“Yes, but not to the fullest in my opinion.

” –Threjann Ace Noli

There are various interplaying factors that contributed to the non-complete and
non-total success of the program. This may sound harsh, and one may think that it
undermines the accomplishment of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and other
agencies in the CARP implementation, but, such accomplishments are overshadowed
by reality of not accomplishing the program on the given timeframe as intended by the
law. Nevertheless, credit goes to whom it is due.

Various studies show that there is an increased per capita incomes, reduced
poverty incidence, higher investments in physical capital, and greater household welfare
and productivity were reported, aside from social justice and peace attained in the
countryside.1 Further, a study involving about 1,500 farm households also revealed an
increase of higher real per capita incomes and reduced poverty incidence between
1990 and 2000 compared to non-agrarian reform beneficiaries. 2 In 2002,
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) officially claimed to have
redistributed six million hectares of land to more than two million peasant households,
accounting for nearly half of the country’s agricultural lands and two-fifths of the total
rural households, respectively.3 From the aforesaid, increase of income and direct
access to the food for the table, and restoration of peace and order can be attributed to
CARP.

Despite the successes, rural poverty continues to be the main problem of our
country, even today. One of the main reason as I saw is the inability of the government
to comprehensively carry out the needed support services for the beneficiaries and the
lack of urgency from them, shall I say, to push for an efficient agrarian reform. Although
the essence of an agrarian reform program is land distribution 4 as experience in many
countries has shown, that the mere distribution of lands is not sufficient to guarantee an
improvement of the living standard of the reform's beneficiaries. Land transfer has to be
accompanied by the provision of support services, such as input supply, irrigation,
extension, marketing and credit.5 These two components, land distribution and support
services, form the core of any agrarian reform program. 6 Support services for the
1
Impact of access to land on food security and poverty: the case of Philippine agrarian reform. E.A. Guardian,
Programme Director, GCP/PHI/047/AUL and GCP/PHI/043/ITA.
2
Impact of Agrarian Reform on Poverty. Celia M. Reyes. Philippine Journal of Development Number 54, Volume
XXIX, No. 2, Second Semester 2002
3
The Social and Constitutional Context of Agrarian Reform. Hon. Christian S. Monsod. July-December 2006
VOL. 8, Issue No. 26 https://philja.judiciary.gov.ph/files/journal/vol8issue26.pdf
4
Problems in evaluating the impact of land reform programs: the experience of the Philippine.
http://www.fao.org/3/x3720t/x3720t06.htm
5
Id.
6
Id.
agrarian reform communities became pivotal in enhancing food security and building
infrastructures that promote food production, enhance community trading and increase
rural household income.7 A study also highlights the vulnerability of farmers to shocks,
particularly weather-related ones8 that requires a need for some safety nets, particularly
for the very poor.9 These safety nets would ensure that those hit by shocks need not
resort to coping mechanisms that would have long-term negative impact on their human
capital as well as their productive capacity.10 In my readings, actual experience, and
vicarious observations, the support (farming machineries, equipments, and other
farming technologies) that our farmers needed the most, is not delivered timely,
effectively and efficiently (like the case in Mindanao where Sec. Piñol discovered rusty
and stocked farm machineries and equipments in one of the DA Regional Office and
was not distributed). This led to agrarian reform beneficiaries lending their farmlots to
loan sharks as security for the needed equipments and machineries for farming. Limited
farming technologies and farming cycle (a risk of high percentage of failure), many of
our farmers fell on debt traps, consequently, selling their farmlots and became a tenant
and a farmworker, again!

Atty. Monsod recognized the difficulty to navigate through the legal and economic
constraints of the Philippine version of agrarian reform without the government itself
being part of the problem.11 I cannot surmise how the government was not able to put in
one pot, all the necessary elements for the successful agrarian reform. Lack of
government supports and poor coordination with other line agencies, contribute to this
debacle. I am frustrated, and lost of words. My parents are farmers and I grew up in a
farm. All the aforesaid are true and correct. If government supports are there, our
farmers would not be selling their farmlots and would encourage their children to
continue their patrimony. In conclusion, land redistribution alone was not enough to
liberate the small farmer from poverty and ensure the success of the CARP. If
government supports are timely provided, this story of agrarian reform in the country
would have at least a better ending and not a bitter-sweet.

7
Supra, 1.
8
Supra, 2.
9
Id.
10
Id.
11
Supra, 3.