CARP and

CARPER

CARP
Republic Act. No. 6657, As amended otherwise
known as Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.
Section 2. Declaration of Principles and Policies- It Is
the policy of the state to pursue a comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
The welfare of landless farmers and farm workers
will receive the highest consideration to promote
social justice and to move nation towards sound
rural development in industrialization and to
establish of owner cultivatorship of economic-size
farms as the basis of Philippine agriculture

CARPER
Republic act. No. 9700 as amended otherwise
known as Extension Bill with reforms.
Section 1. Declaration of Principles and
PoliciesThe
state
shall
promote
industrialization and full employment based
on sound agricultural development and
agrarian reform through industries that make
full and efficient use of human and natural
resources in which are competitive in both
domestic and foreign market

Land covered by the CARP

All alienable and disposable lands on the public
domain devoted or suitable for agriculture
All lands of public domain in excess of the
specific limit as determined by the congress
All other lands own by the government devoted
to or suitable for agriculture
All private lands devoted to or suitable for
agriculture regardless to the agricultural
products.

Lands covered by CARPER will

be acquired and distributed in
three phases
Phase One will cover rice and corn lands, all
idle lands or abandoned lands, all private
lands voluntarily offered by the owners for
agrarian reform, all lands foreclosed by
government financial institutions, all lands
acquired by the Presidential Commission on
Good Government, and all other lands
owned by government devoted to or
suitable for agriculture

 Phase Two of the program will cover all

alienable
and
disposable
public
agricultural lands; all arable public
agricultural lands under agro-forest,
pasture and agricultural leases already
cultivated and planted to crops in
accordance with Section 6 Article XIII of
the Constitution; all public agricultural
lands that are to be opened for new
development and resettlement; all private
agricultural lands in excess of 50 hectares

 Phase Three will cover all other private

agricultural lands starting with large
landholdings and then those with
medium and small landholding.

 Mariano said that under CARPER, private

agricultural lands can only be covered by
the law and distributed to farmers if 90
percent of all the land classified for
distribution under the original CARP and
Phase One and Phase Two of CARPER had
been distributed. In other words, before
CARPER can implement Phase Three, which
is the most problematic phase, the original
CARP must have distributed 90 percent of
its target and, if it did not, CARPERs Phase
One and Phase Two must make up for the
shortfall within the period of five years.

CARP is a Continuing
Program
With the CARPER law the debate whether
CARP will end and DAR will close shop after
five years from the extension has been
clarified.. Under the Constitution, the State is
mandated to undertake an agrarian reform
which supports the opinion that CARP is a
continuing program. It will only end when ALL
agricultural lands have been distributed to
landless farmers and that tenancy system
has been converted to ownership. What ends
in RA 6657 and RA 8532 is the funding for
CARP and this is clarified in section 21 of the
CARPER law.

 The fund allocated for CARPER is to further

implement the CARP which means that the
CARPER law provides funding needed to
implement CARP. The same section
emphasizes that the CARP will not end after
five (5) years and even after 5 years when
the LAD is completed, DAR will continue
with the delivery of support services and
agrarian justice. Section 30 of the CARPER
law provides a way to legally continue the
implementation of pending CARP cases
after the 5-year extension by filing the
initiatory process of CARP.

Creation of a Joint
Congressional Oversight
Committee

The
Oversight
Committee
is
composed of members of Congress
equally distributed between the
House of Representatives and the
Senate who will closely monitor the
implementation of the CARP. Many
cases involving implementation of
CARP have reached Congress and
Congress calls for a legislative
investigation.

 The problems are mostly rooted in the

implementing agencies, budget and gaps in the
CARL. It has been anticipated that for the next 5
year extension, Congress wants to closely
monitor the implementation of CARP in order to
achieve its target and complete the distribution
of more than 1 Million hectares of agricultural
lands. The oversight committee will report
periodically to Congress for possible adjustments
of the law and executive polices in order to
strengthen the implementation of the CARP.

Clear Policy against

Conversion of Agricultural
Lands
One of the sharpened policies in the
CARPER law is the relationship of
conversion of agricultural land to nonagricultural uses and food security. At
present, only the DAR has the
mechanism to regulate the conversion
of agricultural lands to non-agricultural
uses because all agricultural lands are
covered under CARP. Many landowners
convert their land to non-agricultural
uses to evade CARP coverage.

When the country experienced rice crisis

last year, government realized that many
of the food producing lands have been
converted to non-agricultural uses. Studies
show that small farms are food producing
farms compared to big plantation. This can
be seen in the distributed lands in Negros
where the ARBs awarded with less than a
hectare of land plant vegetables, raise
chicken and other food products which
contributed to their food needs as well as
the community

Gender-Sensitive Agrarian
Reform

The CARPER law institutionalizes

reforms recognizing the rights of
rural women to be beneficiaries of
the CARP and to have meaningful
participation in its planning and
implementation.
Aside
from
making the language of all the
provisions of the law genderneutral, the policy statement
declares the right of rural women

 the State shall recognize and enforce,

consistent with existing laws, the rights of
rural women to own and control land,
taking into consideration the substantive
equality between men and women as
qualified beneficiaries, to receive a just
share of the fruits thereof, and to be
represented in advisory or appropriate
decision-making bodies. These rights shall
be independent of their male relatives
and of their civil status.

Budget For CARPER

Implementation
The budget allocated for the 5-year
extension is 150 Billion pesos which will
be sourced from three funds namely: 1.)
Agrarian Reform Fund, 2.) other sources
of
funding
like
privatization
of
government asset, foreign donors, etc.
and 3.) General Appropriations Acts
(GAA). So far, this budget is the largest
per year in the history of CARP.

 the State shall recognize and enforce,

consistent with existing laws, the rights of
rural women to own and control land,
taking into consideration the substantive
equality between men and women as
qualified beneficiaries, to receive a just
share of the fruits thereof, and to be
represented in advisory or appropriate
decision-making bodies. These rights shall
be independent of their male relatives
and of their civil status.

Retention Limit Exemption

Of Local Government Units
(LGUs)
LGUs except the Barangays can own
agricultural lands beyond the five (5)-hectare
limit set by CARL. This privilege is only
applicable to lands that will be used for public
purposes such as roads, bridges, public
markets, school, resettlement, LGU facilities,
public parks and barangay plazas. There are
two limitations to this exemption: 1.) the use of
the land must be actual, direct and
exclusive; and 2.) the use must be consistent
with the approved comprehensive land use plan

 Moreover, if the land is covered under

CARP and the LGU wants to use it for one
of the public purpose mentioned earlier
then it must be expropriated first and the
farmers therein must be justly
compensated.
The law on conversion will still apply to the
LGUs because the public purpose projects
will entail conversion of agricultural lands
to non-agricultural uses. The LGUs are not
exempted from the application of the
Conversion Order from DAR.

Review of Land Size Limits

For Each Type of Crop
For the next six (6) months, DAR will
submit a study to Congress for the
appropriate land size of each crop. The
purpose is for a possible review on the
limit of land sizes. For instance, for
coconut what is the most productive land
size to maximize yield and minimize cost.
However, before the 3 hectare award be
adopted, a new law is needed.

Tenants and Regular

Farmworkers Are First
Priority Beneficiaries

This provision was formulated and

strongly advocated by Rep. Pablo Garcia
(hence this was known as the Garcia
Amendment). The provision provides that
in a certain landholding the qualified
beneficiaries who are tenants and regular
farmworkers will receive 3 hectares each
before distributing the remaining land to
the other qualified beneficiaries like
seasonal
farmworkers
and
other
farmworkers under Section 22 of CARL.

 The practice now is that any qualified

beneficiary in the area will receive a
piece of land however small through
collective ownership.

 Such is beneficial to farmers because no matter

how small the land, they can always make it
productive. If this provision will be implemented
strictly, a number of seasonal farmworkers in
Negros and many other places that will not
receive land because they can only benefit if
there is extra land or if there are no tenants or
regular farmworkers. Most of the time, the
Tenants and Regular Farmworkers are the most
loyal workers to the landowners and it will be
easier for the landowner to get back, lease back
or consolidate the lands distributed under CARP.

Attestation Requirement of
Farmer Beneficiary
Another Garcia Amendment, under the CARPER
law a new procedure for the identification of
agrarian reform beneficiaries requires the
Barangay Agrarian Reform Council (BARC) to first
certify that the potential beneficiaries are
Farmers or Regular Farmworkers actually tilling
the lands and the list should by attested under
oath by the Landowner and lastly will state under
oath before a judge that he/she is willing to work
on the land and make it productive and assume
the obligation of paying the amortization

 The problem will arise because landowners are

not the most available persons to make an
attestation. The attestation requirement can be
used as leverage against the farmers. Secondly,
with this requirement the Landowner can choose
the beneficiaries and only those favorable to
him/her will be on the list. Another problem is
the proximity of the Judge from the place of the
farmer beneficiaries which are far from the
farms. This requirement will actually pose a
serious problem to the farmer beneficiaries and
hamper the selection process of beneficiaries.

Encourage Empowerment
and Organizing of Farmer
Beneficiaries
The CARPER law has a bias for organized
farmers to be beneficiaries. Congress
believes that the success rate of
organized farmers is high and can make
their awarded lands productive. The DAR
is mandated to conduct seminars and
trainings for the farmers to organize. The
DAR shall also assist the farmers form or
join cooperatives.

Individual Titles of Award

The CARPER law adopted the recommendation from
the economists that individualized Certificate of
Land Ownership Award (CLOA) and Emancipation
Patent (EP) is beneficial for
the
farmer
beneficiaries. This will encourage farmers to invest
in the awarded land and will have a sense of
ownership. As a matter of policy in the CARPER law,
land awarded should be in the form of individual
title. The DAR will do the parcelization of the
existing collective CLOAs and must be completed
within three (3) years from the effectivity of the
law.

 However, this is without prejudiced

to collective CLOAs that are effective
and need not be parcelized. A group
of farmer beneficiaries can also
decide to have a collective CLOA
subject to the conditions in section
10 of CARPER. Their collective CLOA
must indicate the names of the
beneficiaries.

Shortened Period For

Installation of Farmer
Beneficiaries
The CARPER law mandates that the award
of the land must be completed within 180
days from the date of registration of title in
the name of the Republic of the Philippines.
Such period is shorter than that of CARL.
Another reform that can help shorten the
period for installation is the inclusion of the
standing crop in the computation of the
just compensation for the land.

 This is the learning from the Hacienda

Malaga Case were the only reason for the
delay in installation is the standing crop.
From experience, delay in installation
causes violence and insecurity to the
farmers.
The CARPER law emphasize that farmer
beneficiaries will only start payment of
amortization if they have been physically
installed on the awarded land for one (1)
year.

Ministerial Duty for the

Registry of Deeds To
Register Land in the Name
Republic of the Philippines
and experience
CLOA
The unfortunate
in Negros
(especially the Arroyo Lands in Bacan,
Negros) where Registry of Deeds refuse
to register the title in the name of the
Republic of the Philippines bring about
the provision under the CARPER law
which states

 it is the ministerial duty of the registry

of deeds to register the title of the land
in the name of the republic of the
Philippines, after the Landbank of the
Philippines (LBP) has certified that the
necessary deposit in the name of the
landowner constituting full payment in
cash or in bond with due notice to the
landowner and the registration of the
certificate of land ownership award
issued to the beneficiaries, and to cancel
previous titles pertaining thereto.

Actual and Physical

Distribution
The CARPER law specifies that award of
land must be actual and physical
possession of the land which is in contrast
to non-distributed schemes like StockDistribution
Option
and
Leaseback
arrangements. This can be the basis for
the farmers to demand from the DAR for
an actual and physical award of the land
to them and they can legally reject any
non-distributive schemes similar to the
Hacienda Luisita experience

Indefeasibility of EP and
CLOA
The CARPER law legislates the Supreme
Court decision in Estribillo vs. DAR (G.R. No.
159674, June 30, 2006) declaring titles of
land awarded under any agrarian reform
program
are
indefeasible
and
imprescriptible. The titles (i.e. EP and CLOA)
will be afforded the same protection as
Torrens title under the Torrens system. This
provision provides protection to the CLOAs
or EPs of farmers being cancelled after it
has been registered already for a long time.

Usufructuary Rights Over

Awarded Land Pending
Award of EP or CLOA
Under the CARPER law, identified and
qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries,
shall have usufructuary rights over the
awarded land as soon as the DAR
takes possession of such land, and
such right shall not be diminished
even pending the awarding of the
emancipation patent or the certificate
of land ownership award.

 This is will be useful to secure the rights

of farmers in cases when the title of the
landholding is in the name of the
Republic but there is a delay in installing
them as farmer beneficiaries. Instead of
waiting for the awarding of the CLOAs,
the farmers can already occupy the land
and cultivate it to prevent the land from
being idle or abandoned.

Cancellation of CLOA or EP
is under the Exclusive and
Original Jurisdiction of the
DAR Secretary

Congress intended to change the current rules

on cancellation of CLOAs or EPs. The
cancellation of registered CLOA goes to the
DARAB while unregistered CLOAs to the DAR
Secretary. The transfer of all cases on
cancellation of CLOA to the DAR secretary will
make it easier to the petitioner because of the
simpler rules. The appeal to the Office of the
President (OP) is available and is strategic for
dialogue.

 Again this provision is double edge because

the landowners can also go to the OP and will
have chances of getting a favorable decision.
This is the case of Banasi farmers in
Camarines Sur where the favorable decision
of the DAR secretary was reversed after
seven (7) years at the OP. Moreover, the
decision of the DAR Secretary under the
CARPER law is immediately executory even
pending appeal to judicial courts.

Affordability Clause Made

Mandatory
The CARPER law explicitly mandates
that farmers will pay reduced
amortizations established by PARC for
the first 3 years. For the next years,
the law put a ceiling on the annual
amortization to not more than 5% to
10% of the value of the annual gross
production. The Land Bank of the
Philippines (LBP) is mandated to
reduce the interest or the principal to
make repayment affordable.

 The amortization depends on the

annual gross production determined
by the DAR which will effectively
make the amortization of farmer
beneficiaries affordable. This is a
great improvement from the CARL
because the affordability clause here
is made mandatory for LBP and DAR
to implement.

Agrarian
Justice

Recognition of Farmers
Legal Standing
The problem in many of the cases
involving farmers is the non-recognition
of their legal standing and interest
under the CARP. The case of Fortich vs
Corona (289 SCRA 624) is often used to
exclude the farmers from cases before
regular courts or quasi-judicial bodies
even if the case or controversy involves
their rights under CARP.

 The CARPER law tries to correct this

doctrine by legislating that in cases
where regular courts or quasi-judicial
bodies have competent jurisdiction,
agrarian reform beneficiaries or identified
beneficiaries and/or their associations
shall have legal standing and interest to
intervene concerning their individual or
collective rights and/or interests under
the CARP

 The CARPER law went further by correcting the

doctrine held in the case of Samahan 53 vs.
Mosquera (GR 152430, March 22, 2007) where the
legal standing of the farmers organization was
denied because it was unregistered. Under the
CARPER law the fact of non-registration of such
associations with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, or Cooperative Development Authority,
or any concerned government agency shall not be
used against them to deny the existence of their
legal standing and interest in a case filed before
such courts and quasi-judicial bodies.

Referral of Agrarian
Related Cases to DAR
In many areas where the farmers or
tenants assert their rights, landowners
file criminal cases against them like
qualified theft, estafa, arson or civil
cases like ejectment. Such cases are
meant to harass the farmers from
asserting their rights under CARP.
Tenants end up jailed because of a
complaint by the landowner that
he/she harvested coconuts

 In order to correct this injustice, the

CARPER law provides an automatic
referral by the Judge or prosecutor to
the DAR for cases that involves farmers.
The DAR will certify whether the case is
agrarian related or not. The objective is
for the farmer falsely accused to avoid
suffering unnecessarily court litigation
which cost money and time

No TRO Issued Against DAR

when Implementing CARP
The judicial courts cannot issue
injunction
or
restraining
order
against DAR and other CARP
implementing agencies. This is to
legislate the Supreme Courts ruling
in DAR vs Cuenca (G.R. No. 154112,
September 23, 2004) that Judicial
Courts should not be used to hamper
the sound implementation of CARP.

 The implementation of CARP needs

political will and the judiciary must
cooperate by affirming the
revolutionary power of the State to
implement agrarian reform. There
are two provisions in the CARPER law
that talks about this namely:

 Section20.
EXCEPT FOR THE SUPREME
COURT, no court in the Philippines shall have
jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or
writ of preliminary injunction against the
PARC, THE DAR, or any of its duly authorized
or designated agencies in any case, dispute
or controversy arising from, necessary to, or
in
connection
with
the
application,
implementation,
enforcement,
or
interpretation of this Act and other pertinent
laws on agrarian reform. And,

 Section 23 IN CASES FALLING WITHIN

THEIR
JURISDICTION,
no
injunction,
restraining order, prohibition or mandamus
shall be issued by the [lower courts]
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURTS,
MUNICIPAL
CIRCUIT
TRIAL
COURTS,
AND
METROPOLITAN
TRIAL
COURTS against the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR), the Department of
Agriculture (DA), the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
and the Department of Justice in their
implementation of the Program

DAR Decision is
Immediately Executory
The DAR decision will be immediately
executory notwithstanding any appeal to
the Court of Appeals. The exception is the
issue on just compensation which is really
within the jurisdiction of the judiciary. This
will speed up the execution of favorable
DAR decision pending appeal. However,
this is another double edge provision
which might also be harmful if the
decision is against the farmer

Additional Prohibited Acts on

Circumvention of CARP
Implementation
The significant addition of prohibited
actsfocus on the inefficiencies of the
DAR offices in the implementation of
the CARP like the denial of notice and/or
reply to landowners, deprivation of
landowners of their retention rights, the
delay in the preparation of the claim
folders and the payment of just
compensation.

 DAR and CARP Implementing Agencies

are also enjoined to submit report, data or
document involving the implementation
of the CARP and refusal or undue delay is
prohibited. A catch-all provision is
included, any culpable neglect or willful
violations of the CARPER law is
punishable. Also any farmer violating this
act will be disqualified from being a CARP
beneficiary.

 The penalties have been increased to

promote efficiency and deterrent to
circumvention of the law. The
minimum period of imprisonment is
three (3) years and the maximum is
12 years while the minimum fine is
50,000 pesos and the maximum is 1
Million pesos.

 Hence, the CARPER policy is to

implement CARP with full rigor, with
State power and any obstruction by any
person whether farmer, landowner or
DAR will be dealt by the law. The
enforcement of these provisions poses as
a great challenge because in the previous
years, not a single person was
prosecuted successfully for violating the
CARL.

Support
Services

Improved Budget for

Support Services
The CARPER law allocates 40% of the
150 Billion pesos or 60 Billion pesos
for support services a very important
component of CARP. This is a great
improvement from the CARL which
only provides 25%. Studies show that
ARBs who succeed were provided
adequate support services by the
government.

 The CARPER law provides for a clear

guideline on where to use the support
services like credit, infrastructure, farm
inputs and trainings. One improvement
is the allocation of budget for the
training of farmers to empower and
organize them into cooperatives. DAR is
mandated to be active in the education
and capacity building of farmers.

More Access to Socialized

Credit, Subsidies to New
ARBs
Thirty percent (30%) or 18 Billion
pesos is allocated for credit to ARBs.
Six (6) Billion pesos will be subsidies to
new ARBs for initial capitalization and
12 Billion pesos will be socialized credit
to existing ARBs. Other government
financial institutions are mandated to
institute reforms to liberalize the
access to credit by the ARBs.

Establishment of More
Agrarian Reform
Communities (ARCs)
The CARPER law mandates the DAR to
create at least two ARCs in each
legislative district. This is an improvement
from the previous law which requires only
one (1). The ARC strategy has been
proven effective in developing successful
ARBs. However not all ARBs are in ARCs
because of lack of funds. Hence, the DAR
is
mandated
to
establish
a
complementary support service delivery
to those ARBs who are not in ARCs

Expected Harvest,
Purchase Orders and
Warehouse Receipts Can Be
Used as Collateral

Access to credit of farmers is the ability to

avail loans from finance institutions like
banks which is a big problem with farmers
because these financial institutions have a
notion that farmers are not bankable. The
CARPER law mandates financial institution to
accept as collateral of a farmer who applies
for a loan for production the following:
purchase orders, marketing agreements or
expected harvest.

 Some banks are accepting already the

said instruments but others are hesitant.
The traditional collateral accepted by
banks is land, however banks shy away
from CLOA or EP due to the first
mortgage to LBP. Thus, the CARPER law
denies the concept of farmland as
collateral by providing alternative to land
as collateral because the issue is how to
increase access to credit of ARBs