Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery · Rationalizing Public Expenditures...

Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery A Research for Budget Transparency Forum-Agrarian Reform September 2011 Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Quezon City

Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery

Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development

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

The World Bank Philippines-Budget Transparency Forum

Department of Agrarian Reform

Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution

Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board Finance, Management and Administrative Office

Department of Agrarian Reform Camarines Sur Provincial Office Department of Agrarian Reform Capiz Provincial Office

Department of Agrarian Reform South Bukidnon Provincial Office Department of Agrarian Reform Dumalag Municipal Office Department of Agrarian Reform Maramag Municipal Office

FMAO Assistant Secretary Felix Perry Villanueva

Our Partner Civil Society Organizations

BALAOD-Minadanaw, Inc.

Pambansang Kilusan ng mga Samahang Magsasaka (PAKISAMA)

People’s Organizations

Banasi Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association (BARFBA) Consolacion Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Multi-Purpose Cooperative (CARBMPC)

Kapunungan sa Mamumuong Mag-uuma sa Philippine Greenhills (KAMMPHIL)

Research Consultants

Prof. Rainier V. Almazan Ms. Cristina David

Mr. Edwin P. Nerva Prof. Antonio B. Quizon

Research Team

Joe-Anna Marie V. Casidsid

Joselle P. Concepcion Edel S. Garingan



ABBREVIATIONS

ACO Agency Central Office AJD Agrarian Justice Delivery ALA Agrarian Legal Assistance ALI Agrarian Law Implementation AO Administrative Order ARB Agrarian Reform Beneficiary ARO Agency Regional Office BALA Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance BALA Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance BARC Barangay Agrarian Reform Council BLAD Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution CARP Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program CARPER Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program with Extension and Reforms CBCP Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines CLOA Certificate of Land Ownership Award COA Commission on Audit COCAR Congressional Oversight Committee on Agrarian Reform CSO Civil Society Organization DAR Department of Agrarian Reform DARAB Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board DBM Department of Budget and Management DBM Department of Budget and Management EP Emancipation Patent FMAO Finance Management and Administrative Office GAA General Appropriations Act LAD Land Acquisition and Distribution MARO Municipal Agrarian Reform Office/r MC Memorandum Circular MFO Major Final Output PARAD Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board PARAD Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board PARO Provincial Agrarian Reform Office/r PBD Program Beneficiaries’ Development PCGG Presidential Commission for Good Governance PhilDHRRA Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources in the Rural Areas PPLAO Policy Planning and Legal Affairs Office RA Republic Act RB-OPIF Results-Based Organizational Performance Indicator Framework RDC Regional Development Council SAOB Statement of Allotment, Obligations and Balance



LIST OF GRAPHS AND TABLES

1 The Budget Process 2 Historical Account of Budget Allocation for Agrarian Justice Delivery 3 Percentage Share of AJD out of the Total CARP Budget 4 Targets and Accomplishments in the Adjudication of Agrarian Cases (2005-2009) 5 Targets and Accomplishments in the Resolution of Judicial Cases (2005-2009) 6 Targets and Accomplishments in the Resolution of Quasi-Judicial Cases (2005-2009) 7 Number of Accomplished Adjudication Cases vis-à-vis Number of Adjudication Cases Represented

(2005-2009) 8 Targets and Accomplishments in the Resolution of ALI Cases (2005-2009) 9 Targets and Accomplishments of Agrarian Justice Delivery for 2011 10 Relationship of Budget Allocation to Target Accomplishments in AJD 11 Relationship of Manpower Complement to Performance Accomplishments in ALA, CY-2010 12 Relationship of Manpower Complement to Performance Accomplishments in Adjudication, CY-2010 13 Proposed Budget Scenario for CARP-AJD for FY 2012 14 FY 2010 Indicative Targets and Budget 15 Cost Parameters for ALI Cases 16 Cost Parameters for Quasi-Judicial Cases 17 Cost Parameters for Judicial Cases 18 Reported Targets and Accomplishments of ALA in CY 2010 19 Illustration of Case and Cost Variance in ALA for CY 2010 20 Resulting Unit Cost from Accomplished ALA Cases for CY 2010 21 Camarines Sur ALA Targets vis-à-vis Total Regional Targets for CY-2010 22 Budget Allocation for Camarines Sur-ALA for CY 2010 23 2010 Targets and Accomplishments of DAR-Camarines Sur in AJD 24 Statement of Allotment, Obligations and Balance for FY 2010 of DAR-Camarines Sur AJD Units 25 Discrepancies in the Obligated Funds and Projected Expenditures out of Cost per Unit for AJD Cases in

Camarines Sur, CY 2010 26 Capiz Agrarian Legal Assistance Targets vis-à-vis Total Regional Targets for CY 2010 27 Budget Allocation for Capiz-ALA for CY 2010 28 2010 Targets and Accomplishments of DAR-Capiz in AJD 29 Statement of Allotment, Obligations and Balance for FY 2010 of DAR-Capiz AJD Units 30 Discrepancies in the Obligated Funds and Projected Expenditures out of Cost per Unit for AJD Cases in

Capiz, CY 2010 31 South Bukidnon Agrarian Legal Assistance Targets vis-à-vis Total Regional Targets for CY 2010 32 Budget Allocation for South Bukidnon-ALA for CY 2010 33 2010 Targets and Accomplishments of DAR-South Bukidnon in AJD 34 Statement of Allotment, Obligations and Balance for FY 2010 of DAR-South Bukidnon AJD Units 35 Discrepancies in the Obligated Funds and Projected Expenditures out of Cost per Unit for AJD Cases in

South Bukidnon, CY 2010 36 Summary of Poverty and Agricultural Profiles of Camarines Sur, Capiz and Bukidnon 37 The AJD Situation of Camarines Sur, Capiz and South Bukidnon in CY 2010 38 Percentage Share of Camarines Sur, Capiz and South Bukidnon to Regional Targets in CY 2010 39 Accomplishment Rates of Camarines Sur, Capiz and South Bukidnon in AJD for CY 2010 40 Manner of Counting “Accomplishments” of AJD Cases 41 Allotted Unit Costs for AJD Cases in Camarines Sur, Capiz and South Bukidnon for CY 2010 42 SAOB of Camarines Sur, Capiz and South Bukidnon for Agrarian Legal Services (Fund 101 & 158), 2010 43 SAOB of Camarines Sur, Capiz and South Bukidnon for Adjudication of AR Cases (Fund 158), 2010 44 Total Discrepancies between Fund Obligations and Projected Expenditures out of Reported AJD Case

Accomplishments of Camarines Sur, Capiz and Bukidnon for CY 2010



1. BACKGROUND

1.1. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program

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

(1) Land Tenure Improvement (LTI), which seeks to improve the tenurial status of farmers and farm workers through land acquisition and distribution (LAD) and leasehold operations;

(2) Agrarian Justice Delivery (AJD), which intends to provide effective and timely legal support to agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARB) in the course of agrarian-related disputes; and

(3) Program Beneficiaries Development (PBD), which “aims to capacitate ARBs and provide them access to the necessary support services to make their lands more productive, enable them to venture in income generating livelihood projects and actively participate in community governance.”1

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

1.2. Operationalizing CARPER

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

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

http://www.neda.gov.ph

http://www.dbm.gov.ph



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

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

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

1.3. Agrarian Justice Delivery (AJD) in Focus

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

However, increasing number of reports on cancelled CLOAs, eviction of farmers from their landholdings, and unscrupulous land conversion issues taint the validity of these reported accomplishments. Aside from these issues, it can be noted that while DAR reported a 98 percent accomplishment in agrarian justice delivery in 2010 (CARP Briefer and Statistical Handbook, 2010), these accomplishments are not reflected in the completed land tenure services provided for agrarian reform beneficiaries, which should have been the major outcomes of these dispute- and case-resolutions. For instance, DAR posted in 2010 that out of 4 Ibid., 5 DBM Official Website, Accessed 28 July 2011 6 DAR (2010). The DAR’s OPIF Journey from CARP to CARPER. Presentation for the OPIF Assessment Workshop: Lessons, Gains and Opportunities. Accessed 28 July 2011 from www.dbm.gov.ph 7 DAR (2003). DARAB Rules of Procedure, 2003. Accessed 28 July 2011 from www.dar.gov.ph


http://www.dar.gov.ph



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

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

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

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

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

1.4. Research Objectives

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




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

Specifically, the research aims to: a. Determine the budget process and allocations for the agrarian justice delivery component of

CARP, from the national DAR office to three municipal offices representing Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao;

b. Determine whether there is sufficiency/ insufficiency or efficiency/ inefficiency in the AJD budget spending; and

c. Determine the impact of sufficiency/ insufficiency or efficiency/ inefficiency in the AJD budget spending to the livelihood conditions and poverty situations of CARP beneficiaries

2. METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES

Research Objectives Macro Mezzo Micro

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

1. Interview with point persons from: a. Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance b. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board c. Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution d. DAR-Finance Management and Administrative Office 2. Secondary data analysis of: a. AJD Allocation per province vis-à-vis number of targets b. 2010 GAA and other sources of funding for AJD c. Historical allocations on AJD (2005-2011)

1. Interview with point persons from: a. DARPO, PARAD, and MARO-Bukidnon b. DARPO, PARAD, and MARO-Capiz c. DARPO, PARAD, and MARO-Camarines Sur 2. Secondary data analysis of: a. Statement of Allotment, Obligations and Balances of DAR Provincial Offices in Capiz, Bukidnon, and Camarines Sur b. Performance Targets vs. Actual Accomplishments of DAR Provincial Offices in Capiz, Bukidnon, and Camarines Sur

2. Determine whether there is sufficiency/ insufficiency or efficiency/ inefficiency in the AJD budget spending;

1. Interview with point persons from: a. DAR-Finance Management and Admin. Office b. Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance c. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board



2. Secondary data analysis of: a. 2009 audited financial statement of DAR b. 2010 unaudited list of DAR expenses c. Organizational Performance Indicator Framework of CARP and CARPER

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

1. Interview with farmer-groups and farmer leaders from: a. Bgy. San Miguel, Maramag, Bukidnon b. Bgy. Consolacion, Dumalag, Capiz c. Bgy. Banasi, Bula, Camarines Sur 2. Accounting of: a. Case-related expenditures: a.1. Transportation expenses a.2. Lawyers’ Fees a.3. reproduction and distribution of case documents a.4. Other expenses during ceremonial installations (food for the PNP, DAR Officials, priest’s stipends, banners, etc.) b. Alternative modes of livelihood c. Foregone income Cost of Production



3. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

3.1. Nature of Land Conflicts in the Philippines

Olano8 presented the “nature of land-related conflicts in the Philippines within the context of the prevailing agrarian situation throughout the country” in an article entitled “Land Conflict Resolution: Case Studies in the Philippines.” The article premised that the nature of most land conflicts in the country is reflective of the slow implementation of the agrarian reform law, since the passage of CARP during the Aquino administration in 1988. Olano sought to prove this premise by presenting two land conflicts in the sugar haciendas of Bukidnon and Negros. He summed up the three major sources of agrarian unrest in the country:

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

o the development of the sugar industry in Luzon, based on tenanted haciendas, and then Negros Islands, based on centrally managed haciendas employing hired labor, represent confrontations between wage laborers and haciendero planters in traditional plantations; and o the emergence of modern plantations and commercial farms in the southern island of Mindanao represents confrontation between wage laborers and corporate management in modern agribusiness plantations.”9

According to Olano these agrarian unrests are further worsened by the ignorance of key institutions

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

3.2. DAR’s Assessment on the Delivery of Agrarian Justice through CARP

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

This country paper likewise presented evidences that being an agrarian reform beneficiary per se does not reduce the chances of being poor. Rather, a primary determinant of poverty reduction is the length 8 Olano, J.N.D. (2002). “Land Conflict Resolution: Case studies in the Philippines.” Land Reform, Land Settlement and Cooperatives. FAO Corporate Document Depository. Accessed 23 June 2011 from www.fao.org.ph 9 Ibid., 10 Ibid., 11 DAR (2006). Philippine Agrarian Reform: Partnerships for Social Justice, Rural Growth, and Sustainable Development: Country Paper on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development in the Philippines. Country Paper presented by Sec. Nasser Pangandaman in the International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ICARRD), Porto Alegre, Brazil on 7-10 March 2006. Accessed 23 June 2011 from www.icarrd.org

http://www.fao.org.ph

http://www.icarrd.org



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

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

3.3. Post-2008 Agrarian Justice Delivery

Adriano12 sought to evaluate the post-2008 scenario of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program in relation with its accomplishments in its three major program areas: (1) land acquisition and distribution; (2) program beneficiaries’ development; and (3) agrarian justice delivery. At the time of the author’s writing, the transition scenario for CARP was still unclear. Adriano evaluated the proposed bills for the extension of the agrarian reform program of the government. He emphasized the need to provide more focus on the agrarian justice delivery component of the program, to ensure that not only the targets are reached, but are facilitated properly. All the proposed bills pertaining to the extension of CARP called for the strengthening of DARAB and other AJD units, and the hiring of more lawyers and training of more paralegals to address the case backlogs in agrarian reform. The Akbayan bill, however, (which became the basis of the RA 9700, CARPER Law) was said to be the only bill filed in Congress which included the following provisions:

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

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

http://www.dirp3.pids.gov.ph



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

These seven points underscore the importance of an efficient and effective mechanism for the

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

This post-2008 scenario was eventually realized when RA 9700 or CARPER was signed into law in

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

The absence of a strong mechanism for the delivery of agrarian justice inexorably comes to mind in

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

The shift of CARP implementation to CARPER was complemented by the adoption of the

Organizational Performance Indicator Framework (OPIF) of DAR, in the course of its strategic/ medium term planning. According to a presentation made by DAR in the OPIF assessment workshop at the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) office in 2010, the shift to OPIF afforded for a results-oriented and forward-looking resource requirement estimation,16 which means that cost parameters were provided for every performance indicator, which then serves as the basis for periodic monitoring and fund. According to DAR, this practice eventually resulted to the integration of the three major final outputs (MFO) – land tenure improvement (LTI), agrarian justice delivery (AJD), and program beneficiaries’ development (PBD) and the attainment of the outcomes for the organization. Nonetheless, DAR pointed out that it has encountered difficulties in adopting OPIF due to the need to cascade commitments to the frontline levels of implementation17 and to institute an effective performance incentive mechanism18 that can motivate the personnel to adopt such commitments. Aside from this, the strict deadlines of DBM hinder these “cascading” efforts of DAR, placing compliance rather than commitment as the top priority of the agency in the course of carrying out its programs and services.

13 Ibid., 14 Ibid., 15 Bello, W. (2009). “CARPER: Latest Chapter in Agri Reform Battle.” Philippine Daily Inquirer. Accessed 23 August 2011 from www.ruor.uottawa.ca 16 DAR (2010). The DAR’s OPIF Journey from CARP to CARPER. Presentation for the OPIF Assessment Workshop: Lessons, Gains and Opportunities. Accessed 28 July 2011 from www.dbm.gov.ph 17 Ibid., 18 Ibid.,

http://www.ruor.uottawa.ca




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

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

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

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

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

In summary, the World Bank evaluation on AJD has been stated as:

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

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

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

The World Bank likewise identified extremely weak land administration and agrarian justice systems as two of the fundamental obstacles in the achievement of the targets of the agrarian reform program in the 19 Llanto, G. & Brownette, S. (2007) Some Notes on Performance Management among Agencies. Discussion Paper Series No. 2007-19. Accessed 24 August 2011 from www.dirp4.pids.gov.ph 20 The World Bank Group (2009). Land Reform, Rural Development and Poverty in the Philippines: Revisiting the Agenda. Technical Working Paper. Pasig City: The World Bank in the Philippines 21 Ibid., 22 Ibid.,




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

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

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

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

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

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

23 Leonen, M. (2008). Agrarian Justice in Context: Some Suggestions for Reforms, a paper presented to the Senate of the Philippines. Accessed 01 September 2011 from www.senate.gov.ph 24 Ibid., 25 Dela Cruz, L. J. et. al., (2003). “Institutional and Organizational Assessment of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. CARP Impact Assessment Studies, 8. Quezon City: Department of Agrarian Reform 26 Ibid., 27 Ibid., 28 Ibid., 29 Ibid.,

http://www.senate.gov.ph



Budget Preparation2012 Budget

Budget Legislation

2012 Budget

Budget Execution

(2011 Budget)Budget

Accountability (2011 Budget)

4. RESEARCH FINDINGS

4.1. Findings in the Macro-Level

4.1.1. The CARP Budget Process

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

• "Proceeds of the sales of the Privatization and Management Office (PMO); • All receipts from assets recovered and from sales of ill-gotten wealth recovered through the PCGG

excluding the amount appropriated for compensation to victims of human rights violations under the applicable law;

• Proceeds of the disposition and development of the properties of the Government in foreign countries, for the specific purposes of financing production credits, infrastructure and other support services required by this Act;

• All income and, collections of whatever form and nature arising from the agrarian reform operations, projects and programs of the DAR and other CARP implementing agencies; and

• Portion of amounts accruing to the Philippines from all sources of official foreign. aid grants and concessional financing from all countries, to be used for the specific purposes of financing productions, credits, infrastructures, and other support services.”30

In principle, DAR follows the general budget process for national government agencies:

30 RA 9700, Sec. 21

Fig. 1: The Budget Process

Specifically, the budget preparation for DAR involves planning, estimating, and reviewing of activities as well as budget proposals within the offices in the department. For FY 2012, each unit was asked to develop its respective plan of activities, which then became the basis of the budget proposal submitted to the DBM. Aside from this, DAR likewise considered the budget provisions in RA 9700 in the course of planning for the year’s targets.



162,551,000.00 153,824,000.00

149,895,000.00 167,672,000.00

471,391,000.00

788,958,000.00

-200,000,000.00 400,000,000.00 600,000,000.00 800,000,000.00

1,000,000,000.00

2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fig. 2. Historical Account of Budget Allocation for Agrarian Justice Delivery (AJD)

3.33% 5.15% 6.45%2.13% 2.26%

4.74%0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fig. 3Percentage Share of AJD out of the Total CARP Budget

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

Below is the historical allocation for AJD since 2005. Data were sourced from the Department of Budget and Management, which did not feature a report of budgetary allocation for CARP in 2006.

Fig. 2 represents the lumped annual allocation for agrarian justice delivery. This comprises the following items31:

• Support to Operations-Agrarian Legal Assistance. Policies for the dissemination of legal information, effective delivery of legal services and assistance to agrarian reform beneficiaries and landowners

• Operations-Agrarian Legal Assistance. (a) Mediation and extension of legal assistance and coordination of paralegal services to agrarian reform beneficiaries; (b) Provision of legal assistance and services to rejected or displaced farmers/ settlers in unorganized settlement areas and privately-owned farms

• Operations-Agrarian Legal Services. Represents regional allocations for agrarian legal services

The stated allocations are based on the annual General Appropriations Act (GAA), which includes Fund 101, 102 and 158. While the allocation for AJD from 2005 until 2011 increased by about 385 percent, its share on the total CARP budget remains almost similar through the years. This means that the increase in budget allocation is attributable to the growing number of disputes filed every year.

31 Item descriptions are based from the annual GAA for DAR



24,507 26,453 26,211

17,00014,71616,745

17,43124,672

05,000

10,00015,00020,00025,00030,000

2005 2006 2007 2009Target Accomplishment

2,318 1,8973,398

1,6001,530

1,361 1,184 1,446 1,124 13900

1,0002,0003,0004,000

2005 2006 2007 2009 2010Targets Accomplishments

4.1.3. Targets and Accomplishments in Agrarian Justice Delivery

On account of the historical budget allocations, the following is a list of targets as well as accomplishments of DAR in agrarian justice delivery. Data were sourced from the audit results of the Commission on Audit CY 2005-200932. The 2010 data are sourced from the latest reports of the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance (BALA).

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

DAR has an average accomplishment rate of 62% from 2005-2007 for the adjudication of agrarian

cases out of its total target number of cases. From these data, we can assume that a total of 28,549 cases are pending by the end of 2007. However, DAR was able to register an impressive 145 percent accomplishment out of its total case targets by 2009.

Fig. 5: Targets and Accomplishments in the Resolution of Judicial Cases (2005-2010)

DAR has an average accomplishment rate of 54% in terms of accomplishing judicial cases from 2005-

2007, while the gap gradually narrowed down from 2009-2010. As a matter of fact, DAR managed to accomplish 90 percent of its targets in 2010.

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



14,716 16,745 17,43124,672

10,938 10,633 12,918

19,151

05,000

10,00015,00020,00025,00030,000

2005 2006 2007 2009Adjudication Representation in Adjudication Cases

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

DAR fared better in the representation of farmers and farm workers in the resolution of quasi-judicial (DARAB) cases. For 2005-2006, DAR has an average of 98.5% of accomplishments. Once again, DAR fared lower in 2007 (compared to other years), where it has only accomplished 72% of its representation targets. For 2009-2010, DAR has more than 100 percent accomplishment rate for the resolution of quasi-judicial cases. DAR has accomplished 177 percent of its total target in 2009 and 104 percent of its total target in 2010. However, these accomplishments are not consistent with the accomplishments in the adjudication of cases stated in fig. 4. Fig. 4 represents the accomplishments in the resolution of quasi-judicial (DARAB) cases, while Fig. 6 represents the accomplishments in the representation of farmers and farm workers in the quasi-judicial front. The discrepancies in the reported number of cases may also be construed as possible discrepancies in the definition of “accomplishment” for the DARAB and other adjudication units, and for those which provide quasi-judicial assistance in such fronts. To further illustrate: Fig. 7: Number of Accomplished Adjudication Cases vis-à-vis Number of Adjudication Cases Represented (2005-2009)

10,952 10,63317,753

10,80013,793

10,938 10,783

12,918

19,15114,429

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

2005 2006 2007 2009 2010Target Accomplishments



21,08320,963

38,419

28,00034,75029,402 29,831 35,288

47,82452,075

010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,000

2005 2006 2007 2009 2010Target Accomplishment

30,774

46,394

11,540 1,486

21,8487,712 11,628

2,910 400 4,3997,769 10,4202,383 336 2,3260

10,00020,00030,00040,00050,000

Representation/ Mediation Cases

Representation/ ALI Cases

Representation/ Quasi-Judicial Cases

Representation/ Judicial Cases

Adjudication

Total Target 1stQ Target 1stQ Accomplishments

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

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

4.1.3.1. 2011 Targets and Accomplishments In 2011, DAR was not able to meet its targets for the first quarter (except for mediation); albeit it might be too early to presume that it will not be able to achieve all of its targets for the year. In adjudication, DAR has a shortfall of 2,073 cases; only 52 percent of its first quarter target and barely 11 percent of the 2011 adjudication target. DAR also has a shortfall of 64 judicial cases out of its target for the first quarter. Out of its first quarter targets, DAR managed to accomplish 81 percent of quasi-judicial cases and 89 percent of ALI cases with a shortfall of 527 cases and 1,200 cases respectively. However, DAR managed to surpass its first quarter target for mediation as it accomplished 7,769 cases in the first three months of the year. For 2011, there is a considerable discrepancy in the number of case accomplishments in adjudication and the number of cases represented in the DARAB. 2,383 cases have been reported as accomplishment in the representation of quasi-judicial cases, but only 2,326 cases have been reported as accomplishment by the adjudication board. These discrepancies are crucial for both reports represent accomplishments in the same venue. Fig. 9: Targets and Accomplishments of Agrarian Justice Delivery for 2011



0

50

100

150

200

250

300

% Share of Filled Positions from Authorized Positions Mediation ALI Quasi-Judicial Judicial

4.1.4. The Relationship of Budget Allocation to Target Accomplishments

The table below shows the significance of budget allocation to the accomplishments of AJD in the year 2005, 2007, and 2009: Fig. 10: Relationship of Budget Allocation to Target Accomplishments in AJD

% Share of AJD in the

CARP budget

Accomplishment Rate

Adjudication Representation/

Judicial Cases

Representation/ Quasi-Judicial

Cases

Representation/ ALI Cases

2005 3.33% 60.04% 58.71% 99.87% 139.45% 2007 5.15% 66.50% 42.55% 72.76% 91.85% 2009 2.13% 68.90% 70.25% 56.39% 170.80% From the given periods, it can be deduced that the share of AJD in the budget allocated for CARP does not have a significant and direct effect to the performance accomplishments of each AJD unit. While it can be noted that the accomplishment rates in adjudication and in representation in the quasi-judicial cases increased in 2007 after the budget share of AJD likewise increased by 1.82% from 2005, the rest of the accomplishment rates did not fare similarly.

4.1.5. The Relationship of Manpower Complement to Performance Accomplishment in Agrarian Legal Assistance and Adjudication

The Agrarian Legal Assistance Division is comprised of a manpower complement of 579. This includes the 95 personnel, who are directly involved in ALA in the DAR Main Office. Below is a list of manpower complement for agrarian legal assistance per region and their reported accomplishments for CY 2010: Fig. 11: Relationship of Manpower Complement to Performance Accomplishments in ALA, CY-2010



0

50

100

150

200

250

% Share of Positions over Total Number of Staff % of Cases Resolved Over Annual Target

The absence of a clear trend between the share of filled positions in the provincial offices as well as accomplishments in ALA reveal that there is no direct relationship between personnel insufficiency to the accomplishments of regional DAR offices in agrarian legal assistance. However, it should be noted that Region VII and CARAGA featured consistent accomplishments in all ALA cases types. Fig. 12: Relationship of Manpower Complement to Performance Accomplishments in Adjudication, CY-2010

Except for Region III, it can be observed there is no clear trend established in the connection between the manpower complement of the adjudication units and their performance accomplishments. However, it can be noted that Region VII and CARAGA registered the highest accomplishments in the adjudication of AR cases, while Region III has the most number of manpower complement for adjudication.

4.1.6. The 2012 CARP-AJD Budget

4.1.6.1. A Paradigm Shift to Budget

1. Engagement with Civil Society Organizations

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

2. From Incremental Budgeting to Zero Based Budgeting

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

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



3.1.1. The FY 2012 National Budget Call was issued early to give more time for departments and/ or agencies to plan and flesh out their budgets.

3.1.2. It is expected that the Agency Central Office (ACO) has provided its Agency Regional Offices (AROs), their respective allocations for existing Program/ Project/ Activities (PAPs) and lump-sum funds.

3.1.3. Subsequently, AROs should have presented them during the conduct of consultations within the Regional Development Councils (RDCs) and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) for feedback on the impact of their existing PAPs in the different localities/ provinces.

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

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

3. Implications of the Shift

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

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



4.1.6.2. Proposed Budget for Agrarian Justice Delivery for FY 2012 Following a series of budget consultations, DAR has come up with the proposed budget to DBM:

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

Program Sub-

Components Activities Performanc

e Indicator

Ideal Scenario for DAR33 DBM-Approved Budget Ceiling34 Variance

Target Budget (P) Unit Cost Target Budget (P) Unit Cost

Target Budget (P)

A. Adjudication of Agrarian Reform Cases

Resolution of AR Cases

No. of Cases Resolved 22,564 92,855,000.00 4,115.18 20,308 66,327,000.00 3,266.05 2,256 26,528,000.00

Resolution of ALI Cases

No. of Cases Processed/ Resolved/ Disposed

52,075 89,439,000.00 1,717.50 52,075 89,439,000.00 1,717.50 0 0.00

Mediation of Conflicts using Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

No. of ADR Conferences Conducted

20,544 12,844,000.00 625.19 18,733 11,715,000.00 625.36 1,811 1,129,000.00

Post-Judgment Activities

No. of post-judgment order issued/ promulgated

11,282 11,282,000.00 1,000.00 10,154 7,108,000.00 700.01 1,128 4,174,000.00

Execution/ Implementation of Decision

No. of resolution/ decision executed

4,513 14,893,000.00 3,300.02 3,972 13,107,000.00 3,299.84 541 1,786,000.00

B. Agrarian Legal Services/ Agrarian Legal Assistance

Judicial Courts

No. of cases submitted for resolution

1,390 16,303,000.00 11,728.77 1,390 16,303,000.00 11,728.77 0 0.00

Quasi-Judicial

No. of cases submitted 14,429 53,195,000.00 3,686.67 14,429 53,195,000.00 3,686.67 0 0.00

Fig. 13: Proposed Budget Scenario for CARP-Agrarian Justice Delivery for FY 2012



DAR has a total proposed budget of P 33,586.749 million for the implementation of CARP for FY 2012. Out of this ideal budget scenario, DAR has

allotted P 1,211.452 million for agrarian justice delivery, which accounts for 4 percent of the total proposed budget for CARP. However, the DBM budget ceiling resulted to the decrease in the budget for AJD by P 182,416,000.00. This could result to a total case backlog of 5,736. As for the total budget for CARP, the proposed P 33,586.749 million was reduced to P 19,159.256 million because of the DBM budget ceiling.

The following observations can be drawn from the FY 2012 budget data: • The unit cost for the resolution of AR cases under the program Sub-Component A, “adjudication of agrarian reform cases” decreased by P

849.13 following the DBM approved budget ceiling. The resolution of AR cases suffered the biggest budget cut in terms of unit cost. • The unit costs for each case varied from the unit cost parameters adopted for the 2006-2010 budgets (refer to Fig. 14-17). • The resolution of ALI cases was placed under Sub-component A. In the previous years, the resolution of ALI cases was under Sub-

component B. Resolution of ALI Cases is under the jurisdiction of the DAR Regional Directors. Based on the ideal budget scenario, Adjudication of AR Cases (Sub-component A) accounts for 18.26% of the total proposed budget for CARP-AJD; Agrarian Legal Services/ Agrarian Legal Assistance (Sub-component B) has a share of 12.16%; while Operational Support (Sub-component C) has the lion’s share with 69.56% of the total proposed budget for CARP-AJD. The budget cut out of the approved budget ceiling did not significantly alter the shares of the sub-components, with sub-component A having 18.23%, sub-component B with 11.57% and sub-component C with 70.18%.

• The targets, as well as the budget for ALI Cases and agrarian legal services in the judicial, quasi-judicial and mediation fronts were not affected by the budget ceiling.

Courts (PARAD/ RARAD/ DARAB)

for resolution

Conciliation/ Mediation

No. of disputes settled/ disposed

41,586 49,575,000.00 1,192.10 41,586 49,575,000.00 1,192.10 0 0.00

Non-Case Resolution Activities

28,271,000.00 0.00 28,271,000.00

C. Operational Support

Personnel services (PS)

824,698,000.00 704,170,000.00 120,528,000.00 Maintenance and other operating expenditures (MOOE)

18,097,000.00 18,097,000.00 0.00

Total 1,211,452,000.00 1,029,036,000.00 182,416,000.00



• The P 28,271,000.00 proposed budget for “non-case resolution activities” was removed from the budget items after the DBM cut. Non-case resolution activities may include the provision of legal advices to farmer-beneficiaries and other legal services that do not necessitate the filing of cases before the judicial or quasi-judicial courts.

• Operational support account for 70 percent of the total budget for agrarian justice delivery, whereas only 30 percent go directly to programmatic activities.

4.1.6.3. The 2012 National Expenditure Program (NEP) and Agrarian Justice Delivery The National Expenditure Program comprises the details of the government’s proposed programs for a specific period or fiscal year. The NEP is submitted to the Congress to facilitate review and deliberation of the proposed annual budget. The DBM has earmarked P 17,920,845,000.0035 for DAR in the 2012 NEP. This is comprised of the General Fund (Fund 101), the funds from Foreign-Assisted Projects (Fund 102) and the Agrarian Reform Fund (Fund 158).36 It should be noted that while the DBM budget ceiling for DAR amounted to P 19,159.256 million, only P 17,920.845 million has been earmarked for the NEP.

4.1.7. Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery for FY 2009-2010

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

• The achievements of DAR Central Office (DARCO), DAR Regions III and X in legal assistance provided to the agrarian reform beneficiaries through the quasi-judicial courts significantly exceeded the targets. Validation of DARCO, DAR Regions III and X accomplishments on agrarian legal assistance in quasi-judicial courts showed that their combined accomplishments of 2,762 significantly exceeded the target of 1,222 by 126% as shown below: Per COA, the high resolution of pending cases was attributable to the fast tracking sessions designed to speed up resolution of cases and prioritize the flashpoint and high-impact cases. This is the case were percentage of accomplishment reported exceeds 100%. It is worthy to note that DAR’s prior administration counts a case as “accomplished” when it proceeds to the next step of the process37.

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

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

Region Target Accomplishment % of AccomplishmentDARCO 430 542 126%Region III 256 279 109%Region X 536 1,941 362%Total 1,222 2,762 226%

http://www.dbm.gov.ph/NEP2012/DAR/DAR.pdf



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

• 50% for CNA Incentives • 30% for improvement of working conditions and other programs and/or to be

added as part of the CNA Incentive • 20% to be reverted to the General Fund for the national government agencies

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

RegionRegion I P 981,653.78 Region III 817,950.00 Region IV-A 5,476,485.93 Region IV-B 1,338,436.17 Region V 1,048,000.00 Region VII 1,081,475.00 Region VIII 762,535.00 Total P 11,506,535.88

Amount

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

• Various expenses totaling P 2.585 million were inadequately supported with documents to prove their regularity, completeness and validity in violation to Section 4(6) of PD 1445 which provides that claims against government funds shall be supported with complete documentation. Based on the foregoing, it can be said that there were expenses incurred by the department which were not spent according to the rules and regulations prescribed by the DBM Circular and thus, its validity are being put into question. These “various expenses” could have been spent for other low-funded agrarian-related projects and activities.



4.1.7.2. Agrarian Legal Assistance Program Expenditures for 2010 Fig. 14: FY 2010 Indicative Targets and Budget38

Agrarian Legal Assistance

Interventions

Target Number of Cases Unit Cost Total Budget Allocation

Mediation Cases 34,033 P 600.00 P 20,419,800.00 ALI Cases 34,750 P 2,800.00 P 97,300,000.00

Quasi-Judicial Cases 13,793 P 3,800.00 P 52,413,400.00 Judicial Cases 1,530 P 10,000.00 P 15,300,000.00

Total 84,106 P 185,433,200.00 For 2010, Mediation and ALI Cases have the biggest target number of cases for resolution due to the period of time it takes to accomplish such case types. However, these two interventions have the lowest allocation in terms of unit cost.

The Agrarian Legal Assistance Program Sub-Component of the AJD received P 185,433,200.00 budget allocation for the year 2010. Components of the unit costs include the following cost parameters39: Fig, 15: Cost Parameters for ALI Cases

Cost Items Amount Office Supplies P 600.00 Photocopying Expenses P 200.00 Research Expenses P 800.00 OCT Expenses P 800.00 Notarization Expenses P 300.00 Mailing Expenses P 100.00 Total P 2,800.00 Fig. 16: Cost Parameters for Quasi-Judicial Cases

Cost Items Amount Supplies • Ink P 600.00/ motion • Copy Paper P 500.00 • Others P 300.00 EVS (P 140 x 10) P 1,400.00 Mailing/ Stamps/ Notarization P 1,000.00 Grand Total P 3,800.00 Fig. 17: Cost Parameters for Judicial Cases

Cost Items Amount Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TNS) P 200.00/ proceeding Motion Fees P 200.00/ motion Appearance Fee P 500.00/ case (Land Registration Case Only) Posting Fee P 500.00/ case (Land Registration Case Only) Publication Fee P 1,500.00/ case (Official Gazette) Filing Fee P 1,600.00 (Reconstitution of Titles ) Ex Parte Fee P 500.00/ case Other Regular Court Cases P 500.00/ appearance (average of 10 hearings) or a 38 Data sourced from Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance (BALA), 26 May 2011 39 Data sourced from DAR-Memorandum Order dated 06 September 2006



34,03341,582 41,58634,750

53,40152,075

13,793 14,26614,429

1,530 1,222 1,3900

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Target Total Received Total AccomplishedMediation ALI Quasi-Judicial Judicial

total of P 5,000.00 Total P 5,000.00-P 10,000.00/ case Out of these targets, BALA has reported the following accomplishments for CY 2010: Fig. 18: Reported Targets and Accomplishments of Agrarian Legal Assistance in CY 201040:

In 2010, DAR managed to exceed its targets in the quasi-judicial, ALI and mediation cases, and it only

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

The number of accomplished cases, however, exceeds the number of the total received cases of the year. For instance, DAR has accomplished a total of 1,390 court cases for the year while it has only received 1,222. DAR has likewise accomplished 14,429 cases out of the 14,266 cases received by its quasi-judicial courts. This is because past DAR administrations count accomplishments per case undertaken, rather than per actual resolution of case filed41.

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

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



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

Target No. of Cases

Budget Allocated (P)

Unit Cost (P)

Actual Reported Accomplishment

Projected Expenditures

out of Reported Accomplishment [Unit Cost x No.

of Case Accomplished]

(P)

Number of Cases

Budget (P)

Mediation 34,033 20,419,800.00 600.00 52,075 31,245,000.00 18,042 10,825,200.00 ALI 34,750 97,300,000.00 2,800.00 41,586 116,440,800.00 6,836 19,140.800.00 Quasi-Judicial 13,793 52,413,400.00 3,800.00 14,429 54,830,200.00 636 2,416,800.00 Judicial 1,530 15,300,000.00 10,000.00 1,390 13,900,000.00 (140) (1,400,000.00)

Total Variance in Terms of No. of Cases 25,374 Total Variance in Terms of Budget 30,982,800.00

However, if DAR managed to register the aforementioned accomplishments without incurring additional cost, the cost of each case would be: Fig. 20: Resulting Unit Cost from Accomplished ALA Cases for CY 2010

Budget Allocated (P)

No. of Case Accomplished

Resulting Unit Cost (P)

Variance from Prescribed Unit Costs

Mediation 20,419,800.00 52,075 392.12 207.88 ALI 97,300,000.00 41,586 2,339.72 460.28

Quasi-Judicial 52,413,400.00 14,429 3,632.50 167.50 Judicial 15,300,000.00 1,390 11,007.19 (1,007.19)

The resulting unit cost for the resolution of the quasi-judicial cases is negligible, because the discrepancy accounts for only 4 percent of the prescribed unit cost for quasi-judicial cases. Because DAR fell short in the resolution of its judicial cases, it even has an excess fund of P 1,400,000.00, which it may have used in funding other ALA components. However, the variance from the prescribed unit costs for mediation and ALI cases were significant: only 65% of the prescribed unit cost actually went to the mediation of cases, while 83.5% went to the resolution of ALI cases.

4.2. Findings in the Mezzo-Level

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

4.2.1. Agrarian Justice Delivery in Camarines Sur

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



3,787

5,775

753 3611661,145

65 1690

1,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,000

Mediation ALI Quasi-Judicial Cases Judicial CasesRegional Target Provincial Target

magnitude of 126,280 poor families or 38.7 percent of the province’s total population42. Poor farmers account for 47.4 percent of this poverty estimate43. Camarines Sur is one of the top 20 provinces holding the biggest agrarian reform backlogs in the country. It also holds the annual record for the largest number of agrarian cases and disputes filed.44

4.2.1.1. Targets and Allocations Fig. 21: Camarines Sur Agrarian Legal Assistance Targets vis-à-vis Total Regional Targets for CY 201045

Camarines Sur holds 46.81 percent of the total target for agrarian legal assistance in judicial cases. However, the province has a small contribution in the targets for quasi-judicial, ALI and mediation cases; accounting for 8.63%, 19.82%, and 4.33% respectively. Fig. 22: Budget Allocation for Camarines Sur-ALA for CY 2010

Unit Cost (P) Total Number of Case

Targets Budget Allocation for

ALA46 (P) Mediation 600.00 166 99,600.00 ALI Cases 2,800.00 1,145 3,206,000.00 Quasi-Judicial 3,800.00 65 247,000.00 Judicial 10,000.00 169 1,690,000.00 Grand Total 1,545 P 5,242,600.00 The agrarian legal assistance unit of DAR Camarines Sur received P 5,242,600.00 in CY 2010. This was sourced from Fund-158 (Agrarian Reform Fund). An additional P 79,000.00 was received by DAR-Camarines Sur for Agrarian Legal Services under Fund-101 (General Fund). For adjudication of agrarian reform cases, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAD) of Camarines Sur has a total target of 102 agrarian cases for resolution an annual budget of P 636,405.00. Deriving from this data, it can be assumed that P 6,239.00 was allocated for the resolution of each agrarian reform case in the PARAD. 42 http://nscb.gov.ph/poverty/2009/table_1.asp 43 http://nscb.gov.ph/poverty/2006pov_asof%2025jun09/Final%20Tables-%20Poverty%20Statistics%20for%20the%20Basic%20Sectors,%2025jun09.pdf 44 Based from the Presentation of Camarines Sur PARO Huberto Villaraza, 13 July 2011 45 Data sourced from Camarines Sur PARO Accomplishment Report 2010 and FY 2010 Indicative Targets from Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance (BALA) 46 Data sourced from Statement of Allotment, Obligations and Balances for Fund-158, DAR-Camarines Sur

http://nscb.gov.ph/poverty/2009/table_1.asp

http://nscb.gov.ph/poverty/2006pov_asof%2025jun09/Final%20Tables



166

1,145

65 169 102167

1,328

120 170540

200400600800

100012001400

Representation-Mediation

Representation- ALI Representation- Quasi-Judicial

Representation- Judicial Adjudication

Target Accomplishments

4.2.1.2. Accomplishments and Expenditures

DAR-Camarines Sur registered the following accomplishments in CY 2010: Fig. 23: 2010 Targets and Accomplishments of DAR-Camarines Sur in AJD

The agrarian legal assistance arm of DAR-Camarines Sur posted an impressive accomplishment in the resolution of mediation, ALI, quasi-judicial, and judicial cases, while the adjudication arm registered a meager 52 percent of its actual target for 2010. Worth noting, however, are the glaring discrepancies between the targets and accomplishments of the adjudication board and the quasi-judicial representation, which are basically working in the same context. Out of these accomplishments, DAR-Camarines Sur incurred these expenses: Fig. 24: Statement of Allotment, Obligations and Balance for FY 2010 of DAR-Camarines Sur AJD Units

Allotment Obligations Balance Fund-158 Fund-101 Fund-158 Fund-101 Fund-158 Fund-101

Agrarian Legal Assistance/ Services

P 5,242,600.00 P 79,000.00 P 5,242,600.00 P 56,866.96 0.00 P 22,133.04 Adjudication of Agrarian Reform Cases

P 636,405.00 0.00 P 629,827.42 0.00 P 6,577.78 0.00 Drawing from this information, DAR-Camarines Sur has received a total sum of P 5,958,005.00 for agrarian justice delivery. Out of this amount, only 10.68% of the total provincial budget for AJD was allocated for the adjudication of agrarian reform cases. Apart from the P 5,242,600.00 allocation from Fund-158, the agrarian legal assistance unit received an additional P 79,000.00 from Fund-101 in the course of meeting its targets. Total obligated funds for agrarian legal assistance services amount to P 5,299,466.96, while total obligated funds for adjudication is pegged at P 629,872.42. At the end of CY 2010, DAR-Camarines Sur had a fund balance of P 28,710.82 for AJD.



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

Number of Case Accomplishments

Cost per Unit

Projected Expenditures out

of No. of Case Accomplishments

Obligated Funds Discrepancy


Mediation 167 600.00 P 100,200.00

P 5,299,466.96 ALI Cases 1,328 2,800.00 P 3,718,400.00 Quasi-Judicial 120 3,800.00 P 456,000.00 Judicial 170 10,000.00 P 1,700,000.00 Total for ALA

1,785 P 5,974,600.00 P 5,299,466.96 (P 675,133.04)

Adjudication of AR Cases

Adjudication- PARAD

54 6,239.0047 P 336,906.00 P 629, 827.42 P 292,921.42

Total for Adjudication

54 P 336,906.00 P 629, 827.42

P 292,921.42

Grand Total

1,839 cases P 6,311,506.00 P 5,929,294.38 (P 382,211.62)

Owing to the discrepancies noted in the projected expenditures out of the case accomplishments, it

can be observed that DAR-Camarines Sur did not follow the cost parameters given for cases under the agrarian legal assistance and adjudication. It overspent its budget for adjudication by P 292,921.42, resulting to an expenditure of P 11,663.47 per case adjudication. This amount is 86 percent higher than the cost parameter for Camarines Sur in 2010 and 183 percent higher than the unit cost for Adjudication of AR Cases in the FY 2012 proposed budget for AJD (Refer to Fig. 11).

On the other hand, the agrarian legal services only spent P 5,299,466.96 out of the cases that it

accomplished for 2010. It should be noted that it even managed to incur savings amounting to P 22,133.04 at the end of the year.

4.2.1.3. Other Findings48:

4.2.1.3.1. AJD Personnel Complement • DAR-Camarines Sur has a total personnel complement of 186. Out of these, there are seven legal officers,

who attend to the cases filed before the quasi-judicial and judicial courts. 5 out of these 7 legal officers are not regular staff, and do not receive any social benefits apart from their monthly salaries. They could, however, avail transportation allowance if they have to travel to the municipal agrarian reform offices. The hiring of legal officers depends upon the budget released to them by DBM annually.

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

• On the average, each lawyer handles a minimum of 50 court cases every year. They are given a P 1,000.00

incentive for every court appearance. This incentive is apart from the regular salaries that they receive.

47 Total budget for Adjudication/No. of Target 48 Based from interview with PARO Huberto Villaraza and PARAD Generoso Alejo Villareal, Regency Hotel, Camarines Sur, 19 August 2011



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

• There are 2 PARAD in DAR-Camarines Sur, due to the magnitude of cases filed before their offices every

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

• The employees do not receive regular trainings from the Department. The offices do not even have

training manuals for the staff to read.

4.2.1.3.2. Handling of Cases • The most common dispute adjudicated by the PARAD involves issues between the landowner and the

farmers. The complaints are most commonly filed by the MARO or the farmers themselves. The PARAD usually conducts 2 hearings prior to coming up with a resolution over the case.

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

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

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

• The legal assistance division considers the case to be “accomplished” if the last pleading has been

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

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

office

4.2.1.3.3. Other Budget Concerns • The PARO has full discretion over the budget downloaded to the province. This includes the budget for

the PARAD. The PARAD, like all municipal and provincial units submits purchase requests for the PARO’s approval, to be able to use its budget.

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

• According to the Provincial Adjudicator, his office receives a fixed budget of P 200,000.00 in the past five

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



3,501 3,302 3,139

52450 210 480

20

5001,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,000

Mediation ALI Quasi-Judicial Judicial Regional Target Provincial Target

4.2.2. Agrarian Justice Delivery in Capiz

The province of Capiz is located in Western Visayas and is one of the six provinces of Region VI. It has a total land area of 263,319 hectares – 42 percent of which comprises the total agricultural land of the province. The Capiznon economic base is agriculture and aquaculture, with 80 percent of the total labor force engaged in farming and fishing. The five major commodities of the province are rice, sugarcane, coconut, fruits and vegetables, and marine products. Apart from the two sugar mills, Capiz has no major industries (Quizon & Arostique, 2000). Capiz is one of the poorest provinces in the country. Latest available poverty statistics from NSCB revealed that the province has a magnitude of 37,312 poor families, accounting for 22.6 percent of the total provincial population. The province of Capiz also has the few surviving haciendas in the country. A few wealthy families own or control the vast agricultural lands in the province and the skewed land ownership arrangements contribute to the high incidence of poverty in the province.

According to the official website of the DAR-Capiz, “agrarian problems are prevalent [in the province] in view of sharing crops in rice land and corn land, compounded by the unfair labor laws implementation in the two sugar centrals.” Because the province is ranked among the top 10 provinces with the highest number of landholdings covered by CARP under compulsory acquisition (CA), the DAR-Capiz deals with several agrarian cases filed to its office annually.

4.2.2.1. Targets and Allocations Fig. 26: Capiz Agrarian Legal Assistance Targets vis-à-vis Total Regional Targets for CY 201049

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

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



450210

480

2

480

1,275

361431

3431

0200400600800

100012001400





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

Unit Cost (P) Total Number of Case

Targets Budget Allocation for

ALA50 (P) Mediation 600.00 450 270,000.00 ALI Cases 2,800.00 210 588,000.00 Quasi-Judicial 3,800.00 480 1,824,000.00 Judicial 10,000.00 2 20,000.00 Grand Total 1,142 P 2,702,000.00 According to the 2010 Statement of Allotment, Obligations and Balances of DAR-Capiz Legal Assistance Division, it has received P 2,706,581.68 for its agrarian legal services. It can be noticed that there is a slight discrepancy in the 2010 SAOB and the 2010 report of Capiz PARO. The budget allotted for agrarian legal services exceeded by P 4,581.60 from the reported investment requirements for 2010. The budget for agrarian legal services in Capiz was sourced from the Agrarian Reform Fund (Fund-158). Meanwhile, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAD) of Capiz received a total of P 783,750.00. This was likewise sourced from Fund 158. The Capiz-PARAD targeted for the resolution of 480 cases in CY 2010, which means that P 1,632.81 was allotted for each case-resolution.

4.2.2.2. Accomplishments and Expenditures DAR-Capiz registered the following accomplishments in CY 2010: Fig. 28: 2010 Targets and Accomplishments of DAR-Capiz in AJD

DAR-Capiz was able to accomplish more than 100 percent of the cases filed in its office in 2010, with the exception of quasi-judicial cases. The nature of these accomplishments was explained by Dumalag Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) Romeo Salazar (personal communication, 19 June 2011); as he mentioned that the manner of counting of accomplishments during the conciliation-mediation proceedings does not necessarily mean that these cases have been settled. A case is considered to be “accomplished,” when such case was already “disposed” or “submitted” to other AJD unit. Thus, a case forwarded to the provincial office – even upon failure of mediation-conciliation proceedings will still be counted as an accomplishment. 50 Data sourced from AJD Targets and Investment Requirements, Legal Assistance Division, DAR-Capiz



There is also a gross under-targeting in the number of mediation and conciliation proceedings to be conducted. The number of received and accomplished cases increased by more than 183 percent vis-à-vis the targets set for the year. Out of these accomplishments, DAR-Capiz incurred these expenses: Fig. 29: Statement of Allotment, Obligations and Balance for FY 2010 of DAR-Capiz AJD Units

Allotment Obligations Balance Fund-158 Fund-158 Fund-158

Agrarian Legal Assistance/ Services P 2,706,581.68 P 2,577,221.71 P 129,339.97

Adjudication of Agrarian Reform Cases P 783,750.00 P 781,135.43 P 2,614.00

Drawing from this information, DAR-Capiz has received a total budget of P 3,490,331.68 for agrarian justice delivery. Out of this amount, 28.95% of the total provincial budget for AJD was allocated for the adjudication of agrarian reform cases. Total obligated funds for agrarian legal assistance services amount to P 2,577,221.71, while total obligated funds for adjudication is pegged at P 781,135.43. At the end of CY 2010, DAR-Capiz had a fund balance of P 131,953.97 for AJD. Fig. 30: Discrepancies in the Obligated Funds and Projected Expenditures out of Cost per Unit for AJD Cases in Capiz, CY 2010


Cost per Unit

Projected Expenditures out

of No. of Case Accomplishments



Mediation 1,275 600.00 P 765,000.00 P 2,577,221.71

ALI Cases 361 2,800.00 P 1,010,800.00 Quasi-Judicial 431 3,800.00 P 1,637,800.00 Judicial 3 10,000.00 P 30,000.00 Total for ALA 2,070 P 3,443,600.00 P 2,577,221.71 (P 866,378.39)


Adjudication- PARAD

431 1,632.8151 P 703,741.11 P 781,135.43 P 77,394.32

Total for Adjudication

431 P 703,741.11 P 781,135.43 P 77,394.32

Grand Total

2,501 P 4,147,341.11 P 3,358,357.14 (P 788,984.07)

Owing to the discrepancies noted in the projected expenditures out of the case accomplishments, it

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

51 Total budget for Adjudication/No. of Target



On the other hand, the agrarian legal services only spent P 2,577,221.71 out of the cases that it accomplished for 2010. It should be noted that it even managed to incur savings amounting to P 129,339.97 at the end of the year.


4.2.2.3.1. AJD Personnel Complement • There are 5 legal officers working for the 17 municipalities of Capiz. This includes the Chief of the Legal

Assistance Division, Atty. Jose Rowell De Claro, who is also the only lawyer among the legal officers. As such, Atty. De Claro handles all the judicial cases of the province.

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

• The PARAD as well as the Legal Assistance Division personnel do not require additional staff for the

project. However, they have been requesting the National Office to provide the legal officers with job tenurial security. They believe that this could help in the more effective performance of tasks of the legal officers.

• Aside from the Travel Expense Voucher, legal officers receive P 50.00 for every mediation cases handled

per month and P 100.00 for ALI and DARAB cases.

4.2.2.3.2. Handling of Cases • The agrarian reform beneficiaries usually shoulder the cost of executing the decisions arising from the

judicial, quasi-judicial, ALI and mediation cases.

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

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

ejectment

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

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

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



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

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

office, and through personal meetings every 15th and 30th of the month.

4.2.2.3.3. Other Budget Concerns • The Legal Assistance Division doesn’t directly propose for the budget of their unit to the DAR National

Office. The finance department does the planning for them based on the projected inflation, target cases and accomplishments of the legal office.

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

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

• Records of expenditures in the provincial office of Capiz do not reflect the actual amount spent for every

case intervention. Instead, expenditures are reported under lump sum items such as travel expenses, postage services, representation expenses, etc.

• As of the first five months of 2011, DAR-Capiz has only managed to spend 11.23 percent of its total

budget allocation for agrarian justice delivery.

4.2.3. Agrarian Justice Delivery in South Bukidnon The province of Bukidnon is the largest province in Region X, and the eighth largest province in the country in terms of land area. 92 percent of the 380,332.75 hectares of alienable and disposable lands in Bukidnon is used for agricultural production. Corn is the most popular agricultural commodity produced by the province. Other major crops include sugarcane, pineapple, and rice from irrigated farms. The province is also home for several agro-industrial firms, which include the DOLE, Mt. Kitanglad Agri-Development Corporation, and the Global Fruits and Del Monte Philippines. The latest available poverty statistics from the National Statistics Coordinating Board (NSCB) revealed that in 2009, there were 70,072 poor families in Bukidnon, accounting for 33.8% of the total population of the province. This is slightly higher than the regional poverty average, which is pegged at 32.8 percent. Bukidnon has been the hub of news a few years back, due to the long struggles of farmers from Sumilao, Valencia and Maramag in disputes about land ownership. The Sumilao farmers’ walk to Manila has been a potent avenue in airing their sentiments against the heedless undertakings of landowners and other groups with vested interest to prevent the farmers’ actual physical occupation and ownership of the land.



1,963

1,249

53890250 140 109 15

0500

1,0001,5002,0002,500

Mediation ALI Quasi-Judicial Judicial Regional Target Provincial Target

4.2.3.1. Targets and Allocations Fig. 31: South Bukidnon Agrarian Legal Assistance Targets vis-à-vis Total Regional Targets for CY 201053

Based on the given data, South Bukidnon has the second largest share of case targets in the judicial and quasi-judicial courts in the entire Region X. For agrarian legal assistance in judicial courts, South Bukidnon has a percentage share of 16.66 percent of the total case targets; while for quasi-judicial cases, South Bukidnon has a share of 20.26 out of the total case targets. Fig. 32: Budget Allocation for South Bukidnon-ALA for CY 2010

Unit Cost (P) Total Number of Case Targets

Budget Allocation for ALA54 (P)

Mediation 600.00 250 P 150,000 ALI Cases 2,800.00 140 P 392,000 Quasi-Judicial 3,800.00 109 P 414,200 Judicial 10,000.00 15 P 150,000 Grand Total 514 P 1,106,200.00 According to the 2010 Statement of Allotment, Obligations and Balances of DAR-South Bukidnon, it has received P 1,006,650.00 for its agrarian legal services. It can be noticed that there is a slight discrepancy in the SAOB and the benchmarked funds for ALA in 2010. The budget allotted for agrarian legal services exceeded by P 450.00 from the reported investment requirements for 2010. The budget for agrarian legal services in South Bukidnon was sourced from the Agrarian Reform Fund (Fund-158). Meanwhile, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAD) of South Bukidnon received a total of P 658,469.00. This was likewise sourced from Fund 158. The South Bukidnon-PARAD targeted for the resolution of 105 cases in CY 2010, which means that P6, 271.13 was allotted for each case-resolution.

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



250

140 109

15

105

251

403

308

19

299

050

100150200250300350400450





4.2.3.2. Accomplishments and Expenditures DAR-South Bukidnon registered the following accomplishments in CY 2010: Fig. 33: 2010 Targets and Accomplishments of DAR-South Bukidnon in AJD

DAR-South Bukidnon was able to accomplish more than 100 percent of the cases filed in its office in 2010.while it has only exceeded its target in mediation with one case, the rest of the of the cases for agrarian legal assistance have posted impressive accomplishments. Based on these accomplishments, it can be presumed that there is a gross under-targeting in the number of ALI, quasi-judicial, and adjudication proceedings to be conducted. Out of these accomplishments, DAR-South Bukidnon incurred these expenses: Fig. 34: Statement of Allotment, Obligations and Balance for FY 2010 of DAR-South Bukidnon AJD Units

Allotment Obligations Balance Fund-158 Fund-158 Fund-158

Agrarian Legal Assistance/ Services P 1,006,650.00 P 1,006,650.00 P 0.00 Adjudication of Agrarian Reform Cases P 658,469.00 P 658,469.00 P 0.00

Drawing from this information, DAR-South Bukidnon has received a total budget of P 1,665,119.00 for agrarian justice delivery. Out of this amount, 39.54% of the total provincial budget for AJD was allocated for the adjudication of agrarian reform cases. DAR-South Bukidnon managed to spend all of its fund allotment for CY 2010. According to the 2010 SAOB of DAR-South Bukidnon for Agrarian Legal Assistance/ Services and Adjudication, the province did not incur savings from the budget for AJD.



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


Cost per Unit

Projected Expenditures out of

No. of Case Accomplishments



Mediation 251 600.00 P 150,600.00

P 1,006,650.00 ALI Cases 403 2,800.00 P 1,128,400.00 Quasi-Judicial 308 3,800.00 P 1,170,400.00 Judicial 19 10,000.00 P 190,000.00 Total for ALA 981 P 3,443,600.00 P 1,006,650.00 (P 2,436,950.00)


Adjudication- PARAD 299 6, 271.13 55 P 1,875,067.87 P 658,469.00 P 1,216,598.87 Total for Adjudication

299 P 1,875,067.87 P 658,469.00 (P 1,216,598.87)

Grand Total 1,280 P 5,318,667.87 P 1,665,119.00 (P 3,653,548.87)

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

On the other hand, the agrarian legal services only spent P 1,006,650.00 out of the cases that it

accomplished for 2010, resulting to a budget discrepancy of P 2,436,950.00.


4.2.3.3.1. AJD Personnel Complement • There is no PARAD office for South Bukidnon. The adjudication of cases is facilitated by the Region X

Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (RARAD). The office of the RARAD is located in Cagayan De Oro City, Misamis Oriental. The RARAD has 4 personnel, including the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator.

• There are three legal officers assigned to provide legal assistance to the 10 municipalities of Bukidnon.

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

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

DAR staff.

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

4.2.3.3.2. Handling of Cases • The resolution of agrarian cases for adjudication last for 6 months to one year. The targets of the RARAD

are based on prior year’s accomplishment and number of cases filed. 55 Total budget for Adjudication/No. of Target 56 Based from interview with PARO Norberto Paquingan



• Requests for legal counseling and information usually take more than the prescribed 15 days period due

to the insufficient number of legal officers assigned to attend to the cases.

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

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

4.2.3.3.3. Other Budget Concerns

• Records of expenditures in the provincial office of South Bukidnon do not reflect the actual amount spent

for every case intervention. Instead, expenditures are reported under lump sum items such as travel expenses, postage services, representation expenses, etc.

• Since 2000, budget augmentation requests from the RARAD have not been granted, and budget allocation

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

• The RARAD staff usually conducts ocular inspections in the course of dealing with agrarian disputes.

These inspections, however, are not budgeted by the DARAB.

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

4.2.4. Summary of Findings from the Three Provinces Documented

4.2.4.1. Provincial and Agricultural Profile: The selected provinces are all heavily dependent to agriculture for livelihood. Their agrarian relations likewise feature prominently, and their poverty incidence at a dismal average. Camarines Sur and Bukidnon have above-30 percent poverty incidence, while Capiz was close at 22.6%. Fig. 36: Summary of Poverty and Agricultural Profiles of Camarines Sur, Capiz, and Bukidnon

Camarines Sur Capiz Bukidnon % of land area devoted to agricultural production

62% 42% 92%

Magnitude of poor families (from NSCB, 2009 poverty estimates)

126,280 37,312 70,072

Poverty Incidence among families 38.7% 22.6% 33.8%



(NSCB 2009 poverty estimates)

National Average: 20.9%

Prominent feature on agrarian justice

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

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

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

4.2.4.2. The AJD Situation of Camarines Sur, Capiz and South Bukidnon in CY 2010

Fig. 37: The AJD Situation of Camarines Sur, Capiz and South Bukidnon in CY 2010

Camarines Sur Capiz South Bukidnon

AJD Personnel Complement

No. of Legal Officers 7 5 3 No. of Lawyers 2 1 0 Means of Staff Monitoring

Monthly Accomplishment

Reports Monthly

Accomplishment Reports, Meetings

Weekly meetings

Handling of Cases

Most common forms of disputes

Ejectment, Landowner’s

Compensation

Issuance, Correction and Cancellation of

CLOA, ejectment

Just compensation, ejectment, recovery

of possession Usual length of time spent in the resolution of AR cases

3 months 3 months 6 months – 1 year

Longest Period Spent for an Agrarian Case

10 years 11 years 8 years

Most Common Causes of Delays in the case proceedings

Legal officers are not trained and are unaware of the

process

Political dynamics of the province

(DAR claims that there are times

when their “hands are tied” in the

implementation of case decisions)

Constant postponements filed

by lawyers; Insufficient funds

Budget Related Concerns

Problems related to AJD budget

Delays in budget releases None

Budget augmentation

requests for PARAD were not granted;

absence of fund for ocular inspections; lumping of several

activities for adjudication of AR

cases into one budget item

Where the fund savings are spent Staff incentive

Savings are turned over to the DAR

Finance department

Staff incentive



4.33%

12.85%12.73%

19.82%

6.35% 11.20%8.83%15.29% 20.26%

46.81%

3.84%

16.66%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

Camarines Sur Capiz South BukidnonMediation ALI Quasi-Judicial Judicial

100.60%

283.33%

100.40%115.98%

171.90%

287.85%

184.61%

89.79%

282.56%

100.59%150% 126.66%

52.94% 89.79%

284.76%

0.00%50.00%

100.00%150.00%200.00%250.00%300.00%350.00%

Camarines Sur Capiz BukidnonMediation ALI Quasi-Judicial Judicial Adjudication Linear (Mediation)

4.2.4.3. Share in the Regional ALA Target Fig. 38: Percentage Share of Camarines Sur, Capiz and Bukidnon to Regional Targets in CY 2010

Aside from the judicial targets of Camarines Sur, it can be observed that the three provinces have almost similar shares to the total targets of their respective region. It can also be noted that unlike Camarines Sur, Capiz and Bukidnon have consistently close percentage shares in the four ALA interventions.

4.2.4.4. Accomplishment Rates Fig. 39: Accomplishment Rates of Camarines Sur, Capiz and South Bukidnon in AJD for CY 2010

The provincial AJD units posted impressive accomplishments in the provision of agrarian legal assistance. Only the adjudication of agrarian reform cases in Capiz and Camarines Sur posted below 100 percent accomplishments in 2010. It should be noted, however that the three provinces have varied means of counting case accomplishments: Fig. 40: Manner of Counting “Accomplishments” of AJD Cases

Camarines Sur Capiz South Bukidnon ALA Per submission of last Per activity undertaken Per activity undertaken



5,321,600.00

2,706,581.68

1,006,650.00

5,299,466.96

2,577,221.71 1,006,650.00

22,133.04 129,339.97 --1,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 6,000,000.00


Allotment Obligations Balance

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

4.2.4.5. Unit Costs of Adjudication and ALA Cases Fig. 41: Allotted Unit Costs for AJD Cases in Camarines Sur, Capiz and South Bukidnon for CY 2010


ALA Mediation P 600.00 P 600.00 P 600.00 ALI P 2,800.00 P 2,800.00 P 2,800.00 Quasi-Judicial P 3,800.00 P 3,800.00 P 3,800.00 Judicial P 10,000.00 P 10,000.00 P 10,000.00

Adjudication PARAD/ DARAB P 6,239.00 P 1,632.81 P 6, 271.13 Following the cost parameters set by the DAR-Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance (BALA), the allotted unit costs for ALA have been similar among the three provinces, with the resolution of judicial cases the most expensive among the four ALA interventions. For adjudication, however, DAR-Capiz allotted a meager P 1,632.81, compared to the allocations of Camarines Sur and South Bukidnon which were pegged at P 6,239.00 and P 6,271.00. It should be noted that except for South Bukidnon, the provinces documented have overspent their allotted budget for the adjudication of AR cases in terms of the given unit cost parameters.

4.2.4.6. Statement of Allotment, Obligations and Balance Fig. 42: SAOB of Camarines Sur, Capiz and South Bukidnon for Agrarian Legal Services (Fund 101 & Fund 158), 2010

Camarines Sur and Capiz managed to incur fund balances for CY-2010 while South Bukidnon spent

its entire budget allotment for agrarian legal services. It should be noted that Camarines Sur and South Bukidnon registered impressive accomplishments in meeting its targets for agrarian legal services.



636,405.00

783,750.00 658,469.00

628,827.46 781,135.43 658,469.00

6,577.78 2,614.00 --200,000.00 400,000.00 600,000.00 800,000.00

1,000,000.00

Camarines Sur Capiz South BukidnonAllotment Obligations Balance

382,211.62 788,984.07

3,653,548.87

-500,000.00

1,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,500,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,500,000.00 4,000,000.00

Camarines Sur Capiz Bukidnon

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

Similar to the SAOB for ALA, Camarines Sur and Capiz also managed to incur fund savings for the adjudication of AR cases in CY-2010. Camarines Sur and Capiz registered below 100 percent in the adjudication of AR cases while South Bukidnon posted 284.76 percent.

4.2.4.7. Discrepancies in the Accomplishment Reports and SAOB Fig. 44: Total Discrepancies between Fund Obligations and Projected Expenditures out of Reported AJD Case Accomplishments of Camarines Sur, Capiz and Bukidnon for CY-2010

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



4.3. Findings in the Micro-Level

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

4.3.1. The Case of the Banasi Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association (BARFBA)

4.3.1.1. Cause and Nature of the Dispute The agrarian reform beneficiaries of Sitio Banasi were prevented from farming the lands awarded to them since 1998, because of the landowners’ petition to exempt the landholding from CARP coverage. The landowners’ claim that the Estate is a pastureland and must be excluded from agrarian reform. While the farmers have won the disputes filed in the various offices of DAR, they are still being thwarted by threats, and a decision from the Regional Trial Court favoring the landowners and ordering for the eviction of farmers from their landholdings. Right now, not all 57 beneficiaries could farm their land. Some farmers try to plant rice in idle parcels of land, while some have given up the fight. Those who managed to do so have to be careful, out of fear that the landowners might discover them and destroy their crops.

4.3.1.2. Chronology of Events 1973: The land was covered by PD 27. Certificates of Land Transfer were issued to the farmer-beneficiaries of the landholding. However, the entitlements were returned to the landowners not long after the certificates of land transfer were cancelled by the then Ministry of Agrarian Reform. 1995-1996: A Notice of Coverage for CARP was issued by DAR to the landowners of the Fajardo Estate. 1998: Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) were awarded to the 57 farmer-beneficiaries of Fajardo Estate 1998: The first attempt to install the farmer-beneficiaries failed after the landowner groups barricaded the entrance to the landholding. The second attempt for installation resulted to a shooting incident between the PNP and the hired guards of the landowners. 1998: The landowners filed a petition for exemption from CARP coverage to the DAR. 1998-1999: The farmers went back to their landholding and requested for police assistance so they could enter their land without fearing for the landowners’ threats. The police’s assistance lasted for one year, with the farmers paying for the expenses of four police personnel to guard their landholdings. 1999: The Regional Director denied the appeal of the landowners to exempt the landholding from CARP coverage and cancel the CLOA issued to the farmer-beneficiaries. Succeeding motions for reconsideration were likewise denied. 2007: The Office of the Secretary issued a decision upholding DAR’s previous decisions pertaining to the petition to exempt the land from CARP coverage. The DAR sided with the farmers. 2008: The Landowners brought the petition to the Office of the President.



April 2008: The Office of the President ordered the cancellation of the CLOA of the Banasi Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries through Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita. The Office of the President sided with the landowners’ petition to exempt the landholding from CARP coverage. November 2008: 51 farmers started a 444 kilometer-walk from Sitio Banasi to Malacañang as a form of protest to the decision of the Office of the President. The farmers then started a 7-day hunger strike and maintained that they will never go back to Bicol unless the Office of the President overturns its previous decision. December 2008: After 7 days of waiting, the farmers sought the decision of Malacañang, and only to find out that their case was remanded to the DAR once again. The DAR once again issued a decision favoring the farmers. 2010: The court ruled in favor of the landowners. This resulted to the order of ejectment issued to the farmers of BARFBA.

4.3.1.3. Case-Related Expenditures

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

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



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

Revenues P 80,000.00 Less: Expenses

Seedlings P 4,800.00 Fertilizer 10,000.00 Pesticide 2,000.00 Gasoline (for Land Preparation) 1,738.00 Cost of Labor 11,748.00 Cost of Threshing 552.60 Land Amortization 2,000.00 32,838.60

Net Income P 47,161.40

Notes: a. Revenue per harvest season amounts to P 40,000.00 b. Price of gasoline per liter is P 43.45 was based on www.alternat1ve.com/philippine-gas-

prices.php c. Cost of labor was based on the data from Bureau of Agricultural Statistics (www.bas.gov.ph) d. Cost of threshing was based on CARRD’s previous study on rice farming:

Cost of Threshing:

Divided by 5

Multipl by Farmgate Price 15.35Total Cost of Threshing P 552.60

Number of Cavans Produced for Two Harvest Seasons 180

Number of Cavans Paid for Threshing 36

e. Land Amortization amounts to P 1,000.00 per harvest season

http://www.alternat1ve.com/philippine-gas

http://www.bas.gov.ph



1. Projected income for 12 years (1998-2010), provided that the farmer was able to consistently plant his crops on his land.

Revenue:Main Crop A P 143,220.39 P 119,065.60 P 140,754.89 P 116,851.06 P 86,714.95 P 94,011.52 P 77,029.35 P 71,286.81 P 72,430.40 P 55,725.39 P 49,920.12 P 52,696.32 P 34,887.66 Total P 143,220.39 P 119,065.60 P 140,754.89 P 116,851.06 P 86,714.95 P 94,011.52 P 77,029.35 P 71,286.81 P 72,430.40 P 55,725.39 49,920.12 52,696.32 34,887.66

Less:ExpensesSeedlings B P 1,395.00 P 1,302.00 P 990.00 P 735.00 P 717.00 P 699.00 P 618.00 P 594.00 P 552.00 P 533.33 P 509.39 P 486.53 P 464.69 Fertilizer C 8,789.39 9,957.09 13,263.61 6,507.19 5,961.29 6,187.50 4,882.43 3,690.14 3,535.79 3,513.10 3,371.53 3,275.25 3,180.38 Pesticides D 3,198.38 3,006.00 2,976.00 2,754.00 2,997.00 3,183.00 3,072.00 3,093.00 2,577.00 2,489.86 2,378.09 2,271.33 2,169.37 Land Amortization E 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 Gasoline F 1,173.15 1,032.75 877.50 1,169.10 992.79 967.95 911.44 878.07 850.85 822.07 785.17 749.92 716.26 Cost of Labor G 11,748.00 10,383.00 11,136.00 9,990.00 9,327.00 8,820.00 8,424.00 8,082.00 7,938.00 7,669.57 7,325.28 6,996.44 6,682.37 Cost of Threshing H 540.44 449.31 531.20 440.99 327.25 354.73 290.65 269.01 273.29 210.27 188.39 198.86 131.68 Total P 28,844.36 P 28,130.15 P 31,774.31 P 23,596.28 P 22,322.33 P 22,212.18 P 20,198.52 P 18,606.23 P 17,726.92 P 17,238.20 16,557.85 15,978.33 15,344.74

Net Income P 114,376.03 P 90,935.45 P 108,980.58 P 93,254.78 P 64,392.63 P 71,799.34 P 56,830.83 P 52,680.58 P 54,703.47 P 38,487.19 P 33,362.27 P 36,717.99 P 19,542.92

2005 2000 1999 19982004 2003 2002 20012010 2009 2008 2007 2006

Notes: a. Average yield, land use and average provincial market price were based from the data on Bureau of Agricultural Statistics.

2010 106,602,000 34,276 3,110 4,665 P 15.35 P 71,610.20 2 P 143,220.39 2009 114,552,000 41,216 2,779 4,169 14.28 59,532.80 2 119,065.60 2008 107,506,000 34,416 3,124 4,686 15.02 70,377.45 2 140,754.89 2007 101,054,000 32,145 3,144 4,716 12.39 58,425.53 2 116,851.06 2006 83,419,000 31,890 2,616 3,924 11.05 43,357.48 2 86,714.95 2005 106,668,000 37,715 2,828 4,242 11.08 47,005.76 2 94,011.52 2004 92,203,000 34,940 2,639 3,958 9.73 38,514.68 2 77,029.35 2003 86,084,000 35,720 2,410 3,615 9.86 35,643.40 2 71,286.81 2002 105,120,000 42,190 2,492 3,737 9.69 36,215.20 2 72,430.40 2001 82,607,000 37,890 2,180 3,270 8.52 27,862.69 2 55,725.39 2000 82,530,000 42,010 1,965 2,947 8.47 24,960.06 2 49,920.12 1999 106,196,000 48,910 2,171 3,257 8.09 26,348.16 2 52,696.32 1998 34,804,000 24,960 1,394 2,092 8.34 17,443.83 2 34,887.66

Yield for 1.5 hectare

Number of Harvest per

YearTotal Revenue per

YearAverage Yield

(converted to Kg.)Land Use (hectare)

Yield per Hectare

Average Market Price

per Kg. Total



a. Cost of seedlings based on Bureau of Agricultural Statistics

2010 P 465.00 697.50 2 P 1,395.00 2009 434.00 651.00 2 1,302.00 2008 330.00 495.00 2 990.00 2007 245.00 367.50 2 735.00 2006 239.00 358.50 2 717.00 2005 233.00 349.50 2 699.00 2004 206.00 309.00 2 618.00 2003 198.00 297.00 2 594.00 2002 184.00 276.00 2 552.00 2001 177.78 266.67 2 533.33 2000 169.80 254.70 2 509.39 1999 162.18 243.26 2 486.53 1998 154.90 232.34 2 464.69

Total P 9,595.94

Price per 1.5 hectare

Price per Hectare


YearTotal Cost of

Seedlings

• Price of seedlings from 1998-2001 was projected based on the inflation rate from Bureau of

Agricultural Statistics.

b. Cost of fertilizer based on Bureau of Agricultural Statistics

2010 P 2,929.80 4,394.69 2 P 8,789.39 2009 3,319.03 4,978.55 2 9,957.09 2008 4,421.20 6,631.80 2 13,263.61 2007 2,169.06 3,253.59 2 6,507.19 2006 1,987.10 2,980.64 2 5,961.29 2005 2,062.50 3,093.75 2 6,187.50 2004 1,627.48 2,441.22 2 4,882.43 2003 1,230.05 1,845.07 2 3,690.14 2002 1,178.60 1,767.89 2 3,535.79 2001 1,171.03 1,756.55 2 3,513.10 2000 1,123.84 1,685.76 2 3,371.53 1999 1,091.75 1,637.63 2 3,275.25 1998 1,060.13 1,590.19 2 3,180.38

Total P 76,114.67


Price per Hectare


YearTotal Cost of

Fertilizer



c. Cost of pesticide based on Bureau of Agricultural Statistics

2010 P 1,066.13 1,599.19 2 P 3,198.38 2009 1,002.00 1,503.00 2 3,006.00 2008 992.00 1,488.00 2 2,976.00 2007 918.00 1,377.00 2 2,754.00 2006 999.00 1,498.50 2 2,997.00 2005 1,061.00 1,591.50 2 3,183.00 2004 1,024.00 1,536.00 2 3,072.00 2003 1,031.00 1,546.50 2 3,093.00 2002 859.00 1,288.50 2 2,577.00 2001 829.95 1,244.93 2 2,489.86 2000 792.70 1,189.04 2 2,378.09 1999 757.11 1,135.67 2 2,271.33 1998 723.12 1,084.69 2 2,169.37

Total P 36,165.03

Price per Hectare


Total Cost of Pesticide


• Price of pesticide from 1998-2001 and 2010 was projected based on the inflation rate from

Bureau of Agricultural Statistics.

d. Land Amortization was based on the interview with a farmer in Bula, Camarines Sur.

e. Land Preparation Expenses - Gasoline was based on prices from www.alternat1ve.com/philippine-gas-prices.php and prices from 1998-2004 was adjusted based on inflation rate from Bureau of Agricultural Statistics

2010 P 586.58 2 P 1,173.15 2009 516.38 2 1,032.75 2008 438.75 2 877.50 2007 584.55 2 1,169.10 2006 496.40 2 992.79 2005 483.98 2 967.95 2004 455.72 2 911.44 2003 439.04 2 878.07 2002 425.42 2 850.85 2001 411.04 2 822.07 2000 392.59 2 785.17 1999 374.96 2 749.92 1998 358.13 2 716.26

Total P 5,963.52 P 11,927.03

Gasoline


Year

Total Cost of Land

Preparation

http://www.alternat1ve.com/philippine-gas-prices.php



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

2010 P 3,916.00 5,874.00 2 P 11,748.00 2009 3,461.00 5,191.50 2 10,383.00 2008 3,712.00 5,568.00 2 11,136.00 2007 3,330.00 4,995.00 2 9,990.00 2006 3,109.00 4,663.50 2 9,327.00 2005 2,940.00 4,410.00 2 8,820.00 2004 2,808.00 4,212.00 2 8,424.00 2003 2,694.00 4,041.00 2 8,082.00 2002 2,646.00 3,969.00 2 7,938.00 2001 2,556.52 3,834.78 2 7,669.57 2000 2,441.76 3,662.64 2 7,325.28 1999 2,332.15 3,498.22 2 6,996.44 1998 2,227.46 3,341.19 2 6,682.37 Total P 114,521.66

Price per Hectare


Total Cost of Labor


g. Cost of threshing was based on CARRD’s previous study on rice farming:

2010 4,665 88 18 2 P 15.35 P 540.44 2009 4,169 79 16 2 14.28 449.31 2008 4,686 88 18 2 15.02 531.20 2007 4,716 89 18 2 12.39 440.99 2006 3,924 74 15 2 11.05 327.25 2005 4,242 80 16 2 11.08 354.73 2004 3,958 75 15 2 9.73 290.65 2003 3,615 68 14 2 9.86 269.01 2002 3,737 71 14 2 9.69 273.29 2001 3,270 62 12 2 8.52 210.27 2000 2,947 56 11 2 8.47 188.39 1999 3,257 61 12 2 8.09 198.86 1998 2,092 39 8 2 8.34 131.68 Total P 4,206.05

Number of Cavans


YearTotal Cost of

Threshing

Number of Cavans Paid for

ThreshingYield per

1.5 hectareFarmgate

Priceof Palay




b. Lost income for an ARB for 12 years (1998-2010) with PALAY as his main crop approximately amounted to P 1,031,915.76, assuming that a one-hectare land was awarded to him.

Revenue:Main Crop A P 170,653.77 P 153,808.08 P 172,789.25 P 148,449.78 P 120,948.42 P 127,724.88 P 111,048.26 P 94,466.85 P 93,007.78 P 70,558.27 P 67,373.85 P 63,728.26 P 65,323.89 Total P 170,653.77 P 153,808.08 P 172,789.25 P 148,449.78 P 120,948.42 P 127,724.88 P 111,048.26 P 94,466.85 P 93,007.78 P 70,558.27 67,373.85 63,728.26 65,323.89

Less:ExpensesSeedlings B P 2,877.00 P 2,943.00 P 2,046.00 P 1,515.00 P 1,479.00 P 1,443.00 P 1,275.00 P 1,224.00 P 1,218.00 P 1,176.81 P 1,123.98 P 1,073.53 P 1,025.34 Fertilizer C 19,193.16 18,038.69 17,295.00 14,670.00 13,917.00 13,767.00 10,077.00 7,962.00 6,342.00 6,127.54 5,852.47 5,589.75 5,338.83 Pesticides D 3,801.67 3,573.00 3,540.00 3,276.00 3,564.00 3,786.00 3,654.00 3,678.00 3,363.00 3,249.28 3,103.41 2,964.10 2,831.04 Land Amortization E 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 Gasoline F 1,759.73 1,549.13 1,316.25 1,753.65 1,489.19 1,451.93 1,367.16 1,317.11 1,276.27 1,233.11 1,177.76 1,124.89 1,074.39 Cost of Labor G 17,442.00 17,385.00 14,637.00 13,131.00 12,261.00 11,592.00 11,073.00 10,623.00 13,323.00 12,872.46 12,294.62 11,742.71 11,215.58 Cost of Threshing H 644.00 580.36 652.09 560.22 456.47 482.04 419.01 356.52 350.92 266.21 254.20 240.50 246.52 Total P 47,717.56 P 46,069.17 P 41,486.34 P 36,905.87 P 35,166.66 P 34,521.97 P 29,865.17 P 27,160.63 P 27,873.19 P 26,925.40 25,806.45 24,735.48 23,731.70

Net Income P 122,936.21 P 107,738.91 P 131,302.91 P 111,543.91 P 85,781.77 P 93,202.92 P 81,183.09 P 67,306.22 P 65,134.59 P 43,632.87 P 41,567.40 P 38,992.78 P 41,592.19

20052010 2009 2008 2007 2006 19982004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999



Notes:

a. Average yield, land use and average provincial market price were based from the data on Bureau of Agricultural Statistics.

2010 461,725,000 124,594 3,706 P 15.35 P 56,884.59 3 P 170,653.77 2009 420,538,000 117,132 3,590 14.28 51,269.36 3 153,808.08 2008 419,430,000 109,379 3,835 15.02 57,596.42 3 172,789.25 2007 459,755,000 115,117 3,994 12.39 49,483.26 3 148,449.78 2006 380,858,000 104,387 3,649 11.05 40,316.14 3 120,948.42 2005 417,957,000 108,772 3,843 11.08 42,574.96 3 127,724.88 2004 409,140,000 107,546 3,804 9.73 37,016.09 3 111,048.26 2003 294,955,000 92,358 3,194 9.86 31,488.95 3 94,466.85 2002 281,039,000 87,840 3,199 9.69 31,002.59 3 93,007.78 2001 265,118,000 96,040 2,760 8.52 23,519.42 3 70,558.27 2000 248,436,000 93,700 2,651 8.47 22,457.95 3 67,373.85 1999 240,865,000 91,730 2,626 8.09 21,242.75 3 63,728.26 1998 185,241,000 70,950 2,611 8.34 21,774.63 3 65,323.89

Number of Harvest per Year

Total Revenue per Year

Average Yield (converted to Kg.)

Land Use (hectare)

Yield per Hectare

Average Market Price

per Kg. Total



b. Cost of seedlings based on Bureau of Agricultural Statistics

2010 P 959.00 3 P 2,877.00 2009 981.00 3 2,943.00 2008 682.00 3 2,046.00 2007 505.00 3 1,515.00 2006 493.00 3 1,479.00 2005 481.00 3 1,443.00 2004 425.00 3 1,275.00 2003 408.00 3 1,224.00 2002 406.00 3 1,218.00 2001 392.27 3 1,176.81 2000 374.66 3 1,123.98 1999 357.84 3 1,073.53 1998 341.78 3 1,025.34

Total P 20,419.66

Price per Hectare


Total Cost of Seedlings

• Price of seedlings from 1998-2001 was projected based on the inflation rate from Bureau of

Agricultural Statistics.

c. Cost of fertilizer based on Bureau of Agricultural Statistics

2010 P 6,397.72 3 P 19,193.16 2009 6,012.90 3 18,038.69 2008 5,765.00 3 17,295.00 2007 4,890.00 3 14,670.00 2006 4,639.00 3 13,917.00 2005 4,589.00 3 13,767.00 2004 3,359.00 3 10,077.00 2003 2,654.00 3 7,962.00 2002 2,114.00 3 6,342.00 2001 2,042.51 3 6,127.54 2000 1,950.82 3 5,852.47 1999 1,863.25 3 5,589.75 1998 1,779.61 3 5,338.83

Total P 144,170.43

Price per Hectare


Total Cost of Fertilizer



d. Cost of pesticide based on Bureau of Agricultural Statistics

2010 P 1,267.22 3 P 3,801.67 2009 1,191.00 3 3,573.00 2008 1,180.00 3 3,540.00 2007 1,092.00 3 3,276.00 2006 1,188.00 3 3,564.00 2005 1,262.00 3 3,786.00 2004 1,218.00 3 3,654.00 2003 1,226.00 3 3,678.00 2002 1,121.00 3 3,363.00 2001 1,083.09 3 3,249.28 2000 1,034.47 3 3,103.41 1999 988.03 3 2,964.10 1998 943.68 3 2,831.04

Total P 44,383.51

Price per Hectare



• Price of pesticide from 1998-2001 and 2010 was projected based on the inflation rate from Bureau of Agricultural Statistics.

e. Land Amortization based on the interview with a farmer in Bula, Camarines Sur.

f. Land Preparation Expenses - Gasoline was based on prices from www.alternat1ve.com/philippine-gas-prices.php and prices from 1998-2004 was adjusted based on inflation rate from Bureau of Agricultural Statistics.

2010 P 586.58 3 P 1,759.73 2009 516.38 3 1,549.13 2008 438.75 3 1,316.25 2007 584.55 3 1,753.65 2006 496.40 3 1,489.19 2005 483.98 3 1,451.93 2004 455.72 3 1,367.16 2003 439.04 3 1,317.11 2002 425.42 3 1,276.27 2001 411.04 3 1,233.11 2000 392.59 3 1,177.76 1999 374.96 3 1,124.89 1998 358.13 3 1,074.39

Total P 5,963.52 P 17,890.55

GasolineNumber of

Harvest per YearTotal Cost of

Land

http://www.alternat1ve.com/philippine



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

2010 P 5,814.00 3 P 17,442.00 2009 5,795.00 3 17,385.00 2008 4,879.00 3 14,637.00 2007 4,377.00 3 13,131.00 2006 4,087.00 3 12,261.00 2005 3,864.00 3 11,592.00 2004 3,691.00 3 11,073.00 2003 3,541.00 3 10,623.00 2002 4,441.00 3 13,323.00 2001 4,290.82 3 12,872.46 2000 4,098.21 3 12,294.62 1999 3,914.24 3 11,742.71 1998 3,738.53 3 11,215.58 Total P 169,592.37

Price per Hectare



h. Cost of threshing was based on CARRD’s previous study on rice farming:

2010 3,706 70 14 3 P 15.35 P 644.00 2009 3,590 68 14 3 14.28 580.36 2008 3,835 72 14 3 15.02 652.09 2007 3,994 75 15 3 12.39 560.22 2006 3,649 69 14 3 11.05 456.47 2005 3,843 73 15 3 11.08 482.04 2004 3,804 72 14 3 9.73 419.01 2003 3,194 60 12 3 9.86 356.52 2002 3,199 60 12 3 9.69 350.92 2001 2,760 52 10 3 8.52 266.21 2000 2,651 50 10 3 8.47 254.20 1999 2,626 50 10 3 8.09 240.50 1998 2,611 49 10 3 8.34 246.52

Total P 5,509.07

Number of Cavans


YearTotal Cost of

Threshing

Number of Cavans Paid for

ThreshingYield per hectare

Farmgate Priceof Palay




4.3.2. The Case of the Consolacion Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries

4.3.2.1. Nature and Cause of the Dispute

The Consolacion Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries have been bombarded with threats for more than a

decade. Fences and crops destroyed by huge tractors, gunshots, the fear of not being able to farm your land before you die, to see your land grow idle – bearing neither food nor livelihood, while you try to scrape for a decent living so you could make both ends meet for your family: all of these are bleak contrasts of the promises of agrarian reform for the 18 farmers of Dumalag Capiz. If somebody is to look at the records of the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office of Dumalag, the agrarian reform beneficiaries of the 44.3697 hectares of Consolacion landholding have owned their parcel of land since 2001.

4.3.2.2. Chronology of Events 1995: Task Force Sugarland was launched. The Task Force was mandated to speed up the acquisition and distribution of sugarcane landholdings throughout the country. It also prompted the coverage of the Ford Estate under CARP. 07 March 1997. The Land Management Sector under the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (LMS-DENR) approved the subdivision survey of the landholding. 18 September 1988. The Land Bank of the Philippines issued a Memorandum of Valuation. Less than two months after, the Certificate of Land Ownership Awards (CLOA) were generated and registered at the Registry of Deeds. 20 October 2000. DAR distributed the individual CLOA to qualified ARBs.

Barely two months after, non-CARP beneficiaries Primitiva Fagtanac, Federico Faderugao Jr., and

Richard Biaco illegally entered the ARBs’ landholding, occupied the land and prevented the ARBs from farming their legitimate shares. 26 February 2001. The DAR Regional Director issued the order of installation to the MARO 21 June 2011. The DAR Provincial Officer, Legal Officer and MARO, together with the Philippine National Police – Dumalag facilitated the execution of the order of the regional director. The DAR requested the PNP to deter any group that would stop the ARBs in possessing their lands. However, after the ceremonial installation and after the DAR and PNP left the site, Richard Biaco and his cohorts harassed, intimidated and prevented the ARBs from entering the landholding. 06 July 2001. The group of Richard Biaco sent a letter addressed to former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo protesting on the identification and qualification of the Consolacion farmer-beneficiaries. Local dialogues and negotiations were facilitated through DAR, CARRD and Bombo Radyo but to no avail. Further delays in resolving the problem the farmer-beneficiaries are at the losing end because the group of Mr. Biaco is in the physical/actual possession of the land. 23 November 2001. As advised by CARRD, the farmer-beneficiaries sought the legal advice of Atty. Daniel Dinopol and consultations/legal clinics were held in preparation for their legal battle. 11 December 2001. The farmer-beneficiaries executed a Special Power of Attorney and appointed Chairperson Maria Fungot as their Attorney-in-Fact.



22 January 2002. A BARC meeting was held and attended by all parties concerned. However, the problem was not settled. The BARC Chairman endorsed the case to MARO Salazar. 17 June 2002. The Farmer-beneficiaries filed a complaint/petition for Peaceful Maintenance of ARBs through their counsel Atty. Daniel Dinopol at the PARAD-Capiz. Preliminary hearing was set by the PARAD. 24 September 2002. The first hearing of the DARAB CASE NO. 1983, 1884, 1985, 1986 and 1987 (CAPIZ – 2002) was held. The respondents appeared with Counsel Atty. Navarra while the plaintiffs are represented by Atty. Dinopol. Both parties presented preliminary arguments on the case. Atty. Mario Niel San Felix took over the responsibility of Atty. Daniel Dinopol as counsel of the Plaintiffs and Atty. Jose Gelacio Lira entered his appearance as counsel for the Defendants (due to withdrawal of Atty. Tomas Navarra). 14 May 2003. The Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), Agrarian Operations Center, Farmers Receivables Transaction Division, Iznart St., Iloilo City sent a notice/invitation duly signed by MR. LEMUEL F. SEMBRANO, OIC-AOC, VI-A and called for a meeting at the Dumalag Municipal Hall, Dumalag, Capiz. This meeting was about the failure of the ARBs to pay for their land amortization. The ARBs argued and pointed that despite the CLOAs that have served as proof of their land ownership; they have not cultivated the land ever since it was awarded to them. 23 May 2003. After a series of motions filed by the defendants to postpone the hearing, Atty. Navarra filed a motion to withdraw as counsel of the respondents. 03 March 2004. The PARAD issued an order directing the parties/counsels to submit their respective position paper, affidavit and documentary evidence in five (5) cases, within a period of thirty (30) days from receipt of the Order. 14 May 2004. The PARAD released the decision and all the five (5) cases were dismissed without prejudice for being premature, except the case of Mr. Biaco for lack of cause of action because he pleaded that he is not occupying the lands under litigation. In just mere denial and without thorough investigation by the PARAD, Mr. Richard Biaco and his minions continued to occupy the lands awarded to farmer-beneficiaries. 27 January 2005. The DAR Regional Director issued an Order dated December 21, 2004 that the complaint of Mr. Biaco, et al is without legal basis. It tasked DAR-Capiz to re-install the Farmer-beneficiaries. However, the MARO asked for more time to take action because the order is not yet final. The farmer-beneficiaries went to the DAR Regional Office reporting the inaction of the MARO and the DAR legal officer promised to release the Order of Finality on or before the end of February 2005. 30 March 2005. Atty. Jose Gelacio Lira counsel of Mr. Biaco, et al filed a motion for reconsideration at the DAR Regional Office. The farmer-beneficiaries requested CARRD to reconsider its decision to terminate the services of Atty. San Felix due to lack of funds because they need legal counsel to defend their case. 19 June 2008. The DAR Secretary issued an Order dismissing the case filed by Richard Biaco, for lack of merit and affirmed the Orders of the DAR Regional Director – VI. 15 July 2008. The Petitioners-Appellants filed a motion for reconsideration. Since then the case became dormant in spite of several follow-up letters sent by the ARBs and calls made by the Chairperson of CARBMPC at the office of DAR-Capiz. July 2008. During the visit of CARRD Board of Trustees headed by Mr. Antonio Quizon, Mr. Rainier Almazan and Mr. Oscar “Ka Oca Castillo” in Iloilo City granted the request of the Chairperson of Consolacion-ARBMPC to continue its support to the group. One of the options identified is to mobilize key leaders to personally follow-up/lobby the case at DARCO.



November 2010. Four (4) key leaders of Consolacion ARBMPC launched a 14-day mobilization/lobbying at DARCO – Quezon City to speed-up the resolution of the case pending at the OSEC. It started on November 10, 2009 and ended on November 22, 2010 with the following outputs:

1) Gained substantial legal and financial support from various civil society organizations in Quezon

City; 2) Director James Arsenio O. Ponce issued a request dated November 17, 2010 to the DAR Secretary

for the early resolution of the case and be certified as Flashpoint Case; 3) On November 18, 2009 Atty. Jim G. Coleto, Head Executive Assistant, OSEC issued a Certification

that the case in Consolacion, Dumalag is a FLASHPOINT CASE and must be resolved immediately; and

4) The four (4) leaders gained knowledge and experiences in pursuing the case at DARCO and established contacts to key persons at the OSEC, BALA, BARIE and other offices.

A week after, the ARBs received copies of Resolution dated November 23, 2009 issued by DAR Secretary Nasser Pangandaman that the motion for reconsideration of the Petitioner-Appellants is DENIED for lack of merit.

9 December 2009. Atty. Jose Gelacio Lira, counsel for the petitioners-appellants filed a Notice of at the DAR 3 February 2010. The DAR endorsed/forwarded the case to the Office of the President.

08 January 2010Atty. Mario Niel San Felix filed a Motion for Reinstallation Pending Appeal dated January 8, 2010 to the DARCO. 15 September 2010. While planning for the ceremonial land occupation for the next day, Richard Biaco and his group plowed the parcel of land that the farmers have been preparing for the next day’s event. A confrontation ensued, followed by the filing of a complaint to the PNP office in Dumalag. The police, however, refused to provide the complainants with a copy of the blotter record.

4.3.2.3. Case Related Expenditures

Approximately, the farmers’ group has spent P 289,000 to go back and forth to Roxas City and to the Regional Office where the offices of MARO and PARO are located: The details follow:

Fare to Roxas City P 200.00 No. of Visits per Year 12 P 2,400.00 Fare to Regional Office P 200.00 No. of Visits per Year 12 2,400.00 Total P 4,800.00 No. of Representative ARBs 4 Total P 19,200.00 No. of Years 10.00 Total Transportation Expense P 192,000.00 Lawyers' Fees P 5,000.00 No. of Years 4 20,000.00

P 50.00 500.00

No. of Years 10 P 20,000.00

No. of Attempts 3 60,000.00 P 5,500.00

No. of Installations 3 16,500.00 Total Expenses Incurred P 289,000.00

Reproduction and Distribution of Case Documents

Land Preparation for Ceremonial Occupation

Other expenses during ceremonial installations



4.3.2.4. Foregone Income

1. Alternative Source of Livelihood. Net Income of an ARB working as a farm worker with corn as the main crop for two harvest seasons in CY-2010:

Revenue:Main Crop P 61,309.71 By-product 24,000.00 Total P 85,309.71

Less:ExpensesSeedlings A P 704.37 Fertilizer B 10,533.60 Pesticides C 366.02 Rent Expense D 8,445.60 Land Preparation E 14,569.04 Post Harvest ExpensesF 21,868.86 56,487.48


Note:

A – C: Cost of inputs used and inflation rate (provincial rate) were based on Bureau of Agricultural Statistics

D: An ARB is paying 6 sacks of corn per harvest as payment for rent. Rent expense is computed as follows:

Price per Kg. of Corn P 11.73 Number of Kg. per Sack 60 Price per Sack P 703.80 Number of Sacks Paid per Harvest 6 Total Amount of Rent Expense Per Harvest P 4,222.80 Numbre of Harvests per Year 2 Total Amount of Rent Expense Per Year P 8,445.60

E: Land preparation expenses were based on Agribusiness and Marketing Assistance Division (2007)

adjusted based on the inflation rate (provincial rate) from Bureau of Agricultural Statistics

Plowing P 4,581.46 Planting 1,908.94 Sidedressing 794.12 Total Cost of Land Preparation P 7,284.52 Number of Harvests per Year 2 Total Cost of Land Preparation per Year P 14,569.04



F: Post harvest expenses were based on Agribusiness and Marketing Assistance Division (2007) adjusted based on the inflation rate (provincial rate) from Bureau of Agricultural Statistics

Harvesting P 4,276.03 In-field Hauling 610.86 Shelling and Drying 3,604.09 Trucking 2,443.45 Total P 10,934.43 Number of Harvests per Year 2 Total Post Harvest Expense per Year P 21,868.86

2. Net income for one year (2010) had an ARB was able to till the land awarded to him with CORN as

his main crop:

Revenue:Main Crop P 61,309.71 By-product 24,000.00 Total P 85,309.71

Less:ExpensesSeedlings P 704.37 Fertilizer 10,533.60 Pesticides 366.02 Land Amortization 2,233.33 Land Preparation 14,569.04 Post Harvest Expenses 18,570.20 Total P 46,976.55




3. Lost income for an ARB for ten years with CORN as his main crop approximately amounted to P 201,948.62, assuming that a one-hectare land

was awarded to him.

Revenue:Main Crop A P 61,309.71 P 59,058.05 P 53,189.53 P 51,548.10 P 35,340.79 P 32,419.72 P 30,770.53 P 24,704.16 P 21,950.36 P 17,334.89 P 387,625.83 By-product B 24,000.00 22,556.39 21,626.45 20,155.13 19,644.38 18,222.98 17,159.12 16,530.94 16,018.35 15,476.67 191,390.42 Total P 85,309.71 P 81,614.44 P 74,815.99 P 71,703.23 P 54,985.17 P 50,642.70 P 47,929.65 P 41,235.10 P 37,968.72 P 32,811.56 P 579,016.24

Less:ExpensesSeedl ings C P 704.37 P 662.00 P 612.00 P 554.00 P 518.00 P 456.00 P 496.00 P 396.00 P 412.00 P 398.07 P 5,208.44 Fertil izer D 10,533.60 9,900.00 15,888.00 15,240.00 14,328.00 4,844.00 3,904.00 2,882.00 2,232.00 2,156.52 81,908.12 Pesticides E 366.02 344.00 382.00 332.00 334.00 350.00 380.00 366.00 250.00 241.55 3,345.56 Land Amortization F 2,233.33 2,233.33 2,233.33 2,233.33 2,233.33 2,233.33 2,233.33 2,233.33 2,233.33 2,233.33 22,333.30 Land Preparation G 14,569.04 13,692.71 13,128.19 12,235.04 11,924.99 11,062.14 10,416.33 10,035.00 9,723.84 9,395.01 116,182.28 Post Harvest Expenses H 18,570.20 17,453.20 16,733.65 15,595.20 15,200.00 14,100.18 13,277.01 12,790.95 12,394.34 11,975.20 148,089.93 Total P 46,976.55 P 44,285.23 P 48,977.17 P 46,189.57 P 44,538.32 P 33,045.65 P 30,706.67 P 28,703.28 P 27,245.50 P 26,399.68 P 377,067.62

Net Income P 38,333.15 P 37,329.20 P 25,838.81 P 25,513.66 P 10,446.85 P 17,597.04 P 17,222.98 P 12,531.82 P 10,723.22 P 6,411.88 P 201,948.62

2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 Total2010 2009 2008 2007 2006



A: Average yield, land use and average provincial market price were based on the data from Bureau of Agricultural Statistics.

2010 41,550,000 15,899 2,613 P 11.73 P 30,654.85 2 P 61,309.71 2009 57,930,000 22,031 2,629 11.23 29,529.02 2 59,058.05 2008 58,693,000 23,857 2,460 10.81 26,594.77 2 53,189.53 2007 77,162,000 30,836 2,502 10.30 25,774.05 2 51,548.10 2006 42,054,000 21,800 1,929 9.16 17,670.40 2 35,340.79 2005 43,159,000 21,380 2,019 8.03 16,209.86 2 32,419.72 2004 20,501,000 11,313 1,812 8.49 15,385.26 2 30,770.53 2003 16,033,000 9,086 1,765 7.00 12,352.08 2 24,704.16 2002 8,539,000 5,524 1,546 7.10 10,975.18 2 21,950.36 2001 6,374,000 5,111 1,247 6.95 8,667.44 2 17,334.89

Total P 387,625.83


Average Yield (converted to

Land Use (hectare) Yield per Hectare

Average Market Price per Kg. * Total


*Average market price for yellow corn was used.

B: Based on an interview with the farmers in Consolacion, Capiz. C: Cost of seedlings was based on the data from Bureau of Agricultural Statistics

2010 P 352.18 2 P 704.37 2009 331.00 2 662.00 2008 306.00 2 612.00 2007 277.00 2 554.00 2006 259.00 2 518.00 2005 228.00 2 456.00 2004 248.00 2 496.00 2003 198.00 2 396.00 2002 206.00 2 412.00 2001 199.03 2 398.07 Total P 5,208.44

Price per Hectare*



*Price of seedlings for 2001 and 2010 was projected based on the inflation rate (provincial rate) from Bureau of Agricultural Statistics.



D: Cost of fertilizer was based on the data from Bureau of Agricultural Statistics

2010 P 5,266.80 2 P 10,533.60 2009 4,950.00 2 9,900.00 2008 7,944.00 2 15,888.00 2007 7,620.00 2 15,240.00 2006 7,164.00 2 14,328.00 2005 2,422.00 2 4,844.00 2004 1,952.00 2 3,904.00 2003 1,441.00 2 2,882.00 2002 1,116.00 2 2,232.00 2001 1,078.26 2 2,156.52 Total P 81,908.12

Price per Hectare*

Number of Harvest per Year Total Cost of Fertilizer

*Price of fertilizer for 2001 and 2010 was projected based on the inflation rate (provincial rate) from Bureau of Agricultural Statistics.

E: Cost of pesticide was based on the data from Bureau of Agricultural Statistics

2010 P 183.01 2 P 366.02 2009 172.00 2 344.00 2008 191.00 2 382.00 2007 166.00 2 332.00 2006 167.00 2 334.00 2005 175.00 2 350.00 2004 190.00 2 380.00 2003 183.00 2 366.00 2002 125.00 2 250.00 2001 120.77 2 241.55 Total P 3,345.56

Price per Hectare

Number of Harvest per Year Total Cost of Pesticide

*Price of pesticide for 2001 and 2010 was projected based on the inflation rate(provincial rate) from Bureau of Agricultural Statistics.

F: Land Amortization is computed as follows:

Loan Payable to Land Bank P 67,000.00 Number of Years Payable 30 yearsAnnual Amortization P 2,233.33

G: Land Preparation Expenses Based on Agribusiness and Marketing Assistance Division (2007) adjusted based on the inflation rate (provincial rate) from Bureau of Agricultural Statistics.



2010 P 4,581.46 P 1,908.94 P 794.12 P 7,284.52 2009 4,305.88 1,794.12 746.35 6,846.35 2008 4,128.36 1,720.15 715.58 6,564.10 2007 3,847.50 1,603.12 666.90 6,117.52 2006 3,750.00 1,562.50 650.00 5,962.49 2005 3,478.66 1,449.44 602.97 5,531.07 2004 3,275.58 1,364.82 567.77 5,208.16 2003 3,155.66 1,314.86 546.98 5,017.50 2002 3,057.81 1,274.09 530.02 4,861.92 2001 2,954.41 1,231.00 512.10 4,697.50 Total P 36,535.31 P 15,223.03 P 6,332.79 P 58,091.14

Plowing Planting Sidedressing Total

H: Post Harvest Expenses Based on Agribusiness and Marketing Assistance Division (2007) adjusted based on the inflation rate (provincial rate) from Bureau of Agricultural Statistics.

2010 P 4,276.03 P 610.86 P 794.12 P 3,604.09 P 9,285.10 2 P 18,570.20 2009 4,018.83 574.12 746.35 3,387.30 8,726.60 2 17,453.20 2008 3,853.14 550.45 715.58 3,247.65 8,366.82 2 16,733.65 2007 3,591.00 513.00 666.90 3,026.70 7,797.60 2 15,595.20 2006 3,500.00 500.00 650.00 2,950.00 7,600.00 2 15,200.00 2005 3,246.75 463.82 602.97 2,736.55 7,050.09 2 14,100.18 2004 3,057.20 436.74 567.77 2,576.79 6,638.51 2 13,277.01 2003 2,945.28 420.75 546.98 2,482.46 6,395.48 2 12,790.95 2002 2,853.96 407.71 530.02 2,405.48 6,197.17 2 12,394.34 2001 2,757.45 393.92 512.10 2,324.14 5,987.60 2 11,975.20 Total P 34,099.63 P 4,871.36 P 6,332.79 28,741.18 P 74,044.96 P 148,089.93

Total Post Harvest ExpensesHarvesting

In-field Hauling

Shelling and Drying Trucking Total


Net income for one year (2010) had an ARB was able to till the land awarded to him with SUGARCANE as his main crop:

Revenue:Main Crop P 122,909.72 Total P 122,909.72

Less:ExpensesSeedlings P 3,329.26 Ferti l izer 7,606.68 Pesticides 2,108.53 Land Amortization 2,233.33 Land Preparation 10,875.57 Hired Labor - Others 11,918.74 Hired Labor - Crop Maintenance 2,596.82 Harvesting/Hauling 10,820.08 Transport Cost 9,155.45 Total P 60,644.46




1. Lost income for an ARB for ten years with SUGARCANE as his main crop approximately amounted to P 549,589.93, assuming that a one-

hectare land was awarded to him.

Revenue:Main Crop A P 122,909.72 P 105,952.57 P 104,787.77 P 110,422.52 P 87,491.56 P 102,904.29 P 140,445.16 P 122,112.21 P 85,730.19 P 66,935.74 P 1,049,691.73 Total P 122,909.72 P 105,952.57 P 104,787.77 P 110,422.52 P 87,491.56 P 102,904.29 P 140,445.16 P 122,112.21 P 85,730.19 P 66,935.74 P 1,049,691.73

Less:ExpensesSeedlings B P 3,329.26 P 3,129.00 P 3,000.00 P 2,795.90 P 2,725.05 P 2,527.87 P 2,380.30 P 2,293.16 P 2,222.05 P 2,146.91 P 26,549.49 Fertilizer C 7,606.68 8,761.20 8,400.00 7,828.52 7,630.13 7,078.05 6,664.83 6,420.84 6,221.74 6,011.34 72,623.33 Pesticides D 2,108.53 1,981.70 1,900.00 1,770.74 1,725.86 1,600.99 1,507.52 1,452.33 1,407.30 1,359.71 16,814.68 Land Amortization E 2,233.33 2,233.33 2,233.33 2,233.33 2,233.33 2,233.33 2,233.33 2,233.33 2,233.33 2,233.33 22,333.30 Land Preparation F 10,875.57 10,221.40 9,800.00 9,133.27 8,901.82 8,257.72 7,775.63 7,490.98 7,258.70 7,013.23 86,728.32 Hired Labor - Others G 11,918.74 11,201.82 10,740.00 10,009.32 9,755.67 9,049.79 8,521.46 8,209.50 7,954.94 7,685.93 95,047.16 Hired Labor - Crop Maintenance H 2,596.82 2,440.62 2,340.00 2,180.80 2,125.54 1,971.74 1,856.63 1,788.66 1,733.20 1,674.59 20,708.60 Harvesting/Hauling I 10,820.08 10,169.25 9,750.00 9,086.67 8,856.41 8,215.59 7,735.96 7,452.76 7,221.66 6,977.45 86,285.83 Transport Cost J 9,155.45 8,604.75 8,250.00 7,688.72 7,493.88 6,951.65 6,545.81 6,306.18 6,110.64 5,904.00 73,011.09 Total P 60,644.46 P 58,743.07 P 56,413.33 P 52,727.27 P 51,447.70 P 47,886.73 P 45,221.47 P 43,647.72 P 42,363.55 P 41,006.49 P 500,101.80

Net Income P 62,265.26 P 47,209.50 P 48,374.44 P 57,695.24 P 36,043.86 P 55,017.56 P 95,223.69 P 78,464.49 P 43,366.64 P 25,929.24 P 549,589.93

2004 2003 2002 2001 Total2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005



A: Average yield, land use and average provincial market price were based from the data on Bureau of Agricultural Statistics.

2010 386,623,370 7,732.26 50,001 10.25% 5,125.14 P 23.98 P 122,909.72 2009 496,933,320 10,275.24 48,362 9.72% 4,700.81 22.54 105,952.57 2008 551,595,090 10,408.44 52,995 9.15% 4,849.04 21.61 104,787.77 2007 580,288,380 10,160.44 57,113 9.60% 5,482.80 20.14 110,422.52 2006 497,390,580 10,378.20 47,926 9.30% 4,457.16 19.63 87,491.56 2005 643,049,400 10,832.70 59,362 9.52% 5,651.25 18.21 102,904.29 2004 681,462,640 7,529.19 90,509 9.05% 8,191.10 17.15 140,445.16 2003 576,279,560 7,195.20 80,092 9.23% 7,392.51 16.52 122,112.21 2002 455,726,970 7,615.20 59,844 8.95% 5,356.07 16.01 85,730.19 2001 458,497,800 9,004.20 50,920 8.50% 4,328.24 15.46 66,935.74

Total P 1,049,691.73

Total RevenueAverage Yield

(converted to Kg.) Land Use (hectare) Yield per HectareAverage Recovery

PercentageSugar Recovery (in

Kg)Average Market

Price per Kg.



*Average market price for 2008 was based from the Impact of Tariff Reduction on the Sugar Industry, Small Sugarcane Farmers and the Philippine Muscovado Industry by the Center for Food and Agri Business. **Inflation rate (national level) was based on the data from Bureau of Agricultural Statistics ***Average recovery percentage was based on the data from Philippine Sugar Research Institute Foundation, Inc. B: Cost of cane points for 2008 was based from the Impact of Tariff Reduction on the Sugar Industry, Small Sugarcane Farmers and the Philippine Muscovado Industry by the Center for Food and Agri Business.

2010 P 554.88 6 P 3,329.26 2009 521.50 6 3,129.00 2008 500.00 6 3,000.00 2007 465.98 6 2,795.90 2006 454.17 6 2,725.05 2005 421.31 6 2,527.87 2004 396.72 6 2,380.30 2003 382.19 6 2,293.16 2002 370.34 6 2,222.05 2001 357.82 6 2,146.91 Total P 26,549.49

Unit PriceQuantity Needed Per

Hectare (laksa)


*Price of cane points for 2001-2007 and 2009-2010 was projected based on the inflation rate (provincial rate) from Bureau of Agricultural Statistics. C: Cost of fertilizer for 2008 was based from the Impact of Tariff Reduction on the Sugar Industry, Small Sugarcane Farmers and the Philippine Muscovado Industry by the Center for Food and Agri Business.

2010 P 1,553.65 P 887.80 P 2,441.45 6 P 9,321.92 2009 1,460.20 834.40 2,294.60 6 8,761.20 2008 1,400.00 800.00 2,200.00 6 8,400.00 2007 1,304.75 745.57 2,050.33 6 7,828.52 2006 1,271.69 726.68 1,998.37 6 7,630.13 2005 1,179.67 674.10 1,853.77 6 7,078.05 2004 1,110.80 634.75 1,745.55 6 6,664.83 2003 1,070.14 611.51 1,681.65 6 6,420.84 2002 1,036.96 592.55 1,629.50 6 6,221.74 2001 1,001.89 572.51 1,574.40 6 6,011.34 Total P 74,338.56

Diammonium Phosphate Urea Total

Quantity Needed Per Hectare (bags) Total Cost of Fertilizer

*Price of diammonium phosphate and urea for 2001-2007 and 2009-2010 was projected based on the inflation rate (provincial rate) from Bureau of Agricultural Statistics.



D: Cost of pesticide for 2008 was based from the Impact of Tariff Reduction on the Sugar Industry, Small Sugarcane Farmers and the Philippine Muscovado Industry by the Center for Food and Agri Business.

2010 P 776.83 P 1,331.70 P 2,109 1 P 2,108.53 2009 730.10 1,251.60 1,982 1 1,981.70 2008 700.00 1,200.00 1,900 1 1,900.00 2007 652.38 1,118.36 1,771 1 1,770.74 2006 635.84 1,090.02 1,726 1 1,725.86 2005 589.84 1,011.15 1,601 1 1,600.99 2004 555.40 952.12 1,508 1 1,507.52 2003 535.07 917.26 1,452 1 1,452.33 2002 518.48 888.82 1,407 1 1,407.30 2001 500.95 858.76 1,360 1 1,359.71 Total P 16,814.68

24, D Karmix TotalQuantity Needed Per

Hectare


*Price of 24,D and Karmix for 2001-2007 and 2009-2010 was projected based on the inflation rate (provincial rate) from Bureau of Agricultural Statistics. E: Land Amortization is computed as follows: Loan Payable to Land Bank P 67,000.00 Number of Years Payable 30 yearsAnnual Amortization P 2,233.33

F: Cost of land preparation for 2008 was based from the Impact of Tariff Reduction on the Sugar Industry, Small Sugarcane Farmers and the Philippine Muscovado Industry by the Center for Food and Agri Business.

2010 P 9,432.89 P 1,442.68 P 10,875.57 2009 8,865.50 1,355.90 10,221.40 2008 8,500.00 1,300.00 9,800.00 2007 7,921.71 1,211.56 9,133.27 2006 7,720.97 1,180.85 8,901.82 2005 7,162.31 1,095.41 8,257.72 2004 6,744.17 1,031.46 7,775.63 2003 6,497.27 993.70 7,490.98 2002 6,295.81 962.89 7,258.70 2001 6,082.91 930.33 7,013.23 Total P 75,223.55 P 11,504.78 P 86,728.32

Plowing FurrowingTotal Cost of Land

Preparation

*Cost of land preparation for 2001-2007 and 2009-2010 was projected based on the inflation rate (provincial rate) from Bureau of Agricultural Statistics. G: Cost of hired labor - others for 2008 was based from the Impact of Tariff Reduction on the Sugar Industry, Small Sugarcane Farmers and the Philippine Muscovado Industry by the Center for Food and Agri Business.



2010 P 7,990.21 P 599.27 P 3,329.26 P 11,918.74 2009 7,509.60 563.22 3,129.00 11,201.82 2008 7,200.00 540.00 3,000.00 10,740.00 2007 6,710.16 503.26 2,795.90 10,009.32 2006 6,540.12 490.51 2,725.05 9,755.67 2005 6,066.90 455.02 2,527.87 9,049.79 2004 5,712.71 428.45 2,380.30 8,521.46 2003 5,503.57 412.77 2,293.16 8,209.50 2002 5,332.92 399.97 2,222.05 7,954.94 2001 5,152.58 386.44 2,146.91 7,685.93 Total P 63,718.77 P 4,778.91 26,549.49 P 95,047.16

Cutting of canepoints Hauling Planting Total

*Cost of hired labor - others for 2001-2007 and 2009-2010 was projected based on the inflation rate (provincial rate) from Bureau of Agricultural Statistics. H: Cost of labor - crop maintenance for 2008 was based from the Impact of Tariff Reduction on the Sugar Industry, Small Sugarcane Farmers and the Philippine Muscovado Industry by the Center for Food and Agri Business.

Fertilization Weeding Pest and Disease

Control Total2010 P 1,664.63 P 599.27 P 332.93 P 2,596.82 2009 1,564.50 563.22 312.90 2,440.62 2008 1,500.00 540.00 300.00 2,340.00 2007 1,397.95 503.26 279.59 2,180.80 2006 1,362.52 490.51 272.50 2,125.54 2005 1,263.94 455.02 252.79 1,971.74 2004 1,190.15 428.45 238.03 1,856.63 2003 1,146.58 412.77 229.32 1,788.66 2002 1,111.03 399.97 222.21 1,733.20 2001 1,073.45 386.44 214.69 1,674.59 Total P 13,274.74 P 4,778.91 2,654.95 P 20,708.60

*Cost of hired labor – crop maintenance for 2001-2007 and 2009-2010 was projected based on the inflation rate (provincial rate) from Bureau of Agricultural Statistics. I-J: Cost of harvesting and hauling and transport cost for 2008 was based from the Impact of Tariff Reduction on the Sugar Industry, Small Sugarcane Farmers and the Philippine Muscovado Industry by the Center for Food and Agri Business, and Cost of harvesting and hauling and transport cost for 2001-2007 and 2009-2010 was projected based on the inflation rate (provincial rate) from Bureau of Agricultural Statistics.



4.3.3. The Case of Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries of KAMMPHIL Maramag, Bukidnon

4.3.3.1. Nature and Cause of the Dispute On paper, the 26 farmer-beneficiaries of the former Guingona Estate are already recipients of a

parcel of agricultural land by virtue of a Certificate of Land of Ownership Award issued to them in 2006. Ironically, the farmers have not tilled the land until now.

4.3.3.2. Chronology of Events These farmer-beneficiaries are members of a farmer organization called KAMMPhil (Kapunungan sa

Mamumuong Mag-uuma sa Philippine Greenhills), one of the three factions of farmer-groups contending for the ownership of the 609-ha. Guingona Estate in the village of San Miguel, Maramag, Bukidnon. The said landholding was covered by CARP in 1989. The tenancy arrangement was based on the hacienda-system, which means that the agrarian reform beneficiaries are farm laborers, who – owing to the specialized farming arrangement; do not have a specific area of land to till. This led to conflicts in the subdivision of land to the farmers, and the slow implementation of the program dragged the land distribution until now.

Because of the huge size of the Estate being covered, land distribution took place in several batches. In the case of these 26 agrarian reform beneficiaries, the awarding of CLOA took place in 2006. This however, did not lead to the installation of farmer-beneficiaries to their respective parcels of land, as other farmers have already occupied the areas that have been awarded to them.

Mediation and conciliation proceedings facilitated by the PARO of South Bukidnon and other civil society organizations such as BALAOD-Mindanaw and PAKISAMA have been fruitless. Those who have illegally occupied the land refused to leave, while the CLOA-recipients were forced to explore other avenues for which they could acquire a parcel of land to till.

The MARO, however, suggested re-allocating the CLOA-holders to other parcels of the Estate that are still un-awarded and undistributed. Only, this would entail the farmer-beneficiaries to pay for a private surveyor amounting to PhP 4,000.00 each. According to the MARO, DAR has no budget for the conduct of such surveys. The farmers initially refused, but seeing that their options are getting limited, they have acquiesced to the MARO’s suggestion. The farmers likewise feel the peculiarity of their situation, for in spite of their CLOA, the MARO seems to be unsure where to set the boundaries of the lands.

In spite of this, the farmers remained uninstalled until now. Frequent trips to Malaybalay, Bukidnon and even to Cagayan de Oro afforded them with no result. Because they have don’t have a BARC and they are gradually losing faith to their MARO, they have tried to present their case to the DARAB, but a representative from the said office allegedly told them that the DARAB could not assist them on their case because while they are CLOA-holders, they are uninstalled. The farmers were baffled with this refusal, for their installation was the very reason why they were seeking the assistance of the DARAB. On top of this, LBP has been calling the attention of these 26 farmer-beneficiaries for their inability to pay for the annual amortization, which was pegged at PhP 6,700.00/ hectare.

4.3.3.3. Case-Related Expenditures Farmers’ have spent approximately P 37,200 a year to go back and forth to Cagayan, where offices of

MARO and PARO are located. The details follow:



Fares of 5 representative ARBs (5xP400) P 2,000.00 No of visits in Cagayan 3 P 6,000.00 Fares of 26 persons to attend dialogues with MARO and PARO (26xP400) P 10,400.00 No of dialogues in a year 3 31,200.00 Total P 37,200.00 No. of Years 6 Total Expenses Incurred P 223,200.00

4.3.3.4. Foregone Income Alternative Source of Livelihood. Net Income of an ARB working as a farm worker with corn as the

main crop for two harvest season (CY-2010): Revenue:

Main Crop P 90,686.63 Less:Expenses

Seedlings A P 1,127.84 Fertilizer B 11,555.04 Pesticides C 44.69 Rent Expense D 30,000.00 Land Preparation E 13,536.48 Post Harvest Expenses F 10,328.42 66,592.47

Net Income P 24,094.16 A – C: Cost of inputs used and inflation rate were based on Bureau of Agricultural Statistics D: Based on the latest lease price in Bukidnon E: Land Preparation Expenses Based on Agribusiness and Marketing Assistance Division (2007) adjusted based on inflation rate (provincial rate) from Bureau of Agricultural Statistics

Plowing P 2,462.26 Planting 3,663.65 Sidedressing 642.33 Total Cost of Land Preparation P 6,768.24 Number of Harvests per Year 2 Total Cost of Land Preparation per Year P 13,536.48

F: Post Harvest Expenses Based on Agribusiness and Marketing Assistance Division (2007) adjusted based on inflation rate (provincial rate) from Bureau of Agricultural Statistics

Harvesting P 1,536.24 In-field Hauling 624.49 Shelling and Drying 624.49 Trucking 2,378.99 Total P 5,164.21 Number of Harvests per Year 2 Total Post-Harvest Expenses for a Year P 10,328.42



Net income for one year (2010) had an ARB was able to till the land awarded to him with CORN as his main crop:

Revenue:Main Crop P 90,686.63

Less:ExpensesSeedlings P 1,127.84 Fertilizer 11,555.04 Pesticides 44.69 Land Amortization 6,700.00 Land Preparation 13,536.48 Post Harvest Expenses 10,328.42 Total P 43,292.47




Lost income for an ARB for five years with CORN as his main crop approximately amounted to P 184,695.29, assuming that a one-hectare land was awarded to him.

Revenue:Main Crop A P 90,686.63 P 79,571.57 P 78,378.96 P 74,065.76 P 63,690.44 P 386,393.36

Less:ExpensesSeedlings B P 1,127.84 P 1,060.00 P 1,046.00 P 914.00 P 848.00 P 4,995.84 Fertilizer C 11,555.04 10,860.00 16,756.00 8,218.00 8,218.00 55,607.04 Pesticides D 44.69 42.00 50.00 42.00 42.00 220.69 Land Amortization E 6,700.00 6,700.00 6,700.00 6,700.00 6,700.00 33,500.00 Land Preparation F 13,536.48 12,722.26 12,197.75 11,367.90 11,079.82 60,904.20 Post Harvest Expenses G 10,328.42 9,707.16 9,306.96 8,673.78 8,453.97 46,470.29 Total P 43,292.47 P 41,091.42 P 46,056.71 P 35,915.67 P 35,341.79 P 201,698.07

Net Income P 47,394.17 P 38,480.15 P 32,322.24 P 38,150.09 P 28,348.65 P 184,695.29

2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 Total

A: Average yield, land use and average provincial market price were based from the data on Bureau of Agricultural

Statistics.

2010 777,642,000 188,994 4,115 P 11.02 P 45,343.32 2 P 90,686.63 2009 777,256,000 198,486 3,916 10.16 39,785.78 2 79,571.57 2008 740,869,000 197,177 3,757 10.43 39,189.48 2 78,378.96 2007 703,735,000 185,089 3,802 9.74 37,032.88 2 74,065.76 2006 684,029,000 193,533 3,534 9.01 31,845.22 2 63,690.44

Total P 386,393.36


Average Yield (converted to Kg.)

Land Use (hectares)

Yield per Hectare

Average Market Price Total


*Average market price for yellow corn was used. B: Cost of seedlings was based on Bureau of Agricultural Statistics

2010 P 563.92 2 P 1,127.84 2009 530.00 2 1,060.00 2008 523.00 2 1,046.00 2007 457.00 2 914.00 2006 424.00 2 848.00 Total P 4,995.84

Price per Hectare



*Price of seedlings for 2010 was projected based on the inflation rate (provincial rate) from Bureau of Agricultural Statistics.



C: Cost of fertilizer based on Bureau of Agricultural Statistics

2010 P 5,777.52 2 P 11,555.04 2009 5,430.00 2 10,860.00 2008 8,378.00 2 16,756.00 2007 4,109.00 2 8,218.00 2006 4,109.00 2 8,218.00 Total P 55,607.04

Price per HectareNumber of Harvest per

Total Cost of Fertilizer

*Price of fertilizer for 2010 was projected based on the inflation rate (provincial rate) from Bureau of Agricultural Statistics.

D: Cost of pesticide based on Bureau of Agricultural Statistics

2010 P 22.34 2 P 44.69 2009 21.00 2 42.00 2008 25.00 2 50.00 2007 21.00 2 42.00 2006 21.00 2 42.00 Total P 220.69

Price per Hectare



*Price of pesticide for 2010 was projected based on the inflation rate(provincial rate) from Bureau of Agricultural Statistics.

E: Land amortization was based on an interview with the farmers F: Land Preparation Expenses Based on Agribusiness and Marketing Assistance Division (2007) adjusted based on inflation rate from Bureau of Agricultural Statistics

2010 P 2,462.26 P 3,663.65 P 642.33 P 6,768.24 2 P 13,536.48 2009 2,314.15 3,443.28 603.69 6,361.13 2 12,722.26 2008 2,218.75 3,301.32 578.80 6,098.88 2 12,197.75 2007 2,067.80 3,076.72 539.43 5,683.95 2 11,367.90 2006 2,015.40 2,998.75 525.76 5,539.91 2 11,079.82 Total P 11,078.36 P 16,483.73 P 2,890.01 P 30,452.10 P 60,904.20

Plowing Planting Sidedressing TotalNumber of Harvest per

Total Cost of Land Preparation



G: Post Harvest Expenses Based on Agribusiness and Marketing Assistance Division (2007) adjusted based on inflation rate (provincial rate) from Bureau of Agricultural Statistics

2010 P 1,536.24 P 624.49 P 624.49 P 2,378.99 P 5,164.21 2 P 10,328.42 2009 1,443.83 586.93 586.93 2,235.89 4,853.58 2 9,707.16 2008 1,384.31 562.73 562.73 2,143.71 4,653.48 2 9,306.96 2007 1,290.13 524.44 524.44 1,997.87 4,336.89 2 8,673.78 2006 1,257.44 511.15 511.15 1,947.24 4,226.99 2 8,453.97 Total P 6,911.95 P 2,809.75 P 2,809.75 10,703.71 P 23,235.15 P 46,470.29

Total Post Harvest

ExpensesHarvestingIn-field Hauling

Shelling and Drying Trucking Total


Year

4.3.4. Summary of Findings

BARFBA, Camarines Sur

CARBMPC, Capiz KAMMPHIL, Bukidnon

Period of Dispute 13 10 5 No. of Farmer-Beneficiaries 57 18 26 Area Covered by CARP 123 hectares 44.36 hectares 98 hectares Cause of Dispute The landowners have

been relentlessly petitioning for

exemption from CARP coverage, because the land is allegedly used

as a pasture area

Armed men illegally entered the landholding and forced

the farmers to leave the lands that have been

awarded to them

Legitimate agrarian reform beneficiaries could not occupy the landholding because

there are other people occupying their land

Nature of Dispute Farmers vs. Landowner Farmers vs. Land Grabbers Farmers vs. Farmers

Crops Planted Palay Corn Sugarcane Corn Total Case-Related Expenditures P 475,952.00 P 289,000.00 P 223,000.00 Income from Alternative Source of Livelihood of 1 ARB

P ------ P 28,822.23 P 24,094.16 Total Foregone Income for One Year of 1 ARB P 47,161.40 P 38,333.15 62,265.26 P 47,394.17 Total Foregone Income since the Year of Awarding of CLOA of 1 ARB

P 1,031,915.76 P 201,948.62 549,589.93 P 184,695.69 The findings revealed that significant costs have been incurred by the farmers in the course of settling their disputes. Owing to the nature of crops, it can be observed that sugarcane farmers in Visayas suffer the highest amount of foregone income in one year. While the cases presented varying nature of disputes, their impacts to the socio-economic conditions of the farmers are similar. The cases likewise revealed how the farmers’ situations worsened because of the delays in the resolution of their respective cases.



5. CONCLUSION

The Use of RB-OPIF in Evaluating CARP Performance in AJD

• The use of Organizational Performance Indicator Framework in the planning of programs and activities of the DAR is a laudable effort to integrate the three major final outputs of CARP: LTI, AJD and PBD. Through the OPIF, DAR was able to present how these 3 MFOs work towards the achievement of CARP’s societal goal on poverty alleviation.

• The use of OPIF pushed DAR to quantify its targets, such that compliance rather than commitment became the basis of performance evaluation. By placing too much emphasis on quantifiable indicators such as number of cases received and accomplished, the quality of accomplishing the cases have been compromised. This also results to the widening of gaps between the reported outputs and the societal goal of CARP.

Inconsistent and Overstated Accomplishments

• There are inconsistent and overstated accomplishments in the reports of the three documented provinces. These are also reflected in the reports of national accomplishments for 2010. The inconsistencies between the reports of DARAB and the representations in the quasi-judicial cases present significant proof on the varying definitions of AJD units in the manner of stating and counting their accomplishments.

• The manner of counting accomplishments as “per step undertaken” rather than “per actual case resolution” provides misleading views on the actual performance of DAR in AJD. Because actual accomplishments have not been reported by the DAR, there is no concrete basis for ascertaining the extent of the effectiveness of AJD in carrying out the societal goal of CARP on poverty alleviation.

Personnel Complement for AJD

• A large number of personnel in the provincial offices are working on a contractual basis. This leads to job tenurial insecurity, and plays a role in the quality of the performance of the staff.

• Lack of career paths among the staff leads to low motivation and high percentage of turn-over.

• There is no standard training framework or guidelines in handling agrarian cases in the provincial offices. These could have served as a viable training tool for the staff. Lack of training and education among the provincial staff leads to ignorance on the process of resolving agrarian disputes and doubts in the competencies of the legal officers, who represent the farmers in the quasi-judicial court. This also contributes to undue delays in the resolution of cases.

Budget Concerns

• No consistent cost parameters are provided for the adjudication of agrarian reform cases. Because the PARAD does not participate in the planning of its own budget and the management of the over-all funds for the province is under the discretion of the PARO, the releasing of budget for the PARAD as



well as other AJD units may be influenced by personal as well as political bickering in the department.

• Cost parameters for ALA do not reflect the actual expenses of the provinces in the provision of legal services to the farmers. This resulted to discrepancies between actual expenditures and reported case accomplishments.

• Disposal of fund savings are unclear among the provincial offices. Because the staff’s awareness is that fund savings are automatically appropriated as year-end financial incentives, there is an increased likelihood for the provincial offices to limit its expenses, to the extent that farmers are forced to shoulder the expenses in the dispute-resolution.

• The insufficiency of budget for activities such as implementation of agrarian reform case decisions and post-judgment activities constrain farmers to use their own money, if only to facilitate the prompt execution of case decisions.

Impact of Disputes to the Livelihood of Farmers

• While the inconsistent cost parameters for the adjudication of AR cases and the impractical cost parameters for ALA may appear undisruptive in the reports, it registers severe impact to the actual cases in the grassroots. The three documented cases of ARBs in Camarines Sur, Capiz, and Bukidnon showed that some of the expenses that should have been part of DAR’s services are actually shouldered by the farmers.

• The longer the duration of the dispute, the more detrimental it is to the livelihood condition of the farmers. The cases showed that case-related expenditures and foregone income would have spelled a huge difference in the poverty situation of the agrarian reform beneficiaries in the three provinces. The case likewise showed that the farmers’ socio-economic situations have worsened because of the long period of time it has taken to settle the disputes.

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

The Use of RB-OPIF in Evaluating CARP Performance in AJD

• Review the verifiable indicators for agrarian justice delivery so that it would reflect actual accomplishments of the staff in the field offices. Lessen quantifiable indicators and identify other measures, which have direct implication to the CARP societal goal.

Inconsistent and Overstated Accomplishments

• Provide strict guidelines in the manner of counting accomplishments. Provide separate means of counting accomplishments for staff performance and actual AJD performance to ascertain actual accomplishments in AJD.

Personnel Complement for AJD

• The AJD is the only component of CARP with the greatest possibility of remaining after CARPER expires by 2014. Thus, it would be reasonable to afford regular positions for AJD units – particularly for the position of legal officers in the provinces.



• Provide in-house trainings (in the absence of funds for trainings) for administrative staff in the

provincial offices. Budget Concerns

• Review cost parameters for ALA and adjudication and develop new sets of cost parameters that are responsive to the actual needs of the farmers

• Provide clear guidelines for the disposal of fund savings, and ensure that such guidelines are known by the field offices.

• Afford larger budget allocations for the implementation of AR decisions and post-judgment activities to avoid constraining the farmers to pay for the additional costs incurred in such activities

7. REFERENCES

----------- (2008). Land Acquisition and Distribution Scope and Accomplishment under CARP by Region as of December 2008. Accessed 28 July 2011 from www.neda.gov.ph

------------- (2009). Republic Act 9700: An Act Strengthening the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program

(CARP), Extending the Acquisition and Distribution of all Agricultural Lands, Instituting Necessary Reforms, Amending for the Purpose, Certain Provisions of Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise Known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, as amended, and appropriating Funds Therefor. Accessed 25 June 2011 from www.lawphil.net

------------- (28 February 2011). “Conflicting Laws on Land Use Further Disadvantage Marginalized Sector.” CBCP News. Accessed 16 June 2011 from www.cbcpnews.com

------------ (n.d.). CARP Briefer and Statistical Handbook As of December 2010. Planning Service, Department of Agrarian Reform. Accessed 11 May 2011 from www.dar.gov.ph

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

Adriano, L.S. (1991). “A General Assessment of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.” Working Paper Series No. 91-13 of Philippine Institute for Development Studies. Accessed 25 June 2011 from www.dirp3.pids.gov.ph

Arostique, A.P. & Quizon, A. B. (2000). “Collective Farming in Hacienda Carmencita President Roxas, Capiz Province” SANDOSENA: Trends and Transitions in the Struggle for Genuine Agrarian Reform and Rural Development. Quezon City: Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development

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

Borras, R. (2007). Pro-Poor Land Reform: A Critique. Ontario: University of Ottawa Press. Accessed 16 June 2011 from www.ruor.uottawa.ca

http://www.neda.gov.ph

http://www.lawphil.net

http://www.cbcpnews.com




http://www.tni.org

http://www.ruor.uottawa.ca



DAR (2006). Philippine Agrarian Reform: Partnerships for Social Justice, Rural Growth, and Sustainable Development: Country Paper on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development in the Philippines. Country paper presented by Secretary Nasser Pangandaman, in the International Conference for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ICARRD), Porto Alegre, Brazil on March 7-10 2006. Accessed 23 June 2011 from www.icarrd.org

DAR (2010). The DAR’s OPIF Journey from CARP to CARPER. Presentation for the OPIF Assessment

Workshop: Lessons, Gains and Opportunities. Accessed 28 July 2011 from www.dbm.gov.ph Dela Cruz, L.J. et. al., (2003). “Institutional and Organizational Assessment of the Comprehensive Agrarian

Reform Program. CARP Impact Assessment Studies, 8. Quezon City: Department of Agrarian Reform Leonen, M. (2008). Agrarian Justice in Context: Some Suggestions for Reforms, a paper presented to the

Senate of the Philippines. Accessed 01 September 2011 from www.senate.gov Lim, E. (2008). CARP 2008 and Beyond: An Agrarian Reform Situationer. Accessed 28 July 2011 from

www.landcoalition.org Llanto, G. & Brownette, S. (2007). Some Notes on Performance Management among Agencies. Discussion

Paper Series No. 2007-19. Accessed 24 August 2011 from www.dirp4.pids.gov.ph

Olano, J.N.D. (2002.). “Land Conflict Resolution: Case Studies in the Philippines.” Land Reform, Land Settlement and Cooperatives. FAO Corporate Document Depository. Accessed 23 June 2011 from www.fao.org.ph

PhilDHRRA (2009). DAR Budget in Focus: Policy Recommendations in Improving Transparency and Utilization. DAR Budget Monitoring Project No. 6043-001-51-00-09. US-AID. Accessed 23 June 2011 from www.images.phildhrra.multiply.multiplycontent.com

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

8. INTERVIEWS

Banasi Agrarian Reform Beneficiary Association President Jess Bergantin (Personal Communication, 20 August 2011) BALA Director III Atty. Ruben Alban (Personal Communication, 26 May 2011) BLAD Director III Rodolfo Frilles III (Personal Communication, 26 May 2011) DAR Finance and Administrative Office ASEC. Felix Perry Villanueva (Personal Communication, 26 May 2011) DAR-Camarines Sur PARAD Atty. Villareal (Personal Communication, 19 August 2011) DAR-Camarines Sur PARO Hubert Villaraza (Personal Communication, 19 August 2011) DAR-Capiz Chief of Legal Assistance Division Atty. Jose Rowell De Claro (Personal Communication, 17 June 2011) Dumalag, Capiz Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer Romeo Salazar (Personal Communication, 17 June 2011) Maramag, Bukidnon Legal Officer Marilou Kumon (Personal Communication, 03 June 2011)

http://www.icarrd.org


http://www.senate.gov

http://www.landcoalition.org


http://www.fao.org.ph

http://www.images.phildhrra.multiply.multiplycontent.com



South Bukidnon Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer Norberto Paquingan (Personal Communication, 03 June 2011)

9. FOCUS-GROUP DISCUSSIONS

Date of FGD: 04 June 2011 Location: San Miguel, Maramag, Bukidnon Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries

Respondents Address Organization Vivencia Aregado Purok 3, San Miguel KAMPHIL Agripina Fuentes P-10 A San Miguel, Maramag,

Bukidnon KAMMPHIL, PALAMBU, PAKISAMA

Edith Canciller Purok 10A San Miguel, Maramag, Bukidnon

PALAMBU, KAMMPHIL, PAKISAMA

Vicenta Melicor Purok 10A San Miguel, Maramag, Bukidnon

KAMMPHIL

Merlinda Fuentes Purok 10-A San Miguel, Maramag, Bukidnon

KAMPHIL

Elisa Engcabo Purok 10-A San Miguel, Maramag, Bukidnon

KAMPHIL

Camonito Balasabal Purok 10-A San Miguel KUPAL/ KAMPHIL Erenia Encabo P-10-A San Miguel Maramag

Bukidnon KAMPHIL

Julian Estolonio Purok 10-A KAMPHIL Mercedez Ramos Purok 10-A San Miguel, Maramag PALAMBU Camp Phil

Date of FGD: 18 June 2011 Location: Bgy. Consolacion, Dumalag, Capiz

Respondents Address Organization Maria Pimentel Fungot Bgy. Consolacion, Dumalag Capiz CARBMPC Jaime Pimentel Bgy. Consolacion CARBMPC Herberto Fronda Sr. Bgy. Consolacion CARBMPC Manuel Pimentel Bgy. Consolacion CARBMPC Jose Forteza Bgy. Consolacion CARBMPC Joanna Odiaman Bgy. Consolacion CARBMPC Agripina Castaniares Bgy. Consolacion CARBMPC Mercedes Faelon Bgy. Consolacion CARBMPC Mercedes Pimentel Bgy. Consolacion CARBMPC



10. DATA INVENTORY

Nature of Data Source 2010 Expenditures of PARAD-Capiz PARAD-Capiz 2011 Expenditures of PARAD-Capiz PARAD-Capiz Accomplishment on Legal Assistance by Legal Officers as of December 2010

DAR-Capiz

Accomplishment Report in Agrarian Legal Assistance 2007-May 2011

DAR-Bukidnon

Accomplishment Report in Agrarian Legal Assistance as of May 2011

DAR-Bukidnon

Accomplishment Report in Agrarian Legal Assistance January-May 2011

DAR-Bukidnon

Accomplishment Report in Agrarian Legal Assistance, All Case Types, January-December 2010, National Summary

DAR-BALA

Accomplishment Report on Adjudication of Agrarian Cases as of May 2011

DARAB-Capiz

Accomplishment Report on AJD as of December 2010 DAR-Capiz Accomplishment Report on AJD as of May 2011 DAR-Capiz Agrarian Reform Budget of Expenditure and Sources of Financing (1960-2008)

C. David

Agrarian Reform Fund, Activities Funded (July 1987-December 2008)

C. David

AJD Target Project and Investment Requirements 2010-2014, Province of Capiz

DAR-Legal Assistance Division, Capiz

AO3, Series of 2003 ALI Rules DAR-Capiz CARP CY 2010-2014 Budget DAR-Finance and Management Office CARP CY 2012 Proposed Budget Ceiling DAR-Finance and Management Office CARP CY 2012 Proposed Budget per RA 9700 DAR-Finance and Management Office CARP Strategic Directions up to 2014 DAR-BALA Consolidated Annual Audit Report for 2009 COA DAR Annual Operating Expenditures (1960-2008) C. David DARAB Rules 2009 DAR-Capiz FY 2010 Indicative Targets and Budget (per NEP) AJD DAR-BALA MC 12, Series of 2009, “DAR Manual on Legal Assistance”

DAR-BALA

MC 3, Series of 2010, “DAR Operational Directives for 2010”

DAR-BLAD

Memorandum dated 06 September 2006, “Proposed Correction of Cost Parameters/ Unit Costs of the Performance Indicators in Agrarian Legal Assistance to Reflect a more Realistic Costing of Fees and Expenses for Budgetary Allocation Purposes”

DAR-BALA

Monthly Report on the Nature and Ageing of Cases Filed before the PARAD May 2011

PARAD-Capiz

Nationwide Accomplishment in Agrarian Legal Assistance

DAR-BALA

Regional Summary of Accomplishment Report in Agrarian Legal Assistance, January-December 2010

DAR-BALA



Report of Expenditures on MOOE of Agrarian Legal Services as of May 2011

DAR-Capiz

Report of Expenditures on MOOE of Mediation as of May 2011

DAR-Capiz

Report of Pending Cases as of December 2010 DAR-Capiz Report of Pending Cases as of May 2011 DAR-Capiz Status of Disposition of Cases (Number of Cases) as of December 2010

DAR-Capiz

Status of Disposition of Cases (Number of Cases) as of May 2011

DAR-Capiz

Nature of Adjudication Cases Filed under DARAB DARAB Number of DARAB Cases (received, acted upon, resolved) vs. Targets

DARAB

Number of DARAB Personnel DARAB Report of DARAB Expenses DARAB SAOB, ALA and Adjudication in Camarines Sur DAR-Camarines Sur SAOB, ALA and Adjudication in Capiz DAR-Capiz SAOB, ALA and Adjudication in South Bukidnon DAR-South Bukidnon Rural Development Sector Allocation for FY 2012 DBM NEP 2012 DBM Nature of ALA Cases Nationwide per Case Type BALA Number of Nationwide case targets, caseload and case resolved for CY 2009-2010 and first semester of 2011, per case type

BALA

Matrix of Manpower Complement of the Legal Assistance Sector Nationwide for CY 2009-2011

BALA

Report of Expenses by Region from CY 2009-2011 BALA

Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery · Rationalizing Public Expenditures...

Documents

Transcript of Rationalizing Public Expenditures in Agrarian Justice Delivery · Rationalizing Public Expenditures...