Agrarian Reform Philippines •
EMAIL
•
FACEBO FACE BOOK OK 73
•
LINKE LI NKEDI DIN N0
•
TWIT TW ITTE TER R2
•
GOOG GO OGLE LE+ +0
ECONOMYWATCH CONTENT TEAM The core Content Team our economy, industry, investing and personal fnance reerence articles!
Agrarian Reform !i"i##ine$ not only accelerated a ccelerated the productivity productivity of the agricultural sector of the country, but promoted the agro-based industries as well.
Agrarian Reform acts and laws in Philippines: gradual evolution •
•
•
T!e %eginning& The idea of initiating land reform programs programs in Philippines can be traced back to !"#. The enactment of the Republic Act $RA%% #&'', (ection '!, better known as the Agricultural )and Reform *ode $RA emphasi+ed on the foundation of an organi+ation called the )and Authority.stablished Authority .stablished on &th August !"#, the )and Authority was endowed with the responsibility of implementing the Republic Act #&'' policies. To hasten up the other activities a ctivities associated with the land reform programs in Philippines, the Republic Act #&'' oered formal recognition to all the eisting agencies involved with similar activities. activities. The functions of these agencies were re-coordinated, re-coordinated, with the aim of ful/lling the common ob0ectives of the land refor reform m programs. T!e '(70$& Republic Act "#&!, popularly referred to as the *ode of Agrarian Reform Reform of the Philippines proposed the foundation of an autonomous department, the 1epartment of Agrarian Reform Reform $1AR%. This independent body was formed to replace the eisting )and Authority Authority.. The 1epartment of Agrarian Reform was further re-named as the 2inistry of Agrarian Reform in !3&, under the then Parliamentary form of government in Philippines. '()0 on*ar$& The year !&& saw the formulation of Republic Act 4o. ""53, popular as the *omprehensive Agrarian Reform Reform )aw or *AR). The *omprehensive *omprehensi ve Agrarian Reform )aw or *AR) was enacted to oer lawful
•
basis for the implementation of the *omprehensive Agrarian Reform Program or *ARP, suggesting the implementation methods as well. 6n fact, it was the *AR), which empowered the *ARP for supporting the activities of the agro-based industries in the country. T!e #o$,-2000 era& The 1epartment of Agrarian Reform was further re-named as the 1epartment of )and Reform in this era. The ecutive 7rder #"', signed by the Philippine President 8loria 2acapagal-Arroyo was enacted to widen the areas of operation of the 1epartment of )and Reform, making it accountable for all land reform activities and programs in Philippines. 9urther, the ecutive 7rder also made the 1epartment, controller and supervisory body of the Philippine *ommission on rban Poor $P*P%. 6n addition, recognition of the ownership of the ancestral lands of the native Philippine population also came under the 0urisdiction of the 1epartment of )and Reform. ;ery recently, ecutive 7rder 4o. '5" was signed by President Arroyo on <#rd August <==5. This 7rder commanded the 1epartment of )and Reform to revert back to its original name, 1epartment of Agrarian Reform. The aim of the ecutive 7rder '5" was to do something more other than mere reformation of the agrarian land. This speci/c order considered all the important factors to promote bene/cial activities which can lead to overall economic upliftment of the Philippine agricultural sector and the peasant class.
Agricultural (ector of Philippines and Agrarian Reforms: eects •
•
•
6n spite of Agrarian Reform, absence of symmetry in the land allocation pattern persisted as a permanent plight to the agricultural sector of Philippines. There was hardly any change which took place in the eisting relationship between the landlords and the peasants. The relationship was not at all liberali+ed, but continued to be feudal in nature. >ere, the ownership of agricultural land remained concentrated in the hands of few landlords. 6t was basically due to the narrow-mindedness of the landholders who showed more interest in controlling the uses of their plots rather than in achieving sustained increase in agricultural productivity. ?hen the chunks of the agricultural land were under the control of the landowners, they put them on rent to the farmers for cultivation. >ence, the tenancy rates in the Philippines rural areas eisted and varied between 5=@ to 3=@. This made the landownership somewhat monopolistic in nature in Philippines, where wealth concentrated in the hands of the rich and powerful landlords, while the peasant classes were pushed towards poverty. >owever, the situation showed substantial improvements, with the passing of the *omprehensive Agrarian Reform )aw $*AR)% or Republic Act 4o. ""53. The )aw utili+ed the maimum portion of the 5= billion $(.!< billion% fund in initiating developmental land reform programs. Though the development
was Buite slow in terms of the allocating the lands to the tillers, yet the government was successful in allocating an aggregate of <.5" million hectares of land among the landless peasants. PROs AND CONs OF AGRARIAN REFORM
The agrarian reform program's main thrust is to remedy the old feudal system of land ownership and inequitable land distribution. Having this main objective, the agrarian reform is good not only in terms of economic productivity but also in alleviating the problem of social injustice. If implemented properly, farmers who worked hard for their landlord's property will be rewarded for their own perseverance. oreover, farmer's moral will go up because they can fully savor the fruit of their labor. !onsequently, this will lead to higher productivity. In the Philippines, CARP is the tool to implement this agrarian reform. Reading the guidelines and policy of this program, this promotes the betterment of the farmers who were abused by their landlords and were deprived to own the land that was rightfully theirs. The Department of Agrarian Reform has the tas of implementing this program. In the term where !ecretary "rnesto #arilao sat as its department head, $%& of the re'uired distributed land where given to deserving farmers. (n the other hand, the cons of this program were more than what it can offer. )irst, the CARP is a defective law devoid of unclear policies on land valuations and transfers. There was no clear*cut policies regarding the transfer of certificate of titles of the distributed lands. +oreover, epediencies on ac'uiring lands from the landlords were not eplained well which m aes this procedure difficult to implement. !econd, DAR has changed secretaries often which made it difficult for the success of the program. )or every president elected, cabinet secretaries were replaced more than once which maes it hard for the present secretary to conduct a continuous plan for agrarian reforms. +oreover, this event leads to the interruption of the current administration-s momentum of doing such proects.
Third, there is a slow implementation of this program due to two main reasons. (ne is that since our country has a democratic system of government, everyone is entitled to undergo due process. A farmer who has a complaint against his or her landlord must go to the court and process the necessary papers and then wait for the court-s decision. The landlord if he or she has a complaint must tae the same procedures. /owever, in Philippine society, due to the power and influence of these landlords, most of the decision side with them and causes inustice to the farmers who deserve to have ustice. The other cause of the slow implementation is the landlord-s resistance, which threatened the lives of local DAR worers and farmers. )ourth, this program is prone to corruption since the people involve have wealth and power with them. 0aturally, every rule will be disregarded once money and politics are involved. This also maes DAR officials to side with the landowners rather than promoting the rights of the farmers and tenants. )ifth, there is no policy in this program where it gives some of the government agencies to the aid in implementing the program. There is no means of coordinating these organi1ations. !ith, in the contet of Philippine government and politics, CARP is too idealistic. 2ithout having any checing mechanisms for its enforcers, this is bound to fail. +aybe if graft, corruption and greed does not eist here in our country, this is a good program that our country can use to promote the growth of our economy. 34y far the most painstaing and careful undertaing to evaluate the performance of CARP on beneficiary welfare is the 5%%6 APPC Impact Assessment !tudy funded by DAR 7updated in 0ovember 5%%8 as 9:and Reform, Rural Development and Poverty in the Philippines; Revisiting the Agenda<=. > ?T@he effort is remarable for its attention to detail. That
was worth completing. /ow then could )abella use it to show that CARP has failedB 2hich of us misreadB ou udge, Reader. 3Impact on Income>. = The average values of per capita income, per capita ependiture, and per capita net farm incomes of farmers with 0( :A0D! 7whether in ARCs or non*ARCs = are !I#0I)ICA0T: :(2"R than their counterparts owning land. 5= The average values of the three income categories in the other four categories of farmers 7those owning land= are not significantly different from each other. T/I! !/(2! T/" I+P(RTA0C" () (20"R!/IP (R C(0TR(: () :A0D I0 D"T"R+I0I0# I0C(+"! () )AR+"R!. 7"mphasis supplied*!C+= 3Impact on Poverty>. In particular, ownership of land implies that the odds that you are non*poor is at least .6E times to as much as 5.E times that of being poor. Does that sound that the 5%%6 APPC study found CARP a failureB The first of its si recommendations, in fact, was to 3finish the CARP scope, especially the lands under compulsory ac'uisition, which are 3the lands that really matter when e'uity and prospects for long*term growth are considered. The 5%%8 3update that )abella mentions has the stated obective of 3providing support to the #overnment of the Philippines in its thrust to improve the welfare of the rural poor through the etension of CARP. 2hy would it do that if it thins CARP is a failure and that it is time to goB /ere are its ey findings on CARP
!o it is clear that CARP needs to be fully implemented, not illed. If every government program is to be scrapped because it has not performed according to target, we would have no education program, no Commission on "lectionsJin fact, we should scrap the country
Read more; http;opinion.in'uirer.net658Etime*to*let*go*or*not* 5Qi11GIscRlL )ollow us; in'uirerdotnet on Twitter S in'uirerdotnet on )aceboo