PROMISED LAND the Cry of the Poor Peasants

7/25/2019 PROMISED LAND the Cry of the Poor Peasants

1/78

Republic of the Philippines

Saint Louis University, Baguio City

School of Law

PROMISED LAND: The Cry of the Poor Peasants

A Research Paper in Partial Fulfilment of the Subject:

Agrarian Law and Social Legislation

Submitted to:

Atty. Jennifer N. Asuncion

Submitted by:

Banez, May

Bosantog Herbert Armstrong

Cubian, Clifford

Dogaong, Azril

Poking, Samuel

December 5, 2015


2/78

2

Banez | Bosantog | Cubuan | Dogaon | PokingSubject Agrarian Law and Social Legislation

Professor: Atty. Jennifer N. Asuncion

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION 6

II. AGRARIAN REFORM IN THE PHILIPPINES: AN OVERVIEW ..8

A. Agrarian Reform Defined 8

B. The Purpose: Philippine Agrarian Reform 9

C. Agrarian Reform in Action 1

D. Agrarian Reform in the 21st Century 12

1. Agrarian Reforms Core Principles 12

2. CARP/ERs Dubious Record 4

a. Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)b. Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Extension with Reforms

(CARPER)

c. Lands Still to be Distributed

3. The Agrarian Situation 7

III. THE EVOLUTION OF PHILIPPINE AGRARIAN REFORM . 17

A. Colonial Era Land Tenure

B. Post-Independence Era Developments 21 C. Recent Agrarian reform Law Developments 23

D. Agrarian reform Program After Martial Law 4

E. Is Agrarian reform a Failure in the Philippines? 30

IV. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF AGRARIAN REFORM 2

A. Pre-Hispanic Era: Communal Ownership 32

B. Effects of Spanish Colonialism 3

1. Spanish Friars2. Encomienda System

3. The Hacienda System

C. The End of Spanish Colonial Rule and the American Influence . 37


3/78

3



V. THE FAILURES OF EARLY AGRARIAN REFORM MEASURES 39

A. The William Howard Taft Administration 39

B. Philippine Bill of 1902 40

C. The Torrens System 40 D. Homestead Program of 1903 41

E. The Friar Lands Act of 1904 1

F. The Rice Tenancy Act 42

G. Succeeding Tenancy Acts 42

H. Other Agrarian Laws Introduced by the Americans .43

VI. GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES ON AGRARIAN REFORM 4

A. What Triggered the Initiation of Philippine Agrarian Reform? 44

B. Manuel L. Quezon Administration (1935-1944) 46

1. Laws on Agrarian Reform during His Administration

C. Agrarian Reform Initiatives by Other Administrations . 48

1. Manuel A. Roxas Administration (1946-1948) . 48

2. Elpidio Quirino Administration (1948-1953) . 49

3. Ramon Magsaysay Administration (1953-1957) . 49

a. The Key Support Programs on Agrarian Reform4. Carlos P. Garcia Administration (1957-1961) .50

D. Diosdasdo Macapagal Administration (1961-1965) 51

E. Ferdinand E. Marcos Administration (1965-1986) .52

F. Corazon C. Aquino Administration (1986-1992) . 54

1. Agrarian Reform Legislations and Issuances Passed under thisAdministration

2. Other Accomplishments of the Aquino Administration

G. Fidel V. Ramos (1992-1998) 7 1. What was done to facilitate land distribution?

H. Joseph Ejercito Estrada Administration (1998-2001) . 59

I. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo Administration (2001 2010) .61

J. Benigno C. Aquino Administration (2010 up to present) .63


4/78

4



VII. FAILURES OF AGRARIAN REFORM OF THE PAST ADMINISTRATIONS 66

A. Manuel L. Quezon (Budget Allocation and Outbreak of War)

B. Manuel A. Roxas (Lack of Support Facilities)

C. Elpidio Quirino (Limited Post-War Resources)D. Ramon Magsaysay (Lack of Funds)

E. Carlos P. Garcia (Implementation)

F. Diosdasdo Macapagal (Implementation)

G. Ferdinand E. Marcos (Existence of Some Limitations)

H. Corazon C. Aquino (Budgetary Shortfall)

I. Fidel V. Ramos (Installation of Farmer Beneficiaries)

J. Joseph Ejercito Estrada (Fiscal Constraints and Conflicts)

K. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (Positive)

L. Benigno C. Aquino (Snail-Paced)

VIII. OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF PHILIPPINE AGRARIAN REFORM 73

IX. RECOMMENDATIONS . 5

A. PRINCIPLES OF GENUINE AGRARIAN REFORM

X. CONCLUSION . . 78


5/78

5



ABSTRACT

Being landless was the main cause of social unrest and revolt. Land dispute

has been characterised by fierce, sometimes bloody, power struggles over

lands. Laws and decrees have been passed to correct the sharp inequalities

in the distribution of land ownership. The government introduced a variety

of laws and regulations to improve the lot of the tenant farmers and small

landholders. Agrarian reform programs have been enacted to be

implemented as a social justice measure in order to change the prevailing

situation of unjust and inequitable ownership of land and resources by a few

individuals in the society. However, the reform laws have been tainted with

vested interest of the landed elite in enacting the law, making the reformimplementation difficult and derailed. The agrarian reform laws contained

legal loopholes that gave landlords the opportunity to have their lands be

exempted, if not delaying the inclusion, through legal means. Philippine

agrarian reform has experienced all the difficulties one would expect in a

poor society of immense inequality. The emergence of an independent,

unified agrarian reform department was slow.


6/78

6



I. INTRODUCTION

Land for the landless is a slogan that underscores the acute imbalance in the

distribution of this precious resource among the Filipino people. But it is more than a

slogan. Through the brooding centuries, it has become a battle-cry dramatizing the

increasingly urgent demand of the dispossessed among us for a plot of earth as their

place in the sun (Assoc. of Small Landowners in the Philippines vs. Secretary of Agrarian

Reform, GR. No. 78742).

Agrarian reform has been the main policy response of government to correct the

sharp inequalities in the distribution of land ownership in the Philippines. The historical

records show that the process of disposal of State lands has heavily favored households

with economic and political power. The result has been the ownership of big

landholdings by few families and the rise of haciendas or family estates comprising

several hundreds and thousands of hectares. Land distribution tended to become

concentrated in landed elites and large masses of peasants were displaced and became

landless.

For over a century, the Philippines has been characterised by fierce, sometimes

bloody, power struggles over land. In addition, Agrarian reform has been a highlypolitical issue for centuries, a factor that contributed to its sluggish performance in

every regime in the last century. The historical records of agrarian reform programs

were believed to be implemented as a social justice measure in order to change the

prevailing situation of unjust and inequitable ownership of land and resources by a few

individuals in the society.

Agrarian reform first appeared on the agenda of Philippine policy making with

the beginning of the American colonial rule. Since the turn of the century, several landrelated laws and programs were introduced by the American administration. Realizing

that being landless was the main cause of social unrest and revolt at that time, the

Americans sought to put an end to the miserable conditions of the tenant tillers.


7/78

7



The American initiatives on agrarian reform were followed by another set of

reform laws enacted by the Philippine government after the installation of the

Philippine Republic in 1946. Most of them were tenancy reforms and land settlement

projects trying to address rural unrest rather than pursuing economic or social motives.

After Philippine independence in 1946, successive governments introduced a variety of

laws and regulations to improve the lot of the tenant farmers and small landholders.

Agrarian reform programs have been enacted by different regimes for specific

reasons, albeit political motive has been the common one. As the objectives of such

reform had undergone changes over time based primarily on the socio-political context

prevailing in each period, the original intentions of the reform have also been subjected

to changes in each political regime. While the motive of the government in instituting

this reform deserves commendation; however, the reform laws have been tainted with

vested interest of the landed elite in enacting the law, making the reform

implementation difficult and derailed.

Philippine agrarian reform has experienced all the difficulties one would expect

in a poor society of immense inequality. Laws and decrees have been passed over three

decades, yet many ambiguities of interpretation remain. Decisions on land valuation

are subject to bargaining processes which occasion lengthy delays. The emergence ofan independent, unified agrarian reform department was slow.

Land distribution und er the Aquino administration has been moving at a snails

pace. Despite judicial decisions, the redistribution of Hacienda Luisita lands has been

slow and bureaucratic with harassments of worker-beneficiaries. As peasant leader

Jaime Tadeo bewailed: How much land still needs to be redistributed? Where are

these lands located? These are data for which we continue to petition the agency in

vain. Indeed, the agrarian reform laws contained legal loopholes that gave landlords

the opportunity to have their lands be exempted, if not delaying the inclusion, through

legal means.


8/78

8



II. AGRARIAN REFORM IN THE PHILIPPINES: AN OVERVIEW

A. Agrarian Reform Defined

Agrarian reform is the redistribution of public and private agricultural lands,regardless of produce and tenurial arrangement, to landless farmers and regular farm

workers, to include support services and other arrangements alternative to distribution

of land such as production/profit sharing, labor organization, or distribution of shares

of stock. [1] The Republic Act 6657 [2] or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988

has defined agrarian reform as:

the redistribution of lands regardless of crops or fruits

produced to farmers and regular farmworkers who are

landless, irrespective of tenurial arrangement, to include

the totality of factors and support services designed to lift

the economic status of the beneficiaries and all other

arrangements alternative to the physical redistribution of

lands, such as production or profit-sharing labor

administration, and the distribution of shares of stock,

which will allow beneficiaries to receive a just share of the fruits of the lands they work.

Agrarian reform most often refers to transfer from ownership by a relatively

small number of wealthy (or noble) owners with extensive land holdings (e.g.

plantations, large ranches, or agribusiness plots) to individual or collective ownership

by those who work the land. Agrarian reform usually refers to government-initiated or

government-backed redistribution of i.e. transfer of ownership of (or tenure in)

agricultural land. [3]

____________________[1] Source: www.edu.cebuestates.com/agrarian-land-reform/1concepts-exemptions-retention.htm

[2] Republic Act No. 6657, Sec. 3 (a).[3] Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian_reform


9/78

9



Agrarian Reform does not, of course, simply mean changes in land ownership. It

also involves the provision of support services including, but not restricted to, capital

and credit, improved production and post-harvest technologies, access to physical

markets and market information, as well as access to social services. Such services are

designed not only to improve incomes but also to reduce inequities in control over

assets and markets, to militate against distress sales of land or subjection to usury and

thereby to assist beneficiaries in developing their relative autonomy both culturally and

politically. [4]

B. The Purpose: Philippine Agrarian Reform

Agrarian reform has been the main policy response of government to correct the

sharp inequalities in the distribution of land ownership in the Philippines. The historical

records show that the process of disposal of State lands has heavily favored households

with economic and political power. These households had undue advantage over the

common populace in acquiring property rights through the Spanish system of royal

grants and the American system of land cadastre. The result has been the ownership of

big landholdings by few families and the rise of haciendas or family estates comprising

several hundreds and thousands of hectares. [5]

Agrarian reform efforts to correct these inequalities have been traced back to

the Commonwealth period. [6] The main motivation of the earlier reforms was the break-

up of monopoly ownership and control of land resources. Starting the 1960s, however,

major advances in the implementation of agrarian reform program in the country took

____________________[4] Arthur D. Neame. February 2008. Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Mapping the Terrain. [5] Marife Ballesteros and Alma dela Cruz. December, 2006. Philippine Institute for Development Studies.

Agrarian reform and Changes in Land Ownership Concentration: Evidence from Rice-Growing Villages in thePhilippines . Discussion Paper Series No. 2006-21.

[6] The start of agrarian reform in the Philippines has been traced back to the break-up of friar lands in1908. This was followed by other Acts that focused on tenancy reforms and resettlement on public lands. Tenancyreforms involved regulations on contracts and landlord-tenant relations aimed at protecting tenants againstabuses by the landlords (Public Act 4054). On the other hand, resettlement involved the opening up of newsettlement areas and the purchase of friar lands for distribution to peasants. (Murray 1972 in Hayami and Kukuchibook 1981).


10/78

10



place. In 1963, the Agrarian Reform Code was enacted which introduced the concept

of owner-cultivatorship and leasehold tenure. Owner-cultivatorship provided tenants

the opportunity to own land while leasehold tenancy afforded tenants permanent use

rights over the land. The 1963 Code paved way to a modern concept of agrarian

reform which envisioned a broad-based human and economic development for the

agriculture sector. This concept broach the idea of an agrarian reform program instead

of merely agrarian reform to emphasize the concern not only with the acquisition and

distribution of land but also of uplifting the political and socioeconomic status of

beneficiaries. It is in this light that the 1972 and 1988 agrarian reform programs have

been instituted. In particular, Presidential Decree 27 (PD 27) of 1972 resulted in the

following changes in the program [7][8] :

i. one, coverage of the reform was not limited to pilot areas but

applied comprehensively;

ii. two, acquisition of private lands was made compulsory;

iii. three, land ownership ceiling was substantially lowered from 75

to 7 hectares; and

iv. four, the inclusion of support services to assist beneficiaries

attain economic efficiency in production.

Additional reforms were instituted under Republic Act (RA) 6657 of 1988 or the

Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). CARL has all the basic design of the 1972

program but coverage was expanded to all agricultural lands while ownership ceiling

was further reduced to 5 hectares. [9]

____________________[7] The earlier programs were never implemented on a large scale. In particular, the 1963 program coveredonly pilot areas in Central Luzon. The retention limit under the 1963 Code was 75 hectares. Governmentexpropriated land in excess of 75 hectares. In 1972, landowners where allowed to retain at most 7 hectares plus 3hectares for each heir of the land they currently owned.

[8] Marife Ballesteros and Alma dela Cruz. December, 2006. Philippine Institute for Development Studies. Agrarian reform and Changes in Land Ownership Concentration: Evidence from Rice-Growing Villages in thePhilippines . Discussion Paper Series No. 2006-21.

[9] Ibid.


11/78

11



C. Agrarian Reform in Action

Despite the shortcomings of the agrarian reform programs in the Philippines,

these programs specifically PD 27 and CARL paved way to the break-up of huge estates.

In several areas the increase in the number of owner cultivators has been observed evenin provinces where the hacienda system used to dominate. However, the rampant

selling and mortgaging of lands awarded to farmer beneficiaries have also been

reported (DAR 1996). The Department of Agrarian Reform reports that in 23 provinces

covered by agrarian reform the proportion of farmer beneficiaries in a village which

have had sale transactions range from a low of 7% to a high of 100%. [10]

In general, the agrarian reform law prohibits the transfer of awarded lands

except by hereditary succession. This legal impediment however has not prevented the

sale of awarded lands. Sales and other forms of land transfer actions of farmer

beneficiaries have been attributed to the demand for overseas employment and to the

low productivity of agriculture [11][12] . Studies show that such actions are not necessarily

regressive but have led to an increase in investments of rural households in

education [13] . However, there is a growing concern over the possible consolidation of

agricultural lands which can again lead to widening land ownership distribution. [14]

____________________[10] Marife Ballesteros and Alma dela Cruz. December, 2006. Philippine Institute for Development Studies.

Agrarian reform and Changes in Land Ownership Concentration: Evidence from Rice-Growing Villages in thePhilippines. Discussion Paper Series No. 2006-21.

[11] Nagarajan, Geetha, C. David, R. Meyer (1992) Informal Finance Through Land Pawning Contracts:Evidence from the Philippines. Journal of Development Studies 29 (1): 93-107.

[12] Estudillo, J. Y. Sawada and K. Otsuka (2006). Changing Determinants of Schooling Investments andOverseas Emigration: Evidence from Rural Villages in the Philippines. Draft paper submitted for publication to theJournal of Economic Literature.

[13] Ibid.[14] Marife Ballesteros and Alma dela Cruz. December, 2006. Philippine Institute for Development Studies.

Agrarian reform and Changes in Land Ownership Concentration: Evidence from Rice-Growing Villages in thePhilippines . Discussion Paper Series No. 2006-21.


12/78

12



D. Agrarian Reform in the 21st Century

For over a century, the Philippines has been characterised by fierce, sometimes

bloody, power struggles over land. Typically, governments have won votes and

appeased protestors by promising to reform land ownership, but have then failed todeliver more than token levels of redistribution. [15]

In June 2014, the Philippine governments agrarian reform law reached its 26th

year of implementation (including a 16-year extension period) with completion nowhere

in sight. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and its extension, the

Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Extension with Reforms (CARPER) had

provisions that were generally favorable to their intended beneficiaries. But CARP/ER

was also essentially the result of a compromise between pro and anti-agrarian reform

blocs in the Philippine Congress and thus also contained provisions inserted by

landowner lobbyists that are considered loopholes in the law. [16]

1. Agrarian Reforms Core Principles [17]

The basic principles of a genuine, meaningful and sustainable agrarian reform

program are enshrined in the long history of agrarian unrest and rural social movementsthat have punctuated the countrys experience since colonial times. In the current era,

they are best exemplified by the Declaration of Principles adopted in May 1987 by the

Congress for a Peoples Agrarian Reform (CPAR) wh ich became the highest expression

of peasant, farm worker, and fisher folk unity immediately after the ouster of the

Marcos dictatorship in 1986. CPAR consisted of twelve (12) major rural national and

regional mass organizations and fourteen (14) non-governmental support groups from

____________________[15] Saturnino M. Borras Jr. and Jennifer Franco . October, 2008. Reforming Agrarian reform in the

Philippines . Research findings at a glance from the Institute of Development Studies Citizens Building ResponsiveStates.

[16] Eduardo Climaco Tadem. May 2015. Philippine Agrarian Reform in the 21st Century. Land grabbing,conflict and agrarianenvironmental transformations: perspectives from East and Southeast Asia. An internationalacademic conference 56 June 2015, Chiang Mai University Discussion Note No. 2.

[17] Ibid.


13/78

13



all sections of the political spectrum. The CPAR declaration asserted that, The core

principle in agrarian reform is the primacy of the right of all members of the

agricultural labor force who do not own land, near-landless farmers, farmworkers,

small fisherfolk and other direct producers to own and control the land, have full

access to other natural resources and gain full disposition over the. [ 18]

In this regard, the major issues are (1) social justice and inequality, (2) low

productivity, (3) lack of control by the rural masses over their lives and destiny, (4)

under-industrialization, (5) environmental breakdown, and (6) foreign domination.

CPAR also outlined the aims of its agrarian reform program:

1. To transfer landed wealth and power over the land and its produce to the actual

tillers;

2. To free and develop the productive powers of agrarian workers, and fisher folk

form the forces that deprive them of resources and initiative;

3. To develop the mechanisms for people empowerment by creating autonomous

decision-making bodies of the rural masses;

4. To promote nationalist industrialization by widening the national market,

rechannelling the agricultural surplus into industrial investments and labor for

industrial development, and the establishment of self-sufficient local industriescontrolled by the rural masses;

5. To conserve the natural environment so that it may serve the short and long-

term needs of the Filipino people; and

6. To do away with foreign control over natural resources.

These then are the basic principles and features of an agrarian reform program that

meets the true needs and deep aspirations of the Filipino peasantry and other rural

working classes. When measured against what CARP/ER has had to offer, CPAR and

PARCODE definitely represent the more superior alternative.

____________________[18] Congress for a Peoples Agrarian Reform (CPAR)


14/78

14



Economist Lourdes Adriano (1991) [19] said as much in declaring that, PARCODE

is superior to CARP since (1 ) in terms of area coverage it is more comprehensive (2)

it does not provide alternative schemes to land distribution (thu s) lessening the

possible evasionary venues available to present landowners, (3) it proposes a single

retention limit which is likewise the award ceiling to agrarian reform beneficiaries,

(4) it stipulates that the prospective beneficiaries acquire quality or prime lands,

thereby enhancing their opportunity to increase yields, (5) it favors a shorter time

period for agrarian reform implementation, and (6) lastly, it is more flexible for

unlike RA 6657 which stipulates a step-wise implementation schedule, PARCODE leaves

determination of the priority areas to the (peoples) agrarian reform committees.

Adriano concludes that:

If implemented according to plan, PARCODEs agrarian

reform program will ensure a more egalitarian landownership

structure. Moreover, since it is premised on the development

of small-sized farms, it will ensure the economy of a more

efficient allocation of the countrys resources.

2. CARP/ERs Dubious Record [20]

a. Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)

The CARP was an improvement over previous legislation in that it covered all

agricultural lands and the entire rural landless labor force. But it was hobbled by anti-

peasant and pro-landlord provisions that allowed mere regulation of existing tenurial

forms including the nefarious stock distribution option and leaseback agreements,

provided for an omnibus list of exemptions, established fair market value for

____________________[19] Lourdes Saulo Adriano, A General Assessment of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program,

Working Paper Series No. 91-13. Philippine Institute of Development Studies, August 1991.[20] Eduardo Climaco Tadem. May 2015. Philippine Agrarian Reform in the 21st Century. Land grabbing,

conflict and agrarianenvironmental transformations: perspectives from East and Southeast Asia. An internationalacademic conference 56 June 2015, Chiang Mai University Discussion Note No. 2.


15/78

15



landowner compensation, created a payment amortization scheme that was

unfavorable for beneficiaries, set a high retention limit of as much as 14 hectares,

prioritized the distribution of public land over private holdings, mandated a long period

of implementation, and generally ignored the role of beneficiaries and civil society

groups in seeing the program through.

b. Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Extension with Reforms

(CARPER)

CARPER, on the other hand, also contained provisions that favored beneficiaries

in terms of land acquisition and distribution such as the indefeasibility of awarded

beneficiary lands, recognition of usufruct rights of beneficiaries, a grace period for

amortization payments, speeding up the process of awarding lands, removal of the

stock-distribution option, disallowed the conversion of irrigable and irrigated lands,

automatic coverage of lands targeted for conversion pending for at least 5 years,

reinstated compulsory acquisition and voluntary-offers-of-sale as main redistribution

modes, and recognized women as beneficiaries.

c. Lands Still to be Distributed

Despite all these gains, anti-reform legislators still managed to insert a killeramendment that allowed landowners to determine who would be beneficiaries and

who would be excluded from the program. Other objectionable provisions are those

expanding the list of exempted lands, allowing local governments to acquire

agricultural lands beyond the 5-hectare retention limit and the deprioritization of

seasonal and other non-regular farmworkers as qualified beneficiaries. Despite some

changes, major CARP constraints such as the landlord compensation scheme based on,

among others, market value and the beneficiary payment formula based on gross

production have been retained.

It must be stated, however, that the gains, especially from CARPER, were the

results of unrelenting and struggles by peasant and farmworker groups to assert their

rights and sustained pressure on government to accord them their entitled rights.


16/78

16



Still and all, as a result of the long-standing and self-serving practice of

prioritizing public lands over the distribution of private lands, DAR is still left with a

balance of about one million hectares of the most difficult and contentious lands still

to be distributed as of December 2013. This is a more realistic estimate given: (1) the

absence of validating data for DARs claim that only less than 800,000 hectares remain

to be distributed and, (2) given areas that were arbitrarily removed from the target, or

are not being targeted (including problematic landholdings), untitled properties, and

exempted or excluded lands which should have been covered by the program. To

camouflage its lacklustre performance, DAR has resorted to merely reporting the

issuances of Notices of Coverage (NOC) as accomplishments while keeping from public

view the more essential indicators of Certificates of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs)

and, even more crucial, Emancipation Patents (EPs).

As peasant leader Jaime Tadeo bewailed: How much land still needs to be

redistributed? Where are these lands located? These are data for which we continue

to petition the agency in vain. Indeed land distribution under the Aquino

administration has been moving at a snails pace; marked by a consistent and chronic

failure to meet annual targets, the shameless misrepresentation of performance

indicators, and lack of political commitment by the DAR leadership under Secretary

Virgilio de los Reyes. Despite judicial decisions, the redistribution of Hacienda Luisita

lands has been slow and bureaucratic with harassments of worker-beneficiaries

continuing. Agrarian reform support groups argue that the current administrations

CARP performance is the worst since 1988, the year CARP took effect. [21]

In many instances, however, powerful families have also taken control over

public lands and have resisted (sometimes violently) their distribution to qualified

beneficiaries. In any case, the distribution of privately-owned and/or privately-

controlled landholdings constitute the heart and soul of agrarian reform and here is

where the implementation of CARP/ER has been found to be most wanting and

____________________[21] Focus on the Global South (with the Save Agrarian Reform Alliance), The State of Agrarian Reform Under

President Benigno Aquino IIIs Government: Beyond the Numbers: A struggle for social justice and inclusive ruraldevelopment, (Focus on the global south-Philippines: Quezon City. 2013.


17/78

17



negligent.

Contrary to the claim of the present DAR leadership that landowner resistance is

not a major problem, numerous reports have surfaced of farmers being evicted,

harassed, intimidated and killed by landlords and hired goons. Furthermore, between 2012 and 2013, there was a 4.6 percent increase in the number of cases filed by

resistant landowners at the Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board.

Land grabbing and land use conversions are intensifying even in landholdings that

have been covered for distribution thus denying the rights of potential agrarian reform

beneficiaries to own and control the land. These are misappropriated for non-

agricultural purposes such as real estate development, tourism, mining, and special

economic zones by foreign and domestic land speculators such as influential politicians,

local governments and giant property developers like Ayala Lan d, SM, and Villars Vista

Land and Lifescapes. The more prominent examples are the cases of Sumalo, Plaridel,

Sicogon and Casiguran. Also violative of agrarian reform ideals is the entry of

investments in various agreements and contracts like joint ventures, leasehold, public-

private partnership (PPP) and the aggressive expansion of crops for agrofuels

(biofuels) [22] setting aside thousands of hectares of land for plantation activities under

large-scale agribusiness production and management arrangements.

3. The Agrarian Situation [23]

Agrarian reform has been a highly political issue for centuries, a factor that

contributed to its sluggish performance in every regime in the last century. The

historical records of agrarian reform programs were believed to be implemented as a

social justice measure in order to change the prevailing situation of unjust and

____________________[22] Focus on the Global South (with the Save Agrarian Reform Alliance), The State of Agrarian Reform Under

President Benigno Aquino IIIs Government: Beyond the Numbers: A struggle for social justice and inclusive ruraldevelopment, (Focus on the global south-Philippines: Quezon City. 2013.

[23] Eduardo Climaco Tadem. May 2015. Philippine Agrarian Reform in the 21st Century. Land grabbing,conflict and agrarianenvironmental transformations: perspectives from East and Southeast Asia. An internationalacademic conference 56 June 2015, Chiang Mai University Discussion Note No. 2.


18/78

18



equitable ownership of land and resources by a few individuals in the society [24] .

The rural peasants struggles remained the potent force at the grassroots level

in the different regimes that led to the undertaking of agrarian reform beginning from

the Spanish colonialism up to the Aquino presidency [25] . With agricultural lands that had

been in the possession of a few powerful landlords and corporations, for centuries the

majority of people remained as tenants, farm workers and landless agricultural

laborers, a reality that has contributed to the poverty in the countryside for long

time [26] . It was viewed that agricultural development policies of the government had

been unresponsive to the needs of the peasantry as a whole for many decades [27] .

The apparent exploitative agrarian structure intensified the claims for agrarian

reform. It was in 1988, under the government of President Corazon Aquino, that

Republic Act 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL),

set in motion the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program

(CARP). Upon her ascension into power in 1986, President Aquino envisioned agrarian

and agrarian reform as the center- piece of her administrations social legislative agenda

which took effect two years after the peaceful People Power Revolution and the end

of the Marcos authoritarian rule. Its fundamental principle and slogan was land-to-the-

tiller. [28] Under this law, agrarian reform becomes a major component of agrarian

reform.

Agrarian reform was originally meant to restore the dignity and improve the lives

of the then 10 million-strong rural labor force by transforming them into owner-

cultivators and productive citizens, the watered-down CARP/ER and its skewed

implementation have instead aggravated rural inequalities and brought about

____________________[24] Putzel, James. 1995. Managing the Main Force : The Communist Party and the Peasantry in the

Philippines. Journal of Peasant Studies, 22 (4): 645 71.[25] Hayami, Yujiro et. al. 1990. Toward an Alternative Agrarian reform Paradigm: A Philippine Perspective.

Manila: Ateneo de Manila University Press.[26] Lindio-McGovern, Ligaya. 1997. Filipino Peasant Women: Exploitation and Resistance. USA: University

of Pennsylvania Press.[27] Ibid.[28] Land-to-the tiller essentially means that those who directly labor and till the land have the right to own

it (Lindio-Mcgovern 1997: 145).


19/78

19



stagnation in the countryside. It is estimated that 75 percent of the countrys poor live

in the rural areas.

Given the official rural poverty incidence of 38 percent (compared to 14 percent

for urban areas), there are at least 13 million rural-dwelling Filipinos suffering inpoverty. Of the countrys poor households, 61 percent are in the agricultural and fishery

sectors. Poverty incidence is highest among farmers at 41 percent and fisher folk at 37

percent compared to the national poverty incidence of 27 percent.

From 2009 to 2012, more people in the countryside entered subsistence poverty

(125,724) than nationally (107,877). Despite CARP/ERs avowed goal of redistributing

land, and although many beneficiaries have become owner-cultivators, inequities in

land distribution have been increasing with the land inequality ratio today peaking at

0.57, up from 0.53 in 1960. Furthermore the agricultural sectors labor productivity is

only 16 percent that of industrial workers and 31 percent of service workers.


20/78

20



III. THE EVOLUTION OF PHILIPPINE AGRARIAN REFORM

After nearly four centuries of colonial rule, the Philippines inherited a land

tenure system which benefitted mainly the landed oligarchy and subjected the rural

population to virtual serfdom through the sharecropping system and other forms of

tenant farming. After Philippine independence in 1946, successive governments

introduced a variety of laws and regulations to improve the lot of the tenant farmers

and small landholders.

With the development of the chaotic situation in the 1960s which led to the

imposition of martial law in 1972, a new sense of urgency was added to heighten the

need for serious reforms of land tenure law. As a result, sweeping decrees were

pronounced by the government of President Ferdinand Marcos. This article will attempt

to review and analyze the legal and policy developments in this area which is vital to

the economic and social stability of the Philippines.

A. Colonial Era Land Tenure

The present land tenure system in the Philippines is mainly the result of several

centuries of Spanish colonial rule which displaced or discouraged small native

landholders and concentrated land ownership in the hands of a relatively small number

of wealthy Spanish and Filipino individuals, families and associations. The displaced

native landowners became largely sharecroppers or hired labor on the lands acquired

by the Spanish, mestizo and Filipino elites. [29]

Unrest among the rural population, resulting from Spanish colonial abuses was

one of the central causes of the Filipino revolution in 1896. However, the expectations

of the landless peasants and their leaders were subverted when, soon after the Spanish

had been expelled, the landowning Filipino aristocracy took control of the national

____________________[29] Bauzon, Philippine Agrarian Reform, 1880-1975, Occasional Paper No. 31, Institute of Southeast Asian

Studies (June 1975).


21/78

21



leadership. This co-optation of the revolution delayed attempts at meaningful agrarian

reform legislation for several decades longer. [30]

In the post-Hispanic era, the Homestead Act of 1902, enacted by the Philippines

Commission on the model of the earlier legislation passed in the United States, servedas the basis of attempts at agrarian reform. The American policy was to encourage

settlers to develop and cultivate public land by offering plots not exceeding 24

hectares, to individuals who succeeded in cultivating one-fifth of the land within five

years. The American program for distributing vacant public land to the landless was

apparently not too successful because it proved to be culturally and socially ill-adapted

to the -needs and capabilities of the small farmer or rural peasant. [31]

During the transitory Commonwealth period and continuing through the 1950s,

very little progress was made in the direction of agrarian reform. The Filipino elite

which had assumed control of the government after disengagement of the Americans

consisted mainly of large landholders and their allies, with a vested interest in blocking

serious reforms. The government of Manuel Quezon enacted legislation for use in

expropriating large hacienda landholdings for distribution to rural sharecroppers and

peasants, but the authority to expropriate was never effectively exercised. [32]

B. Post-Independence Era Developments

In 1963, the first comprehensive legislative program for agrarian reform was

passed by the Congress of the Republic of the Philippines. [33] The Agrarian reform Code

declared for the first time that the sharecrop system of tenancy was counter to public

policy and that it shall be abolished . [34] However, even this seemingly unequivocal

statement of policy was qualified by important exceptions. Existing sharecrop

____________________[30] Bauzon, Philippine Agrarian Reform, 1880-1975, Occasional Paper No. 31, Institute of Southeast Asian

Studies (June 1975).[31] Id. at 12.[32] See Pinpin, ED., Philippine Laws on Agrarian Reform (1973) ,[33] Rep. Act No. 3844 (1963). This Act is commonly known as the Agrarian reform Code of 1963.[34] Agrarian reform Code, sec. 4,


22/78

22



arrangements were allowed to continue, subject to the provisions of the Agricultural

Tenancy Act of 1954, as amended. [35]

The other important exception to the Agrarian reform Code's application was the

exemption of lands devoted to crops covered by marketing allotments for internationaltrade. Under this provision, lands cultivated for important crops like sugar and coconuts

were not affected. A separate proclamation was to be issued to cover agrarian reform

for these types of agricultural land.

The Agrarian reform Code, though riddled with important exceptions, was the

first real attempt to create a comprehensive legislative basis for agrarian reform in the

Philippines. In the regions where it applied, an organized "agricultural leasehold system"

was created, establishing definite rights and duties for lessee and lessor. A "Bill of

Rights" for agricultural laborers was also included in the Agrarian reform Code.

Centralized administrative machinery set up by the Code included a Land Authority,

Land Bank, Agricultural Credit Administration, Courts of Agrarian Relations, Office of

Agrarian Counsel and the National Agrarian reform Council to coordinate these and

other agencies involved in agrarian reform.

The revolutionary approach to agrarian reform adopted by the Agrarian reform

Code was thwarted in the end by inter-agency competition and political infighting

during the turbulent 1960s. [36] The central reason for conflict was that, rather than

stating outright which land areas in the country would be governed by its provisions,

the Agrarian reform Code required that agrarian reform areas be proclaimed . A

complicated procedure, involving cooperation among the several agencies concerned

with agrarian reform, had to be followed before any proclamation could be effected.

Lack of coordination and cooperation among the agencies resulted in a fragmentation

of authority which immobilized the whole agrarian reform program. [37]

____________________[35] Rep. Act No. 1199 (1954) ["Tenancy Act"]. This law sets the maximum rental payable by a sharecrop

tenant at 30% of the crop and, as amended in 1959, allows the tenant to convert unilaterally to a leasehold tenancy.[36] Seadag, Agrarian reform in the Philippines, Rural Development Panel Seminar, Baguio, Philippines, April

24-26, 1975, at II.[37] Id.


23/78

23



C. Recent Agrarian reform Law Developments

In September 1971, the Agrarian reform Code itself was reformed. The

bureaucratic morass of competing agencies which had developed since 1963 resulted in

increasing pressure for a more centralized administration of the government agrarianreform program. On September 10, 1971, the Code of Agrarian Reform of the

Philippines [38] was enacted to amend substantially the administrative apparatus

created by the Agrarian reform Code. Under the new Agrarian Code, a central

Department of Agrarian Reforms ("DAR") was established. The new law thereby

eliminated the interagency conflict and complicated agrarian reform proclamation

process which had existed under the Agrarian reform Code.

The basic objective of converting sharecrop tenants into leasehold tenants,

introduced in the Agrarian reform Code, was also adopted in the Agrarian Code.

Additionally, Section 4 of the new Code provided for an automatic conversion of all

sharecrop agreements to leaseholds by operation of law, for those types of land

affected by the Code. The Agrarian Code, like the earlier Agrarian reform Code, still

applied only to certain types of agricultural land. Those lands not covered, which are

mainly those devoted to crops covered by marketing allotments, continue to be subject

to the Tenancy Act.

The basic problem with the new Agrarian Code, as with the Agrarian reform

Code, was one of supervision and enforcement. Ensuring that all sharecrop tenancies

are actually converted to leasehold tenancies has proved to be a very difficult task.

Even if the legal status of agrarian land is formally converted, a recalcitrant landlord

may be able to deny the farmer the full benefits intended. This gap between the

pronouncements of formal legislation and the realities for the tenant appears to be the

main reason why the legislative reforms introduced between 1963 and 1972 to bring

about meaningful agrarian reform achieved relatively little progress.

____________________[38] Rep. Act 6389 (1971) ["Agrarian Code"].


24/78

24



D. Agrarian reform Program After Martial Law

Shortly after the declaration of martial law in the Philippines in Sept. 1972, a

series of Presidential Decrees on agrarian reform were pronounced. [39] The first of

these, Pres. Decree No. 2, [40] was issued to ensure equality of application of the agrarianreform laws for all regions in the country. It declared the entire territory of the

Philippines an agrarian reform area. As a result, the types of agricultural land covered

by the Agrarian Code in all the country's regions became subject to agrarian reform.

In a significant departure from the earlier government agrarian reform policy,

Pres. Decree No. 27 [41] was pronounced to convert small fanners who had been tenants

into owners of the land they cultivated. Under Pres. Decree No. 27, eligible tenant

farmers receive a Land Transfer Certificate, issued by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform,

for the land they occupy and cultivate, up to a maximum three hectares if irrigated or

five hectares if unirrigated land.

Though it goes further than the Agrarian Code in terms of property rights vested

in the small farmer, Pres. Decree No. 27 remains subject to several important

limitations. Chief among these is the fact that the new owners of the land must still

pay for it. This aspect of Pres. Decree No. 27 creates a new creditor-debtor relationship

in place of the previous landlord-tenant relationship. In addition, property taxes,

Samahang Nayon (village cooperative) membership dues and a local guarantee fund

must now be paid by the tenant-owner. Furthermore, Pres. Decree No. 27 applies only

to those lands which are primarily devoted to rice and corn production under a

landlord-tenant system of land tenancy. In practice, this requirement has been

interpreted narrowly by the DAR to mean that land planted to other types of food crops

and land under plantation management should be excluded from agrarian reform under

Pres. Decree No. 27.

____________________[39] Agrarian Code, supra, note 10, remained in force except as modified by these Decrees and other

executive orders.[40] Pres. Decree No. 2 (September 26, 1972), [ P.D. No. 2 ] [41] Pres. Decree No. 27 (October 21, 1972) [ P.D. No. 27 ]


25/78

25



Pres. Decree No. 27 provides that tenant farmers falling under its application are

to be:

... deemed owner of a portion [of land] constituting a family-

size farm of five (5) hectares if not irrigated and three (3)hectares if ' irrigated.

No guidelines are provided in Pres. Decree No. 27 or any of its amendments for

the determination of which three or five hectares plots are to be transferred in Cases

where the tenant is cultivating an area larger than the maximum. A general formula is

provided, however, to assist in determining the price of any land to be expropriated,

as follows:

...the value of the land shall be equivalent to two and

one-half (2%) times the average' harvest of three normal years

immediately preceding the promulgation of [PD. No. 27].

The total price of the land expropriated for the benefit of tenants, as determined

by the above formula, is to be paid by the individual tenant who acquires the land.

Payment may be made over 15 years, in 15 equal annual amortization payments,

including 6% interest per annum. Local farmers' cooperatives act as guarantors of theamortization payments, in case of a default by their member farmers. In addition, Pres.

Decree No. 27 requires that the government guaranty the amortization payments

with shares of stock in government -owned and government- controlled corporations .

In order to secure the land transfer transaction more adequately, the Land Bank of the

of the Philippines, created by the Agrarian Code, has in practice compensated the

landowner and acted as an interim owner of the land during the amortization period.

The goals behind this policy are to minimize mortgage defaults, provide the landowner

with substantial immediate payment and eliminate the pernicious dependent

relationship between the tenant-owner and former landlord. [42]

____________________[42] Harkin, D., Strengths and Weaknesses of the Philippine Land. SEADAG Papers on Problems of

Development in S.E. Asia (May 1975).


26/78

26



Although the Land Bank acquires agrarian reform acreage as interim owner, the

former landowner still does not receive immediate full payment in cash. An option is

provided for the landowner to elect immediate full payment of 10% of the land value

in cash and 90% in Land Bank bonds rather than using the Pres. Decree No. 27

amortization formula. This lessens the effect of inflation, which would reduce the

return to the landowner over a IS-year amortization period at the artificially low 6%

interest rate set by Pres. Decree No. 27. Most landowners affected by Pres. Decree No.

27 have in fact chosen this immediate payment option, according to the DAR.

After the small farmer has completed his payments to the Land Bank under Pres.

Decree No. 27, he has a perfected land title. However, title to the land may be

transferred subsequently only to the government or one heir. [43] This rather

paternalistic restriction is aimed at preventing the new owner from losing his title and

becoming a tenant again or from splitting the land up among many heirs into

uneconomic ally small units. Although Pres. Decree No. 27 made enforcement of

agrarian reform potentially easier to institute and enforce, the actual economic benefit

may not be as great as would seem for all types of tenants. Former leasehold tenants,

who gained significant rights under the Agrarian Code, would only benefit marginally if

at all from Pres. Decree No. 27. This seems to be the case because as owners they

would continue to make virtually the same payments during the IS-year amortization

period which they had as lessees. Under the Pres. Decree No. 27 scheme the former

leasehold tenants would also be faced with taxes and other charges, which would be

payable in addition to their amortization payments. Thus, it is questionable whether

the leasehold tenant should find the Pres. Decree No. 27 land ownership more favorable

economically than his secured leasehold under the Agrarian Code. The Pres. Decree No.

27 land transfer formula apparently was developed to benefit mainly sharecrop tenants

who did not have the security of land tenure afforded the leasehold tenant. However,in the process of improving the lot of the sharecrop tenant, the leasehold tenant's

position was perhaps worsened.


Development in S.E. Asia (May 1975).


27/78

27



Presidential Decree No. 27 contained other important ambiguities and gaps

which needed rectification through supplemental rules and regulations. By November

1972 a reasonably complete set of draft regulations had been prepared by the DAR for

use in implementing Pres. Decree No. 27. [44] Since no complete set of implementing

regulations have been adopted under Pres. Decree No. 27 to date, the draft regulations

have served as the only guidelines available for use by the DAR and its field offices. [45]

The draft regulations clarified several of the most basic potential problem areas

inherent in Pres. Decree No. 27. The conflict between the right of the landowner who

cultivates his land to retain up to seven hectares and the tenant's right to own the

portion of the land cultivated by him, was resolved by a compromise solution. Under

the draft regulations, the tenant may not be ejected from the landowner's retained

seven hectares until other land is made available to him. [46] This solution, while

maintaining the status quo, still fails to give the tenant the full benefit of owning the

land he cultivates. Instead, the status quo is maintained while the tenant waits in

uncertainty for relocation to a different, perhaps less desirable, plot of land.

Regarding the size of land tracts for purposes of transfer to tenants, the draft

regulations provided that all land owned by several members of a family was in effect

under joint ownership. Thus, any land owned by a family would be considered as asingle unit for purposes of Pres. Decree No. 27, unless subdivision or transfer of parts

of the land had been duly effected and registered before the issuance of Pres. Decree

No. 27. [47]

In his way, large landholders were prevented from utilizing the artifice of

dividing their land among family members into parcels too small to be covered by Pres.

Decree No. 27. Also, the draft regulations require a permit for changes in crops from


Development in S.E. Asia (May 1975).[45] Id. See also Presidential Memorandum of November 25, 1972 (instructing the DAR to postpone

promulgation of the draft regulations).[46] Harkin, supra, note 14, at 5.[47] See DAR Memorandum of January 9, 1973.


28/78

28



rice or corn to some crops not covered by Pres. Decree No. 27. Thus, landowners may

not circumvent the law by changing to sugarcane or coconuts; crops for which sharecrop

tenancy is still allowed under the Tenancy Act. These changes effectively eliminated

the possibilities for legitimate landowner circumvention of the law.

The actual implementation of Pres. Decree No. 27 has been relatively slow.

Transfer of 'lands down to the seven hectare cut-off point was required in stages of

100, 50, 24 and, finally, seven hectare plot, respectively. [48] However, the final decision

to extend land transfer down to the seven hectare limit was not announced until

November 1974. [49] Statistics indicate that most of the potential tenant beneficiaries

are located on plots of less than 24 hectares. [50] Thus, extension of agrarian reform

benefit to the largest number of tenants was not actually required until two years after

the issuance of Pres. Decree No. 27.

Another practical difficulty which has arisen with Pres. Decree No. 27, concerns

valuation of the land to be purchased by the tenant farmer. Apparently, the Pres.

Decree No. 27 formula [51] for pricing land was never exactly applied, although the

necessary data on crop values were collected by DAR field technicians. [52] For

undisclosed reasons, but most likely due to landowner pressure, the DAR has issued an

order instructing its field offices to fix the price of land by face-to-face bargaining,between landowner and tenant. Reversing the Pres. Decree No. 27 formula, this

bargained price was to be used to determine the value of average harvests from the

land. After being multiplied by 2.5, as required by Pres. Decree No. 27, the harvest

price would then yield the already fixed land purchase price. Obviously, this procedure

is less favorable for the tenant and more favourable for the landowner because of the

greater bargaining power of the latter. It also seems to be a curiously subjective

____________________[48] DAR Memorandum of January 2, 1973.[49] Harkin, supra, note 14, at 8. This decision was confirmed by the government in May 1975.[50] Id. at 11.[51] See p. 6, supra.[52] Harkin, supra, note 14, at 7. See Letter of Instruction No. 41 (November 27, 1972), which ordered the

collection of the necessary data. See also Letters of Instructions Nos. 45, 46 and 52 (1972).


29/78

29



application of the Pres. Decree No. 27 formula, which is aimed at achieving some

objective determination of land values.

The two main shortcomings of Pres. Decree No. 27 and of the subsequent

Presidential Decrees amending it,[53]

lie in the failure to go beyond reform of a smallpart of the agricultural land in the Philippines and then lack of adherence to policy

objectives in the drafting of implementing regulations. The DAR has calculated that the

full implementation of Pres. Decree No. 27, all the way down to land plots of seven

hectares or more, would only benefit about 956,000 tenants occupying a land area of

1.5 million hectares. [54] This would represent only a fraction of the total agricultural

land area of the Philippines. Furthermore, there is uncertainty even as to how far the

already narrowed scope of Pres. Decree No. 27 will be pressed by the DAR. Letter of

Instruction No. 143, in fact, proposed a list of exempt categories for certain types of

landholdings between seven and 24 hectares. [55]

It should be noted that, even as drafted, Pres. Decree No. 27 encompasses less

land area than the Agrarian Code, as amended. The basic problem for the government

in the future will be how to continue extending the agrarian reform law, on the model

of Pres. Decree No. 27, to reach a larger number of tenant beneficiaries and ultimately

to cover all types of agricultural land throughout the entire land area of the Philippines.A new agrarian reform code has been drafted by the DAR and is currently under

____________________[53] The five Presidential Decree amendments to P.D. No. 27 were :

- Pres. Decree No. 57 (October 21, 1972) establishing commercial loans and other credit andguarantee facilities to finance tenant land purchases;

- Pres. Decree No. 84 (December 22, 1972~ authorizing the Secretary of Agrarian Reforms to signland transfer certificates for the President;

- Pres, Decree No. 85 (December 24, 1972) creating the Agrarian Reform Fund, consisting of thegovernment-owned stock and assets in certain public corporations;

- Pres. Decree No. 152 (March 13, 1973) prohibiting use- of share tenants on lands covered by thePublic Land Act;- Pres. Decree No. 266 (August 4, 1973) setting registration procedures for Land Transfer Certificates

issued under Pres. Decree No. 27.[54] Harkin, supra, note 14, at 2.[55] For example, possible types of exemptions suggested by Letter of Instruction No. 143 (1973), included

those for resident owners, retired government employees and landowners deriving their entire income from landrentals. Uncertainty about whether the President will grant these exemptions has resulted in a DAR policy ofpostponing action on land plots smaller than 24 hectares.


30/78

30



consideration by the government. [56] It will be interesting' to see whether the beginning

made by Pres. decree No. 27 will be consolidated and extended if and when the new

code is enacted.

E. Is Agrarian reform a Failure in the Philippines? [57]

Agrarian reform programs have been enacted by different regimes for specific

reasons, albeit political motive has been the common one. As the objectives of such

reform had undergone changes over time based primarily on the socio-political context

prevailing in each period, the original intentions of the reform have also been subjected

to changes in each political regime. While the motive of the government in instituting

this reform deserves commendation; however, the reform laws have been tainted with

vested interest of the landed elite in enacting the law, making the reform

implementation difficult and derailed.

The political debacles between peasants and the landlords resulted into turmoil

and bloodshed, with the peasants as oftentimes the victims, politicized further the

reform. Let alone the high record of adjudication cases and court proceedings related

to agrarian reform prove that land distribution is not an easy task. We have witnessed

that we cannot ignore the vested interest of the landed elites in the historical agrarian

reform laws and programs in the country. Agrarian reform has become a polity reality,

and the politics played a significant role on the various policies & programs undertaken

in each regime more than the true concern of the plight of landless poor people.

The existing agrarian reform law (CARP) is obviously deficient in many aspects

which are detrimental to success. In the future, any land related policies therefore

must seriously take into account the market-orientation, administrative capacity,

budgetary requirement, the modality of land transfer, equity across gender, and themanner of its implementation. These issues are the causes why CARP is taking a long

____________________[56] Harkin, supra, note 14, at 6.[57] Is Agrarian reform a Failure in the Philippines? An Assessment on CARP. Limits of Good Governance in

Developing Countries.


31/78

31



time. While the current reform may not be a complete failure; however, its deficiencies

and loopholes disrupt the efficient implementation thereby producing discontent and

disbelief.

Success stories of agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARB) are available, though athorough evaluation is necessary especially in correlating this to agrarian poverty issue.

But this success was only made possible because of external help and favorable

circumstances. In the post-agrarian reform regime, supportive institutions and inputs,

as part of agrarian reform policy, are vital in making the entire reform work. And this

support must be publicly supplied and government initiated. If the government is

lacking of its effort, the reform will fail to deliver the best outcomes that tackle equity

consideration and poverty reduction in the long run. Government should therefore

provide the necessary resources to the still frail ne w landowners to be able to adjust

in their new role. Only when they become stable and can stand on their own that they

can contribute to the other goals of development. Agrarian reform, after all, does not

end in giving lands to the landless. They need public support that will enhance the

effectiveness of the reform. We cannot just leave farmers in limbo without the

necessary safety nets.

Overall, the program entails serious challenge to succeed as an agenda onpoverty reduction of the government in the long run. While modest outcomes have been

observed in the current agrarian reform, in the future, however, more and more

agricultural households can no longer secure their livelihood from the land. In the post-

reform regime, as the case of many developing countries now, agrarian reform may

have not probably solved all the social, political and economic issues embedded in the

development agenda; however, it is still a crucial ingredient in improving the well-

being of poor rural people. After all, rural is still dominated by agriculture, and its

progress within the framework of agrarian development benefits local poor people and

tackles poverty in the long run.


32/78

32



IV. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF AGRARIAN REFORM

Philippine history is marked by several major epochs including: prehispanic era;

about 300 years under Spanish colony (1565-1898); about 40 years under United States

rule (1898-1941); four years of Japanese occupation (1941-1945); and Independence

since 1946. All these epochs influenced culture and society in a way that affected the

land distribution. In essence, land distribution tended to become concentrated in

landed elites and large masses of peasants were displaced and became landless. [58]

A. Pre-Hispanic Era: Communal Ownership

The indigenous land-tenure arrangements in pre-Hispanic Philippine society were

characterized by communal ownership of land. Individual families had usufruct rights

to a parcel of land. In return families were required to perform various public services,

often consisting of assisting the datu in the tending of his fields and home. [59] There are

also indications that the Philippine social system in pre-Hispanic times was feudal like,

with a warrior class loyal to warlords. This class lived on the labor of serfs and slaves

in exchange for protection. The datus (chiefs) comprised the nobility who reigned over

a barangays. The serfs served a master or lord, who may have been a datu, and tilled

his land. Both master and serf equally divided the produce of the land. The serfscorresponded to the aparceros (tenants) of the late 19th century Spanish era. The slaves

served both the lord and master in both his house and farm. They were allowed some

share of the harvest, but they were their masters property. In the sub sistence economy

of the early Filipinos, rice served as the medium of exchange. [60]

____________________[58] Alberto Vargas. March, 2003. The Philippines Country Brief: Property Rights and Land Markets. Land

Tenure Center, University of Wisconsin Madison.[59] Riedinger, Jeffrey M. Agrarian reform in the Philippines: democratic transitions and redistributive

reform. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1995. 366 p.[60] Alberto Vargas. March, 2003. The Philippines Country Brief: Property Rights and Land Markets. Land

Tenure Center, University of Wisconsin Madison.


33/78

33



B. Effects of Spanish Colonialism

Fernando de Magellan landed in the island of Cebu in 1521 and claimed the land

for Spain. In 1565 Spain took control of the islands and named them in honor of Philip

II of Spain, who reigned from 1556 to 1598. [61]

During the Spanish colonial period, the concept of private land ownership was

introduced by the Spanish colonial government. Vast tracts of land were granted to

Spanish soldiers as reward for their loyal service to the Spanish Crown. Lands were also

divided and granted to encourage Spanish settlers.

These were called encomiendas. Encomiendas were granted in exchange of

defending the land from external attack, maintain peace and order within, and supportthe tasks of the missionaries. The encomendero acquired the right to collect tribute

from the natives. The tributes soon became land rents, and the people living within the

boundaries of the encomienda became tenants. The encomenderos became the first

hacendados in the country. Religious orders, mainly Dominc and Augustin became

owners of vast tracts of friar land which was leased to natives and mestizos. Meanwhile

the colonial government took the place of the datus. The datu was now called cabeza

de barangay, but it was the proprietors of the estates who held the real power in the

barangay or community. [62] Thus the most significant Spanish innovation concerning

property rights was the introduction of the concept of legal title to land, that is

private ownership . [63] These systems resulted to the accumulation of lands in the

possession of the elites and the dispossession of the mass of peasants of the land that

they and their ancestors had been tilling from time immemorial.


Tenure Center, University of Wisconsin Madison.[62] Ibid.[63] Riedinger, Jeffrey. 1995 . Agrarian Reform in the Philippines. USA: Stanford University Press.


34/78

34



1. Spanish Friars

To trace the origins of the Philippine land issue, one has to go back to the time

of Spanish colonialism beginning in the 1500s. It was during this period that land-related

system affected the islands for the first time. This was believed to be part of thecommon strategic outline of almost every colony. [64] The few reports about pre-Hispanic

times suggested that there had been some kind of social stratification and that

individual private property of land did not exist. [65] The first group of people that were

able to concentrate a large amount of land in its hands was the Spanish friars. [66] They

were beneficiaries of a series of royal land grants from the Spanish Crown. In later

times, the friars were able to enlarge their properties through lands passed to them by

way of mortgage claims and outright land grabbing, including donations or purchases

from Spanish laymen in the late seventeenth century. [67]

2. Encomienda System

As a result, the friars came in control vast areas of land on the island of Luzon,

especially around the capital of Manila by the end of Spanish colonial time. [68] Another

land related system that was utilized by the Spanish Crown in the early times of

colonization was the encomienda system. Encomiendas were distributed to Spanish

conquestadores and early settlers. An encomendero was empowered to collect tributes

from the natives living in the area of his encomienda but on the other hand had to

preserve peace within the territory and defend it for the Spanish Crown against possible

perpetrators. They also had to support clergymen in their missionary work. [69] However,

this encomienda system had already vanished from the islands before the

____________________[64] Putzel, James. 1995. Managing the Main Force: The Communist Party and the Peasantry in the

Philippines. Journal of Peasant Studies, 22 (4): 645 71.[65] Putzel, James. 1992. A Captive Land: The Politics of Agrarian Reform in the Philippines. Manila: Ateneo

de Manila University Press[66] Roth, Dennis. 1977. The Friar Estates of the Philippines. USA: University of New Mexico Press.[67] Constantino, Renato and Letizia R. Constantino. 1978. The Philippines: The Continuing Past. Philippines:

The Foundation for Nationalist Studies.[68] Roth, Dennis. 1977. The Friar Estates of the Philippines. USA: University of New Mexico Press.[69] Constantino, Renato. 1975. The Philippines: A Past Revisited. Philippines: The Foundation for Nationalist

Studies.


35/78

35



first haciendas emerged, as the late Spanish colonial time gave place to the rise of yet

other landed elite consisting of highly educated Chinese mestizos (children of Chinese

fathers and Filipino mothers), the relatively small number of Spanish mestizos and

descendants of the principalia, and the natives or Spaniards who had been officials in

the early colonial administration such as tribute collectors. [70]

In comparison to the Chinese mestizos, the Spanish mestizos were rather small

in number. Chinese traders reached the islands due to trading opportunities with the

Spaniards. They had soon established themselves in all areas of trade. [71] The mestizos,

who were soon able to accumulate a lot of wealth, filled the gap they left in the area

of trade. Being raised by their mothers as Filipinos, the mestizos blended culturally

with the natives. [72] They did not only concentrate in Manila, but also penetrated the

countryside and started to establish themselves in rural areas. When the ban on Chinese

immigration was lifted and they started to move back into the country, again taking

over their old positions, for the mestizos land as an object for investment became even

more interesting and large landholdings and haciendas began to emerge. [73]

The Spanish colonial period as a time of ongoing land concentration and the

cradle of land distribution patterns and tenure systems in the country. These were

characterized by peasants being share tenants or land laborers, the latter mostly foundin the younger plantations and haciendas devoted to cash crops and established mainly

during the time of American administration that followed the Spanish colonial time. [74]

In his arguments, Putzel [75][76] did not emphasize the differences and similarities

____________________[70] Riedinger, Jeffrey. 1995 . Agrarian Reform in the Philippines. USA: Stanford University Press.[71] Putzel, James. 1992. A Captive Land: The Politics of Agrarian Reform in the Philippines. Manila: Ateneo

de Manila University Press.[72] Constantino, Renato. 1975. The Philippines: A Past Revisited. Philippines: The Foundation for Nationalist

Studies.[73] Ibid.[74] Putzel, James. 1992. A Captive Land: The Politics of Agrarian Reform in the Philippines. Manila: Ateneo

de Manila University Press.[75] Putzel, James. 1992. A Captive Land: The Politics of Agrarian Reform in the Philippines. Manila: Ateneo

de Manila University Press.[76] Putzel, James. 1995. Managing the Main Force : The Communist Party and the Peasantry in the

Philippines. Journal of Peasant Studies, 22 (4): 645 71.


36/78

36



between land laborers and tenant-farmers within the framework of agrarian reform.

The image of peasants described by him suggests both the land laborers and share

tenants who were considered to be the landless poor at the time of legislation of various

agrarian reform laws. [77]

3. The Hacienda System

While at the beginning of the Revolution, the friars estates were already

challenged and subject of criticism, because these newly established haciendas

remained untackled for many years. [78] Meanwhile, at the beginning of the 19th century,

the Philippines as a colony of Spain implemented policies that would mainstream the

country into the world of capitalism. The economy was opened to the world market as

exporter of raw materials and importer of finished goods. The agricultural exports were

mandated and hacienda system was developed as a new form of ownership. [79] More

people lost their lands and were forced to become tillers. In the end, these haciendas

were found to be most resistant to agrarian reform measures and some of them are still

due for redistribution up to now. [80]

The most famous example is Hacienda Luisita (which has a total plantation area

of more than 6,000 hectares in Tarlac, Luzon), the landholding of the family of present

president Benigno Aquino III, and the sugar landholdings in Negros islands. The families

of the new landed elite who had gained wealth and land throughout the last period of

Spanish administration were able to keep and often deepen their economic power

including political power for their own interests. [81] They are still influencing much of

____________________[77] Jose Elvina. Is Agrarian reform A Failure in the Philippines? An Assesment on CARP. Part 3: Limits of

Good Governance in Various Facets of Developments.[78] Putzel, James. 1992. A Captive Land: The Politics of Agrarian Reform in the Philippines . Manila: Ateneo

de Manila University Press.[79] Department of Agrarian Reform. FAQs on Agrarian Reform. Series of 2013[80] Carranza, Danilo T. 2004. Hacienda Luisita Massacre: A Tragedy Waiting to Happen. Unpublished.[81] Regalado, Aurora A. 2000. States Failure to Fulfill and Defend its Citizens Right to Food: The Philippine

Experienc e. Unpublished.


37/78

37



the nations economy, political and social life, owning many of the biggest enterprises

of the Philippines. [82] This justifies on why agrarian reform takes centuries old, as the

elites passed on all this power to succeeding generations, a clear manifestation of

economic and political dynasty combined. Agrarian reform became more prominent

during the American colonial rule. The introduction of land related laws and programs

in this colonial regime unfold the redistributive aspect as introduced by the American

rulers. The subsequent various reform measures were more of a representation of polity

reality as a republic society and attempts to appease the growing rural unrest and

inequitable distribution of land resource. [83]

C. The End of Spanish Colonial Rule and the American Influence

Three hundred years of Spanish colonial rule ended with the Philippine war of

Independence in 1896. The skewed agrarian structure of the country has long been a

major problem, which originated from its 400-year history of colonization. Unequal land

distribution and, worse, landlessness, following the establishment of the haciendas and

the encomienda system during the Spanish period gave rise to numerous peasant

uprisings. [84] The feudal system established by the Spanish government which enslaved

the peasant class by Spanish landowners have brought suffering to the former. This

aggravated the desire of the Filipino peasants to explode the Philippine Revolution.

The revolutionary government confiscated the large landed estates, especially

the friar lands and declared these as properties of the government. [85] Philippine

independence however, was lost to the United States- a casualty of the Spanish-

American war in 1898. The United States involvement with Spains other major colony,

____________________[82] Ibid. pp 22.[83] Jose Elvina. Is Agrarian reform A Failure in the Philippines? An Assesment on CARP. Part 3: Limits of

Good Governance in Various Facets of Developments[84] Celia M. Reyes. Impact of Agrarian Reform on Poverty. Philippine Journal of Development, Number 54,

Volume XXIX, No. 2, Second Semester 2002[85] Malolos Constitution, 1896, Article XVII


38/78

38



Cuba, brought an interest in the Philippines. At the beginning Filipino forces, under the

leadership of Aguinaldo, joined the Americans in the fight against Spain. However, once

Spain was defeated there was no support for Philippine independence from the part of

the United States. The American influence in the Philippines lasted for another four

decades. The American influence era saw little change in the patterns of elite-

dominated politics in the Philippines. Although colonial administrators acknowledged

the negative consequences of the prevailing patterns of landownership and distribution

of wealth, little was done to address these issues. [86]


Tenure Center, University of Wisconsin Madison.


39/78

39



V. THE FAIL

PROMISED LAND the Cry of the Poor Peasants

Documents

Transcript of PROMISED LAND the Cry of the Poor Peasants