Agrarian Reform

Agrarian reform is essentially the rectification of the entire agricultural system, which is a
significant element of the Philippine economy because agriculture employs over half of the
population and the majority of inhabitants live in rural regions. The link between production and
land distribution among farmers is central to agrarian reform. It is also concerned with the
political and economic class nature of production and distribution relations in farming and allied
sectors, as well as how these link to the larger class structure. Through genuine and thorough
agrarian reform, the Philippines would be able to maximize its agricultural potential and lift
Filipinos in the agricultural sector that has long been impoverished and dissatisfied.

In our attempt to comprehend the evolution of agrarian reform in the Philippines, we look to our
country's history, particularly our colonial past, to uncover the source of the country's agrarian
difficulties that continue to this day.

Landownership in the Philippines under Spain

When the Spaniards colonized the nation, they brought with them a system of pueblo agriculture,
in which rural populations were grouped into pueblos and granted land to produce.

Families were not permitted to possess their land; the land was owned by the King of Spain, and
Filipinos were allocated to these lands to cultivate it, and they paid their colonial tributes to the
Spanish authority in the form of agricultural goods.

Later, under the Law of the Indies, the Spanish crown granted tracts of land to (1) religious
orders as a reward for their service; (2) repartamientos for Spanish military as a reward for their
service; and (3) Spanish encomenderos, those charged with managing the encomienda or the
lands given to them, where Filipinos worked and paid tributes to the encomendero. Filipinos
were not granted the right to own land and were only permitted to work on it in order to receive a
share of the crops and pay tribute. As "compras y vandalas" became the norm for Filipino
farmers working the land, they were forced to sell their products at very low prices or submit
their items to the encomenderos, who resold them for a profit. Filipinos in the encomienda were
also compelled to provide non-farming services to the encomenderos.

The hacienda system evolved from the encomienda system in the early nineteenth century as the
Spanish government undertook initiatives to hasten the colony's entry into the capitalist world.
The Philippines' economy became linked to the global market as it became an exporter of raw
materials and importer of goods. Agricultural exports were encouraged, and the hacienda system
emerged as a new type of ownership. In the 1860s, Spain adopted legislation requiring
landowners to register their properties, and only those who knew about it benefited. Many
peasant families who were "assigned" to the land in the early days of colonization were driven
off or compelled to fall under the influence of these people who claimed rights to the property
because they held a title.

This is why revolts in the Philippines were frequently agrarian in nature. Prior to colonization,
Filipinos enjoyed collective land ownership. The Spaniards' system became a painful source of
anger and discontent among Filipinos. Religious orders, the largest landowners in the
Philippines, also became a major source of abuse and exploitation for Filipinos, raising rents on a
whim.

Filipinos fought the Philippine Revolution for a variety of reasons, but the most pressing need for
liberty was the need to control property. The revolutionary government would designate all big
landed estates, particularly confiscated friar holdings, as government property at the end of the
Philippine Revolution. The first Philippine republic, however, was brief. The arrival of the
Americans would mark the beginning of a new age of colonialism and imperialism in the
Philippines.

Landownership in the Philippines under the United States of America

The Americans recognized that landlessness was the root cause of social unrest in the
Philippines, and they attempted to alleviate the deplorable conditions of tenant farmers by
enacting several land policies to increase small landholders and distribute ownership to a greater
number of Filipino tenants and farmers. The Philippine Bill of 1902 established rules for the
transfer of public properties.

A private individual can own 16 hectares of land, whereas corporations can own 1,024 hectares.
Americans were also granted the ability to acquire agricultural areas around the country. The
Philippine Commission also passed Act No. 496, popularly known as the Land Registration Act,
which established the Torrens system to address the lack of previous records of awarded land
titles and to undertake accurate land surveys. The homestead program was established in 1903,
allowing a tenant to start an agricultural enterprise by purchasing a land of at least 16 hectares.
This effort, however, was limited to Northern Luzon and Mindanao, where American colonial
penetration had been difficult, a difficulty bequeathed from the Spaniards.

Landownership did not improve in the American period; in fact, it worsened, because there was
no limit to the extent of landholdings persons may possess, and possession was only available to
those who could afford to buy, register, and acquire fixed property titles. Not all of the friar
estates that the Americans purchased were transferred to landless peasant farmers. Some lands
were sold or leased to American and Filipino corporations.

This early land reform initiative was likewise conducted without any support mechanisms; if a
landless peasant farmer gained land, he only received land. Many were forced to return to
tenancy, while affluent Filipino haciendos bought or took over farms from farmers who couldn't
pay their loans. The Americans' approach enabled more lands to be placed under tenancy,
resulting in widespread peasant uprisings such as the Colorum and Sakdal Uprisings in Luzon.
Peasants and laborers found sanctuary in millenarian groups, which gave them faith that
militancy could still bring about change.

The Sakdal (or Sakdalista) Uprising was a two-day peasant rebellion in

Central Luzon on May 2-3, 1935. It was easily repressed by government
forces at the time, but this historical event illustrates the social
inequalities caused by land ownership and tenancy concerns in the
country.

The Filipino word sakdal means "to accuse," which is the title of the
newspaper helmed by Benigno Ramos, which led to the establishment of
the Partido Sakdalista in 1933, demanding reforms from the government
such as the abolition of taxes and "equal or common ownership of land,
among other things. They also opposed the majority Nacionalista Party's
acceptance of gradual independence from the United States, instead
demanding an instant break from America.

They did well in the 1934 national elections for a young party with limited
strength, winning three members in the House of Representatives and
several local positions. This inspired them to stage a revolt in 1936.
Ramos escaped to Tokyo after being crushed, and the Partido Sakdalista
disintegrated.

During the Commonwealth government's tenure, the situation deteriorated further as peasant
uprisings grew and landlord-tenant relationships became increasingly strained. President Quezon
established a social justice program centered on the acquisition of haciendas, which would be
divided and sold to tenants. His administration also established the National Rice and Corn
Corporation (NARIC) to assign public defenders to aid peasants in court battles for their land
rights, as well as the Court of Industrial Relations to hear disputes originating from the
landowner-tenant relationship. The National Land Settlement Administration (NLSA) also
continued the homestead program. The Commonwealth's efforts toward agrarian reform failed
due to issues such as financial allocation for the settlement program and massive peasant
uprisings. As the Japanese seized the country during World War II, all attempts to fix these
problems came to a halt.

Post-War Interventions toward Agrarian Reform

After the war, rehabilitation and reconstruction centered on finding answers to past difficulties.
President Roxas' government enacted Republic Act No. 34, which established a 70-30 sharing
arrangement between tenant and landlord, respectively, and set the interest rate on landowner
loans to renters at 6% or below. The government also sought to transfer hacienda holdings, but
failed due to the lack of support provided to small farmers who were handed properties.

The Land Settlement Development Corporation (LASEDECO) was founded during the
presidency of Elpidio Quirino to speed up and oversee the peasant resettlement program. Under
President Ramon Magsaysay's administration, this organization was renamed the National
Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration (NARRA).

Magsaysay recognized the significance of pursuing genuine land reform programs and persuaded
Congress, which was dominated by landed elites, to approve laws that would improve the land
reform situation. The Agricultural Tenancy Act, Republic Act No. 1199, was passed to regulate
the relationship between landholders and tenant farmers, guaranteeing tenants' tenurial rights and
enforcing tenancy standards. The Court of Agricultural Relations was established in 1955 under
this statute to strengthen tenancy security, determine land rentals of tenanted farms, and handle
land disputes filed by landowners and peasant organizations. The Agricultural Tenancy
Commission was also established to handle tenancy-related issues.

The Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Administration (ACCFA) was also
established primarily to give warehouse space and assistance to farmers in marketing their
products. The administration was instrumental in establishing the Agricultural and Industrial
Bank to make it simpler to apply for homestead and other farmlands.

NARRA increased the government's resettlement program and agricultural land distribution to
landless tenants and farmers. It also intended to persuade Huks, a rebel movement in Central
Luzon, to relocate to locations where they might restart their lives as peaceful citizens.

Despite a concerted push toward agrarian reform, the farmers' condition remained grave since the
government lacked funding and provided inadequate support services for the programs. The
landed elite did not collaborate fully and attacked the programs.

The Agricultural Land Reform Code (Republic Act No. 3844) was enacted during the presidency
of President Diosdado Macapagal.

Primary Source: Declaration of Policy under RA No. 3844 or Agricultural Land Reform
Code

Source: Section 2. Declaration of Policy--It is the policy of the State:

(1) To establish owner-cultivatorship and the economic family-size farm as the basis of
Philippine agriculture & , as a consequence, divert landlord capital in agriculture to industrial
development;
(2) To achieve a dignified existence for the small farmers free from pernicious institutional
restraints and practices;

(3) To create a truly viable social and economic structure in agriculture conducive to greater
productivity and higher farm incomes

(4) To apply all labor laws equally and without discrimination to both industrial and agricultural
wage earners,

(5) To provide more vigorous and systematic land resettlement program and public land
distribution; and

(6) To make the small farmers more independent, self-reliant and responsible citizens, and a
source of genuine strength in our democratic society.

This Code prohibited share tenancy in the Philippines and established a program to convert
tenant-farmers to lessees and, eventually, owner-cultivators. It also sought to liberate tenants
from tenancy and to emphasize owner cultivatorship and farmer independence, equity,
productivity enhancement, and public land distribution. Despite the fact that it was one of the
most comprehensive pieces of land reform legislation ever passed in the Philippines, Congress
made no effort to adopt a separate law to fund its implementation, despite the fact that it was
helpful in the regions where it was pilot tested.

Agrarian Reform Efforts under Marcos

President Marcos proclaimed martial law in 1972, thus eradicating the landlord-dominated
Congress. He was able to enhance executive power through his "technocrats," allowing him to
begin a "fundamental restructuring" of government, including measures to solve the profound
structural problems of the countryside. During the Marcos era, Presidential Decree No. 27, often
known as the Philippine Code of Agrarian Reform, was at the heart of agrarian reform.

Post-1986 Agrarian Reform

The overthrow of Marcos and the 1987 Constitution resulted in renewed interest and attention to
agrarian reform as President Corazon Aquino envisioned agrarian reform to be the centerpiece of
her administration's social legislation, which proved difficult because her background betrayed
her - she came from a wealthy and landed clan that owned the Hacienda Luisita.

Aquino released Presidential Proclamation 131 and Executive Order 229 on July 22, 1987,
outlining her land reform policy. The Congress issued Republic Act No. 6657, also known as the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARD), in 1988, which established the program of the
same name (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program or (CARP). It facilitated the
redistribution of agricultural lands from landlords to tenant-farmers, who were compensated by
the government through reasonable compensation and allowed them to retain no more than
hectares. Instead of giving over their land to the government, corporate landowners were entitled
by law to voluntarily divest a portion of their capital stock, equity, or participation in favor of
their workers or other qualifying beneficiaries.

CARP was limited since it did virtually little under Aquino's presidency. It only completed
22.5% of land distribution in six years because Congress, dominated by the landed elite, was
hesitant to support the program's substantial compensation expenses. It was also fraught with
controversy, as Aquino appeared to cave in to pressure from her relatives by permitting the stock
redistribution option. Hacienda Luisita restructured as a business and dispersed stock to farmers.

During President Ramos' tenure, CARP implementation was accelerated in order to fulfill the
ten-year deadline, despite money, logistics, and involvement from involved sectors. Only
58.25% of the total area projected to be covered by the program had been dispersed by the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) by 1996. To address the paucity of money and the
looming deadline for CARP implementation, Ramos passed Republic Act No. 8532 in 1998,
amending CARL and extending the program for another ten years.

CARPER and the Future of Agrarian Reform in the Philippines

CARP's new deadline expired in 2008, leaving 1.2 million farmer beneficiaries and 1.6 million
hectares of agricultural land to be dispersed. President Arroyo signed Republic Act No. 9700,
also known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Extension with Reforms
(CARPER), in 2009, extending the deadline by five years. Section 30 of the law also states that
any matter or procedure regarding the application of the provisions of CARP, as modified, that is
still outstanding on June 30, 2014, must be allowed to proceed to its conclusion and executed
even after that day.

CARPER gave a total of 1 million hectares of land to 900,000 farmer beneficiaries between 2009
and 2014. 500,000 hectares of land remain unallocated after 27 years of land reform and two
Aquino administrations. The DAR and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) are the government institutions tasked with carrying out CARP and CARPER, yet even
their combined effort and resources have been insufficient to achieve the goal of agrarian reform
in the Philippines. The same issues have hindered its implementation: the powerful landed
aristocracy and the Philippine government's ineffective bureaucracy. Until these two obstacles
are overcome, meaningful agrarian reform in the Philippines will remain a pipe dream for
Filipino farmers who have fought for their right to land ownership for centuries.