Position Paper: Republic Act 6657: “Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988.

”
Felix Gabriel O. Boridas
BSABE 3-1
Cavite State University

I. Summary

The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, or Republic Act 6657, was a
landmark legislation in the Philippines designed to address social inequality in the agricultural
sector. Its primary objective was to facilitate the redistribution of agricultural lands from
landowners to landless farmers, farmworkers, and tenants. Through the issuance of
Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOA), beneficiaries gained legal ownership and
control over the lands they tilled, empowering them economically and socially.
Agrarian Reform Law covered both public and private agricultural lands, prioritizing
the distribution of tenanted lands. It limited landownership, allowing landowners to retain a
maximum of 5 hectares and mandated direct cultivation of the retained land. The law aimed to
promote fairness in lease rentals and sharing of harvests between landowners and tenants,
fostering improved relations and stability within rural communities. To facilitate the success of
the agrarian reform, the law mandated the government's compulsory acquisition of private
lands, ensuring fair compensation to landowners in the form of cash, bonds, or other assets.
Moreover, it provided comprehensive support services to farmer-beneficiaries, including
access to irrigation, credit, subsidies, and marketing assistance, aimed at enhancing
agricultural productivity and economic viability.
The Presidential Agrarian Reform Council and the Department of Agrarian Reform
were tasked with overseeing and coordinating the law's implementation, while also prohibiting
illegal land conversions and imposing penalties to prevent circumvention of the reform
program. Overall, Agrarian Reform Law was regarded as a significant step towards social
justice and rural development in the Philippines, aiming to uplift the lives of rural communities
by providing equitable access to land and essential support services.

II. Purpose

The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988 was enacted with the
broad purpose of promoting social justice, equity, productivity and rural development in the
Philippines. At its core, this landmark law sought to redistribute agricultural land to landless
farmers and farmworkers as a means of improving their economic status and quality of life.
The law was a recognition that an inequitable distribution of agricultural land had historically
existed in the country, with a few wealthy landowners possessing large landholdings while a
mass of rural poor labored as tenants and farmworkers with little security. Land reform was
seen as key to empowering this marginalized sector and narrowing the gap between rich and
poor.
Specifically, the law aimed to dismantle the tenancy system and grant landless
farmers and farmworkers the opportunity to own the lands they tilled. This would enable them
to achieve economic self-sufficiency and social dignity as small landowners. The certainty of
land ownership was also intended to motivate beneficiaries to invest their labor and resources
to improve farm productivity. At the same time, the law sought to regulate and improve
relations between landowners and tenants. Fair lease rents were mandated and profit sharing
schemes prescribed, among other reforms, to create more equitable arrangements. The law
also had a wider purpose of spurring rural industrialization and modernization. Support
 services like irrigation, cheap credit, infrastructure and marketing assistance were to be made
available to aid beneficiaries in making their lands more productive and financially viable.
In general, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 was driven by a vision
of social justice where farmers and farmworkers enjoyed security of land tenure, decent
livelihoods and dignity. Land reform served as the foundation for transforming unequal rural
social structures and bringing marginalized sectors into the economic mainstream.

III. Status of Implementation

The implementation of CARL began in 1988 upon the effectivity of RA 6657 with the
intent of completing it within 10 years by 1998 (Republic Act No. 6657, 1988). However, the
original timetable was not met and several extensions were granted by Congress, with the
final extension being the CARP Extension with Reforms passed in 2009 which extended the
program until June 2014 (Department of Agrarian Reform, 2022). As of 2014, the DAR
reported 93% of the 9.3 million hectares targeted had been acquired and distributed, but land
acquisition and distribution is still ongoing in some areas (Department of Agrarian Reform,
2022). In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that private lands cannot be covered without
landowner consent due to the Constitution's due process clause, stalling some acquisitions
(Palattao, 2019). As of 2022, outstanding issues include delayed distribution of acquired
lands, problems in documenting land titles, and concerns over just compensation
(Department of Agrarian Reform, 2022). Meanwhile, pending bills in Congress seek either a
further extension, a replacement program, or termination of remaining processes (Palattao,
2019). In summary, while significant progress has been made, full implementation within the
originally intended scope and timeframe under RA 6657 has not been fully achieved despite
extensions, and certain challenges persist in some areas of the reform program (Department
of Agrarian Reform, 2022; Palattao, 2019).

IV. Review of the policy

Chapter I of RA 6657 lays out the preliminary provisions of the Comprehensive

Agrarian Reform Law. Section 1 specifies the title of the law. Section 2 declares the principles
and policies, stating that the welfare of landless farmers and farmworkers will be the highest
priority in implementing agrarian reform to promote social justice and rural development. It
aims for a more equitable distribution of lands and opportunity for farmers to enhance their
livelihood through greater agricultural productivity. Section 3 defines key terms used in the law
such as agrarian reform, agriculture, agricultural land, farmer, and farmworker. Upon
reviewing these definitions, I found the definition of "agricultural land" to be overly broad, as it
considers land devoted to or suitable for agriculture as covered, without specifying suitable
criteria. This vague provision could allow arbitrary coverage of private properties without clear
agricultural vocation. I suggest amendending the definition to provide objective parameters of
what constitutes agricultural land eligible for coverage under the law, such as land actually
used for agricultural activities, to ensure proper protection of private property rights as
mandated in the Constitution. A clearly defined scope of coverage is important to address
potential conflicts in implementation and ensure the principles of due process.
Overall, Chapter I provides the framework and basis for the rest of the law. However,
the broad definition of agricultural land raises concerns if not clarified through amendment.
This could help streamline implementation and prevent potential problems down the line.

Chapter 2 covers the specific lands that the law includes. Reviewing this chapter, I
had these thoughts: Section 4 states that the law will apply to both public and private
farmlands, as well as lands that people use for farming or could use for farming no matter
who owns them or what crops grow there. While wanting to include everything makes sense,
this broad scope still concerns me for the same reasons as Chapter 1 - it may lead to
arguments without clear rules for what qualifies as a "suitable" piece of land. Section 5 sets
an ambitious 10-year goal to complete redistributing all the land, which Section 7 then
spreads out over phases. Breaking it into phases clarifies the planned process. However, the
past delays make me question if meeting that timeline is realistic, so it's worth examining to
help strengthen future changes. Section 6 allows owners to keep some land but rightly
protects existing farmers' rights to stay where they are. Balancing the interests of both groups
seems fair and important for managing such a huge change.

Chapter 3 talks about improving how people use and work the land through things
like fair rent prices and new ways of sharing crops. Section 12 says the department will set
rent prices that are fair to both the landowners and the people renting the land. But it doesn't
explain exactly what makes a price "fair." Section 13 introduces a new idea of sharing what is
grown on the land instead of renting, which could help increase how much is produced if
people work together. While wanting everyone to be treated rightly is good, I worry that
without clearer rules these parts may not do what they aim to do. For Section 12, specifying
exactly how rent prices are figured out based on things we can measure, like usual local
prices and the type of land and crops, would make deciding prices easier and more
transparent. Section 13 also needs more detail on how the sharing arrangements will be set
up legally, people's responsibilities, how disputes will be solved, and checking over time that
everything is fair for all involved.
If key ideas like what makes rents "fair" are unclear, it could lead to confusion and
arguments later on between the people involved if not explained better. Closer monitoring is
also important to really achieve the goal of justice. Clearer directions aim to help put these
new ways of using and working the land into practice smoothly and avoid problems down the
line while protecting everyone, as intended by these changes.

Chapter IV talks about registering information under the new land sharing program.
Section 14 says private and public landowners must sign up to confirm what land they own
and how much. But it doesn't give a deadline for when they have to register. Section 15
requires people getting land shares to register within 6 months of getting the land.
While it's important to register everything quickly, some parts worry me. Section 14
not having a date could mean landowners take a long time to sign up, slowing things down.
Section 15 say people only have 6 months but getting all the new land shares done may take
years. To make it better: Section 14 should set a registration deadline, like 2-3 years, so
landowners don't delay the changes for too long. Section 15 should break the work into
phases over 5-10 years and set mini-deadlines along the way instead of just 6 months.
Registering details correctly is key for keeping land records straight and avoiding
fights later on. But unrealistic dates may mean some don't sign up at all or everything gets
messed up if people rush. Breaking it into chunks and allowing more time as they go ensures
the important registration gets finished properly as the new land sharing expands in a
methodical way. This helps the program's goals be reached smoothly in the long run.

Chapter V talks about how the government gets private lands. Section 16 explains
the steps for taking lands owned by people. It lists out the process like surveying land,
landowners getting notices, valuing property, paying owners, and owners getting deeds for
remaining land they can keep.
One part that could cause trouble is how long it takes to value the land. The law says
a board will look at different things to decide prices, but doesn't say how long they get. If this
step drags on, it delays the whole process and isn't fair to owners waiting a long time for their
money. A solution could be adding a clear timeframe, like the board must finish valuations
 within 6 months. This prevents valuations from being put off for too long. Both landowners
and farmers getting land want everything done smoothly and paid out fairly.
Overall, Section 16 lays out acquisition steps well but risks slowdowns if valuations
aren't managed carefully. Setting a solid deadline would help stick to schedules and keep the
handover of owned lands running on track as planned. This strengthens fairness for everyone
in a big land share program.
Chapter VI talks about paying landowners for their properties. Section 17 says
payments must be fair. Section 18 explains how land will be valued, like considering farm
output and location. Owners can get cash or bonds. Section 19 offers owners incentives if
they willingly sell quickly. Section 20 lets owners voluntarily transfer land titles to new farmer
owners.

Section 17 requires compensation to be "just" but does not define this. Without clear
valuation criteria, disputes may arise over what is considered fair. Section 18 outlines the
valuation and payment processes. Land will be appraised based on productivity, terrain
features, and location advantages. Owners can choose between cash or government bonds.
While intending to fairly reimburse owners, appraising land is complex and leaving methods
vague risks subjectivity. I'm concerned Sections 17-18 may cause disputes over prices.
Without clear guidelines, deciding "fair" value could differ between owners and the
government boards doing appraisals. Prices not seen as real by owners may cause issues.
It would help if Sections 17-18 provided a set way to value each land type based on
local market prices, production history, and improvements. Guidelines ensure consistency
and ease tensions that arise from ambiguity. Using past sales as a guide captures true worth.
Section 19 provides incentives for voluntary land sales rather than compulsory
acquisition. Owners agreeing to transfer titles early receive negotiated premiums on top of
market value prices. However, the incentive amounts are not specified, weakening their
usefulness in encouraging many owners to avail of this option. Section 19 could work better
by raising incentives so more owners opt to quickly finalize sales upfront rather than later
appeals of lower assessed prices that slow the process.
Section 20 allows owners to freely relinquish titles for redistribution. This aims to
streamline transfers respecting personal choice. But without ensuring equitable valuation first,
some owners may feel compelled to use this approach due to uncertainty around government
assessment outcomes.
Overall, properly compensating owners fairly as intended relies on transparent
valuation methods and adequate incentives to maximize early, agreed resolutions and
minimize conflicts in this big land transfer program.

V. Conclusion
The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law took on the important task of addressing
the huge issue of unfair land ownership that had negatively impacted farmers in the
Philippines for generations. However, aspects of the law lacked clarity and detail which
weakened its effectiveness. While the goal of helping farmers without land and treating all
people fairly in the process was noble, ambiguously defining key terms created uncertainties.
Not clearly specifying which properties would be redistributed risked property rights issues.
Similarly, leaving rental rates and compensation amounts vaguely described as just “fair”
invited disputes over differing interpretations.
Timelines for crucial activities like registration were also unrealistic based on the
massive scale and complexity of the redistribution program. Attempting the whole overhaul
within 10 years without phases or intermediate deadlines was overly ambitious and not
thoughtful about manageable implementation. These shortcomings undercut achieving the
reform’s social justice aims from the start by not properly outlining transparent, practical
processes aligned with international best practices. Piecemeal amendments over decades
 tried to address problems but did not fully remedy the lack of objective guidelines in priority
areas. As a result, inconsistencies and conflicts disrupted progress, dampening the reform’s
potential for lasting positive change. Lengthy delays weakened momentum for improving
livelihoods through productive land use as intended.
Overall, while the goal of addressing inequitable ownership through redistribution was
important, clearer definition of terms, rational timelines, and specification of methodical
procedures could have allowed for smoother, more sustained fulfillment of the law’s vision if
incorporated at the outset. Well-planned reforms are most likely to achieve lasting impact
through informed, organized implementation protecting stakeholder interests.

VI. References

Republic Act No. 6657. (1988, June 10). An Act Instituting a Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program to Promote Social Justice and Industrialization, Providing the Mechanism for Its
Implementation, and for Other Purposes.
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1988/06/10/republic-act-no-6657/

Department of Agrarian Reform. (2022, April 27). CARP accomplishments. Government of the
Philippines. https://dar.gov.ph/accomplishments/carp-accomplishments/

Palattao, J. B. M. (2019). Implementation of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program: Issues,

challenges and the way forward. De La Salle University Business & Economics Review,
28(2), 71–88.
https://www.dlsu-ber.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/ber-v28n2-03-Palattao.pdf