OPIF afforded for a results-oriented and forward- looking resource requirement estimation, 16 which means that cost parameters were provided for every performance indicator, which then serves as the basis for periodic monitoring and fund. According to DAR, this practice eventually resulted to the integration of the three major final outputs (MFO) – land tenure improvement (LTI), agrarian justice delivery (AJD), and program beneficiaries’ development (PBD) and the attainment of the outcomes for the organization. Nonetheless, DAR pointed out that it has encountered difficulties in adopting OPIF due to the need to cascade commitments to the frontline levels of implementation 17 and to institute an effective performance incentive mechanism 18 that can motivate the personnel to adopt such commitments. Aside from this, the strict deadlines of DBM hinder these “cascading” efforts of DAR, placing compliance rather than commitment as the top priority of the agency in the course of carrying out its programs and services.

in the course of carrying out its programs and services. 13 Ibid., 14 Ibid., 15 Bello,

13 Ibid.,

14 Ibid.,

15 Bello, W. (2009). “CARPER: Latest Chapter in Agri Reform Battle.” Philippine Daily Inquirer. Accessed 23 August 2011 from www.ruor.uottawa.ca

16 DAR (2010). The DAR’s O PIF Journey from CARP to CARPER. Presentation for the OPIF Assessment Workshop: Lessons, Gains and Opportunities. Accessed 28 July 2011 from www.dbm.gov.ph

17 Ibid.,

18 Ibid.,

Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 12
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 12
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

The compliance vs. commitment issue is one of the threats mentioned by Llanto and Brownette in the adoption of OPIF to performance management:

“There may also be a large risk that the departments/ agencies may abandon OPIF or even treat it as a mere compliance exercise if poor output costing practices ensue. The current environment is characterized by a lack of adequate funding with the fiscal deficit becoming a major constraint in the development agenda… Before agencies could be expected to ‘manage for results’ or shift to ‘output- or performance-based budgeting,’ they need to have greater certainty with respect to policy and budget.” 19

3.4. In a technical paper entitled, “Land Reform, Rural Development, and Poverty in the Philippines:
3.4.
In a technical paper entitled, “Land Reform, Rural Development, and Poverty in the Philippines:
In summary, the World Bank evaluation on AJD has been stated as:

Other CARP Assessments and Evaluations (with specific focus on AJD)

This has a significant impact to the implementation of CARP, notably its agrarian justice delivery component, as outputs need not be merely quantified but qualified, in the course of ensuring that real agrarian justice are felt by the targeted beneficiaries. Because the agrarian justice delivery component of CARP is predominantly hinged on legal as well as administrative responses, a mere evaluation of quantifiable outputs may result to discrepancies between the fulfillment of fiscal demands and actual responses to the legal and conciliation needs of the farmers.

Revisiting the Agenda,” the World Bank Group evaluated CARP in terms of its achievements and impacts in the past twenty years. World Bank defined “justice” in the context of agrarian reform as, ensuring that the nation’s agrarian reform law is efficient and that other laws do not serve to defeat its objectives.” 20 Agrarian justice must be a match the capacities of the serving government institution and the political and economic contexts of parties involved.

“The system is cumbersome and inefficient and works to the advantage of landowners. The reforms… based on the concept of mediation, will not solve the problem. They might actually complicate it further by adding an additional layer of bureaucracy in an already too cumbersome process of dispute resolution. Lack of career paths among involved staff and weak incentives reduce the effectiveness of the current tools for conflict resolution.” 21

The study recommended for the adoption of arbitration procedures to speed up the resolution of disputes filed in the DARAB and even in the judicial courts. This is in the light of the post-2008 CARP scenario, where the remaining backlogs for land distribution are primarily comprised of the most problematic landholdings in the country that it is to be acquired under the compulsory acquisition scheme. The case resolution trends from 2004-2007 likewise featured the incapacity of the personnel complement of DAR to deal with agrarian-related cases every year.

likewise featured the incapacity of the personnel complement of DAR to deal with agrarian-related cases every

As CARP will start covering private lands subject to compulsory acquisition, it will almost be impossible for the current system of agrarian justice to manage the surge in disputes and legal conflicts. 22

The World Bank likewise identified extremely weak land administration and agrarian justice systems as two of the fundamental obstacles in the achievement of the targets of the agrarian reform program in the

19 Llanto, G. & Brownette, S. (2007) Some Notes on Performance Management among Agencies. Discussion Paper Series No. 2007-19. Accessed 24 August 2011 from www.dirp4.pids.gov.ph

20 The World Bank Group (2009). Land Reform, Rural Development and Poverty in the Philippines: Revisiting the Agenda. Technical Working Paper. Pasig City: The World Bank in the Philippines

21 Ibid.,

22 Ibid.,

Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 13
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 13
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

country. Taking into account the cost of litigation and other similar procedures in the course of dispute settlement, the potential benefit of parties involved in the litigation often decreases as the case suffer from periodic bureaucratic lags and carried over to higher courts. World Bank affirms that the costs increase with the complexity of the claim, thereby making those who could not afford to pay for such social and economic costs lose.

For Leonen, the primary purpose of CARP has been designed to distribute outcomes through redefining relationships and through guaranteeing welfare gains. 23 As such, performances and accomplishments are all too often measured in terms of quantitative outcomes, and not of its felt impact on the alleviation of rural poverty. In the course of redefining relationship arrangements, the occurrence of conflicts could not be avoided. In is in this context where the traditional modes of values and perceptions prevail. The legal processes in CARP take a long period of time, and that only those who have the capacity to wait for its outcome could somehow benefit in the end. Inevitably, those “with capacity” are those who have the means to withstand such long proceedings. Leonen further pointed out that even the quasi-judicial process also suffers from delays in the presentation of evidence, crowded dockets including abuse and corruption.” 24

crowded dockets including abuse and corruption.” 24 In one of CARP Impact Assessment Studies for DAR,

In one of CARP Impact Assessment Studies for DAR, Dela Cruz, et. al., pointed out that the flawed agrarian justice mechanism of CARP contribute to its perceived failures. 25 Because CARP involves more than just mere acquisition and distribution of lands, its implementation has significant impact to the over-all goal of social justice and poverty alleviation. Aside from this, the slow resolution of cases has a direct influence to land acquisition and distribution as 92 percent of ALI cases are related to LAD. 26

Dela Cruz, et. al., mentioned the need to respond to the legal measures that landowners usually employ, in order to delay or disrupt the distribution of lands. These measures include legal challenges brought to court, legal harassment of CARP personnel and farmer-beneficiaries, and land conversion. 27 The study likewise pointed out:

“Just like land acquisition and distribution, the delivery of agrarian justice is hampered by lack of financing which results in the lack of personnel and low compensation for existing personnel. Given the personnel constraints, it is not surprising that the resolution of cases before the DARAB and the DAR Secretary and Regional Directors takes a lot of time…” 28

Dela Cruz, et. al., attributed this to the flawed program evaluation systems employed in the assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency of CARP. While the audit reports may appear as viable assessment measures, other evaluation systems, such as those that measure staff performance create a three—fold effect to the program: (a) the system creates incentives to emphasize the quantity of work accomplished and not the quality of work accomplished; (b) the system creates incentive for misrepresenting accomplishments; and (c) the lack of information on actual practices reinforces the tendency to use the process for rent-seeking activities. 29

to use the process for rent-seeking activities . 29 23 Leonen, M. (2008). Agrarian Justice in

23 Leonen, M. (2008). Agrarian Justice in Context: Some Suggestions for Reforms, a paper presented to the Senate of the Philippines. Accessed 01 September 2011 from www.senate.gov.ph

24 Ibid.,

25 Dela Cruz, L. J. et. al., (2003). “Institutional and Organizational Assessment of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. CARP Impact Assessment Studies, 8. Quezon City: Department of Agrarian Reform

26 Ibid.,

27 Ibid.,

28 Ibid.,

29 Ibid.,

Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 14
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 14
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

4. RESEARCH FINDINGS

4.1. Findings in the Macro-Level

4.1.1. The CARP Budget Process

Based on the provisions of RA 9700, DAR has two major sources of funds for the implementation of agrarian reform: (a) Fund 101 or the general fund and Fund 102 or foreign-assisted projects; and (b) Fund 158 or the Agrarian Reform Fund. The Agrarian Reform Fund (ARF) is sourced from:

In principle, DAR follows the general budget process for national government agencies: Fig. 1: The
In principle, DAR follows the general budget process for national government agencies:
Fig. 1: The Budget Process
Budget
Budget
Preparation
Legis
lation
Specifically, the budg
involves planning, estimating
2012 Budget
2012 Budget
its respective plan of activitie
Budget
Budget
Accountability
Exec
ution
(2011 Budget)
(2011 Budget)
in RA 9700 in the course of pl

as well as budget proposals within the offices in the

"Proceeds of the sales of the Privatization and Management Office (PMO); All receipts from assets recovered and from sales of ill-gotten wealth recovered through the PCGG excluding the amount appropriated for compensation to victims of human rights violations under the applicable law; Proceeds of the disposition and development of the properties of the Government in foreign countries, for the specific purposes of financing production credits, infrastructure and other support services required by this Act; All income and, collections of whatever form and nature arising from the agrarian reform operations, projects and programs of the DAR and other CARP implementing agencies; and Portion of amounts accruing to the Philippines from all sources of official foreign. aid grants and concessional financing from all countries, to be used for the specific purposes of financing productions, credits, infrastructures, and other support services.” 30

et preparation for DAR , and reviewing of activities

department. For FY 2012, each unit was asked to develop

s, which then became the

basis of the budget proposal submitted to the DBM. Aside from this, DAR likewise considered the budget provisions

anning for the year’s targets.

30 RA 9700, Sec. 21

Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 15
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 15
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

4.1.2. Budget Allocations for Agrarian Justice Delivery (2005-2011)

Below is the historical allocation for AJD since 2005. Data were sourced from the Department
Below is the historical allocation for AJD since 2005. Data were sourced from the Department of
Budget and Management, which did not feature a report of budgetary allocation for CARP in 2006.
Fig. 2. Historical Account of Budget Allocation for Agrarian Justice Delivery (AJD)
1,000,000,000.00
788,958,000.00
800,000,000.00
600,000,000.00
471,391,000.00
400,000,000.00
200,000,000.00
167,672,000.00
162,551,000.00 153,824,000.00 149,895,000.00
-
2005
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Fig. 2 represents the lumped annual allocation for agrarian justice delivery. This comprises the
following items 31 :
Support to Operations-Agrarian Legal Assistance. Policies for the dissemination of legal
information, effective delivery of legal services and assistance to agrarian reform
beneficiaries and landowners
Operations-Agrarian Legal Assistance. (a) Mediation and extension of legal assistance and
coordination of paralegal services to agrarian reform beneficiaries; (b) Provision of legal
assistance and services to rejected or displaced farmers/ settlers in unorganized settlement
areas and privately-owned farms
Operations-Agrarian
Legal
Services.
Represents
regional
allocations
for
agrarian
legal
services
The stated allocations are based on the annual General Appropriations Act (GAA), which includes
Fund 101, 102 and 158. While the allocation for AJD from 2005 until 2011 increased by about 385 percent, its
share on the total CARP budget remains almost similar through the years. This means that the increase in
budget allocation is attributable to the growing number of disputes filed every year.
Fig. 3
Percentage Share of AJD out of the Total CARP Budget
10.00%
6.45%
5.00%
5.15%
4.74%
3.33%
2.13%
2.26%
0.00%
2005
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011

31 Item descriptions are based from the annual GAA for DAR

Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 16
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 16
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

4.1.3. Targets and Accomplishments in Agrarian Justice Delivery

On account of the historical budget allocations, the following is a list of targets as well as accomplishments of DAR in agrarian justice delivery. Data were sourced from the audit results of the Commission on Audit CY 2005-2009 32 . The 2010 data are sourced from the latest reports of the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance (BALA).

Fig. 4: Targets and Accomplishments in the Adjudication of Agrarian Cases (2005-2009) 30,000 24,507 26,453
Fig. 4: Targets and Accomplishments in the Adjudication of Agrarian Cases (2005-2009)
30,000
24,507
26,453
26,211
25,000
24,672
20,000
14,716
17,431
17,000
15,000
16,745
10,000
5,000
0
2005
2006
2007
2009
Target
Accomplishment
DAR has an average accomplishment rate of 62% from 2005-2007 for the adjudication of agrarian
cases out of its total target number of cases. From these data, we can assume that a total of 28,549 cases are
pending by the end of 2007. However, DAR was able to register an impressive 145 percent accomplishment
out of its total case targets by 2009.
Fig. 5: Targets and Accomplishments in the Resolution of Judicial Cases (2005-2010)
4,000
3,398
3,000
2,318
1,897
1,600
2,000
1,530
1,000
1390
1,361
1,184
1,446
1,124
0
2005
2006
2007
2009
2010
Targets
Accomplishments
DAR has an average accomplishment rate of 54% in terms of accomplishing judicial cases from 2005-
2007, while the gap gradually narrowed down from 2009-2010. As a matter of fact, DAR managed to
accomplish 90 percent of its targets in 2010.

32 The COA Report did not include AJD targets and accomplishments in 2008

Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 17
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 17
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

Fig. 6: Targets and Accomplishments in the Resolution of Quasi-Judicial (DARAB) Cases (2005-2010)

25,000 20,000 19,151 17,753 14,429 15,000 10,633 13,793 10,952 12,918 10,800 10,000 10,938 10,783 5,000
25,000
20,000
19,151
17,753
14,429
15,000
10,633
13,793
10,952
12,918
10,800
10,000
10,938
10,783
5,000
0
2005
2006
2007
2009
2010
Target
Accomplishments
DAR fared better in the representation of farmers and farm workers in the resolution of quasi-
judicial (DARAB) cases. For 2005-2006, DAR has an average of 98.5% of accomplishments. Once again, DAR
fared lower in 2007 (compared to other years), where it has only accomplished 72% of its representation
targets. For 2009-2010, DAR has more than 100 percent accomplishment rate for the resolution of quasi-
judicial cases. DAR has accomplished 177 percent of its total target in 2009 and 104 percent of its total target
in 2010.
However, these accomplishments are not consistent with the accomplishments in the adjudication of
cases stated in fig. 4. Fig. 4 represents the accomplishments in the resolution of quasi-judicial (DARAB) cases,
while Fig. 6 represents the accomplishments in the representation of farmers and farm workers in the quasi-
judicial front. The discrepancies in the reported number of cases may also be construed as possible
discrepancies in the definition of “accomplishment” for the DARAB and other adjudication units, and for those
which provide quasi-judicial assistance in such fronts. To further illustrate:
Fig.
7:
Number
of
Accomplished
Adjudication
Cases
vis-à-vis
Number
of
Adjudication
Cases
Represented (2005-2009)
30,000
25,000
24,672
20,000
19,151
16,745
17,431
15,000
14,716
10,000
12,918
10,938
10,633
5,000
0
2005
2006
2007
2009
Adjudication
Representation in Adjudication Cases
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 18
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 18
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

Fig. 8: Targets and Accomplishments in the Resolution of ALI Cases (2005-2010)

60,000 52,075 50,000 47,824 38,419 40,000 29,831 35,288 29,402 34,750 30,000 28,000 20,000 20,963 21,083
60,000
52,075
50,000
47,824
38,419
40,000
29,831
35,288
29,402
34,750
30,000
28,000
20,000
20,963
21,083
10,000
0
2005
2006
2007
2009
2010
Target
Accomplishment
4.1.3.1. 2011 Targets and Accomplishments
Fig. 9: Targets and Accomplishments of Agrarian Justice Delivery for 2011

Except for 2007, DAR managed to exceed its targets for the resolution of ALI cases by an average of 138 percent; its biggest accomplishment was in 2009, as DAR registered 171 percent of accomplishment out of its annual target for ALI cases.

In 2011, DAR was not able to meet its targets for the first quarter (except for mediation); albeit it might be too early to presume that it will not be able to achieve all of its targets for the year. In adjudication, DAR has a shortfall of 2,073 cases; only 52 percent of its first quarter target and barely 11 percent of the 2011 adjudication target. DAR also has a shortfall of 64 judicial cases out of its target for the first quarter.

Out of its first quarter targets, DAR managed to accomplish 81 percent of quasi-judicial cases and 89 percent of ALI cases with a shortfall of 527 cases and 1,200 cases respectively. However, DAR managed to surpass its first quarter target for mediation as it accomplished 7,769 cases in the first three months of the year.

For 2011, there is a considerable discrepancy in the number of case accomplishments in adjudication and the number of cases represented in the DARAB. 2,383 cases have been reported as accomplishment in the representation of quasi-judicial cases, but only 2,326 cases have been reported as accomplishment by the adjudication board. These discrepancies are crucial for both reports represent accomplishments in the same venue.

50,000 46,394 40,000 30,000 30,774 21,848 20,000 7,712 11,628 11,540 10,000 7,769 1,486 10,420 2,910
50,000
46,394
40,000
30,000
30,774
21,848
20,000
7,712
11,628
11,540
10,000
7,769
1,486
10,420
2,910
400
4,399
2,326
0
2,383
336
Representation/
Representation/ALI
Representation/
Representation/
Adjudication
Mediation Cases
Cases
Quasi-Judicial Cases
Judicial Cases
Total Target
1stQ Target
1stQ Accomplishments
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 19
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 19
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

4.1.4. The Relationship of Budget Allocation to Target Accomplishments

The table below shows the significance of budget allocation to the accomplishments of AJD in the year 2005, 2007, and 2009:

Fig. 10: Relationship of Budget Allocation to Target Accomplishments in AJD

Accomplishment Rate % Share of AJD in the CARP budget Representation/ Representation/ Representation/ Adjudication
Accomplishment Rate
% Share of
AJD in the
CARP budget
Representation/
Representation/
Representation/
Adjudication
Quasi-Judicial
Judicial Cases
ALI Cases
Cases
2005
3.33%
60.04%
58.71%
99.87%
139.45%
2007
5.15%
66.50%
42.55%
72.76%
91.85%
2009
2.13%
68.90%
70.25%
56.39%
170.80%
From the given periods, it can be deduced that the share of AJD in the budget allocated for CARP does
not have a significant and direct effect to the performance accomplishments of each AJD unit. While it can be
noted that the accomplishment rates in adjudication and in representation in the quasi-judicial cases
increased in 2007 after the budget share of AJD likewise increased by 1.82% from 2005, the rest of the
accomplishment rates did not fare similarly.
4.1.5. The Relationship of Manpower Complement to Performance Accomplishment in
Agrarian Legal Assistance and Adjudication
The Agrarian Legal Assistance Division is comprised of a manpower complement of 579. This
includes the 95 personnel, who are directly involved in ALA in the DAR Main Office. Below is a list of
manpower complement for agrarian legal assistance per region and their reported accomplishments for CY
2010:
Fig. 11: Relationship of Manpower Complement to Performance Accomplishments in ALA, CY-2010
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
% Share of Filled Positions from Authorized Positions
Mediation
ALI
Quasi-Judicial
Judicial
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 20
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 20
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

The absence of a clear trend between the share of filled positions in the provincial offices as well as

accomplishments in ALA reveal that there is no direct relationship between personnel insufficiency to the accomplishments of regional DAR offices in agrarian legal assistance. However, it should be noted that Region

VII and CARAGA featured consistent accomplishments in all ALA cases types.

Fig. 12: Relationship of Manpower Complement to Performance Accomplishments in Adjudication, CY-

2010

250 200 150 100 50 0 % Share of Positions over Total Number of Staff
250
200
150
100
50
0
% Share of Positions over Total Number of Staff
% of Cases Resolved Over Annual Target
Except for Region III, it can be observed there is no clear trend established in the connection between
the manpower complement of the adjudication units and their performance accomplishments. However, it
can be noted that Region VII and CARAGA registered the highest accomplishments in the adjudication of AR
cases, while Region III has the most number of manpower complement for adjudication.
4.1.6. The 2012 CARP-AJD Budget
4.1.6.1. A Paradigm Shift to Budget
1. Engagement with Civil Society Organizations

DAR is one of the six national agencies mandated by DBM to involve civil-society organizations in the course of budget preparation for FY 2012. The involvement of the civil-society organizations is geared towards the institutionalization of “citizen participation as a component of the National Government’s budget process” (DBM National Budget Memorandum No. 109, Sec. 1). This involvement revolves around the eight principles of engagement adopted by DBM and participating CSOs last 03 September 2010. These principles include transparency, accountability, integrity, partnership, consultation and mutual empowerment, respect

for 2.
for
2.

internal processes, sustainability, and national interest.

From Incremental Budgeting to Zero Based Budgeting

National Budget Memorandum No. 110 prompted the shift to a new budget practice for all government agencies in the country for Fiscal Year (FY) 2012. The memorandum stipulated:

“Guidelines

3.1. Starting FY 2012 budget preparation, proposals for lump-sum funds within the agency budget shall not be allowed.

Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 21
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 21
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

3.1.1. The FY 2012 National Budget Call was issued early to give more time for

departments and/ or agencies to plan and flesh out their budgets.

3.1.2. It is expected that the Agency Central Office (ACO) has provided its Agency

Regional Offices (AROs), their respective allocations for existing Program/ Project/ Activities (PAPs) and lump-sum funds.

3.1.3. Subsequently,

AROs

should

have

presented

them

during

the

conduct

of

consultations within the Regional Development Councils (RDCs) and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) for feedback on the impact of their existing PAPs in the different localities/ provinces.

3.1.4. Departments/ agencies, after considering the feedback/ inputs received from the RDCs and CSOs at the regional/ national level, within the context of other considerations such as national/ regional priorities and budget allocations in the provincial/ regional level, shall finalize the budget proposal for submission to DBM” (DBM National Budget Memorandum No. 110, Sec. 3.1.)

Implications of the Shift
Implications of the Shift

3.

Thus, the Department went through consultations in the course of their budget preparation. Each unit was asked to draw its budget and operational plan, guided by the operational directives issued by DAR Secretary Virgilio de los Reyes.

The shift to the new practice prompted the DAR to modify its budget management as well. Previous practice dictates that the annual budget from DBM will be downloaded directly to the respective units and field offices as a lump sum cost for operations. For 2012, however, DAR will be basing budget provision to the performance of DAR units, in relation to their respective targets in the implementation of CARP. This is the reason why while the agrarian justice delivery component of CARP only has a 2 percent budget allocation out of the total budget allocated to CARP from 2010-2014, a performing AJD unit could still manage to deliver its targets (DAR-FMAO ASEC. Perry Villanueva, personal communication, 26 May 2011). Because the program has a flexible scheme in terms of budget provision, a performing AJD unit can easily source out funds from the other two program components of CARP (LAD and PBD).

These changes have been a source of some discomfort among unit heads both in the central and field offices. According to DAR-Finance, Management and Administration Office (FMAO) Assistant Secretary Felix Villanueva (personal communication, 26 May 2011), the unit heads, particularly the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officers have difficulties in ascertaining what they need to do, instead of what they want to do. Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance (BALA) focal person Atty. Ruben Alban (personal communication, 26 May 2011) affirmed this statement and mentioned that the Department is indeed in a period of adjustment for these changes in DAR’s fiscal policy.

period of adjustment for these changes in DAR’s fiscal policy. Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 22
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 22

Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

4.1.6.2. Proposed Budget for Agrarian Justice Delivery for FY 2012

Following a series of budget consultations, DAR has come up with the proposed budget to
Following a series of budget consultations, DAR has come up with the proposed budget to DBM:
Fig. 13: Proposed Budget Scenario for CARP-Agrarian Justice Delivery for FY 2012
Ideal Scenario for DAR 33
DBM-Approved Budget Ceiling 34
Variance
Program
Performanc
Sub-
Activities
e Indicator
Components
Unit
Target
Budget (P)
Unit Cost
Target
Budget (P)
Target
Budget (P)
Cost
A.
Resolution of
No.
of Cases
22,564
92,855,000.00
4,115.18
20,308
66,327,000.00
3,266.05
2,256
26,528,000.00
Adjudication
AR Cases
Resolved
of
Agrarian
Resolution of
No.
of Cases
Reform Cases
ALI Cases
Processed/
52,075
89,439,000.00
1,717.50
52,075
89,439,000.00
1,717.50
0
0.00
Resolved/
Disposed
Mediation
of
No.
of
ADR
Conflicts
Conferences
using
Conducted
Alternative
20,544
12,844,000.00
625.19
18,733
11,715,000.00
625.36
1,811
1,129,000.00
Dispute
Resolution
(ADR)
Post-
No.
of
post-
Judgment
judgment
Activities
order
11,282
11,282,000.00
1,000.00
10,154
7,108,000.00
700.01
1,128
4,174,000.00
issued/
promulgated
Execution/
No.
of
Implementati
resolution/
4,513
14,893,000.00
3,300.02
3,972
13,107,000.00
3,299.84
541
1,786,000.00
on
of
decision
Decision
executed
B.
Agrarian
Judicial
No.
of
cases
Legal
Courts
submitted
11,728.7
1,390
16,303,000.00
11,728.77
1,390
16,303,000.00
0
0.00
Services/
for
7
Agrarian
resolution
Legal
Quasi-
No.
of
cases
14,429
53,195,000.00
3,686.67
14,429
53,195,000.00
3,686.67
0
0.00
Assistance
Judicial
submitted

33 Data sourced from DAR-Finance Management and Administration Office, 26 May 2011 34 Data sourced from DAR-Finance Management and Administration Office, 26 May 2011

Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

Courts for (PARAD/ resolution RARAD/ DARAB) Conciliation/ No. of Mediation disputes 41,586 49,575,000.00
Courts
for
(PARAD/
resolution
RARAD/
DARAB)
Conciliation/
No.
of
Mediation
disputes
41,586
49,575,000.00
1,192.10
41,586
49,575,000.00
1,192.10
0
0.00
settled/
disposed
Non-Case
Resolution
28,271,000.00
0.00
28,271,000.00
Activities
C.
Personnel
824,698,000.00
704,170,000.00
120,528,000.00
Operational
services (PS)
Support
Maintenance
and
other
operating
18,097,000.00
18,097,000.00
0.00
expenditures
(MOOE)
Total
1,211,452,000.00
1,029,036,000.00
182,416,000.00
DAR has a total proposed budget of P 33,586.749 million for the implementation of CARP for FY 2012. Out of this ideal budget scenario, DAR has
allotted P 1,211.452 million for agrarian justice delivery, which accounts for 4 percent of the total proposed budget for CARP. However, the DBM budget
ceiling resulted to the decrease in the budget for AJD by P 182,416,000.00. This could result to a total case backlog of 5,736. As for the total budget for
CARP, the proposed P 33,586.749 million was reduced to P 19,159.256 million because of the DBM budget ceiling.
The following observations can be drawn from the FY 2012 budget data:
The unit cost for the resolution of AR cases under the program Sub-Component A, “adjudication of agrarian reform cases” decreased by P
849.13 following the DBM approved budget ceiling. The resolution of AR cases suffered the biggest budget cut in terms of unit cost.
The unit costs for each case varied from the unit cost parameters adopted for the 2006-2010 budgets (refer to Fig. 14-17).
The resolution of ALI cases was placed under Sub-component A. In the previous years, the resolution of ALI cases was under Sub-
component B. Resolution of ALI Cases is under the jurisdiction of the DAR Regional Directors.
Based on the ideal budget scenario, Adjudication of AR Cases (Sub-component A) accounts for 18.26% of the total proposed budget for
CARP-AJD; Agrarian Legal Services/ Agrarian Legal Assistance (Sub-component B) has a share of 12.16%; while Operational Support (Sub-
component C) has the lion’s share with 69.56% of the total proposed budget for CARP-AJD. The budget cut out of the approved budget
ceiling did not significantly alter the shares of the sub-components, with sub-component A having 18.23%, sub-component B with 11.57%
and sub-component C with 70.18%.
The targets, as well as the budget for ALI Cases and agrarian legal services in the judicial, quasi-judicial and mediation fronts were not
affected by the budget ceiling.
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

The P 28,271,000.00 proposed budget for “non-case resolution activities” was removed from the budget items after the DBM cut. Non-case resolution activities may include the provision of legal advices to farmer-beneficiaries and other legal services that do not necessitate the filing of cases before the judicial or quasi-judicial courts. Operational support account for 70 percent of the total budget for agrarian justice delivery, whereas only 30 percent go directly to programmatic activities.

4.1.6.3. The 2012 National Expenditure Program (NEP) and Agrarian Justice Delivery

Expenditure Program (NEP) and Agrarian Justice Delivery The National Expenditure Program comprises the details of

The National Expenditure Program comprises the details of the government’s proposed programs for a specific period or fiscal year. The NEP is submitted to the Congress to facilitate review and deliberation of the proposed annual budget. The DBM has earmarked P 17,920,845,000.00 35 for DAR in the 2012 NEP. This is comprised of the General Fund (Fund 101), the funds from Foreign-Assisted Projects (Fund 102) and the Agrarian Reform Fund (Fund 158). 36

(Fund 102) and the Agrarian Reform Fund (Fund 158). 36 It should be noted that while

It should be noted that while the DBM budget ceiling for DAR amounted to P 19,159.256 million, only P 17,920.845 million has been earmarked for the NEP.

4.1.7. Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery for FY 2009-2010 Region DARCO Regi on III Regi
4.1.7. Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery for FY 2009-2010
Region
DARCO
Regi on III
Regi on X
Total
Target
Accom plishm e nt
430
542
256
279
536
1,941
1,222
2,762

4.1.7.1. Highlights on AJD-Related Performance for FY 2009 Based on the Audited Financial Statement Released by COA

The achievements of DAR Central Office (DARCO), DAR Regions III and X in legal assistance provided to the agrarian reform beneficiaries through the quasi-judicial courts significantly exceeded the targets.

Validation of DARCO, DAR Regions III and X accomplishments on agrarian legal assistance in quasi- judicial courts showed that their combined accomplishments of 2,762 significantly exceeded the target of 1,222 by 126% as shown below:

% of Accom plishm ent

126%

109%

362%

226%

Per COA, the high resolution of pending cases was attributable to the fast tracking sessions designed to speed up resolution of cases and prioritize the flashpoint and high-impact cases.

cases and prioritize the flashpoint and high-impact cases. This is the case were percentage of accomplishment

This is the case were percentage of accomplishment reported exceeds 100%. It is worthy to note that DAR’s prior administration counts a case as “accomplished” when it proceeds to the next step of the process 37 .

Despite the issuances of the notice of disallowances and denied motion for reconsiderations on their appeals, DAR still continued granting Collective Negotiation Agreement (CNA) Incentives to officers and employees aggregating to P 11.506 million for CY 2009. It is worthy to note that this is in

35 http://www.dbm.gov.ph/NEP2012/DAR/DAR.pdf 36 Based from the presentation of DBM OIC-Director Estrellita G. Bangsal during the CSOs Forum on 10 August 2011 at San Miguel, Manila 37 ASEC-FMAO, Personal Communication 26 May 2011

Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 25
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 25
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

contravention with Administrative Order No. 135 dated December 27, 2005 and DBM Budget Circular No. 2006-001 dated February 1, 2006. The Circular provides among others, that the CNA incentive for the year shall be paid as a one-time benefit after the end of the year PROVIDED THAT THE PLANNED PROGRAM ACTIVITIES/PROJECTS HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED AND COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PERFORMANCE TARGETS. Also, CNA Incentives only covers rank and file employees and other non-managerial employees.

The apportionment of savings shall be as follows:

Amount 981,653.78 817,950.00 5,476,485.93 1,338,436.17 1,048,000.00 1,081,475.00
Amount
981,653.78
817,950.00
5,476,485.93
1,338,436.17
1,048,000.00
1,081,475.00

50% for CNA Incentives 30% for improvement of working conditions and other programs and/or to be added as part of the CNA Incentive 20% to be reverted to the General Fund for the national government agencies

COA noted that CNA Incentives amounting to P 11,506,535.88 that were paid to the DAR regional officers and employees did not conform to the criteria prescribed in the rules and regulations:

Region

Region I

Region III

Region IV-A

Region IV-B

Region V

Region VII

Region VIII

Total

P

P
P

762,535.00

11,506,535.88

V Region VII Region VIII Total P P 762,535.00 11,506,535.88 In Regions I, III, IV-B and

In Regions I, III, IV-B and VII, COA noted that payments for the incentives were extended to officers who are performing managerial functions contrary to Section 3 and 4 of the DBM Circular.

Various expenses totaling P 2.585 million were inadequately supported with documents to prove their regularity, completeness and validity in violation to Section 4(6) of PD 1445 which provides that claims against government funds shall be supported with complete documentation.

Based on the foregoing, it can be said that there were expenses incurred by the department which were not spent according to the rules and regulations prescribed by the DBM Circular and thus, its validity are being put into question. These “various expenses” could have been spent for other low- funded agrarian-related projects and activities.

for other low- funded agrarian-related projects and activities. Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 26
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 26
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

4.1.7.2. Agrarian Legal Assistance Program Expenditures for 2010

Fig. 14: FY 2010 Indicative Targets and Budget 38

Agrarian Legal Assistance Target Number of Cases Unit Cost Total Budget Allocation Interventions Mediation Cases
Agrarian Legal
Assistance
Target Number of
Cases
Unit Cost
Total Budget Allocation
Interventions
Mediation Cases
34,033
P 600.00
P
20,419,800.00
ALI Cases
34,750
P
2,800.00
P
97,300,000.00
Quasi-Judicial Cases
13,793
P
3,800.00
P
52,413,400.00
Judicial Cases
1,530
P 10,000.00
P
15,300,000.00
Total
84,106
P 185,433,200.00
For 2010, Mediation and ALI Cases have the biggest target number of cases for resolution due to the
period of time it takes to accomplish such case types. However, these two interventions have the lowest
allocation in terms of unit cost.
The Agrarian Legal Assistance Program Sub-Component of the AJD received P 185,433,200.00 budget
allocation for the year 2010. Components of the unit costs include the following cost parameters 39 :
Fig, 15: Cost Parameters for ALI Cases
Cost Items
Amount
Office Supplies
P
600.00
Photocopying Expenses
P
200.00
Research Expenses
P
800.00
OCT Expenses
P
800.00
Notarization Expenses
P
300.00
Mailing Expenses
P
100.00
Total
P
2,800.00
Fig. 16: Cost Parameters for Quasi-Judicial Cases
Cost Items
Amount
Supplies
Ink
P
600.00/ motion
Copy Paper
P
500.00
Others
P
300.00
EVS (P 140 x 10)
P
1,400.00
Mailing/ Stamps/ Notarization
P
1,000.00
Grand Total
P
3,800.00
Fig. 17: Cost Parameters for Judicial Cases
Cost Items
Amount
Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TNS)
P
200.00/ proceeding
Motion Fees
P
200.00/ motion
Appearance Fee
P
500.00/ case (Land Registration Case Only)
Posting Fee
P
500.00/ case (Land Registration Case Only)
Publication Fee
P
1,500.00/ case (Official Gazette)
Filing Fee
P
1,600.00 (Reconstitution of Titles )
Ex Parte Fee
P
500.00/ case
Other Regular Court Cases
P
500.00/ appearance (average of 10 hearings) or a

38 Data sourced from Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance (BALA), 26 May 2011 39 Data sourced from DAR-Memorandum Order dated 06 September 2006

Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 27
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 27
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery total of P 5,000.00 Total P 5,000.00-P 10,000.00/
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
total of P 5,000.00
Total
P 5,000.00-P 10,000.00/ case

Out of these targets, BALA has reported the following accomplishments for CY 2010:

Fig. 18: Reported Targets and Accomplishments of Agrarian Legal Assistance in CY 2010 40 :

60,000 53,401 52,075 50,000 41,586 40,000 34,750 41,582 34,033 30,000 20,000 14,266 13,793 14,429 10,000
60,000
53,401
52,075
50,000
41,586
40,000
34,750
41,582
34,033
30,000
20,000
14,266
13,793
14,429
10,000
1,530
1,222
1,390
0
Target
Total Received
Total Accomplished
Mediation
ALI
Quasi-Judicial
Judicial

In 2010, DAR managed to exceed its targets in the quasi-judicial, ALI and mediation cases, and it only has a shortfall of 6 judicial cases, compared to its target. However, it can be observed that there has been a gross under-targeting in the resolution of ALI and mediation cases. The number of received ALI cases exceeds the target by more than 53 percent, while the number of received mediation cases exceeds the target by more than 22 percent.

resolution of case filed 41 .
resolution of case filed 41 .

The number of accomplished cases, however, exceeds the number of the total received cases of the year. For instance, DAR has accomplished a total of 1,390 court cases for the year while it has only received 1,222. DAR has likewise accomplished 14,429 cases out of the 14,266 cases received by its quasi-judicial courts. This is because past DAR administrations count accomplishments per case undertaken, rather than

per actual

accomplishments per case undertaken, rather than per actual If DAR observed the cost parameters in Fig.

If DAR observed the cost parameters in Fig. 13, it could be deduced that the under-targeting in the number of cases resulted to a gross insufficiency of the allocated budget:

40 Data sourced from Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance (BALA), 26 May 2011 41 ASEC-FMAO, 26 May 2011

Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 28
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 28
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

Fig. 19: Illustration of Case and Cost Variance in ALA for CY 2010

Targets Reported Accomplishments Variance Target Budget Unit Cost Actual Reported Projected Expenditures out of
Targets
Reported Accomplishments
Variance
Target
Budget
Unit Cost
Actual Reported
Projected
Expenditures
out of Reported
Accomplishment
Number
No. of
Budget (P)
Allocated (P)
(P)
Accomplishment
of Cases
Cases
[Unit Cost x No.
of Case
Accomplished]
(P)
Mediation
34,033
20,419,800.00
600.00
52,075
31,245,000.00
18,042
10,825,200.00
ALI
34,750
97,300,000.00
2,800.00
41,586
116,440,800.00
6,836
19,140.800.00
Quasi-
13,793
52,413,400.00
3,800.00
14,429
54,830,200.00
636
2,416,800.00
Judicial
Judicial
1,530
15,300,000.00
10,000.00
1,390
13,900,000.00
(140)
(1,400,000.00)
Total Variance in Terms of No. of Cases
25,374
Total Variance in Terms of Budget
30,982,800.00
However, if DAR managed
to register the aforementioned accomplishments without incurring
additional cost, the cost of each case would be:
Fig. 20: Resulting Unit Cost from Accomplished ALA Cases for CY 2010
Variance from
Budget Allocated
No. of Case
Resulting Unit
Prescribed
(P)
Accomplished
Cost (P)
Unit Costs
Mediation
20,419,800.00
52,075
392.12
207.88
ALI
97,300,000.00
41,586
2,339.72
460.28
Quasi-Judicial
52,413,400.00
14,429
3,632.50
167.50
Judicial
15,300,000.00
1,390
11,007.19
(1,007.19)
The resulting unit cost for the resolution of the quasi-judicial cases is negligible, because the
discrepancy accounts for only 4 percent of the prescribed unit cost for quasi-judicial cases. Because DAR fell
short in the resolution of its judicial cases, it even has an excess fund of P 1,400,000.00, which it may have
used in funding other ALA components. However, the variance from the prescribed unit costs for mediation
and ALI cases were significant: only 65% of the prescribed unit cost actually went to the mediation of cases,
while 83.5% went to the resolution of ALI cases.
4.2. Findings in the Mezzo-Level
resolution of ALI cases. 4.2. Findings in the Mezzo-Level 4.2.1. To trace AJD allocations and expenditures

4.2.1.

To trace AJD allocations and expenditures from the macro to the mezzo level, the research has documented the targets as well as the accomplishments of Camarines Sur, Capiz, and Bukidnon (representing the three major regions in the country) in agrarian justice delivery in CY 2010.

Agrarian Justice Delivery in Camarines Sur

Camarines Sur is the largest of the six provinces of Region V in terms of population and land area. It is also the largest contributor of the region’s cereal output, accounting for 50 percent of the region’s total rice production. In fact, 62 percent of the land area is devoted to crop production. As of 2009, the province has a

Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 29
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 29
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

magnitude of 126,280 poor families or 38.7 percent of the province’s total population 42 . Poor farmers account for 47.4 percent of this poverty estimate 43 .

Camarines Sur is one of the top 20 provinces holding the biggest agrarian reform backlogs in the country. It also holds the annual record for the largest number of agrarian cases and disputes filed. 44

4.2.1.1. Targets and Allocations

Fig. 21: Camarines Sur Agrarian Legal Assistance Targets vis-à-vis Total Regional Targets for CY 2010
Fig. 21: Camarines Sur Agrarian Legal Assistance Targets vis-à-vis Total Regional Targets for CY
2010 45
7,000
5,775
6,000
5,000
3,787
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,145
753
1,000
361
166
65
169
0
Mediation
ALI
Quasi-Judicial Cases
Judicial
Cases
Regional Target
Provincial Target
Camarines Sur holds 46.81 percent of the total target for agrarian legal assistance in judicial cases.
However, the province has a small contribution in the targets for quasi-judicial, ALI and mediation cases;
accounting for 8.63%, 19.82%, and 4.33% respectively.
Fig. 22: Budget Allocation for Camarines Sur-ALA for CY 2010
Unit Cost (P)
Total Number of Case
Targets
Budget Allocation for
ALA 46 (P)
Mediation
600.00
166
99,600.00
ALI Cases
2,800.00
1,145
3,206,000.00
Quasi-Judicial
3,800.00
65
247,000.00
Judicial
10,000.00
169
1,690,000.00
Grand Total
1,545
P 5,242,600.00
The agrarian legal assistance unit of DAR Camarines Sur received P 5,242,600.00 in CY 2010. This
was sourced from Fund-158 (Agrarian Reform Fund). An additional P 79,000.00 was received by DAR-
Camarines Sur for Agrarian Legal Services under Fund-101 (General Fund).
For adjudication of agrarian reform cases, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(PARAD) of Camarines Sur has a total target of 102 agrarian cases for resolution an annual budget of P
636,405.00. Deriving from this data, it can be assumed that P 6,239.00 was allocated for the resolution of each
agrarian reform case in the PARAD.

%20Poverty%20Statistics%20for%20the%20Basic%20Sectors,%2025jun09.pdf

44 Based from the Presentation of Camarines Sur PARO Huberto Villaraza, 13 July 2011

45 Data sourced from Camarines Sur PARO Accomplishment Report 2010 and FY 2010 Indicative Targets from Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance (BALA)

46 Data sourced from Statement of Allotment, Obligations and Balances for Fund-158, DAR-Camarines Sur

Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 30
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 30
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

4.2.1.2. Accomplishments and Expenditures

DAR-Camarines Sur registered the following accomplishments in CY 2010:

Fig. 23: 2010 Targets and Accomplishments of DAR-Camarines Sur in AJD

1400 1,328 1200 1,145 1000 800 600 400 120 170 200 167 102 169 166
1400
1,328
1200
1,145
1000
800
600
400
120
170
200
167
102
169
166
54
0
65
Representation-
Representation- ALI
Representation- Quasi-
Representation- Judicial
Adjudication
Mediation
Judicial
Target
Accomplishments
The agrarian legal assistance arm of DAR-Camarines Sur posted an impressive accomplishment in the
resolution of mediation, ALI, quasi-judicial, and judicial cases, while the adjudication arm registered a meager
52 percent of its actual target for 2010. Worth noting, however, are the glaring discrepancies between the
targets and accomplishments of the adjudication board and the quasi-judicial representation, which are
basically working in the same context.
Out of these accomplishments, DAR-Camarines Sur incurred these expenses:
Fig. 24: Statement of Allotment, Obligations and Balance for FY 2010 of DAR-Camarines Sur AJD Units
Allotment
Obligations
Balance
Fund-158
Fund-101
Fund-158
Fund-101
Fund-158
Fund-101
Agrarian
Legal
Assistance/
P 5,242,600.00
P 79,000.00
P 5,242,600.00
P 56,866.96
0.00
P 22,133.04
Services
Adjudication
of
Agrarian
Reform
P 636,405.00
0.00
P 629,827.42
0.00
P 6,577.78
0.00
Cases
Drawing from this information, DAR-Camarines Sur has received a total sum of P 5,958,005.00 for
agrarian justice delivery. Out of this amount, only 10.68% of the total provincial budget for AJD was allocated
for the adjudication of agrarian reform cases.
Apart from the P 5,242,600.00 allocation from Fund-158, the agrarian legal assistance unit received
an additional P 79,000.00 from Fund-101 in the course of meeting its targets. Total obligated funds for
agrarian legal assistance services amount to P 5,299,466.96, while total obligated funds for adjudication is
pegged at P 629,872.42. At the end of CY 2010, DAR-Camarines Sur had a fund balance of P 28,710.82 for AJD.
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 31
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 31
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

Fig. 25: Discrepancies in the Obligated Funds and Projected Expenditures out of Cost per Unit for AJD Cases in Camarines Sur, CY 2010

Number of Case Accomplishments Cost per Obligated Funds Discrepancy Unit Projected Expenditures out of No.
Number of Case
Accomplishments
Cost per
Obligated Funds
Discrepancy
Unit
Projected
Expenditures out
of No. of Case
Accomplishments
Agrarian
Mediation
167
600.00
P
100,200.00
Legal
ALI Cases
1,328
2,800.00
P
3,718,400.00
Assistance/
Quasi-
P 5,299,466.96
120
3,800.00
P
456,000.00
Services
Judicial
Judicial
170
10,000.00
P
1,700,000.00
Total
for
1,785
P
5,974,600.00
P
5,299,466.96
(P
675,133.04)
ALA
Adjudication
of AR Cases
Adjudicati
on-
54
6,239.00 47
P
336,906.00
P 629, 827.42
P 292,921.42
PARAD
Total
for
P 629, 827.42
Adjudicat
54
P 336,906.00
P 292,921.42
ion
Grand
1,839 cases
P 6,311,506.00
P 5,929,294.38
(P 382,211.62)
Total
Owing to the discrepancies noted in the projected expenditures out of the case accomplishments, it
can be observed that DAR-Camarines Sur did not follow the cost parameters given for cases under the
agrarian legal assistance and adjudication. It overspent its budget for adjudication by P 292,921.42, resulting
to an expenditure of P 11,663.47 per case adjudication. This amount is 86 percent higher than the cost
parameter for Camarines Sur in 2010 and 183 percent higher than the unit cost for Adjudication of AR Cases
in the FY 2012 proposed budget for AJD (Refer to Fig. 11).
On the other hand, the agrarian legal services only spent P 5,299,466.96 out of the cases that it
accomplished for 2010. It should be noted that it even managed to incur savings amounting to P 22,133.04 at
the end of the year.
4.2.1.3.
Other Findings 48 :
4.2.1.3.1.
AJD Personnel Complement
DAR-Camarines Sur has a total personnel complement of 186. Out of these, there are seven legal officers,
who attend to the cases filed before the quasi-judicial and judicial courts. 5 out of these 7 legal officers
are not regular staff, and do not receive any social benefits apart from their monthly salaries. They could,
however, avail transportation allowance if they have to travel to the municipal agrarian reform offices.
The hiring of legal officers depends upon the budget released to them by DBM annually.
depends upon the budget released to them by DBM annually. There are 2 lawyers, who serve

There are 2 lawyers, who serve as regular staff in DAR Camarines Sur. They are assigned in the agrarian legal assistance division and are tasked to represent the farmers in cases of court disputes. These 2 lawyers were recipients of a scholarship grant from DAR to study law. DAR requires its scholars to serve in the department for 2 years after becoming full-fledged lawyers.

On the average, each lawyer handles a minimum of 50 court cases every year. They are given a P 1,000.00 incentive for every court appearance. This incentive is apart from the regular salaries that they receive.

47 Total budget for Adjudication/No. of Target 48 Based from interview with PARO Huberto Villaraza and PARAD Generoso Alejo Villareal, Regency Hotel, Camarines Sur, 19 August

2011

Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 32
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 32
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

Contractual employees have a low morale, due to the insecurity of their job tenure and to the lack of social benefits that other regular staff receive.

There are 2 PARAD in DAR-Camarines Sur, due to the magnitude of cases filed before their offices every year. However, because the nearby province – Catanduanes has no PARAD, the other PARAD from Camarines Sur attends to the adjudication needs of Catanduanes. Aside from the Provincial Adjudicators, there are five contractual employees sourced from other units. They are in-charge with the administrative functions of the PARAD. There is one sheriff, whose task is to serve notices of hearings to concerned parties. The sheriff is a regular employee of the department.

4.2.1.3.2. Handling of Cases 4.2.1.3.3. Other Budget Concerns
4.2.1.3.2. Handling of Cases
4.2.1.3.3. Other Budget Concerns

The employees do not receive regular trainings from the Department. The offices do not even have training manuals for the staff to read.

The most common dispute adjudicated by the PARAD involves issues between the landowner and the farmers. The complaints are most commonly filed by the MARO or the farmers themselves. The PARAD usually conducts 2 hearings prior to coming up with a resolution over the case.

In the absence of a Barangay Agrarian Reform Council (BARC), the MARO is tasked by the PARO to mediate agrarian disputes.

The longest duration of unresolved case handled by the legal team lasted for 10 years.

The Provincial Adjudicator blames the legal assistance division for the delays in the processing of adjudication cases, since most legal officers allegedly are not aware of the processes as well as the documents to be submitted.

The legal assistance division considers the case to be “accomplished” if the last pleading has been submitted. The PARAD considers the case to be “accomplished” once a resolution has been given, regardless of which party wins in the case. Most cases are often resolved in favor of the farmer- beneficiaries.

The PARO monitors the MARO through the monthly accomplishment reports submitted to the provincial office

The PARO has full discretion over the budget downloaded to the province. This includes the budget for the PARAD. The PARAD, like all municipal and provincial units submits purchase requests for the PARO’s approval, to be able to use its budget.

for the PARO’s approval, to be able to use its budget. The provincial office suffers from

The provincial office suffers from occasional delays in budget releases. This means that the staff often has to use his/ her own money to purchase needed supplies. This is subject for reimbursement as soon as the budget becomes available.

According to the Provincial Adjudicator, his office receives a fixed budget of P 200,000.00 in the past five years. His office does not participate in the budget planning sessions because usual practice dictates that the release of funds is based on the PARO’s discretion. The PARAD was likewise unaware of any savings incurred by his office. However, the PARAD perceives that adjudication is by far, the lowest budgeted unit in the DAR provincial office, for his office often suffers from insufficient supplies every year.

Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 33
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 33
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

4.2.2. Agrarian Justice Delivery in Capiz

The province of Capiz is located in Western Visayas and is one of the six provinces of Region VI. It has a total land area of 263,319 hectares – 42 percent of which comprises the total agricultural land of the province. The Capiznon economic base is agriculture and aquaculture, with 80 percent of the total labor force engaged in farming and fishing. The five major commodities of the province are rice, sugarcane, coconut, fruits and vegetables, and marine products. Apart from the two sugar mills, Capiz has no major industries (Quizon & Arostique, 2000).

Capiz is one of the poorest provinces in the country. Latest available poverty statistics from
Capiz is one of the poorest provinces in the country. Latest available poverty statistics from NSCB
revealed that the province has a magnitude of 37,312 poor families, accounting for 22.6 percent of the total
provincial population.
The province of Capiz also has the few surviving haciendas in the country. A few wealthy families
own or control the vast agricultural lands in the province and the skewed land ownership arrangements
contribute to the high incidence of poverty in the province.
According to the official website of the DAR-Capiz, “agrarian problems are prevalent [in the province]
in view of sharing crops in rice land and corn land, compounded by the unfair labor laws implementation in
the two sugar centrals.” Because the province is ranked among the top 10 provinces with the highest number
of landholdings covered by CARP under compulsory acquisition (CA), the DAR-Capiz deals with several
agrarian cases filed to its office annually.
4.2.2.1. Targets and Allocations
Fig. 26: Capiz Agrarian Legal Assistance Targets vis-à-vis Total Regional Targets for CY 2010 49
4,000
3,501
3,302
3,500
3,139
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
450
480
500
210
52
2
0
Mediation
ALI
Quasi-Judicial
Judicial
Regional Target
Provincial Target

Compared with regional targets in agrarian legal assistance, the targets for Capiz do not substantially contribute to the total targets of the region. Agrarian legal assistance targets in Western Visayas are heavily concentrated in Negros, where most of the LAD backlogs are likewise situated. However, 15.29 percent of ALA targets for quasi-judicial cases and 12.8 percent of ALA targets for mediation cases are to be found in the province of Capiz.

49 Data sourced from Capiz PARO Accomplishment Report 2010 and FY 2010 Indicative Targets from Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance (BALA)

Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 34
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 34
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

Fig. 27: Budget Allocation for Capiz-ALA for CY 2010

 

Unit Cost (P)

Total Number of Case Targets

Budget Allocation for ALA 50 (P)

Mediation

600.00

450

270,000.00

ALI Cases

2,800.00

210

588,000.00

Quasi-Judicial

3,800.00

480

1,824,000.00

Judicial

10,000.00

2

20,000.00

Grand Total

 

1,142

P 2,702,000.00

According to the 2010 Statement of Allotment, Obligations and Balances of DAR-Capiz Legal Assistance Division,
According to the 2010 Statement of Allotment, Obligations and Balances of DAR-Capiz Legal
Assistance Division, it has received P 2,706,581.68 for its agrarian legal services. It can be noticed that there is
a slight discrepancy in the 2010 SAOB and the 2010 report of Capiz PARO. The budget allotted for agrarian
legal services exceeded by P 4,581.60 from the reported investment requirements for 2010. The budget for
agrarian legal services in Capiz was sourced from the Agrarian Reform Fund (Fund-158).
Meanwhile, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAD) of Capiz received a total of
783,750.00. This was likewise sourced from Fund 158. The Capiz-PARAD targeted for the resolution of 480
cases in CY 2010, which means that P 1,632.81 was allotted for each case-resolution.
P
4.2.2.2. Accomplishments and Expenditures
DAR-Capiz registered the following accomplishments in CY 2010:
Fig. 28: 2010 Targets and Accomplishments of DAR-Capiz in AJD
1400
1,275
1200
1000
800
600
480
361
480
400
431
450
431
200
210
3
0
2
Representation- Representation- ALI
Representation- Quasi-
Representation- Judicial
Adjudication
Mediation
Judicial
Target
Accomplishments

DAR-Capiz was able to accomplish more than 100 percent of the cases filed in its office in 2010, with the exception of quasi-judicial cases. The nature of these accomplishments was explained by Dumalag Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) Romeo Salazar (personal communication, 19 June 2011); as he mentioned that the manner of counting of accomplishments during the conciliation-mediation proceedings does not necessarily mean that these cases have been settled. A case is considered to be “accomplished,” when such case was already “disposed” or “submitted” to other AJD unit. Thus, a case forwarded to the provincial office – even upon failure of mediation-conciliation proceedings will still be counted as an accomplishment.

50 Data sourced from AJD Targets and Investment Requirements, Legal Assistance Division, DAR-Capiz

Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 35
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 35
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

There is also a gross under-targeting in the number of mediation and conciliation proceedings to be conducted. The number of received and accomplished cases increased by more than 183 percent vis-à-vis the targets set for the year.

Out of these accomplishments, DAR-Capiz incurred these expenses:

Fig. 29: Statement of Allotment, Obligations and Balance for FY 2010 of DAR-Capiz AJD Units

Allotment Obligations Balance Fund-158 Fund-158 Fund-158 Agrarian Legal Assistance/ Services P 2,706,581.68 P
Allotment
Obligations
Balance
Fund-158
Fund-158
Fund-158
Agrarian
Legal
Assistance/
Services
P 2,706,581.68
P 2,577,221.71
P 129,339.97
Adjudication
of
Agrarian
Reform Cases
P 783,750.00
P 781,135.43
P 2,614.00
Drawing from this information, DAR-Capiz has received a total budget of P 3,490,331.68 for agrarian
justice delivery. Out of this amount, 28.95% of the total provincial budget for AJD was allocated for the
adjudication of agrarian reform cases.
Total obligated funds for agrarian legal assistance services amount to P 2,577,221.71, while total
obligated funds for adjudication is pegged at P 781,135.43. At the end of CY 2010, DAR-Capiz had a fund
balance of P 131,953.97 for AJD.
Fig. 30: Discrepancies in the Obligated Funds and Projected Expenditures out of Cost per Unit for AJD
Cases in Capiz, CY 2010
Number of Case
Accomplishments
Cost per
Obligated Funds
Discrepancy
Unit
Projected
Expenditures out
of No. of Case
Accomplishments
Agrarian
Mediation
1,275
600.00
P
765,000.00
Legal
ALI Cases
361
2,800.00
P
1,010,800.00
Assistance/
Quasi-
P 2,577,221.71
431
3,800.00
P
1,637,800.00
Services
Judicial
Judicial
3
10,000.00
P 30,000.00
Total
for
2,070
P
3,443,600.00
P
2,577,221.71
(P
866,378.39)
ALA
Adjudication
of AR Cases
Adjudicati
on-
431
1,632.81 51
P
703,741.11
P 781,135.43
P 77,394.32
PARAD
Total
for
Adjudicat
431
P 703,741.11
P 781,135.43
P 77,394.32
ion
Grand
P
3,358,357.14
2,501
P
4,147,341.11
(P
788,984.07)
Total

Owing to the discrepancies noted in the projected expenditures out of the case accomplishments, it can be observed that DAR-Capiz did not follow the cost parameters given for cases under the agrarian legal assistance and adjudication. It overspent its budget for adjudication by P 77,394.32, resulting to an expenditure of P 1,812.37 per case adjudication. This amount is 11 percent higher than the cost parameter for Capiz in 2010 (Refer to Fig. 26).

51 Total budget for Adjudication/No. of Target

Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 36
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 36
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery On the other hand, the agrarian legal services
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
On the other hand, the agrarian legal services only spent P 2,577,221.71 out of the cases that it
accomplished for 2010. It should be noted that it even managed to incur savings amounting to P 129,339.97
at the end of the year.
4.2.2.3.
Other Findings 52 :
4.2.2.3.1.
AJD Personnel Complement

There are 5 legal officers working for the 17 municipalities of Capiz. This includes the Chief of the Legal Assistance Division, Atty. Jose Rowell De Claro, who is also the only lawyer among the legal officers. As such, Atty. De Claro handles all the judicial cases of the province.

De Claro handles all the judicial cases of the province. Out of the remaining 4 legal

Out of the remaining 4 legal officers, 2 are working in a regular post, while the other two are sourced from the administrative office of the PARO. No formal training was provided to the legal officers. In spite of this, the Chief of the Legal Assistance Division has supposedly afforded them with proper orientation in the conduct of AJD cases. He was also responsible for the assignment of cases to each legal officer.

The PARAD as well as the Legal Assistance Division personnel do not require additional staff for the project. However, they have been requesting the National Office to provide the legal officers with job tenurial security. They believe that this could help in the more effective performance of tasks of the legal officers.

job tenurial security. They believe that this could help in the more effective performance of tasks

Aside from the Travel Expense Voucher, legal officers receive P 50.00 for every mediation cases handled per month and P 100.00 for ALI and DARAB cases.

4.2.2.3.2. Handling of Cases
4.2.2.3.2. Handling of Cases

The agrarian reform beneficiaries usually shoulder the cost of executing the decisions arising from the judicial, quasi-judicial, ALI and mediation cases.

Based on the figure, more than 80 percent of the nature of the cases is on the issuance, correction and cancellation of CLOA and EP, including the re-allocation of agricultural lands to new agrarian reform beneficiaries. This is on account of the huge number of collective CLOAs still to be subdivided and re- documented in the province. As of 2010, Capiz has a magnitude of 30,693 hectares of agricultural land due for subdivision and re-documentation. Delays in such LTI services are accorded by the local DAR offices to the absence of funds for land surveys. Delays in such LTI services, however, result to agrarian- related conflicts such as boundary disputes, inclusion-exclusion disputes, and failure to pay the annual amortization to the Landbank of the Philippines (which may lead to the cancellation of CLOA and further agrarian-related cases).

Most judicial cases are comprised of: just compensation, cases of CLOA cancellation, and threat of ejectment

cases of CLOA cancellation, and threat of ejectment In the absence of a Barangay Agrarian Reform

In the absence of a Barangay Agrarian Reform Council (BARC), the MARO is tasked by the PARO to mediate agrarian disputes. If the parties invited in the mediation have failed to attend the proceeding, such case is forwarded to the provincial office and recorded as an accomplishment of the MARO.

Adjudication usually takes less than 3 months from the filing of the case.

52 Based from interview with Chief of Legal Assistance Division, Atty. Rowell De Claro, PARAD Atty. Jose Ma. Combatir, and Dumalag MARO Romeo Salazar.

Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 37
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 37
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

The legal assistance division considers the case to be “accomplished” if the case has been disposed or submitted to other AJD unit. The PARAD considers the case to be “accomplished” once a resolution has been given, regardless of which party wins in the case. However, most cases are often resolved in favor of the farmer-beneficiaries.

The PARO monitors the MARO through the monthly accomplishment reports submitted to the provincial office, and through personal meetings every 15 th and 30 th of the month.

4.2.2.3.3. Other Budget Concerns 4.2.3. Agrarian Justice Delivery in South Bukidnon
4.2.2.3.3. Other Budget Concerns
4.2.3. Agrarian Justice Delivery in South Bukidnon

The Legal Assistance Division doesn’t directly propose for the budget of their unit to the DAR National Office. The finance department does the planning for them based on the projected inflation, target cases and accomplishments of the legal office.

The PARO has full discretion over the budget downloaded to the province. This includes the budget for the PARAD. The PARAD, like all municipal and provincial units submits purchase requests for the PARO’s approval, to be able to use its budget.

The provincial office does not suffer from budget insufficiency. According to the Legal Assistance Division, savings incurred from the activities are turned over to their Finance Department to be re- allotted to other relevant activities. However, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer of Dumalag, Capiz stated that savings incurred from activities are translated into staff incentives at the end of the year (Personal communication, 19 June 2011).

Records of expenditures in the provincial office of Capiz do not reflect the actual amount spent for every case intervention. Instead, expenditures are reported under lump sum items such as travel expenses, postage services, representation expenses, etc.

As of the first five months of 2011, DAR-Capiz has only managed to spend 11.23 percent of its total budget allocation for agrarian justice delivery.

The province of Bukidnon is the largest province in Region X, and the eighth largest province in the country in terms of land area. 92 percent of the 380,332.75 hectares of alienable and disposable lands in Bukidnon is used for agricultural production. Corn is the most popular agricultural commodity produced by the province. Other major crops include sugarcane, pineapple, and rice from irrigated farms. The province is also home for several agro-industrial firms, which include the DOLE, Mt. Kitanglad Agri-Development Corporation, and the Global Fruits and Del Monte Philippines.

The latest available poverty statistics from the National Statistics Coordinating Board (NSCB) revealed that in 2009, there were 70,072 poor families in Bukidnon, accounting for 33.8% of the total population of the province. This is slightly higher than the regional poverty average, which is pegged at 32.8 percent.

regional poverty average, which is pegged at 32.8 percent. Bukidnon has been the hub of news

Bukidnon has been the hub of news a few years back, due to the long struggles of farmers from Sumilao, Valencia and Maramag in disputes about land ownership. The Sumilao farmers’ walk to Manila has been a potent avenue in airing their sentiments against the heedless undertakings of landowners and other groups with vested interest to prevent the farmers’ actual physical occupation and ownership of the land.

Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 38
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 38
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

4.2.3.1. Targets and Allocations

Fig. 31: South Bukidnon Agrarian Legal Assistance Targets vis-à-vis Total Regional Targets for CY 2010 53

2,500 1,963 2,000 1,500 1,249 1,000 538 500 250 140 109 90 15 0 Mediation
2,500
1,963
2,000
1,500
1,249
1,000
538
500
250
140
109
90 15
0
Mediation
ALI
Quasi-Judicial
Judicial
Regional Target
Provincial Target
Based on the given data, South Bukidnon has the second largest share of case targets in the judicial
and quasi-judicial courts in the entire Region X. For agrarian legal assistance in judicial courts, South
Bukidnon has a percentage share of 16.66 percent of the total case targets; while for quasi-judicial cases,
South Bukidnon has a share of 20.26 out of the total case targets.
Fig. 32: Budget Allocation for South Bukidnon-ALA for CY 2010
Unit Cost (P)
Total Number of Case
Targets
Budget Allocation for
ALA 54 (P)
Mediation
600.00
250
P
150,000
ALI Cases
2,800.00
140
P
392,000
Quasi-Judicial
3,800.00
109
P
414,200
Judicial
10,000.00
15
P
150,000
Grand Total
514
P 1,106,200.00
According to the 2010 Statement of Allotment, Obligations and Balances of DAR-South Bukidnon, it
has received P 1,006,650.00 for its agrarian legal services. It can be noticed that there is a slight discrepancy
in the SAOB and the benchmarked funds for ALA in 2010. The budget allotted for agrarian legal services
exceeded by P 450.00 from the reported investment requirements for 2010. The budget for agrarian legal
services in South Bukidnon was sourced from the Agrarian Reform Fund (Fund-158).
was sourced from the Agrarian Reform Fund (Fund-158). Meanwhile, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board

Meanwhile, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAD) of South Bukidnon received a total of P 658,469.00. This was likewise sourced from Fund 158. The South Bukidnon-PARAD targeted for the resolution of 105 cases in CY 2010, which means that P6, 271.13 was allotted for each case-resolution.

53 Data sourced from Capiz PARO Accomplishment Report 2010 and FY 2010 Indicative Targets from Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance (BALA) 54 Data sourced from AJD Targets and Investment Requirements, Legal Assistance Division, DAR-Capiz

Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 39
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 39
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

4.2.3.2. Accomplishments and Expenditures

DAR-South Bukidnon registered the following accomplishments in CY 2010:

Fig. 33: 2010 Targets and Accomplishments of DAR-South Bukidnon in AJD

450 403 400 350 300 299 250 251 308 250 200 150 140 109 105
450
403
400
350
300
299
250
251
308
250
200
150
140
109
105
100
19
50
0
15
Representation-
Representation- ALI
Representation- Quasi-
Representation- Judicial
Adjudication
Mediation
Judicial
Target
Accomplishments
DAR-South Bukidnon was able to accomplish more than 100 percent of the cases filed in its office in
2010.while it has only exceeded its target in mediation with one case, the rest of the of the cases for agrarian
legal assistance have posted impressive accomplishments.
Based on these accomplishments, it can be presumed that there is a gross under-targeting in the
number of ALI, quasi-judicial, and adjudication proceedings to be conducted.
Out of these accomplishments, DAR-South Bukidnon incurred these expenses:
Fig. 34: Statement of Allotment, Obligations and Balance for FY 2010 of DAR-South Bukidnon AJD
Units
Allotment
Obligations
Balance
Fund-158
Fund-158
Fund-158
Agrarian
Legal
Assistance/
Services
P 1,006,650.00
P 1,006,650.00
P
0.00
Adjudication
of
Agrarian
Reform Cases
P 658,469.00
P 658,469.00
P
0.00
Drawing from this information, DAR-South Bukidnon has received a total budget of P 1,665,119.00
for agrarian justice delivery. Out of this amount, 39.54% of the total provincial budget for AJD was allocated
for the adjudication of agrarian reform cases.

DAR-South Bukidnon managed to spend all of its fund allotment for CY 2010. According to the 2010 SAOB of DAR-South Bukidnon for Agrarian Legal Assistance/ Services and Adjudication, the province did not incur savings from the budget for AJD.

Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 40
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 40
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

Fig. 35: Discrepancies in the Obligated Funds and Projected Expenditures out of Cost per Unit for AJD Cases in South Bukidnon, CY 2010

Number of Case Accomplishments Cost per Unit Projected Expenditures out of No. of Case Accomplishments
Number of Case
Accomplishments
Cost per
Unit
Projected
Expenditures out of
No. of Case
Accomplishments
Obligated Funds
Discrepancy
Agrarian
Mediation
251
600.00
P
150,600.00
Legal
ALI Cases
403
2,800.00
P
1,128,400.00
Assistance/
Quasi-
P 1,006,650.00
308
3,800.00
P
1,170,400.00
Services
Judicial
Judicial
19
10,000.00
P
190,000.00
Total
for
981
P
3,443,600.00
P
1,006,650.00
(P
2,436,950.00)
ALA
Adjudication
of AR Cases
Adjudication-
299
6, 271.13 55
P
1,875,067.87
P 658,469.00
P 1,216,598.87
PARAD
Total
for
(P 1,216,598.87)
Adjudicatio
299
P
1,875,067.87
P 658,469.00
n
Grand Total
1,280
P
5,318,667.87
P
1,665,119.00
(P 3,653,548.87)
1,280 P 5,318,667.87 P 1,665,119.00 (P 3,653,548.87) Owing to the discrepancies noted in the projected

Owing to the discrepancies noted in the projected expenditures out of the case accomplishments, it can be observed that DAR-South Bukidnon did not follow the cost parameters given for cases under the agrarian legal assistance and adjudication. In adjudication, the resulting unit cost for each case amounted to P 2,202.23, which is lower than the given cost parameter by 64.88 percent.

is lower than the given cost parameter by 64.88 percent. On the other hand, the agrarian
is lower than the given cost parameter by 64.88 percent. On the other hand, the agrarian

On the other hand, the agrarian legal services only spent P 1,006,650.00 out of the cases that it accomplished for 2010, resulting to a budget discrepancy of P 2,436,950.00.

4.2.3.3. Other Findings 56 : 4.2.3.3.1. AJD Personnel Complement
4.2.3.3.
Other Findings 56 :
4.2.3.3.1.
AJD Personnel Complement

There is no PARAD office for South Bukidnon. The adjudication of cases is facilitated by the Region X Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (RARAD). The office of the RARAD is located in Cagayan De Oro City, Misamis Oriental. The RARAD has 4 personnel, including the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator.

There are three legal officers assigned to provide legal assistance to the 10 municipalities of Bukidnon. These legal officers are hired on a contractual basis and do not receive benefits that are usually afforded to the regular staff. The DAR Provincial Office has to “borrow” a lawyer from Osamis to represent the farmers in cases requiring judicial proceedings.

the farmers in cases requiring judicial proceedings. The DAR National Office conducts annual training for the

The DAR National Office conducts annual training for the staff. The training is attended by all regional DAR staff.

The PARO asserts that he conducts weekly monitoring of the activities of the MARO and the legal officers. One legal officer, however, claimed otherwise.

4.2.3.3.2. Handling of Cases

The resolution of agrarian cases for adjudication last for 6 months to one year. The targets of the RARAD are based on prior year’s accomplishment and number of cases filed.

55 Total budget for Adjudication/No. of Target 56 Based from interview with PARO Norberto Paquingan

Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 41
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 41
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

Requests for legal counseling and information usually take more than the prescribed 15 days period due to the insufficient number of legal officers assigned to attend to the cases.

The longest period spent to resolve a case was eight years.

The common forms of dispute that the DARAB handled for 2010 was preliminary determination of just compensation, ejectment, and recovery of possession, correction of titles and dispossession of tenants / lessees. As much as possible, these disputes are settled through alternative dispute resolution (ADR) or pre-trial conference, or if not, through the submission of respective position with documentary evidences. The usual factors that prolong the resolution process are the constant postponement of lawyers, and the filing of motion for extension of time to file pleadings.

4.2.3.3.3. Other Budget Concerns 4.2.4. Summary of Findings from the Three Provinces Documented 4.2.4.1. Provincial
4.2.3.3.3. Other Budget Concerns
4.2.4. Summary of Findings from the Three Provinces Documented
4.2.4.1. Provincial and Agricultural Profile:

Records of expenditures in the provincial office of South Bukidnon do not reflect the actual amount spent for every case intervention. Instead, expenditures are reported under lump sum items such as travel expenses, postage services, representation expenses, etc.

Since 2000, budget augmentation requests from the RARAD have not been granted, and budget allocation has not significantly changed since then. According to RARAD Noel P. Carreon (personal communication, 01 August 2011), this is because the basis of the DARAB budget is only the number of adjudication proceedings. The other components like that of new cases received, hearing of interlocutory order, post- judgment/ orders issued, and specifically the execution/ implementation of decisions, final order and resolutions are not separately funded.

The RARAD staff usually conducts ocular inspections in the course of dealing with agrarian disputes. These inspections, however, are not budgeted by the DARAB.

Savings incurred from the program are translated into year-end cash incentives for the staff.

The selected provinces are all heavily dependent to agriculture for livelihood. Their agrarian relations likewise feature prominently, and their poverty incidence at a dismal average. Camarines Sur and Bukidnon have above-30 percent poverty incidence, while Capiz was close at 22.6%.

Fig. 36: Summary of Poverty and Agricultural Profiles of Camarines Sur, Capiz, and Bukidnon Camarines
Fig. 36: Summary of Poverty and Agricultural Profiles of Camarines Sur, Capiz, and Bukidnon
Camarines Sur
Capiz
Bukidnon
% of land area
devoted to
agricultural
production
62%
42%
92%
Magnitude of poor
families (from
NSCB, 2009 poverty
estimates)
126,280
37,312
70,072
Poverty Incidence
38.7%
22.6%
33.8%
among families
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 42
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 42
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

(NSCB 2009 poverty estimates) National Average:

     

20.9%

Prominent feature on agrarian justice

Holds the record for the most number of agrarian cases filed every year

Prevalent agrarian problems in view of sharing croplands and unfair labor law implementation in the 2 sugar centrals; still features the hacienda system of agrarian relations

Holds the most publicized cases of agrarian disputes in the past 10 years

4.2.4.2. The AJD Situation of Camarines Sur, Capiz and South Bukidnon in CY 2010 Fig.
4.2.4.2.
The AJD Situation of Camarines Sur, Capiz and South Bukidnon in CY 2010
Fig. 37: The AJD Situation of Camarines Sur, Capiz and South Bukidnon in CY 2010
Camarines Sur
Capiz
South Bukidnon
No. of Legal
7
5
3
Officers
AJD Personnel
No. of Lawyers
2
1
0
Complement
Monthly
Monthly
Means of Staff
Monitoring
Accomplishment
Accomplishment
Weekly meetings
Reports
Reports, Meetings
Issuance,
Most common
Ejectment,
Correction and
forms of
Landowner’s
Cancellation of
disputes
Compensation
Just compensation,
ejectment, recovery
of possession
CLOA, ejectment
Usual length of
time spent in the
resolution of AR
cases
3 months
3 months
6 months – 1 year
Handling of Cases
Longest Period
Spent for an
Agrarian Case
10 years
11 years
8 years
Most Common
Causes of Delays
in the case
proceedings
Legal officers are not
trained and are
unaware of the
process
Political dynamics
of the province
(DAR claims that
there are times
when their “hands
are tied” in the
implementation of
case decisions)
Constant
postponements filed
by lawyers;
Insufficient funds
Problems related
to AJD budget
Delays in budget
releases
None
Budget Related
Concerns
Budget
augmentation
requests for PARAD
were not granted;
absence of fund for
ocular inspections;
lumping of several
activities for
adjudication of AR
cases into one
budget item
Where the fund
savings are
spent
Staff incentive
Savings are turned
over to the DAR
Finance
department
Staff incentive
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 43
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 43
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

4.2.4.3. Share in the Regional ALA Target

Fig. 38: Percentage Share of Camarines Sur, Capiz and Bukidnon to Regional Targets in CY
Fig. 38: Percentage Share of Camarines Sur, Capiz and Bukidnon to Regional Targets in CY 2010
50.00%
46.81%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
19.82%
20.26%
15.29%
16.66%
12.85%
11.20%
10.00%
8.83%
6.35%
12.73%
3.84%
4.33%
0.00%
Camarines Sur
Capiz
South Bukidnon
Mediation
ALI
Quasi-Judicial
Judicial
Aside from the judicial targets of Camarines Sur, it can be observed that the three provinces have
almost similar shares to the total targets of their respective region. It can also be noted that unlike Camarines
Sur, Capiz and Bukidnon have consistently close percentage shares in the four ALA interventions.
4.2.4.4. Accomplishment Rates
Fig. 39: Accomplishment Rates of Camarines Sur, Capiz and South Bukidnon in AJD for CY 2010
350.00%
300.00%
283.33%
287.85%
282.56%
250.00%
284.76%
200.00%
184.61%
171.90%
150.00%
150%
126.66%
115.98%
100.00%
100.59%
100.40%
100.60%
89.79%
50.00%
89.79%
52.94%
0.00%
Camarines Sur
Capiz
Bukidnon
Mediation
ALI
Quasi-Judicial
Judicial
Adjudication
Linear (Mediation)

The provincial AJD units posted impressive accomplishments in the provision of agrarian legal assistance. Only the adjudication of agrarian reform cases in Capiz and Camarines Sur posted below 100 percent accomplishments in 2010. It should be noted, however that the three provinces have varied means of counting case accomplishments:

Fig. 40: Manner of Counting “Accomplishments” of AJD Cases

Camarines Sur Capiz South Bukidnon ALA Per submission of last Per activity undertaken Per activity
Camarines Sur
Capiz
South Bukidnon
ALA
Per submission of last
Per activity undertaken
Per activity undertaken
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 44
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery pleading Adjudication Per case resolution Per activity
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
pleading
Adjudication
Per case resolution
Per activity undertaken
Per activity undertaken

This resulted to a gross discrepancy between the accomplishments of quasi-judicial cases (representation) and the adjudication of agrarian reform cases in Camarines Sur and South Bukidnon – two interventions undertaken in the same context. The setting of targets likewise varies for ALA (quasi-judicial cases) and adjudication of AR cases.

4.2.4.5. Unit Costs of Adjudication and ALA Cases Fig. 41: Allotted Unit Costs for AJD
4.2.4.5. Unit Costs of Adjudication and ALA Cases
Fig. 41: Allotted Unit Costs for AJD Cases in Camarines Sur, Capiz and South Bukidnon for CY 2010
Camarines Sur
Capiz
South Bukidnon
Mediation
P
600.00
P
600.00
P
600.00
ALI
P
2,800.00
P
2,800.00
P
2,800.00
ALA
Quasi-Judicial
P
3,800.00
P
3,800.00
P
3,800.00
Judicial
P
10,000.00
P
10,000.00
P
10,000.00
Adjudication
PARAD/ DARAB
P
6,239.00
P
1,632.81
P 6, 271.13
Following the cost parameters set by the DAR-Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance (BALA), the
allotted unit costs for ALA have been similar among the three provinces, with the resolution of judicial cases
the most expensive among the four ALA interventions. For adjudication, however, DAR-Capiz allotted a
meager P 1,632.81, compared to the allocations of Camarines Sur and South Bukidnon which were pegged at
P 6,239.00 and P 6,271.00.
It should be noted that except for South Bukidnon, the provinces documented have overspent their
allotted budget for the adjudication of AR cases in terms of the given unit cost parameters.
4.2.4.6. Statement of Allotment, Obligations and Balance
Fig. 42: SAOB of Camarines Sur, Capiz and South Bukidnon for Agrarian Legal Services (Fund 101 &
Fund 158), 2010
6,000,000.00
5,321,600.00
5,000,000.00
5,299,466.96
4,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
2,706,581.68
2,000,000.00
2,577,221.71
1,006,650.00
1,000,000.00
1,006,650.00
129,339.97
22,133.04
-
-
Camarines Sur
Capiz
South Bukidnon
Allotment
Obligations
Balance

Camarines Sur and Capiz managed to incur fund balances for CY-2010 while South Bukidnon spent its entire budget allotment for agrarian legal services. It should be noted that Camarines Sur and South Bukidnon registered impressive accomplishments in meeting its targets for agrarian legal services.

Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 45
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 45
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

Fig. 43: SAOB of Camarines Sur, Capiz and South Bukidnon for Adjudication of AR Cases (Fund 158),

2010

1,000,000.00 783,750.00 800,000.00 658,469.00 658,469.00 781,135.43 600,000.00 636,405.00 628,827.46 400,000.00
1,000,000.00
783,750.00
800,000.00
658,469.00
658,469.00
781,135.43
600,000.00
636,405.00
628,827.46
400,000.00
200,000.00
6,577.78
2,614.00
-
-
Camarines Sur
Capiz
South Bukidnon
Allotment
Obligations
Balance
Similar to the SAOB for ALA, Camarines Sur and Capiz also managed to incur fund savings for the
adjudication of AR cases in CY-2010. Camarines Sur and Capiz registered below 100 percent in the
adjudication of AR cases while South Bukidnon posted 284.76 percent.
4.2.4.7. Discrepancies in the Accomplishment Reports and SAOB
Fig. 44: Total Discrepancies between Fund Obligations and Projected Expenditures out of Reported
AJD Case Accomplishments of Camarines Sur, Capiz and Bukidnon for CY-2010
4,000,000.00
3,653,548.87
3,500,000.00
3,000,000.00
2,500,000.00
2,000,000.00
1,500,000.00
788,984.07
1,000,000.00
382,211.62
500,000.00
-
Camarines Sur
Capiz
Bukidnon
382,211.62 500,000.00 - Camarines Sur Capiz Bukidnon South Bukidnon registered a funding discrepancy of P

South Bukidnon registered a funding discrepancy of P 3,653,548.87 from its reported case accomplishments in 2010 – the largest among the provinces documented. This amount accounts for 21.83 percent of its total fund allocation for ALA and Adjudication. Taking this into consideration, it must be of interest to determine whether the cost parameters employed by the AJD units do not reflect the actual cost of cases filed in the provincial as well as the municipal offices of the Department; or in the absence of funds to accommodate the bulk of cases being received every year, the budget is obtained from other sources. In the micro-level, the research will look at whether these funding discrepancies actually resulted to the burden of additional costs on the part of the agrarian reform beneficiaries.

Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 46
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 46
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

4.3. Findings in the Micro-Level

To determine whether the fund discrepancies in the resolution of agrarian cases are shouldered by the farmers, who get involved in agrarian disputes, the research has interviewed three farmer groups from the three provinces documented. These three groups are the Banasi Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association (BARFBA) from the Fajardo Estate at Bula, Camarines Sur; the Consolacion Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Multi-Purpose Cooperative (CARB-MPC) from the Ford Estate at Dumalag Capiz; and the Kapunungan sa Mamumuong Mag-uuma sa Philippine Greenhills (KAMMPHIL) from the Guingona Estate at Maramag, Bukidnon. The following are presentations of the lost opportunities and foregone incomes of farmers, who were subjected to disputes over their land.

4.3.1. The Case of the Banasi Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association (BARFBA) 4.3.1.1. Cause and Nature
4.3.1.
The Case of the Banasi Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association (BARFBA)
4.3.1.1.
Cause and Nature of the Dispute
4.3.1.2. Chronology of Events

The agrarian reform beneficiaries of Sitio Banasi were prevented from farming the lands awarded to them since 1998, because of the landowners’ petition to exempt the landholding from CARP coverage. The landowners’ claim that the Estate is a pastureland and must be excluded from agrarian reform. While the farmers have won the disputes filed in the various offices of DAR, they are still being thwarted by threats, and a decision from the Regional Trial Court favoring the landowners and ordering for the eviction of farmers from their landholdings.

Right now, not all 57 beneficiaries could farm their land. Some farmers try to plant rice in idle parcels of land, while some have given up the fight. Those who managed to do so have to be careful, out of fear that the landowners might discover them and destroy their crops.

1973: The land was covered by PD 27. Certificates of Land Transfer were issued to the farmer-beneficiaries of the landholding. However, the entitlements were returned to the landowners not long after the certificates of land transfer were cancelled by the then Ministry of Agrarian Reform.

1995-1996: A Notice of Coverage for CARP was issued by DAR to the landowners of the Fajardo Estate.

1998: Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) were awarded to the 57 farmer-beneficiaries of Fajardo Estate

1998: The first attempt to install the farmer-beneficiaries failed after the landowner groups barricaded the entrance to the landholding. The second attempt for installation resulted to a shooting incident between the PNP and the hired guards of the landowners.

between the PNP and the hired guards of the landowners. 1998 : The landowners filed a

1998: The landowners filed a petition for exemption from CARP coverage to the DAR.

1998-1999: The farmers went back to their landholding and requested for police assistance so they could enter their land without fearing for the landowners’ threats. The police’s assistance lasted for one year, with the farmers paying for the expenses of four police personnel to guard their landholdings.

1999: The Regional Director denied the appeal of the landowners to exempt the landholding from CARP coverage and cancel the CLOA issued to the farmer-beneficiaries. Succeeding motions for reconsideration were likewise denied.

2007: The Office of the Secretary issued a decision upholding DAR’s previous decisions pertaining to the petition to exempt the land from CARP coverage. The DAR sided with the farmers.

2008: The Landowners brought the petition to the Office of the President.

Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 47
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 47
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

April 2008: The Office of the President ordered the cancellation of the CLOA of the Banasi Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries through Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita. The Office of the President sided with the landowners’ petition to exempt the landholding from CARP coverage.

November 2008: 51 farmers started a 444 kilometer-walk from Sitio Banasi to Malacañang as a form of protest to the decision of the Office of the President. The farmers then started a 7-day hunger strike and maintained that they will never go back to Bicol unless the Office of the President overturns its previous decision.

4.3.1.3. Case-Related Expenditures Fare to MARO No. of Visits per Year Fare to PARO No.
4.3.1.3.
Case-Related Expenditures
Fare to MARO
No. of Visits per Year
Fare to PARO
No. of Visits per Year
Total
No. of Representative ARBs
Total
No. of Years
Total Transportation Expense
Reproduction and Distribution of Case Documents (paid
by the ARBs to DAR)
Over-all expenses for police protection (Incurred in 1998-
P
34.00
12
P
408.00
P
56.00
240
13,440.00
P
13,848.00
2
P
27,696.00
12.00
P
332,352.00
13,000.00
1999)
100,000.00
Expenses Incurred in 2008 walk from Camarines Sur to
DAR (200/day for 3 days)
Number of ARBs
Total Expenses Incurred
P
600.00
51
30,600.00
P
475,952.00

December 2008: After 7 days of waiting, the farmers sought the decision of Malacañang, and only to find out that their case was remanded to the DAR once again. The DAR once again issued a decision favoring the farmers.

2010: The court ruled in favor of the landowners. This resulted to the order of ejectment issued to the farmers of BARFBA.

Approximately, the farmers’ group has spent P 475,952.00 to go back and forth to MARO and PARO for 12 years: The details follow:

and forth to MARO and PARO for 12 years: The details follow: Center for Agrarian Reform
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 48
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 48
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

4.3.1.4. Foregone Incomes

Net Income of an ARB working as a farmer with palay as his main crop for TWO harvest seasons in CY-2010 (based on FGD):

Revenues Less: Expenses Seedlings Fertilizer Pesticide Gasoline (for Land Preparation) Cost of Labor Cost of
Revenues
Less: Expenses
Seedlings
Fertilizer
Pesticide
Gasoline (for Land Preparation)
Cost of Labor
Cost of Threshing
Land Amortization
Net Income
P
80,000.00
P
4,800.00
10,000.00
2,000.00
1,738.00
11,748.00
552.60
2,000.00
32,838.60
P
47,161.40
Notes:
a. Revenue per harvest season amounts to P 40,000.00
b. Price of gasoline per liter is P 43.45 was based on www.alternat1ve.com/philippine-gas-
prices.php
c. Cost of labor was based on the data from Bureau of Agricultural Statistics (www.bas.gov.ph)
d. Cost of threshing was based on CARRD’s previous study on rice farming:
Cost of Threshing:
Number of Cavans Produced for
180
Two Harvest Seasons
Divided by
Number of Cavans Paid for
Threshing
Multipl by Farmgate Price
Total Cost of Threshing
5
36
15.35
P
552.60
e. Land Amortization amounts to P 1,000.00 per harvest season
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 49
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 49
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery 1. Projected income for 12 years (1998-2010), provided
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
1.
Projected income for 12 years (1998-2010), provided that the farmer was able to consistently plant his crops on his land.
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
Revenue:
Main Crop
Total
Less:Expenses
Seedlings
Fertilizer
Pesticides
Land Amortization
Gasoline
Cost of Labor
Cost of Threshing
Total
Net Income
A
P
143,220.39
P
119,065.60
P
140,754.89
P
116,851.06
P
86,714.95
P
94,011.52
P
77,029.35
P
71,286.81
P
72,430.40
P
55,725.39
P
49,920.12
P
52,696.32
P
34,887.66
P
143,220.39
P
119,065.60
P
140,754.89
P
116,851.06
P
86,714.95
P
94,011.52
P
77,029.35
P
71,286.81
P
72,430.40
P
55,725.39
49,920.12
52,696.32
34,887.66
B
P
1,395.00
P
1,302.00
P
990.00
P
735.00
P
717.00
P
699.00
P
618.00
P
594.00
P
552.00
P
533.33
P
509.39
P
486.53
P
464.69
C
8,789.39
9,957.09
13,263.61
6,507.19
5,961.29
6,187.50
4,882.43
3,690.14
3,535.79
3,513.10
3,371.53
3,275.25
3,180.38
D
3,198.38
3,006.00
2,976.00
2,754.00
2,997.00
3,183.00
3,072.00
3,093.00
2,577.00
2,489.86
2,378.09
2,271.33
2,169.37
E
2,000.00
2,000.00
2,000.00
2,000.00
2,000.00
2,000.00
2,000.00
2,000.00
2,000.00
2,000.00
2,000.00
2,000.00
2,000.00
F
1,173.15
1,032.75
877.50
1,169.10
992.79
967.95
911.44
878.07
850.85
822.07
785.17
749.92
716.26
G
11,748.00
10,383.00
11,136.00
9,990.00
9,327.00
8,820.00
8,424.00
8,082.00
7,938.00
7,669.57
7,325.28
6,996.44
6,682.37
H
540.44
449.31
531.20
440.99
327.25
354.73
290.65
269.01
273.29
210.27
188.39
198.86
131.68
P
28,844.36
P
28,130.15
P
31,774.31
P
23,596.28
P
22,322.33
P
22,212.18
P
20,198.52
P
18,606.23
P
17,726.92
P
17,238.20
16,557.85
15,978.33
15,344.74
P
114,376.03
P
90,935.45
P
108,980.58
P
93,254.78
P
64,392.63
P
71,799.34
P
56,830.83
P
52,680.58
P
54,703.47
P
38,487.19
P
33,362.27
P
36,717.99
P
19,542.92
Notes:
a.
Average yield, land use and average provincial market price were based from the data on Bureau of Agricultural Statistics.
Average
Number of
Average Yield
(converted to Kg.)
Land Use
Yield per
Yield for 1.5
hectare
Market Price
Harvest per
(hectare)
Hectare
per Kg.
Total
Year
Total Revenue per
Year
2010
106,602,000
34,276
3,110
4,665
P
15.35
P
71,610.20
2
P
143,220.39
2009
114,552,000
41,216
2,779
4,169
14.28
59,532.80
2
119,065.60
2008
107,506,000
34,416
3,124
4,686
15.02
70,377.45
2
140,754.89
2007
101,054,000
32,145
3,144
4,716
12.39
58,425.53
2
116,851.06
2006
83,419,000
31,890
2,616
3,924
11.05
43,357.48
2
86,714.95
2005
106,668,000
37,715
2,828
4,242
11.08
47,005.76
2
94,011.52
2004
92,203,000
34,940
2,639
3,958
9.73
38,514.68
2
77,029.35
2003
86,084,000
35,720
2,410
3,615
9.86
35,643.40
2
71,286.81
2002
105,120,000
42,190
2,492
3,737
9.69
36,215.20
2
72,430.40
2001
82,607,000
37,890
2,180
3,270
8.52
27,862.69
2
55,725.39
2000
82,530,000
42,010
1,965
2,947
8.47
24,960.06
2
49,920.12
1999
106,196,000
48,910
2,171
3,257
8.09
26,348.16
2
52,696.32
1998
34,804,000
24,960
1,394
2,092
8.34
17,443.83
2
34,887.66
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 50
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

a. Cost of seedlings based on Bureau of Agricultural Statistics

Number of

Price per Price per 1.5 hectare Harvest per Hectare Year Total Cost of Seedlings 2010
Price per
Price per 1.5
hectare
Harvest per
Hectare
Year
Total Cost of
Seedlings
2010
P
465.00
697.50
2
P
1,395.00
2009
434.00
651.00
2
1,302.00
2008
330.00
495.00
2
990.00
2007
245.00
367.50
2
735.00
2006
239.00
358.50
2
717.00
2005
233.00
349.50
2
699.00
2004
206.00
309.00
2
618.00
2003
198.00
297.00
2
594.00
2002
184.00
276.00
2
552.00
2001
177.78
266.67
2
533.33
2000
169.80
254.70
2
509.39
1999
162.18
243.26
2
486.53
1998
154.90
232.34
2
464.69
Total
P
9,595.94
Price of seedlings from 1998-2001 was projected based on the inflation rate from Bureau of
Agricultural Statistics.
b.
Cost of fertilizer based on Bureau of Agricultural Statistics
Number of
Price per
Harvest per
Hectare
Price per 1.5
hectare
Year
Total Cost of
Fertilizer
2010
P
2,929.80
4,394.69
2
P
8,789.39
2009
3,319.03
4,978.55
2
9,957.09
2008
4,421.20
6,631.80
2
13,263.61
2007
2,169.06
3,253.59
2
6,507.19
2006
1,987.10
2,980.64
2
5,961.29
2005
2,062.50
3,093.75
2
6,187.50
2004
1,627.48
2,441.22
2
4,882.43
2003
1,230.05
1,845.07
2
3,690.14
2002
1,178.60
1,767.89
2
3,535.79
2001
1,171.03
1,756.55
2
3,513.10
2000
1,123.84
1,685.76
2
3,371.53
1999
1,091.75
1,637.63
2
3,275.25
1998
1,060.13
1,590.19
2
3,180.38
Total
P
76,114.67
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 51
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 51
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

c. Cost of pesticide based on Bureau of Agricultural Statistics

Price per Price per 1.5 hectare Number of Hectare Harvest per Total Cost of Pesticide
Price per
Price per 1.5
hectare
Number of
Hectare
Harvest per
Total Cost of
Pesticide
2010
P
1,066.13
1,599.19
2
P
3,198.38
2009
1,002.00
1,503.00
2
3,006.00
2008
992.00
1,488.00
2
2,976.00
2007
918.00
1,377.00
2
2,754.00
2006
999.00
1,498.50
2
2,997.00
2005
1,061.00
1,591.50
2
3,183.00
2004
1,024.00
1,536.00
2
3,072.00
2003
1,031.00
1,546.50
2
3,093.00
2002
859.00
1,288.50
2
2,577.00
2001
829.95
1,244.93
2
2,489.86
2000
792.70
1,189.04
2
2,378.09
1999
757.11
1,135.67
2
2,271.33
1998
723.12
1,084.69
2
2,169.37
Total
P
36,165.03
Price of pesticide from 1998-2001 and 2010 was projected based on the inflation rate from
Bureau of Agricultural Statistics.
d. Land Amortization was based on the interview with a farmer in Bula, Camarines Sur.
e. Land Preparation Expenses - Gasoline was based on prices from
www.alternat1ve.com/philippine-gas-prices.php and prices from 1998-2004 was adjusted based
on inflation rate from Bureau of Agricultural Statistics
Number of
Harvest per
Gasoline
Year
Total Cost of
Land
Preparation
2010
P
586.58
2
P
1,173.15
2009
516.38
2
1,032.75
2008
438.75
2
877.50
2007
584.55
2
1,169.10
2006
496.40
2
992.79
2005
483.98
2
967.95
2004
455.72
2
911.44
2003
439.04
2
878.07
2002
425.42
2
850.85
2001
411.04
2
822.07
2000
392.59
2
785.17
1999
374.96
2
749.92
1998
358.13
2
716.26
Total
P
5,963.52
P
11,927.03
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 52
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 52
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery
Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

f. Cost of labor was based on the data from the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics (www.bas.gov.ph)

Price per Hectare Price per 1.5 hectare Number of Harvest per Total Cost of Labor
Price per
Hectare
Price per 1.5
hectare
Number of
Harvest per
Total Cost of
Labor
2010
P
3,916.00
5,874.00
2
P
11,748.00
2009
3,461.00
5,191.50
2
10,383.00
2008
3,712.00
5,568.00
2
11,136.00
2007
3,330.00
4,995.00
2
9,990.00
2006
3,109.00
4,663.50
2
9,327.00
2005
2,940.00
4,410.00
2
8,820.00
2004
2,808.00
4,212.00
2
8,424.00
2003
2,694.00
4,041.00
2
8,082.00
2002
2,646.00
3,969.00
2
7,938.00
2001
2,556.52
3,834.78
2
7,669.57
2000
2,441.76
3,662.64
2
7,325.28
1999
2,332.15
3,498.22
2
6,996.44
1998
2,227.46
3,341.19
2
6,682.37
Total
P
114,521.66
g.
Cost of threshing was based on CARRD’s previous study on rice farming:
Number of
Yield per
Number of
Harvest per
Farmgate
1.5 hectare
Cavans
Number of
Cavans Paid for
Threshing
Year
Priceof Palay
Total Cost of
Threshing
2010
4,665
88
18
2
P
15.35
P
540.44
2009
4,169
79
16
2
14.28
449.31
2008
4,686
88
18
2
15.02
531.20
2007
4,716
89
18
2
12.39
440.99
2006
3,924
74
15
2
11.05
327.25
2005
4,242
80
16
2
11.08
354.73
2004
3,958
75
15
2
9.73
290.65
2003
3,615
68
14
2
9.86
269.01
2002
3,737
71
14
2
9.69
273.29
2001
3,270
62
12
2
8.52
210.27
2000
2,947
56
11
2
8.47
188.39
1999
3,257
61
12
2
8.09
198.86
1998
2,092
39
8
2
8.34
131.68
Total
P
4,206.05
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Page 53
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Page 53

Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Deliveryb. Lost income for an ARB for 12 years (1998-2010) with PALAY as his main

b. Lost income for an ARB for 12 years (1998-2010) with PALAY as his main
b. Lost income for an ARB for 12 years (1998-2010) with PALAY as his main crop approximately amounted to P 1,031,915.76, assuming that a one-hectare land was awarded to him.
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
Revenue: