You are on page 1of 28

Country Land Monitoring Report: Philippines

PhilDHRRA
Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources in Rural Areas

COUNTRY LAND MONITORING REPORT: PHILIPPINES

September 2010

With support from:

Asian NGO Coalition


for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development

Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources In Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA)

Country Land Monitoring Report: Philippines

Table of Contents

I. II. III. IV. V.

Introduction 3 Objectives and Limitation of the Study . 3 Methodology .. 3 Agrarian Reform in the Philippines ... 3 Land Monitoring Framework . 6 a. Regional Indicators .. 6 b. Country Indicators ... 7 Study Findings ... 8 a. Inputs: Budget and Policies . 8 b. Land Tenure Improvement .... 11 c. Agrarian Justice Delivery .. 17

VI.

VII. Recommendations .... 25 References

Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources In Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA)

Country Land Monitoring Report: Philippines

I.

Introduction

In 1988, Republic Act 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law was enacted. This landmark law paved the way for the distribution of land to landless farmers and farm workers. After more than two decades of implementing the agrarian reform program, there are still more than one million hectares that need to be distributed.1 In 2009, RA 9700 or the CARP Extension with Reforms Law was passed which extended the agrarian reform program to 5 years. Though the program has been plagued by a number of problems that hinder its speedy implementation (for instance, cases of agrarian disputes and conflicts), it remains as a means to promote the security of tenure and access to land of farmers. After all, land distribution inequality is a social justice issue that should be addressed by the State.

II.

Objectives and Limitations of the Study

This study aims to provide an overview of the state of land tenure and access to land in the Philippines. Specifically, the study aims to do the following: 1. provide a review of agrarian reform in the Philippines 2. conduct data gathering for the set of indicators developed by ANGOC 3. appraise the indicators in terms of appropriateness and feasibility This study does not intend to provide an exhaustive monitoring of all forms of land. Rather, the scope of this study is limited to the ownership and access to agrarian lands, with rural farmers as stakeholders. Since this is only a pilot study, other sectors with stake on land, such as indigenous people, forest dwellers, and other cross-cutting themes such as gender, governance, food security, and environment will not be tackled. As mentioned above, the main focus of the study is to look at the regional indicators on and land tenure and access to agrarian lands.

III.

Methodology

Review of literature on agrarian reform, land security, and access to land was conducted, with focus on studies that developed indicators Secondary data gathering was conducted in relevant agencies, such as the DAR, CHR, DBM, NEDA, and DA. Main data used are official government data. Where government data is not accessible, proxy data were used gathered from other sources such as CSO studies and databanks of international development organizations.

IV.

Agrarian reform in the Philippines

Land reform has been a major policy intervention in the Philippines as early as the 1900s. It was facilitated by the Americans in 1902 mainly to address the growing insurgency problems caused by the excesses of the friars, who controlled most agricultural estates under the Spanish rule. The Friars Land Act ushered in redistributive land reform but was confined to large estates mostly owned by the Catholic Church. The Friars Land Act has influenced subsequent land redistribution policies in the country as evident from the land reform laws that followed. Under Republic Act 1400 of 1955 and Republic Act 3844 of 1963, redistributive land reform was confined to specific estates and land prices both for valuation and transfers to tenants followed market principles. The acquisition of landed estates was not confiscatory but voluntary on the part of the landowner or selective based on request by a majority of the tenants (i.e., at least 1/3 of tenants). The acquisition process was

Per DARs accomplishment report as of June 2009, balance for land distribution is 1,044,550 hectares.

Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources In Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA)

Country Land Monitoring Report: Philippines

undertaken through expropriation proceedings by the Courts which determined the valuation of the land based on the principle of just compensation. The earlier land reform laws paid greater attention on tenancy reforms, primarily, the regulation of landlord tenant contracts and abolition of tenancy. Land redistribution was not prioritized because resettlement on public agricultural lands was considered an alternative to redistributive land reform. In the early years, Philippine frontier land was extensive and government chose to finance the opening up of these lands for farming rather than redistribute existing private agricultural estates. The tenancy situation was not also considered critical in the country at that time. It was believed that as long as the tenancy rate was kept below 60% of agriculture population, the tenancy condition is not critical. The Census of Agriculture in 1918 showed that the fraction of cultivated land under share tenancy and labor tenancy amounted to only 19%. While this proportion increased to 30% in 1960, tenancy rate was still way below the critical level. Moreover, government increased expenditure on credit, technology and marketing had raised productivity to a significant level without challenging existing property structure. In the early 1970s, a radical departure from the earlier land reform policies was undertaken. The Marcos administration issued Presidential Decree 27 (PD 27) in 1972 to provide for a national and confiscatory land reform program. Ownership ceiling was pegged to 7 hectares per individual, a significant fall from the 75-hectare ceiling in the 1960s. The law potentially placed the bulk of agriculture lands under land reform except that the coverage of PD 27 was limited to rice and corn farmlands. Plantations and sugar lands thus were protected from the program. The program had positive effects as land redistribution moved at a fast pace in the initial years specifically in some regions (e.g., Region 3). But in the later years, the program succumbed to bureaucratic inertia possibly due to dwindling funds and legal battles usually with landowners that challenged the valuation of their lands. PD 27 was not completed within 10 years and was soon taken over by events as the Marcos government was unseated as President of the Philippine Republic by the Peoples Power Revolution in 1986. The enactment of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) was a response to a new political order. The Peoples Revolution that installed the Aquino government, led to the rise of the grassroots and non-government organizations as major players in Philippine politics. However, the Aquino government had also the support of the elite since Aquino herself belonged to the landed families. The framers of the law under Aquino combined both liberal and conservative policies on land reform. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1987 expanded coverage to all agricultural lands but it also promoted market-oriented policies. The law provided for the inclusion of voluntary modes of transfers by landowners and applied just compensation in the valuation of land. The adoption of just compensation was said to be consistent with the Bill of Rights of the Philippine Constitutions of 1970 and 1987; therefore, the confiscatory scheme of PD 27 was considered unconstitutional. The government retained the subsidy on credit and the administrative costs of land transfer to farmers. The land reform program under CARL is also referred to as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) because of the inclusion of beneficiary support services to the land redistribution program. The CARL has also altered the institutional arrangement in the implementation of the land reform program. The implementation of PD 27 was presided over by the Philippine President and administered mainly by the DAR while CARP is governed by a Presidential Agrarian Reform Council or PARC which is headed by the President with the heads of implementing agencies and private sector representatives as members. DAR acts as the PARC Secretariat and co-administers land redistribution with the DENR which takes charge of the subdivision and distribution of public lands. In particular, the DAR bureaucracy has been expanded to include an Adjudication Board to handle the delivery of agrarian justice in lieu of the special agrarian courts attached to the Department of Justice under PD 27. It was envisioned that with these institutional changes, land redistribution would be fast tracked and completed within a period of ten years from 1987 to 1997. However, did this not happen and CARP was extended for another ten years (1998 to 2008). In 2009, Congress has approved another extension of the program for five years, or until June 2014. The new Act (RA 9700 of 2009) calls for the strengthening of the CARP primarily through the infusion of additional funding of P150 billion for the next five years and reform provisions that will accelerate agrarian reform.

Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources In Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA)

Country Land Monitoring Report: Philippines

Table 1. Comparative Policies on Distributive Land Reform


Elements 1900s 1950s 1960s 1970s Emancipation of Rice/Corn Tenant Farmers (PD 27 of 1972) 1990s Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (RA 6657 of 1988) Mandatory for all Private and Public Agricultural Lands* 5 hectares 2000s Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Extension with Reforms Law (RA 9700 of 2009) Mandatory for all Private and Public Agricultural Lands* 5 hectares

Legal Basis

Friars Land Act of 1902

Land Reform Act (RA 1400 of 1955)

Land Reform Code (RA 3844 of 1963)

Friar Lands Coverage Land Ownership Ceiling Maximum Size/ Beneficiary 600 hectares (individual) 1,024 hectares (corporation) 16 hectares

Selective Based on Sanggunian recommendation 300 hectares (individual) 600 hectares (corporation) 6 hectares

Selective Based on Sanggunian recommendation

Mandatory for all Rice and Corn Lands

75 hectares

7 hectares

3 hectares

3 hectares

3 hectares Compulsory acquisition (CA), Voluntary offer to sell (VOS), Voluntary land transfer (VLT) Fair Market Value Land processing and transfer costs Credit Subsidy Land amortization subsidy Department of Agrarian Reform Budget constraint, lack of support services, land distribution focused on non-private agri lands/govt lands, use of CARP funds for non-ARBs (fund diversion)

3 hectares Compulsory acquisition (CA), Voluntary offer to sell (VOS), Voluntary land transfer (VLT) Fair Market Value Land processing and transfer costs Credit Subsidy Initial capitalization Land amortization subsidy Department of Agrarian Reform None yet

Mode of Land Acquisition

Expropriation

Expropriation

Expropriation

Confiscatory

Valuation Method

Fair Market Value

Fair Market Value

Fair Market Value

Average Annual Gross Production (AGP) x 2.5 Land processing and transfer costs Credit subsidy Land cost (transfer from land owner) Department of Agrarian Reform Lack of services to new landowners, limited to rice and corn areas, amortization rate was too high, a slow distribution of Certificate of Land Transfer, exemption of untenanted lands gave landlords

Subsidy Component

Credit Subsidy

Credit Subsidy

Credit Subsidy

Implementing Agency

Bureau of Public Lands Hardly implemented, it only enabled the American agricultural interests to control huge tracts of land

Land Tenure Administration Failed to break up big estates, expropriation was allowed when majority of tenants petitioned for it, accommodated share tenancy

Land Authority Reduced the number of beneficiaries, it only covered rice and corn lands, compulsory leasehold took effect only when an area is declared a land reform area, exempted plantation crops from coverage, no timetable set,

Limitations and Implementation Issues**

Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources In Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA)

Country Land Monitoring Report: Philippines Elements 1900s 1950s 1960s Congress did not provide funding 1970s incentive to discharge tenants and hire seasonal laborers instead 1990s 2000s

* Excludes aquaculture and livestock farms ** Source: Philippine Agrarian Reform: Partnerships for Social Justice, Rural Growth, and Sustainable Development, 2006

V.

Land reform monitoring framework

Regional indicators Based on consultations with experts by ANGOC, the framework for the land monitoring initiative will strategically focus on land tenure and access to land, as well as the implementation of land reform program by the government. The framework will establish a set of common indicators for national focal points to use, which will then be consolidated at the regional level to elevate the discussion on land to appropriate regional and international platforms. The report will generally focus on landless and marginal farmers/peasantry. The following indicators had been identified by ANGOC based on consultations from experts: Table 2. Regional indicators developed by ANGOC Variables Indicators A. Inputs Budget Agrarian reform budget R & D expenditure in agriculture as % of total agriculture budget ODA in agriculture Policies Land use planning For marginalized groups IPs, women, fishers, etc Policies or guideline on agricultural investments B. Land tenure Disputes # of people killed (per 100,000 population) # of people detained (per 100,000 population) # of people harassed (per 100,000 population) # of cases received (per 100,000 population) # of cases investigated (per 100,000 population) # of cases adjudicated (per 100,000 population) # of cases of land grabbing % area of land grabbed Average time in years for dispute resolution Annual loss of time due to disputes Monetary loss Evictions # of HH evicted/displaced from farms (per 100,000 population) # of HH becoming totally homeless due to eviction C. Access to land Ownership Ownership according to size of landholdings Tenancy rights # of sharecroppers # of sharecroppers having legal documents % of contract farmers area in relation to total agricultural area Landlessness Gini coefficient/bottom to top ratio

Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources In Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA)

Country Land Monitoring Report: Philippines

Country indicators As earlier stated, the DAR is the lead government agency mandated to implement agrarian reform. Other CARPimplementing agencies (CIAs) are the DENR, LBP, DOJ-LRA, DA-NIA, DPWH, DTI, and DOLE. The DAR has identified three major final outputs (MFOs) in its logframe2. These three MFOs are also the agrarian reform programs main components: 1. Security of land tenure provided through land distribution and leasehold arrangements (Land Tenure Improvement or LTI) The two basic schemes by which ARBs could have security of land tenure: land transfer through acquisition and distribution (LAD) and leasehold operations (i.e., execution of leasehold arrangements between the landowners and tenant farmers). Other LTI services include subdivision of collective CLOA into individual titles, redocumentation of lands already distributed but not yet paid, and installation of uninstalled ARBs. 2. Legal intervention provided by ARBs (Agrarian Justice Delivery or AJD) This pertains to: 1) delivery of agrarian justice which includes the resolution of agrarian cases filed within the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD), and the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD), and 2) the provision of legal assistance to ARBs. 3. Support services implemented, facilitated, and coordinated for delivery to ARBs (Support Services Delivery or SSD) Component services include social infrastructure and local capacity building (SILCAB), sustainable agribusiness and rural enterprise development (SARED), access facilitation and access enhancement. For each MFO, performance indicators had been identified, as shown in the table below. Table 3. Performance indicators of DAR Variable Indicators MFO1: Land Tenure Improvement Land Acquisition Area distributed (EP/CLOA generated/distributed) and Distribution ARBs covered Area valued (landowners compensation) Area with final survey (land survey) Area with approved survey (IVAS) Area registered (emancipation patents/CLOAs) Area covered by processed patents Leasehold Area placed under leasehold Other LTI Area of CLOA subdivided Area of individual CLOA redocumented and registered Area of redocumented lands covered/identified as DNYP MFO2: Agrarian Justice Delivery Adjudication of AR Cases resolved cases Agrarian legal Disputes settled through mediation/conciliation assistance Cases disposed/submitted to judicial court and prosecutors office ARBs represented in quasi-judicial court MFO3: Support Services Delivery SILCAB ARCs with ARCs level of development assessment (ALDA) ARBs trained
2

The logframe was developed by DAR for its Organizational Performance Indicators Framework (OPIF), a performance-based monitoring system implemented by the DBM which started in 2007. The DARs MFOs are based on the major programs and services provided by the agency.

Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources In Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA)

Country Land Monitoring Report: Philippines

Variable SARED

Access facilitation and enhancement services

Indicators ARCs developed into agribusiness land Area developed Marketing tie ups/agreements/contracts established, trade fairs, market linkage, product development MSMEs established Upland development FMR projects approved and funded FMR constructed Irrigation projects approved CIS projects implemented Small enterprise projects implemented Coops/POs assisted in credit and rural financing

These indicators will be matched/compared with the regional indicators identified by ANGOC. Since government regularly collect and compile data for their indicators, data collection will not be difficult. Where data is not readily available or not officially gathered by specific agencies, these data gaps will be identified and proxy indicators will be used if applicable. Table 4. Comparison of regional and country indicators Regional indicators Inputs: Budgets and policies Access to Land - Ownership - Tenancy rights - Landlessness Land Tenure - Disputes - Evictions

Country indicators CARP/DAR budget, per MFO Land use policies Land Tenure Improvement - Land Acquisition and Distribution - Leasehold Agrarian Justice Delivery - Adjudication of agrarian reform cases - Agrarian legal assistance

VI.

Study Findings

The analysis will be arranged based on the 3 country indicators for the CARP: 1) Inputs, 2) LTI, and 3) AJD. A. Inputs Budget The DAR has two major sources of funds to implement its activities for agrarian reform. The first comes from its own General Appropriations Act (GAA)-authorized budget, consisting of Fund 101 or the general fund and Fund 102 for foreign-assisted projects. The second comes from the Agrarian Reform Fund (ARF), or Fund 158, as administered by the PARC. The ARF is drawn from the following sources: a) proceeds of the sales of the Assets Privatization Trust (APT); b) all receipts from assets recovered and from sale of ill-gotten wealth recovered through the Presidential Commission on Good Governance (PCGG); c) proceeds of the disposition of government property abroad; and d) portion of amounts accruing to the Philippines from all sources of official foreign aid grants and concessional financing from all countries for specific purposes of financing production credits, infrastructures, and other support services required by the CARL. While the ARF covers those of other CIAs, more than 60% of the total CARP budget is allocated to DAR. Disaggregating the budget based on CARPs major final outputs, land tenure improvement comprises the bulk of the budget. Only 4% was allocated to agrarian justice delivery based on the cumulative budget from 2007-2010.
Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources In Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA)

Country Land Monitoring Report: Philippines

Table 5. Budget per MFO, 2007-2010


Major Final Output MFO1: Land Tenure Improvement MFO2: Agrarian Justice Delivery MFO3: Support Services Delivery Total 2007 Amount 9,009,326 % 60% 2008 Amount 9,015,183 % 72% 2009 Amount 10,773,003 % 67% 2010 Amount 9,387,081 % 48% Total 38,184,593 % 61%

779,124

5%

877,421

7%

203,240

1%

928,030

5%

2,787,815

4%

5,348,756 15,137,206

35%

2,600,634 12,493,868

21%

5,170,964 16,147,207

32%

9,404,995 19,720,106

48%

22,525,349 63,497,757

35%

Figure 1. ARF Allotment and Obligation, 2000-2007


ARF Allotment and Obligation, 2000-2007
Amount (in PhP million) 20000 15000 10000 5000 0
20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 20 07

Allotment Obligation

Comparing allotment and obligation,3 obligation significantly exceeded allotment in 2003. In contrast, allotment greatly exceeded obligation the following year, 2004. Over releases are observed in 2004 and 2007, which coincidentally are election years.

Year

In terms of external fund sources, the DAR is one of the agencies with the largest recipients of overseas development assistance (ODA) loans. Based on data from the Foreign-Assisted Projects Office of the DAR, a total of 59 projects had been implemented as of 2009, amounting to PhP 76 billion. In addition, 26 projects are in the pipeline. Table 6. Number and amount of foreign-assisted projects of DAR No. of Project/Type of Assistance projects ODA Total 59 58,258.47 Loan 17 52,087.17 Grant 42 6,171.30 Completed Projects 51 24,363.86 Loan 10 18,212.56 Grant 41 6,151.30 On-going Projects 5 33,894.61 Loan 4 33,874.61 Grant 1 20.00 In the Pipeline 26 23,502.88

Cost (PhP Million) GOP Counterpart 18,352.81 16,921.50 1,431.31 9,160.60 7,734.29 1,426.31 9,192.21 9,187.21 5.00 4,281.34

Total 76,611.28 69,008.67 7,602.61 33,524.46 25,946.85 7,577.61 43,086.82 43,061.82 25.00 27,784.22

Allotment refers to the authorization to incur obligations or enter into contracts, which is issued by the DBM to government agencies. The DBM ensures that allotments are covered by appropriations both as to amount and purpose. Obligation refers to the actual expenditures of government agencies from the perspective of said agencies actually having contracted for the delivery of goods and services. Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources In Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA)

Country Land Monitoring Report: Philippines

After conducting a rapid review of foreign-assisted projects, it was observed noticed that a majority of the projects focus on support services delivery and only three projects contain a land tenure improvement component. This is understandable since ODA loans are intended to provide support services to ARBs as the government funding for LAD gets the biggest share of the CARP budget. Given that the budget for the 5-year extension of CARP is PhP150 billion, it is imperative to see if the allocation for LAD will suffice given the backlog for distribution. It is stipulated in RA 9700 that 60% of the total budget will be allocated for LAD or roughly PhP 90 billion. Average cost of LAD per hectare (covering landowners compensation and land processing cost) is estimated at PhP 92,600. With more than 1 million hectares still for distribution, DAR needs roughly PhP 96 billion to complete LAD. A study by the Land Bank also reflects that to be able to complete LAD by 2014, PhP300 to 400 billion is required. Table 7. Average cost of LAD, without OLT (2007 prices) Item Average cost per year (PhP M) Landowners compensation 3,525.98 Land processing cost 3,717.83 Agrarian justice delivery 79.52 Legal assistance 35.33 Adjudication 44.18 Policies There are various policies that mandate the issuance of land tenure instruments to specific beneficiaries. Table 8. Policies and land tenure instruments Policy Land tenure instrument Comprehensive Agrarian Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) Reform Law (CARL) Indigenous Peoples Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) Rights Act (IPRA) Community-based Forest Management Agreement (CBFMA), EO 263 Certificate of Forest Stewardship Agreement (CFSA), and Sustainable Industrial Forest Management Agreement (SIFMA) Fisheries Code UDHA LGU Ordinance on municipal water delineation Certificate of Entitlement and Lot Award (CELA), Transfer Certificate Title (TCT)

Average cost per hectare (PhP) 70,175.18 22,426.54 1,888.31 839.04 1,049.27

Instrument holder Farmers Indigenous peoples Forest dwellers LGU (for municipal fisherfolks) Urban poor

Though there are clear policies on identification of beneficiaries and issuance of land tenure instruments, there are a number of documented cases of overlapping land titles, causing disputes across sectors.4 Unless the various land redistribution policies are harmonized, disputes will continue to persist. The table below shows the number of memos and orders issued per administration. This can be an indicator of administrative and bureaucratic outputs of the DAR. However, these indicators will not suffice to gauge the performance and efficiency of the agency in terms of agrarian reform implementation. Table 9. Administrative and bureaucracy indicators
Administration No. of DAR Secretaries No. of Memorandum Circulars issued No. of Administrative Orders issued

C. Aquino (1987-1992) Ramos (1992- 1998) Estrada (1998-2000)


4

6 1 1

43 136 44

72 56 13

Based on findings of the Philippine Asset Reform Report Card (PhilDHRRA, 2008)

Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources In Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA)

10

Country Land Monitoring Report: Philippines No. of Memorandum Circulars issued No. of Administrative Orders issued

Administration

No. of DAR Secretaries

Arroyo

6 Total

103 326

46 187

B. Land Tenure Improvement The LTI component seeks to secure the tenurial status of the farmers and farmworkers in the lands they till. This is operationalized either through land acquisition and distribution and leasehold operations. LAD involves the redistribution of government and private agricultural lands to landless farmers and farmworkers. Leasehold operation, on the other hand, is an alternative non-land transfer scheme which seeks to improve the quality of life of the farmers. It covers all tenanted agricultural lands such those in the retained areas, not yet acquired for distribution under CARP, and those which may be validly covered under existing laws. Under the law, private and non-private agricultural lands will be acquired for distribution. The table below shows the accomplishment of land acquisition by mode and land type. Land distribution has been particularly slow for private agricultural lands under compulsory acquisition, which total 1.5 million hectares or roughly one-third of the program scope. The accomplishment for this mode is only 19%. Interestingly, it is in these landsparticularly lands planted to sugarcane, coconut and other tree crops, and nontraditional export cropswhere most of the remaining problems with landholding inequality exist. On the other hand, rate of accomplishment is pushed up by excess in the distribution of non-private agricultural lands, with 134% accomplishment rate and under the VLT scheme at 247% accomplishment. If accomplishment is recomputed, reflecting over accomplished modes as 100%, then total LAD accomplishment is only at 70%. Table 10. Accomplishment per mode of acquisition
Type of land/Mode of acquisition Private Agricultural Lands Operation Land Transfer Government Financing Institutions Voluntary Offer to Sell Compulsory Acquisition Voluntary Land Transfer Non-Private Agricultural Lands Settlements Landed Estates Government Owned Lands Total Scope (hectares)* 3,093,251 616,233 243,434 437,970 1,507,122 288,492 1,335,106 604,113 70,173 660,817 4,428,357 Share from total scope 70% 14% 5% 10% 34% 7% 30% 14% 2% 15% 100% Accom. (hectares) 2,336,127 571,989 165,399 601,817 285,100 711,822 1,783,074 746,977 81,045 955,052 4,119,201 % accom. 76% 93% 68% 137% 19% 247% 134% 124% 115% 145% 93% Share from total accom. 57% 14% 4% 15% 7% 17% 43% 18% 2% 23% 100% Recomputed % accom. 57% 93% 68% 100% 19% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 70%

Table 11 shows the annual accomplishment in distribution in terms of area and number of ARBs. Average area or farm size per ARB is 1.49 hectares, which is within the maximum area per beneficiary. Table 11. Annual LAD accomplishments Year Area (has) 1999 132,069 2000 110,478 2001 104,261 2002 111,722 2003 97,795 2004 104,069 2005 131,069 2006 125,184 2007 134,035 2008 146,278
Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources In Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA)

No. of ARBs 89,511 77,275 72,188 75,560 71,962 71,682 88,152 72,280 94,807 90,738

Average area per ARB (has) 1.48 1.43 1.44 1.48 1.36 1.45 1.49 1.73 1.41 1.61

11

Country Land Monitoring Report: Philippines

Year Jan-June 2009 Total

Area (has) 12,662 1,209,622

No. of ARBs 8,617 812,772

Average area per ARB (has) 1.47 1.49

Figure 2. Total LAD accomplishment per administration


Total area of land distributed 2,000,000 Hectares 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 Aquino Ramos Estrada Arroyo (1987-1992) (1992-1998) (1998-2000) (2001-2009) Adm inistration 923,065 311,226 967,075 1,847,653

The highest accomplishment in land distribution was realized during the Ramos Administration, with almost 2 million hectares of land distributed. This is mainly due to the programming of land acquisition and distribution. According to the law, Phase One shall be implemented to rice and corn lands under PD 27 and all private lands voluntarily offered by the owners. In addition, Phase Two will prioritize all alienable and disposable public agricultural lands. These lands maybe considered easy targets, explaining the speedy acquisition and distribution in the early years.

Figure 3. Average LAD accomplishment per administration However, looking at the average area of land distributed annually in the past years, the range is between 100,000 to 110,000 hectares. If the lag in distribution is more than 1 million hectares, this means that annual distribution should be at an average of 200,000 hectares. Table 12 below shows the average size of farms (may include both ARBs and non-ARBs) and the scope and accomplishment of agrarian reform. Average farm size has generally decreased by 0.2 hectares from 1991 to 2002 in most of the regions. This maybe an indicator that the CARP was able to breakdown big landholdings, thus, decreasing average farm size. Table 12. Average farm size, 1991 and 2002 Region Philippines CAR I - Ilocos Region II - Cagayan Valley III - Central Luzon IVA - CALABARZON IVB - MIMAROPA V - Bicol Region VI - Western Visayas VII - Central Visayas VIII - Eastern Visayas IX - Zamboanga Peninsula
Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources In Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA)
Average area of land distributed 300,000 250,000 Hectares 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 Aquino (1987- Ramos (1992Estrada 1992) 1998) (1998-2000) Administration Arroyo (20012009) 153,844 103,742 107,453 263,950

Average size (ha/farm) 2002 1991 2.0 (-0.2) 2.2 1.5 (0.1) 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.7 (-0.2) 1.9 1.6 (-0.2) 1.8 2.1 (-0.1) 2.2 2.5 (-0.2) 2.7 2.3 (-0.2) 2.5 1.6 (-0.2) 1.8 1.2 (-0.1) 1.3 2.2 2.2 3.1 (0.2) 2.9

12

Country Land Monitoring Report: Philippines

Region X - Northern Mindanao XI - Davao Region XII SOCCSKSARGEN XIII Caraga ARMM

Average size (ha/farm) 2002 1991 2.3 (-0.4) 2.7 2.5 (-0.5) 3.0 2.3 (-0.5) 2.8 2.5 (-0.2) 2.7 2.1 (-0.4) 2.5

In terms of LAD scope, Region XII has the biggest area for agrarian reform (11% of total scope), followed by Region VI (10%), Region VIII (9%), and Region III (9%). In this case, LAD scope could be a proxy indicator for areas with the most number of landless farmers. In addition, one of the factors in identifying LAD scope is the area of alienable and disposable lands, as evidenced by the positive correlation of the two in most regions. Table 13. Area of alienable and disposable lands and LAD scope
Region Philippines (excl. NCR) CAR I Ilocos Region II - Cagayan Valley III - Central Luzon IVA - CALABARZON IVB - MIMAROPA V Bicol Region VI - Western Visayas VII - Central Visayas VIII - Eastern Visayas IX - Zamboanga Peninsula X - Northern Mindanao XI - Davao Region XII - SOCCSKSARGEN XIII - Caraga ARMM Area of A&D land (ha) 14,159,351 355,252 810,922 972,822 1,204,650 1,051,948 998,563 1,222,060 1,417,978 964,169 1,024,955 762,460 659,196 1,079,824 546,828 544,897 542,827 Share from total 100% 3% 6% 7% 9% 7% 7% 9% 10% 7% 7% 5% 5% 8% 4% 4% 4% LAD Scope (ha) 5,163,751 120,445 148,118 408,563 443,720 214,662 198,536 397,336 521,846 236,701 488,710 233,717 349,351 300,595 561,269 235,259 304,923 Share from total 100% 2% 3% 8% 9% 4% 4% 8% 10% 5% 9% 5% 7% 6% 11% 5% 6% % Accom 80% 78% 93% 84% 90% 75% 83% 73% 70% 65% 85% 88% 80% 75% 85% 91% 65% LAD Balance (ha) 1,044,550 26,460 10,211 66,888 43,283 54,461 34,557 109,095 154,241 83,746 75,541 28,605 68,897 75,563 84,005 21,203 107,794

Under the CARL, the DAR is mandated to determine and fix immediately the lease rentals in accordance with Section 34 of RA 3844 or the Agricultural Land Reform Code, but expressly repealed section 35 of RA 3844. This, therefore, abolished the exemptions and made all tenanted agricultural lands subject to leasehold. The changes in the law have significant implications, as follow: 1) abolition of share tenancy now covers all agricultural landholdings without exceptions, 2) the conversion of share tenancy into leasehold is mandated by law, 3) leasehold can be a preliminary step to land ownership, hence, all share-crop tenants were automatically converted into agricultural lessees, whether or not a leasehold agreement has been executed, and 4) leaseholders security of tenure shall be respected and guaranteed. As of June 2009, there are almost 1.2 million holders of leasehold contracts covering 1.6 million hectares of land or 18% of total farmlands. Almost one-fifth of the leaseholders are in Region I while a majority of the areas under leasehold are in Regions VIII and X. There is no available aggregate data on the target area and number of beneficiaries for leasehold for the duration of the CARP so matching the accomplishment with the target cannot be done. Table 14. Accomplishment in leasehold Region Philippines (excl. NCR) CAR I - Ilocos Region II - Cagayan Valley

Area (has) 1,698,341 1,791 150,957 88,843

% 100% 0.1% 9% 5%

No. of ARBs 1,196,653 3,015 219,916 66,048

% 100% 0.3% 18% 6%

Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources In Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA)

13

Country Land Monitoring Report: Philippines

Region III - Central Luzon IV CALABARZON, MIMAROPA V - Bicol Region VI - Western Visayas VII - Central Visayas VIII - Eastern Visayas IX - Zamboanga Peninsula X - Northern Mindanao XI - Davao Region XII SOCCSKSARGEN XIII Caraga ARMM

Area (has) 160,271 160,025 67,000 123,529 74,940 221,078 142,407 214,223 180,573 94,875 6,393 11,436

% 9% 9% 4% 7% 4% 13% 8% 13% 11% 6% 0.4% 1%

No. of ARBs 101,494 102,956 48,928 108,053 99,750 106,533 104,294 102,684 79,673 45,976 2,277 5,056

% 8% 9% 4% 9% 8% 9% 9% 9% 7% 4% 0.2% 0.4%

The total and average numbers of leasehold contracts per administration are shown in the figures below. Figure 3. Total leasehold accomplishment, per admin
Total no. of leasehold contracts 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 295,925 238,461

Figure 4. Average leasehold accomplishment per admin


Average no. of leasehold contracts 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 -

49,321 34,066 10,105

Number

90,944 22,262 Aquino Ramos Estrada Arroyo (1987-1992) (1992-1998) (1998-2000) (2001-2009) Administration

Number

7,421

Aquino Ramos Estrada Arroyo (1987-1992) (1992-1998) (1998-2000) (2001-2009) Adm inistration

The National Statistics Office conducts the Census of Agriculture and Fisheries every 10 years, which undertakes a complete count of all farm operators. So far, five rounds of the survey had been conducted since its inception in 1960. This section will focus on the results of the census, focusing on the whole agriculture sector instead of only agrarian reform lands. Figure 5. Number of farms based on farm size
2,000,000 1,800,000 1,600,000 Number of farms 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0
Under 1.00 1.00 2.99 3.00 4.99 5.00 9.99 10.00 24.99 25.00 and over

1960 1971 1980 1991 2002

As earlier discussed, average farm size is decreasing, from 2.2 hectares in 1991 to 2 hectares in 2002. The graph on the left shows that the number of farms with less than 3 hectares in size is increasing over time, while an opposite trend is happening for farms with more than 10 hectares. The increase has been significant after the passage of the CARL in 1988.

Size of farm s, in hectares

Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources In Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA)

14

Country Land Monitoring Report: Philippines

Figure 6. Number of farms based on tenurial status By tenurial status, owned and partly owned lands are increasing in number particularly after the passage of PD 27 and the CARL, as shown by the 1980 and 1991 levels. On the other hand, tenanted lands have been decreasing particularly after the abolishment of shared tenancy and conversion to leasehold. Based on the Census definition, owned lands include ownerlike possessions such as CLT and CLOA holders, lands to be inherited, etc. In addition, partly owned means some parcels of the farm were fully owned and the other were either tenanted, etc.
2,500,000 Number of farms 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 w ne d ne d Te na nt ed Le as ed th er fo rm s ow

1960 1971 1980 1991 2002

Pa rtl y

Tenurial status

Focusing on the most recent Census (2002), almost 80% of the total number of farms is less than 3 hectares and owned or partially owned. Table 15. Number of farms by farm size and tenurial status Farm size (has) Number of farms Percent Tenurial status Total 4,822,739 100% Total Under 1.00 1,935,874 40% Owned 1.00 2.99 1,974,572 41% Partly owned 3.00 4.99 508,880 11% Tenanted 5.00 9.99 303,139 6% Leased 10.00 24.99 88,658 2% Other forms 25.00 and over 11,616 0.2%

Number of farms 4,810,146 2,292,666 1,500,328 621,989 111,085 284,078

Percent 100% 48% 31% 13% 2% 6%

In terms of area, almost 40% of the farms are less than 3 hectares in size, though more than 20% of the farms are more than 10 hectares in size. This may include farms owned by ARBs that were not parcelized (those with collective CLOAs). A majority (83%) is either owned or partly owned. Table 16. Area of farms by farm size and tenurial status Farm size (has) Area (has) Percent Total 9,670,793 100% Under 1.00 827,031 9% 1.00 2.99 3,001,608 31% 3.00 4.99 1,778,383 18% 5.00 9.99 1,914,396 20% 10.00 24.99 1,192,189 12% 25.00 and over 957,187 10%

Tenurial status Total Owned Partly owned Tenanted Leased Other forms

Area (has) 9,648,247 4,896,765 3,105,017 1,115,283 202,518 328,664

Percent 100% 51% 32% 12% 2% 3%

Though farmers are given titles in the lands that they till, security of tenure remains a pressing issue. Land grabbing is a case where farmlands are being leased and, in some cases, eventually owned by local and foreign entities. Another term coined by advocates and used by the World Bank in its upcoming report is global land rush. The report, entitled The Global Land Rush: Can it yield sustainable and equitable benefits?, is the broadest study yet of on farmland grab, in which countries invest in overseas land to boost their food security, or investors (who are mostly local, buy arable land. The Philippines is one of the targets of foreign countries; as termed by the World Mission Magazinea lease hotspot.

Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources In Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA)

15

Country Land Monitoring Report: Philippines

There is no consolidated data on the extent, scope, and history of farmland grabbing in the Philippines. There are international organization and websites that attempt to document international land grabbing in order to raise consciousness and support over the increasing phenomenon. The table below is a result of internet research on cases of farmland grabbing. Table 17. News reports on farmland grabbing in the Philippines
No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Entity/Country Bahrain China Qatar Saudi Arabia (ANI/FEAICO) Saudi Arabia Legacy Group Capitol Development Bank and Manila Brickworks, Inc. New Zealand (Dairy SolutioNZ) China Bahrain Saudi Arabia Korea Description 10,000 has. for agrofishery 1.24 million has. leased; deal put on hold 100,000 has. leased 50,000 has. for crop plantations and processing plants Exploratory meetings Illegal transfer of ownership Location Unknown Unknown Unknown Mindanao Unknown Kalanggaman Island, Palompon, Leyte Norzagaray, Bulacan Year 2009 2008 2008 2010 2010 2009 Data source
http://english.bna.bh/?ID=76356; http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=busine ss5_mar30_2009 www.pambazuka.org/en/category/africa_china/5263 5; http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/ nation/vieDec http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation /vie w/20090105-181407/Rich-states-target-poorsfarmland http://farmlandgrab.org/12807 http://farmlandgrab.org/14218, http://farmlandgrab.org/13677, http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=ca che:RxMw4SmPDUJ:www.philstar.com/Article.asp x%3Farticleid%3D443957+land+grab+philippines& cd=13&hl=tl&ct=clnk&gl=ph&client=firefox-a http://pnoypinay.org/updates-list/103-the-dumagatsand-the-villar-land-grab

Illegal transfer of ownership

2010

8 9 10 11 12

Agreements underway for a dairy farm 1.2 million has. 1,000 has. for crop plantation 50 has. for crop plantation 94,000 has. for corn production

Unknown Various locations Davao Malungon, Gen. Santos City Mindoro

2010 Various years 2009 2009 2009

http://farmlandgrab.org/10648

http://farmlandgrab.org/9798 http://farmlandgrab.org/9267 http://farmlandgrab.org/8913

The Department of Agriculture, through the Philippine Agricultural Development and Commercial Corporation (PADCC) is key is playing a role of identifying and matching available land to prospective agribusiness investors. Table 18 below summarizes the lands to be matched by the PADCC to foreign investors' requests for land. Table 18. Areas to be matched by PADCC for investments by foreign agri-business corporations Location Area matched (consolidated, ha.) Philippines 1,997,642.16 Northern Luzon Agri-business Quadrangle 638,820.07 Region I 80,154.72 Region II 512,093.47 CAR 46,571.88 Luzon Urban Beltway 390,242.41 Region III 131,217.83 Region IV-A 23,301.47
Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources In Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA)

16

Country Land Monitoring Report: Philippines

Location Region IV-B Central Philippines Region V Region VI Region VII Region VIII Agribusiness Mindanao Region IX Region X Region XI Region XII Region XIII ARMM

Area matched (consolidated, ha.) 235,723.11 385,659.67 117,555.05 48,782.18 114,133.44 105,189.00 582,920.00 30,867.00 78,850.00 279,274.00 109,169.00 66,177.00 18,583.00

By policy, our Constitution prohibits foreign companies from buying land. The best option available is to lease private land. In addition, foreign companies must get approval from the Board of Investment for long-term leases. Land may be leased for an initial term of 50 years, renewable for another 25 years. Moreover, there are restrictions on the amount of land that may be leased. A foreign companys exercise of rights over the land such as subleasing, subdivision, or making improvements is limited by the terms of the lease contract and only absolute owners of the land may mortgage it. Also, the transfer of the lease to other foreign entities is restricted. Registration of leases is not mandatory. It is recommended that the lease be registered with the local register of deeds to ensure that lease rights are enforceable against third parties. The following policies govern ownership of land and properties for various purposes: 1. RA 7042: Foreign Investment Act of 1991 2. RA 8179: An act amending RA 7042 3. RA 4726: Condominium Act 4. RA 7652: Investors Lease Act 5. PD 715: Anti-Dummy Law 6. Batas Pambansa 185 (1982) C. Agrarian Justice Delivery Delivery of agrarian justice has two features: the agrarian legal assistance and adjudication of cases. Agrarian legal assistance is comprised of resolution of agrarian law implementation (ALI) cases, ARB representation before judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, and mediation and conciliation. On the other hand, adjudication of cases involves the resolution of cases by the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB). The DAR at present utilizes more aggressive alternative dispute resolution techniques in mediation to reduce conflicts maturing into court cases. The general objective is to persuade the contending parties to settle their disputes amicably or out of court before the DAR. ALI cases involve administrative cases and falls under the jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary and or his/her authorized representative and the Regional Director, such as: 1) application for exemption from coverage under RA 6657 and application for exemption pursuant to DOJ opinion no. 44; 2) determination of rights of ARBs such as disposition of excess area of the tenants/farmer beneficiarys landholdings, rights to homelots, and rights of retention by landowner; 3) matters or concerns referred to it by the DAR Secretary; 4) identification and classification of landholdings for coverage under the agrarian reform program and the initial issuance of CLOAs and EPs, including protests or oppositions thereto and identification, classification, inclusion, exclusion, qualification, or disqualification of potential/actual farmerbeneficiaries, issuance of Certificate of Exemption for land subject of VOS and CA found unsuitable for agricultural purposes; 5) not yet registered documents with the Register of Deeds such as CLOAs and recall or cancellation of provisional lease rentals, CLTs and CBCs in cases outside the purview of PD 816;
Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources In Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA)

17

Country Land Monitoring Report: Philippines

6) conflict of claims in landed estates administered by DAR and its predecessors; 7) application for conversion of agricultural land to residential, commercial, industrial, or other nonagricultural uses and purposes including protests or oppositions thereto; 8) subdivision survey of land; 9) exclusion from CARP coverage except agricultural land used for livestock, swine, and poultry raising and exemption of fishpond and prawn from the coverage of CARP pursuant to RA 7881; and 10) settlements administered by DAR and its predecessors involving conflict of claims. The DAR receives an average of 46,000 ALI cases annually and has an average accomplishment rate of 94% in terms of cases resolved. Table 19. Number of ALI cases received and resolved, per year
Year C. Aquino Administration 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 Jan to June 1992 Total Average Ramos Administration July to Dec 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Jan to Jun 1998 Total Average Estrada Administration July to Dec 1998 1999 2000 Total Average Arroyo Administration 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Jan to June 2009 Total Average Overall total Overall average Cases received 41,394 37,068 49,480 36,965 90,867 43,351 299,125 49,854 43,352 56,972 35,094 47,071 45,242 47,697 18,482 293,910 41,987 27,153 58,768 63,096 149,017 49,672 61,192 34,580 38,742 41,822 66,350 40,641 45,490 57,932 30,524 417,273 46,364 1,159,325 46,969 Cases resolved 41,394 34,728 41,586 27,328 72,074 37,542 254,652 42,442 37,542 43,169 32,875 45,470 43,644 49,405 19,597 271,702 38,815 28,577 56,153 60,591 145,321 48,440 60,285 34,182 38,982 38,923 67,496 41,798 49,652 62,021 27,889 421,228 46,803 1,092,903 44,125 % 100% 94% 84% 74% 79% 87% 85% 85% 87% 76% 94% 97% 96% 104% 106% 92% 92% 105% 96% 96% 98% 98% 99% 99% 101% 93% 102% 103% 109% 107% 91% 101% 101% 94% 94%

Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources In Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA)

18

Country Land Monitoring Report: Philippines

A majority of ALI cases were received from Regions IV and VIII. Least number of cases was received in CARAGA. In addition, Regions X, XII, and VI exhibit low percentage of cases resolved relative with the other regions. Table 20. Number of cases received and resolved, per region Region Cases received Share from total 1,159,325 Philippines (excl. NCR) CAR 28,639 2% I Ilocos Region 114,709 10% II - Cagayan Valley 74,499 6% III - Central Luzon 107,153 9% IV CALABARZON, MIMAROPA 148,249 13% V - Bicol Region 113,863 10% VI - Western Visayas 84,292 7% VII - Central Visayas 66,699 6% VIII - Eastern Visayas 137,940 12% IX - Zamboanga Peninsula 41,171 4% X - Northern Mindanao 79,598 7% XI - Davao Region 48,732 4% XII SOCCSKSARGEN 33,588 3% XIII Caraga 58,219 5% ARMM 243 0.02% Central Office 21,731 2%

Cases resolved 1,092,903 27,929 106,337 74,614 99,701 142,145 103,932 74,906 65,122 135,766 40,017 67,050 47,034 28,950 57,519 226 21,655

% 94% 98% 93% 100% 93% 96% 91% 89% 98% 98% 97% 84% 97% 86% 99% 93% 100%

On the other hand, DARAB cases falls under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the DARAB and its Regional or Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicators (RARAD/PARAD). These cases involve: 1) determination of title to agricultural lands where this issue is raised in an agrarian dispute by any of the parties or a third person; 2) annulment or cancellation of lease contract or deeds of sale or their amendments involving lands under the administration and disposition of the DAR and LBP; 3) rights and obligations of persons, whether natural or juridical, engaged in the management, cultivation, and use of all agricultural lands covered by RA 6657 and other related agrarian laws. This also includes review of leasehold rentals; 4) boundary disputes over lands under the administration and disposition of the DAR and the LBP which are transferred, distributed, and/or sold to tenant/beneficiaries and are covered by deeds of sale, patents, and certificates of title; 5) cases involving the collection of amortizations on payments for lands awarded; 6) acquired lands under PD 27 and CARP for preliminary administrative determination of reasonable and just compensation; 7) sale, alienation, pre-emption, and redemption of agricultural lands under the coverage of CARL or other agrarian laws; 8) ejection and dispossession of tenants and/or leaseholders, exclusive jurisdiction of the defunct Court of Agrarian Relations except those cases falling under the proper courts and other quasi-judicial bodies; and 9) secondary and subsequent issuances of CLOAs and EPs which are registered with the LRA and those cased involving correction, partition, disputes, matters or concerns referred to it by the DAR Secretary. The DAR receives an average of 14,000 DARAB cases annually. It can be noticed that more cases were received in more recent years (2000 and onwards) since the coverage of LAD has shifted to private lands subject to compulsory acquisition where landowners resistance will be prevalent. Average accomplishment rate for resolution of cases is 96%.

Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources In Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA)

19

Country Land Monitoring Report: Philippines

Table 21. Number of DARAB cases received and resolved, per year
Year C. Aquino Administration 1988 1989 1990 1991 Jan to June 1992 Total Average Ramos Administration July to Dec 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Jan to Jun 1998 Total Average Estrada Administration July to Dec 1998 1999 2000 Total Average Arroyo Administration 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Jan to June 2009 Total Average Overall total Overall average Cases received 726 2,623 2,793 5,955 3,201 15,298 3,060 3,209 8,623 9,967 28,306 34,784 32,602 7,559 125,050 17,864 9,756 23,659 21,955 55,370 18,457 21,515 16,459 14,016 17,277 13,270 15,388 16,232 24,180 9,584 147,921 16,436 343,659 13,954 Cases resolved 67 1,107 683 3,981 2,341 8,179 1,636 2,351 8,872 11,248 25,949 31,816 31,823 5,795 117,854 16,836 12,381 23,832 20,578 56,791 18,930 18,212 15,925 14,030 17,764 14,716 16,475 17,431 23,441 8,347 146,341 16,260 329,165 13,416 % 9% 42% 24% 67% 73% 53% 53% 73% 103% 113% 92% 91% 98% 77% 94% 94% 127% 101% 94% 103% 103% 85% 97% 100% 103% 111% 107% 107% 97% 87% 99% 99% 96% 96%

A majority of DARAB cases were received from Regions III and V. Least number of cases was received in Region XII and ARMM. In addition, Regions VI and IV exhibit low percentage of cases resolved relative with the other regions. Table 22. Number of cases received and resolved, per region Region Cases received Share from total 343,659 100% Philippines (excl. NCR) CAR 9,044 3% I Ilocos Region 7,890 2% II - Cagayan Valley 17,119 5% III - Central Luzon 77,748 23% IV CALABARZON, MIMAROPA 36,990 11% V - Bicol Region 55,303 16% VI - Western Visayas 27,581 8%
Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources In Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA)

Cases resolved 329,165 8,944 7,660 16,511 75,651 33,536 53,789 24,855

% 96% 99% 97% 96% 97% 91% 97% 90%

20

Country Land Monitoring Report: Philippines

Region VII - Central Visayas VIII - Eastern Visayas IX - Zamboanga Peninsula X - Northern Mindanao XI - Davao Region XII SOCCSKSARGEN XIII Caraga ARMM Central Office

Cases received 15,383 32,171 8,902 9,580 9,802 4,527 13,275 156 18,188

Share from total 4% 9% 3% 3% 3% 1% 4% >1% 5%

Cases resolved 14,612 29,872 8,404 9,430 9,550 4,163 13,042 305 18,841

% 95% 93% 94% 98% 97% 92% 98% 196% 104%

Though percent of resolution of ALI and DARAB cases is high, there is a significant number of pending cases aging for several years. For ALI, judicial, and quasi-judicial cases, there are 7,889 pending cases. Getting the weighted average of all the cases, the average age of pending ALI cases is 1 year and 4 months. This period could be an underestimation since the actual number of years for cases that are pending for more than 6 years is not known. Table 23. Aging of pending ALI, judicial, and quasi-judicial cases (as of June 2009) Age of ALI cases No. of cases Region with the most cases > 1 year 5,996 Region VI 1 year 863 Region IX 2 years 301 Region V 3 years 245 Region V 4 years 190 Region III 5 years 65 Region V > 6 years 229 Region V Total 7,889 Region V Meanwhile, there are more pending DARAB cases compared with ALI cases. The region with the most number of pending DARAB cases is Region VI. Average age of pending DARAB cases is 1 year and 5 months. Again, this period may be an under estimation. Based on reference from the DAR, the DARAB takes an average of one year and three months to resolve its cases and five years and eight months to implement agrarian law cases. Table 24. Aging of pending DARAB cases (as of June 2009) Age of DARAB cases No. of cases > 1 year 7,186 1 year 1,465 2 years 777 3 years 488 4 years 566 5 years 153 > 5 years 121 Total 10,756

Region with the most cases Region VI Region III Region III Region III Region III Region III Region III Region VI

In terms of costs of adjudication, average cost for legal assistance is PhP 839 per hectare while average cost for adjudication is PhP 1,049 per hectare. A more important indicator of efficiency is the average time of adjudicating cases. Despite the legal mechanisms in settling agrarian disputes, human rights violations continue to be committed against farmers. There are no official aggregated data on the number of human rights violation brought about by agrarian disputes from the DAR. The Commission on Human Rights compiles data on the number of human rights violations by type (e.g., harassment, killings, illegal detention). However, it is difficult to discern if these violations
Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources In Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA)

21

Country Land Monitoring Report: Philippines

are agrarian-related. Specific data are compiled in their regions, which will takes ample time to aggregate. Available data as of report writing is found in the table below. Table 25. Human rights violation cases related to agrarian reform dispute/conflict (2005-Sept 2010) Killing No. Of People Harassed Region (No. Of Cases) Detained (No. Of Cases) CAR 0 0 1 I Ilocos Region 0 0 1 II - Cagayan Valley 1 0 3 III - Central Luzon 1 * 1 IV CALABARZON, MIMAROPA * * * V - Bicol Region 1 0 1 VI - Western Visayas 8 0 7 VII - Central Visayas * * * VIII - Eastern Visayas 1 1 18 IX - Zamboanga Peninsula 0 0 0 X - Northern Mindanao 2 0 5 XI - Davao Region 1 0 1 XII SOCCSKSARGEN 1 * * XIII Caraga 0 0 1 TOTAL 16 1 39 * no report In addition, there are organizations that monitor and document agrarian-related violence. Based on research, 5 organizations were identified. Scope and areas of coverage of monitoring is limited to the focused areas of these organizations. Table 26. Organizations that document agrarian-related violence No. Organization 1 Asian Human Rights Commission 2 Task Force Detainees of the Philippines 3 Task Force Mapalad 4 Partnership for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Services (PARRDS) 5 FIAN International (Food First Information and Action Network) Based on records of the organizations cited above, a total of 2,377 cases of agrarian-related violence committed against farmers were documented. Table 27. Number of agrarian-related violence, by type No. Type 1 Killing 2 Attempted killing/physical injury 3 Arrest/detention 4 Destruction of property/demolition of home/eviction 5 Others (accusations of stealing, violent dispersal, delay in installation) 6 Human rights violation not classified Total Summary of findings Table 28 summarizes the data available for each indicator.

Number of Persons Affected 20 107 131 638 677 804 2,377

Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources In Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA)

22

Country Land Monitoring Report: Philippines

Table 28. Summary of findings per indicator


Variables A. Inputs Budget Indicators 1. Agrarian reform budget 2. R & D expenditure in agriculture as % of total agriculture budget 3. ODA in agriculture Findings Agrarian reform budget increased by 22% from 2009-2010; observed overreleases during election years (2004 and 2007) Disaggregated budget data not available

Policies

4. Land use planning 5. For marginalized groups IPs, women, fishers, etc 6. Policies or guidelines on agricultural investments

DAR is one of the largest recipients of ODA; total of 59 projects implemented amounting to PhP 76 billion; projects focus on support services delivery National Land Use Act (NLUA) pending for enactment Asset reforms laws already passed (IPRA, Fisheries Code, UDHA, EO 263 for CBFM), but overlapping land titles continue to persist, causing disputes across sectors The Philippine Constitution prohibits foreign companies from buying lands. The best option available is to lease private land (initial term of 50 years, renewable for another 25 years). No aggregated data No aggregated data No aggregated data ALI and DARAB cases received (1988-2009): 1,509,984 Average ALI cases received per year: 46,000 cases Average DARAB cases received per year: 14,000 cases Average accomplishment rate of ALI case resolution: 94% Average accomplishment rate of DARAB case adjudication: 96% No aggregated data; Proxy data: 1,997,642 hectares of land to be matched by the PADCC for investments by foreign agribusiness corporations Cannot be determined Average time of DARAB cases resolution: 1.25 years Average time of ALI cases resolution: 5.6 years No. of pending ALI cases: 7,889 cases No. of pending DARAB cases: 10,756 cases Average cost for legal assistance: PhP 839 per hectare Average cost for adjudication: PhP 1,049 per hectare No aggregated data No aggregated data

B. Land tenure Disputes 7. # of people killed (per 100,000) 8. # of people detained (per 100,000) 9. # of people harassed (per 100,000) 10. # of cases received (per 100,000) 11. # of cases investigated (per 100,000) 12. # of cases adjudicated (per 100,000) 13. # of cases of land grabbing (per 100,000) 14. % area of land grabbed 15. Average time in years for dispute resolution 16. Annual loss of time due to disputes 17. Monetary loss Evictions 18. # of HH evicted/displaced from farms (per 100,000) 19. # of HH becoming totally homeless due to eviction C. Access to land Ownership 20. Ownership according to size of landholdings

Number of farms according to farm size and tenurial status


Farm size (has) Total Under 1.00 1.00 2.99 3.00 4.99 5.00 9.99 10.00 24.99 25.00 and over Number of farms 4,822,739 1,935,874 1,974,572 508,880 303,139 88,658 11,616 % 100% 40% 41% 11% 6% 2% 0.2% Tenurial status Total Owned Partly owned Tenanted Leased Other forms Number of farms 4,810,146 2,292,666 1,500,328 621,989 111,085 284,078 % 100% 48% 31% 13% 2% 6%

Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources In Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA)

23

Country Land Monitoring Report: Philippines Variables Indicators Findings Area of farms according to farm size and tenurial status
Farm size (has) Total Under 1.00 1.00 2.99 3.00 4.99 5.00 9.99 10.00 24.99 25.00 and over Area (has) 9,670,793 827,031 3,001,608 1,778,383 1,914,396 1,192,189 957,187 % 100% 9% 31% 18% 20% 12% 10% Tenurial status Total Owned Partly owned Tenanted Leased Other forms Area (has) 9,648,247 4,896,765 3,105,017 1,115,283 202,518 328,664 % 100% 51% 32% 12% 2% 3%

Tenancy rights

Landlessness

21. # of sharecroppers 22. # of sharecroppers having legal documents 23. % of contract farmers area in relation to total agricultural area 24. Gini coefficient/bottom to top ratio

No aggregated data As of June 2009, there are almost 1.2 million holders of leasehold contracts Leasehold contracts cover 1.6 million hectares of land or 18% of total farmlands Not computed (coefficient may not reliable if based on size of landholdings since some of the ARBs are issued collective CLOAs)

Accessibility of data of regional indicators Of the 24 regional indicators identified, 14 indicators have data that can be secured from related government agencies. Alternative sources are listed in the table below. Table 29. Accessibility of data
Variables A. Inputs Budget Indicators Official data available? Yes Official Source DAR, DBM Remarks Alternative source

1. Agrarian reform budget

Detailed budget not available online, can be requested from DAR

2. R & D expenditure in agriculture as % of total agriculture budget 3. ODA in agriculture

Yes

DA

Yes

Policies

4. Land use planning 5. For marginalized groups IPs, women, fishers, etc 6. Policies or guidelines on agricultural investments

Yes Yes Yes

FAPSODAR, NEDA Various sources Various sources Various sources DAR

Complete info available in FAPSO-DAR website Policies available online Policies available online Policies available online

B. Land tenure Disputes 7. # of people killed 8. # of people detained 9. # of people harassed 10. # of cases received

No No No Yes

Database of HR organizations Database of HR organizations Database of HR organizations Data on two types of cases available: ALI and DARAB

Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources In Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA)

24

Country Land Monitoring Report: Philippines Official data available? Yes

Variables

Indicators 11. # of cases investigated

Official Source DAR

Remarks Data on two types of cases available: ALI and DARAB; data is on # of cases resolved Data on two types of cases available: ALI and DARAB; data is on # of cases resolved

Alternative source

12. # of cases adjudicated

Yes

DAR

13. # of cases of land grabbing 14. % area of land grabbed 15. Average time in years for dispute resolution 16. Annual loss of time due to disputes 17. Monetary loss Evictions 18. # of HH evicted/displaced from farms 19. # of HH becoming totally homeless due to eviction C. Access to land Ownership 20. Ownership according to size of landholdings Tenancy 21. # of sharecroppers rights 22. # of sharecroppers having legal documents 23. % of contract farmers area in relation to total agricultural area Landlessness 24. Gini coefficient/bottom to top ratio

No No Yes No No No No

DAR -

Website search Data available is age of pending cases Review of literature Review of literature Database of HR organizations Database of HR organizations Data is generated every 10 years Data available is on no. of leaseholders Data available is on no. of leaseholders

Yes No Yes Yes

NSO DAR DAR

Yes/No

NSO

Data available is on landholdings by farm size but not based on income

VII.

Recommendations

Land monitoring is imperative and should be done on a regular basis. Comprehensive monitoring can be done in various components: 1) inputs, processes, 3) outputs, 4) outcomes, and 5) impacts. The table below shows various indicators and methods on how to generate data. The variables and indicators below is a combination of the regional and country indicators. Table 30. Recommended variables and indicators Component Variables Indicators Inputs Laws and policies, Share of LAD budget in total budget agrarian reform budget Average cost of LAD Processes Institutional capacity, Average processing time of administration and CLOA (from issuance to implementation distribution) per mode of processes, processing acquisition time Average number of staff required for land surveying and titling vs. number of DARs current field
Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources In Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA)

Method of data gathering Review of DARs budget per program component Review of studies on cost of LAD Review of policies in CLOA processing per mode of acquisition Key informant interviews of DAR personnel and ARBs Capacity assessment survey of

25

Country Land Monitoring Report: Philippines

Component

Variables

Outputs

Land and title possession

Outcomes

Decrease in rate of landlessness and conflict Poverty reduction

Impacts

Indicators number of DARs current field staff for LAD Targets vs. accomplishments Number of CLOAs issued per type of CLOA (individual, collective) Number of leasehold contract issued Number of farmers by type of tenure (yearly comparison) Number of cases filed and resolved, rate of resolution Poverty incidence of farmers/ARBs (yearly comparison) Change in income (farm vs. nonfarm)

Method of data gathering DAR Targets vs. accomplishments Compilation of data from DARs annual report, OPIF

Data from Census of Agriculture (NSO) Compilation of data from DARs annual report Poverty statistics (NSCB) Family Income and Expenditure Survey (NSO) Survey of ARBs (baseline) and FGDs

Impact of land security may be more difficult to assess since baseline data is needed. The table below is an attempt to correlate poverty incidence and being an ARB. Table 31. Share of ARBs on total farmers and poverty (incidence and magnitude) among farmers Estimated Share from Poverty No. of ARBs Region number of total incidence (2009) farmers farmers (2006) Philippines (excl. NCR) 4,762,832 2,396,096 50% 44.0 CAR 162,330 74,499 46% 46.1 I - Ilocos Region 326,146 112,704 35% 32.2 II - Cagayan Valley 278,805 195,455 70% 16.9 III - Central Luzon 306,223 256,172 84% 20.2 IVA - CALABARZON 371,088 101,940 27% 40.9 IVB - MIMAROPA 239,706 115,141 48% 47.3 V - Bicol Region 376,316 172,849 46% 47.4 VI - Western Visayas 392,839 258,265 66% 39.8 VII - Central Visayas 379,010 117,357 31% 51.4 VIII - Eastern Visayas 330,244 184,092 56% 54.0 IX - Zamboanga Peninsula 270,481 117,203 43% 54.7 X - Northern Mindanao 275,867 158,944 58% 54.3 XI - Davao Region 257,610 159,927 62% 46.1 XII SOCCSKSARGEN 301,227 204,202 68% 41.0 XIII Caraga 146,749 104,811 71% 53.7 ARMM 340,591 62,535 18% 62.3

Magnitude of poor (2006) 2,095,646 74,834 105,019 47,118 61,857 151,775 113,381 178,374 156,350 194,811 178,332 147,953 149,796 118,758 123,503 78,804 212,188

For the land monitoring index, it is suggested to utilize indicators that are annually generated by the agencies, for ease of data gathering and ensure data availability. In the course of monitoring, ample time should be allocated for data gathering, as it takes a month to secure data from government agencies. Where primary data gathering is required (i.e., surveys, FGDs), the scope should be significant to make the findings generalizable.

Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources In Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA)

26

Country Land Monitoring Report: Philippines

References: Asian NGO Coalition. Securing the Right to Land: A CSO Overview to Land in Asia. 2009. Balisacan, A. Agrarian Reform and Poverty Reduction in the Philippines. Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA). Policy Dialogue on Agrarian Reform Issues in Rural Development and Poverty Alleviation, Traders Hotel, Manila. 2007. Ballesteros, M. The Cost of Redistributive Land Reform in the Philippines: Assessment of PD 27 and RA 6657 (CARL). Philippine Institute for Development Studies Discussion Paper Series No. 2010-09. 2010. Bending, T. Monitoring Secure Access to Land: Progress and Prospects. Land Monitoring Handbook. International Land Coalition. 2010. Braun, J. and Dick, R. Land Grabbing by Foreign Investors in Developing Countries: Risks and Opportunities. International Food Policy Research Institute Policy Brief 13. 2009. Daniel, S., et al. (Mis)investment in Agriculture: The Role of the International Finance Corporation in Global Land Grabs. The Oakland Institute. 2010. Daniel, S., et al. The Great Land Grab: Rush for Worlds Farmland Threatens Food Security for the Poor. The Oakland Institute. 2009. Dela Cruz, J. The New Conquistadores And One Very Willing Colony: A Discussion on Global Land Grabbing and the Philippine Experience. Peoples Campaign for Agrarian Reform (AR Now!). 2010. Department of Agrarian Reform. Accomplishment Report CY 2009. Department of Agrarian Reform. Rules and Procedures of DARAB and ALI. Bureau of Agrarian Reform Information and Education (BARIE) and Communications Development Division (CDD). 2008. Department of Budget and Management. Organizational Performance Indicators Framework for the Department of Agrarian Reform: Book of Outputs. 2010. Institute of Philippine Culture. Community-Based Forest Management in the Philippines: A Preliminary Assessment. Ateneo de Manila University. 2001. International Fact-Finding Mission on Agrarian Reform Related Violations of Human Rights in the Philippines. Running amok: Landlord lawlessness and Impunity in the Philippines. 2006. Jha, P., et al. Land Reform Experiences: Some Lessons from Across the Globe. Ekta Parishad, India. 2007. Laksa, K. and El-Mikawy, N. Reflections on Land Tenure Security Indicators. Discussion Paper 11. UNDP Oslo Governance Centre. 2009. LandWatch Asia. Philippine Country Paper. 2008. Leonen, M. CARP Institutional Assessment in a Post-2008 Transition Scenario: Reforms for the Agrarian Justice System. Philippine Institute for Development Studies Discussion Paper Series No. 2008-10.2008. National Statistics Office. Census of Agriculture and Fisheries. 2002.

Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources In Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA)

27

Country Land Monitoring Report: Philippines

Pangandaman, N. Philippine Agrarian Reform: Partnerships for Social Justice, Rural Growth, and Sustainable Development. Country paper presented in the International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development, Brazil. 2006. Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA), et al. Land, Life and Justice: The Challenge of Agrarian Reform in the Philippines. An NGO Report on Agrarian Reform and Human Rights Situation. 2006. Philippine Human Rights Information Center (PhilRights). Philippine NGO Network Report on the Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). 2008. Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources in Rural Areas. Philippine Asset Reform Report Card (PARRC). 2008. Task Force Mapalad. Cases of Agrarian Related Violence in TFM Landholdings. 2006. World Bank. Land Reform, Rural Development, and Poverty Reduction in the Philippines: Revisiting the Agenda. 2009. World Organization Against Torture. Preventing Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment in the Philippines by Acting on their Economic, Social and Cultural Root Causes: An alternative report to the Committee Against Torture. 2009.

Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources In Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA)

28