I. CARP in Retrospect

1. When was the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) instituted?

TheComprehensive AgrarianReform Program (CARP)was instituted on June10, 1988. Touted as the centerpiece program of President Corazon Aquino’s administration, it was considered the most comprehensive of all the redistributive programs established by past administrations. Its enabling law, Republic Act 6657, aimed not only to grant land to the tillers, but also to provide them with the necessary support services that would ensure the productivity of the landgiven to them under the law.

Among the various land reform laws that have been enacted by various administrations, from the Commonwealth government to the administration of the late President Ferdinand Marcos, only the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) has the mandate of the Constitution.

Section 21 of Article II or the Declaration of Principles and State Policies asserts, "the State shall promote comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform." The National Economy and Patrimony Article (XXII), in Section 1, par. 2 reiterates, "the State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on sound agricultural development and agrarian reform." Meanwhile, Article XIII, or the Social Justice and Human Rights article provides for "Agrarian and Natural Resources Reform."

2. What lands does the program cover?

Scope

The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law covers, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands as provided in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order 229, including other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture.

Of the 8.1 million hectare-revised CARP scope, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) is tasked to distribute 4.3 million hectares. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), on the other hand, is tasked with the distribution of 3.8 million hectares.

Schedule of implementation

The distribution of all lands shall be implemented immediately and completed within ten years from the effectivity of the law.

Retention limits

Under RA 6657, the landowner retains a maximum of five hectares. Three hectares is awarded to each child of the landowner provided that he/she is at least fifteen years of age, and that he/she is actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm. The landowner has the right to choose which area to retain. In case the retained area is tenanted, the tenant may choose to remain in the retained area and be a leaseholder, or be a tenant in another agricultural land. The tenant is given one year to exercise his option from the time the landowner chooses the area for retention. Landowners covered by Presidential Decree 27 are allowed to keep their retained lands under the law.

3. What are other executive orders and amendments that have a bearing on CARP?

Section 20, Executive Order 229

The Agrarian Reform Fund is created as provided for in Proclamation No. 131 dated 22 July 1987. It is a special fund amounting to FIFTY BILLION PESOS to cover the estimated cost of CARP from 1987 to 1992. The sources of the fund are the proceeds from the sale of the assets of the Asset Privatization Trust (APT), the sale of ill-gotten wealth recovered through the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), and other sources that government may deem appropriate. The amount collected and accrued to the Agrarian Reform Fund is considered automatically appropriated for the purpose authorized in EO 229.

Republic Act 8532

RA 8532 amends Section 63 of the CARL and legislates an additional FIFTY BILLION PESOS for the CARL’s implementation until 2008. In addition to the sources of funds identified in Section 20 of EO 229, RA 8532 also appropriates not less than three billion pesos from the General Appropriations Act (GAA).

However, the Department of Justice Opinion No. 9 of 1997 adds that "the ten-year implementation period should be regarded as directory and not mandatory." This means that the period for implementation set under both Acts should be regarded as mere target periods within which the implementation of the program should be completed. This does not indicate the end of the program itself.

II. Status of CARP Implementation

4. What has been accomplished so far?

According to land distribution accomplishment figures in December 2005, the DAR has already distributed 3.65 million hectares out of the 4.3 million revised scope. The DENR, on the other hand, has already distributed 2.93 million hectares out of its target of 3.8 million hectares. Therefore, the remaining balance for CARP stands at 1.52 million hectares. However, according to the DAR’s Inventory of CARP Scope balance in October 2006, the total area of landholdings in the balance is actually 1.9 million hectares. This means that the DAR balance is 0.38 million hectares more than the December 2005 figures.

5. How have Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs) benefited from CARP implementation?

The economic conditions of the Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs) have improved because of CARP. An assessment of the impact of the United Nations Development Programme-funded Support to Agrarian Reform and Indigenous Communities (UNDP-SARDIC) showed that the average annual income of ARBs is more than twice that of non-ARBs1. In the same vein, the value of the assets of ARBs is double that of non-ARBs2. "ARBs were also more satisfied about their economic conditions and perceived that their general well-being improved compared to non-ARBs."

Under the Agrarian Reform Communities Development Project (ARCDP), six communities proved that "Land Tenure Improvement (LTI), coupled with proper intervention, resulted in significant positive effects particularly on the farmer-beneficiaries."3 The follow-up study to the ARCDP also showed that the value of output per hectare was higher among ARBs in 56 ARCDP sites. Moreover, in attributes like farm income, off-farm income, and total income, the same study showed a positive effect on the respondents.4

6. What are the issues and problems weighing down on CARP implementation?

Lack of funding

Based on the actual funding requirement estimated by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) in 1987, the CARP needed 221.09 billion to ensure its full implementation for ten years. However, only 100 billion has been appropriated under the law, resulting to a funding gap of 121.09 billion.

Lack of support services

The lack of support services for Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs) means that the CARP is unable to fulfill its mandate of ensuring the productivity of the lands that are distributed to farmers. Owing largely to the funding constraints for program beneficiaries development, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) instituted the formation of Agrarian Reform Centers (ARCs) in 1993. The ARCs were initiated in areas where there was a "critical mass of farmers and farm workers awaiting full implementation of agrarian reform," and were meant to serve as "focal points of agricultural development." This means that the delivery of support services was concentrated on ARCs.

By end 1998, DAR was expected to have established 2,000 more ARCs. In December 2004, DAR had identified 1,614 ARCs; 886 or 55 percent of which received various forms of support from donor countries5. Agrarian Reform Communities, however, are still classified according to those that have Foreign Assisted Funding (FAP), and those that only get limited local funding support, or non-FAP ARCs. Naturally, the non-FAP ARCs received less assistance than those received by the former. However, if CARP is to deliver on its promise of redistributing lands to the landless and ensuring farmland productivity, the rest of the ARB population has to benefit from program beneficiaries development.

Second-generation problems

The following issues and problems are generally referred to by agrarian reform advocates as second-generation problems because they are encountered by agrarian reform beneficiaries that have already been awarded lands under the program.

Cancellation of EPs/CLOAs

The cancellation of Emancipation Patents (EPs) and Certificates of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs) is a continuing problem for CARP implementers and beneficiaries alike. Whereas EPs and CLOAs are legal titles that should strengthen the claim of beneficiaries over their lands, these could still be cancelled when landowners start to question DAR personnel’s technical lapses in designating lands for CARP coverage. There have also been cases where landowners exercise their right to their retention areas years after the beneficiaries are already in place and have been issued EPs and CLOAs. These, too, have led to cancellations.

In 1994, the DAR has also issued an administrative order (AO) detailing the grounds for the cancellation of EPs and CLOAs. The AO caused confusion among beneficiaries, as they were unaware of such a policy.

In 1996, DAR issued Administrative Order No. 3 which aims to minimize the damage caused by cancellations on beneficiaries by providing them with a relocation fund, or refund of the amortization they have paid, but this does not even begin to approximate the loss the beneficiaries suffer when their EPs and CLOAs are cancelled.

Lack of safeguards for EP and CLOA holders

The system of registering lands in the Philippines is governed by the Torrens system. It is defined as "the system whereby all real estate ownership may be judicially confirmed and recorded in the archives of government." Another definition states that it is "a system of registration wherein documents are closely regulated, monitored and examined to ensure the title is transferred without flaw. This also ensures that one’s title to property is indefeasible and incontestable." Sadly, however, this safeguard is not accorded to holders of EPs and CLOAs. These could still be cancelled in accordance with the various administrative orders that DAR has issued. Worse, there is no set prescriptive period for hearing petitions for EP and CLOA cancellations.

Landowner resistance

Landowner resistance is most often the reason cited by CARP implementers when they try to explain poor implementation of the program. This is the reason why private agricultural lands remain undistributed. Even when the DAR posted the highest land distribution accomplishment during the term of President Fidel Ramos, this was due more to government-owned lands being distributed than anything else. In most cases, landowners refuse to accept the land valuation formulated by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council or PARC. Hence, even when the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) has funds for landowner compensation, these remain with the bank and serve as another cause for the non-implementation of CARP. Landowners have also resorted to filing cases against DAR personnel, and against beneficiaries in regular courts or the special agrarian courts. With the issuance of Temporary Restraining Orders (TRO) by these courts, the implementation of the program is effectively delayed.

Agrarian justice

Even though the Supreme Court has already ruled that TROs cannot be issued against DAR in its exercise of its duties, this does not seem to translate to a more aggressive implementation at the local level. The past decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court on agrarian-related cases (for instance, the Sumilao and Sumalo cases), which favored landowners, do not exactly encourage DAR personnel to be more vigorous in implementing CARP.

III. The Question of CARP Funding

7. How can we address these problems?

The first crucial step in addressing problems encountered in the course of CARP implementation is to extend funding for the program. Fund allocation for CARP is scheduled to end by June 2008 as stated in RA 8532. As in most laws, funding will ensure the program’s full implementation until it is completed. Without the necessary funding, there is hardly any hope for finishing what CARP has started.

More importantly, social justice is at the heart of agrarian reform. RA 6657 was enacted to address the inequitable distribution of wealth in the countryside. It sought to enable landless farmers to own their lands and make these productive. Based on CARP distribution figures cited, 81 percent of the lands covered under CARP have already been distributed. But there is still a substantial number that remains untouched by agrarian reform. In fact, figures could even be higher. Also, support services remain concentrated among ARCs; more need to be established in order to spread the benefits of program beneficiaries’ development. There are also problems that continue to impede CARP progress (i.e. second generation problems). These, too, need to be addressed. All these will entail funding.

CARP is not just about social justice. It is also about achieving economic development in the countryside. It is, therefore, imperative to ensure its continued implementation so that national development won’t be long in coming.

8. Would extending the funds for CARP answer all the problems regarding CARP implementation?

No. While advocating for the extension of CARP funding is necessary, it is also crucial that issues or controversies hounding CARP implementing agencies are investigated, and misconduct, prosecuted.

IV. CARP Impact Validation

9. Shouldn’t an impact validation of CARP be done before extending the fund?

Not necessarily. It is clear that the program has not yet been completed and funds are needed to ensure that its targets and outcomes are met.

At the same time, there is an urgent need for the validation of the impact of CARP since the start of its implementation. A validation of CARP’s impact would serve as a truthful assessment of the amount of time it would take to accomplish CARP’s remaining balance. It could also show to CARP implementing agencies the best strategies to employ in order for them to fulfill their mandate. But, more importantly, it could help legislators gauge the amount of funds that needs to be allocated for the completion of the program.

10. Which bills were filed on the extension of CARP funding?

During the 13th Congress, two bills were filed by Representative Abraham Kahlil B. Mitra and Akbayan Party-List Representative Ana Theresia Hontiveros-Baraquel that seek to extend CARP funding and address some of the problems associated with CARP implementation.

11. What are the general features of the bills?

Both bills seek to extend the funding for CARP.

The Mitra bill seeks a P50 billion increase in funding until 2013, and increases the P3 billion yearly appropriation from the General Appropriations Act (GAA) to P5 billion. It also specifies the establishment of three ARCs per year. Corollary to this provision is the 50 percent allocation of agrarian reform funds for Program Beneficiaries Development. To ensure CARP sustainability, it provides for the creation of an Oversight Committee composed of 3 representatives each from the Senate, the House of Representatives, the DAR, DA and the DENR. The committee is to meet once a year to assess CARP implementation, and is required to submit its evaluation to both the Senate and the HOR.

On the other hand, the Hontiveros-Baraquel bill proposes a P100 billion increase in funding. It does not impose a time limitation for the fund. Instead, it states that resources should be provided until the completion of the Program’s implementation. It mandates an automatic appropriation equivalent to no less than 1.6 percent of the total national budget of every year beginning in 2008. It also provides that 70 percent of the funds should be allocated to land acquisition, distribution and compensation. Once that is accomplished, funds shall be wholly appropriated to support services.

The Hontiveros-Baraquel bill also tries to address loopholes in the law that serve as stumbling blocks to the just and speedy implementation of the program.

V. Achieving Human Development through Agrarian Reform

12. How can we achieve human development through the just implementation of CARP?

PLCPD believes that human beings should be at the center of development.

Dr. Mahbub ul Haq, a Pakistani economist and one of the founders of the human development theory, defines human development in the following paragraph:

"The basic purpose of development is to enlarge people’s choices. In principle, these choices can be infinite and can change over time. People often value achievements that do not show up at all, or not immediately, in income or growth figures: greater access to knowledge, better nutrition and health services, more secure livelihoods, security against crime and physical violence, satisfying leisure hours, political and cultural freedoms, and sense of participation in community activities. The objective of development is to create an enabling environment for people to enjoy long, healthy and creative lives."6

Building human capabilities is fundamental in enlarging people’s choices. These include being able to "lead long and healthy lives, to be knowledgeable, to have access to the resources needed for a decent standard of living, and to be able to participate in the life of the community."7

Such is the ultimate goal of agrarian reform, and, in a way, the preceding laws before it. However, these were mostly flawed, and stopped short of institutionalizing farmers’ ability to access crucial resources through support services.

It was only the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law that provided measures that would empower the millions of landless farmers by providing them the means to make their lands productive and alleviate their quality of life and that of their families.