BRIEF HISTORY

Even with the decent growth of the Philippine Economy the past few years, the
incident of poverty in the country is still high. It started since the time of Spanish
colonization when the ownership of productive lands was concentrated on the few
elite families. Dr. Jose Rizal caught the ire of the Spanish colonizers when he
initiated the signing of a petition by the tenants, leaseholders, and leading citizens
of Calamba exposing the exploitative practices of the friar landlords.
Before the advent of Spanish occupation, land was communal or publicly owned.
The tillers had full access to and ownership of their produce.Spanish colonialism
changed all that. Landlordism in the Philippines had begun. This also signaled the
start of the economic deprivation of the Filipino peasants. With the privatization of
land, forced extraction of surplus (in the form of rents, taxes, tributes) and other
kinds of extortion by the landed class from the peasants was legitimized.
The American colonizers further strengthened the landlord system as its interest in
the country at that time lay in the agricultural raw materials being produced in the
plantations. In fact, peasant revolts erupted in the 1930s prompting former
President Quezon to draw up a social justice program. But the problem persisted
even after the granting of Philippine independence in 1946. The rate of tenancy
continued to rise and agrarian unrest continued up to 1950s. And in an effort to
address the problem, an Agricultural Land Reform Code was passed in the 1960s.
But there were too many loopholes in the law, like pecking order of lands to be
distributed.
On 21 October 1972, former President Ferdinand Marcos passed presidential Decree
No. 27 Decreeing Emancipation of Tenants from the Bondage of the Soil,
Transferring to Them the ownership of Land They Till and Providing the Instruments
and Mechanisms Thereof.PD 27 encouraged the formation of farmers cooperatives
which took responsibility over beneficiaries who defaulted on their annual
amortization.
The two-page decree was yet another land reform law that failed to address the
problem effectively. The necessary credit and production support were lacking.
Stories of farmer beneficiaries going bankrupt, being negligent on their loan and
amortization payments, and offering their lands for resale or mortgage, were
common.
After Marcos dismissal, President Corazon C. Aquino undertook the task of erasing
the ghosts of the past by restoring democracy and making land reform as the
centerpiece of her administration. Executive Order No. 288 was issued on July 17,
1987 that pegged a definite figure for the valuation of rice and corn lands covered
by PD 27, and amended the mode of compensation to landowners. It also extended
the period of amortization by the farmer-beneficiary from 15 to 20 years.
On 22 July 2987, the Aquino administration issued proclamation 131, which defined
the principles guiding the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) of the
new government, and Executive Order 229 providing the mechanisms for the

implementation of the said program. The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) was
vested to enable it to settle agrarian disputes expediently. A Presidential Agrarian
Reform Council was created as a coordinate body for the implementation of CARP. To
initiate the process, the Agrarian Reform Fund was created with an initial allocation
of PhP 50 billion. Consistent with the expansion of authority and functions of the
DAR, Executive Order 129-A was issued to reorganize and strengthen it.
Taking the cue from the actions of the executive branch, the post-Marcos Philippine
Congress during its first regular session, passed the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law (CARL) on July 27, 1987. The framers of the 1987 Constitution and
lawmakers who drafted Republic Act 6657 stressed that a meaningful program
should not just redistribute the land, but also to ensure that the new owners would
be able to make it productive through the delivery of farm support services.
In December 2008, the budget for CARP has expired and there remains 1.2 million
hectares of agricultural lands waiting to be acquired and distributed to farmers.The
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Extension with Reforms (CARPER) Bill or
Republic Act 9700, is an act amending several provisions of Republic Act 6657, or
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988. The first CARPER bill was
filed at the House of Representatives by Rep. RisaHontiveros-Baraquel as House Bill
No. 1257 (HB 1257). Subsequently, the counterpart Senate Bill No. 2047 (SB 2047),
was filed by Senator Jinggoy Estrada. Both bills contain provisions which are vital to
the success of CARP. These include provisions that ensure the adequate and secure
funding of CARP, the installation of beneficiaries, the availability of competitive
support services, and the rationalization of the Department of Agrarian Reform as
the chief implementing agency of agrarian reform.
CARP Extension with Reform (CARPER or RA 9700) which extended the 1988
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (RA 6657) will itself expire in June 2014.
COVERAGE OF CARP and CARPER
The RA 9700 or the CARPER law which was signed by GMA on August 7, 2009
contains an extension of the budget for CARP especially the Land Acquisition and
Distribution (LAD) program for five years starting July 1, 2009 and the necessary
reforms to complete the acquisition and distribution of the remaining one million

hectares

of

private

agricultural

lands

to

landless

farmers.

Main features of CARP

1. CARL and the underlying principle of social justice by advancing the welfare of
landless farmers and farm workers.
The main principles underlying the law were (1) the promotion of social justice, (2)
to alleviate the welfare of landless farmers and farm workers, (3) sound rural
development and industrialization, and the establishment of owner cultivatorship of
economic-size farms as the basis of Philippines agriculture.
And with due regard to the rights of landowners to just compensation and ecological
needs of the nation. It sought to empower and promote the dignity of the farmers
and farm workers through the distribution of lands to provide them with the
opportunity to improve the quality of their lives. Likewise, the framers of the law
were guided by the principles that land would have a social function and that land
ownership had a social responsibility. Thus, due stress was given to ensuring the
productivity of agricultural lands. The law committed to provide support to
agriculture through appropriate technology and research, and adequate financial,
production, marketing, and other support services.
It recognized the fact that for the effective implementation of agrarian reform
program, the farmers, farm workers, and land owners, as well as, cooperatives and
other independent farmers, organizations should participate in its planning,
organization and management.

The CARP also guaranteed and assured rural womens equal rights to ownership of
land, equal shares of the farm produce, and their representation in advisory or
appropriate decision making bodies.
2. CARP expanded the land coverage of agrarian reform.
In terms of scope, the CARL of 1988 was the most extensive so far. Regardless of
tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, it covered all public and private
agricultural lands, including other lands of the public domain suitable for
agriculture.
As differentiated from PD 27, which covered only rice and corn lands, the CARP
covered all agricultural lands. The retention limit for landowners was lowered to
five (5) hectares. Their children could own no more than three (3) hectares each.
Lands that are covered by the Agrarian Reform Program;
The law intended to optimize sparsely occupied public agricultural lands and idle,
abandoned, foreclosed, and sequestered lands for the agrarian reform program.
Agricultural land allocations were made for ideal family size farms.
Even commercial farms and lands covered to agri-business and agro-industrial
enterprises which were operated by multinational corporations and associations
were subject to acquisition and distribution. If it was not economically feasible and
sound to divide the lands, a workers cooperative or association would be formed for
the purpose of entering into a lease or growers agreement. Another option would be
for corporations or associations to voluntarily divest proportions of their capital
stock, equity or participation in favour of the workers and other qualified
beneficiaries. And the individual members of the cooperatives or corporations would
be allotted with home lots and small farm lots for their family use.
The only exemptions and the exclusions would be lands that were directly and
exclusively used and found to be necessary for parks, wildlife, forest reserves,
reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds, watersheds and mangroves;
national defense; school sites and campuses including experimental farm stations
operated by public and private schools for education purposes; seeds and seedlings
research and pilot production centers; church sites and convents; mosque sites and
Islamic centers; communal burial grounds and cemeteries; penal colonies and penal
farms actually worked on by the inmates; government and private research and
quarantine centers; and all lands with slopes of 18 and over, except those already
developed.
3. CARP also provided a more affordable payment scheme for farmer beneficiaries
The CARP further extended the amortization period from 20 years to 30
provided for by Executive Order 228. Furthermore, the law provided
schedule for the first five annual payments must not be more than 5% of
of the annual gross production. Otherwise, the scheduled payments

years, as
that the
the value
could be

reduced by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council. And 10% of the annual gross
production and the failure to produce was not due to the beneficiarys fault, the
Land Bank of the Philippines could reduce the interest rate or the principal
obligation to make the repayment affordable.
4. CARP improved on tenurial and labor relations
For farmers and farm workers who worked on lands not covered by land distribution,
the CARP sought to improve tenurial arrangements and labour relations. In order to
protect and improve the tenurial and economic status of the farmers in tenanted
lands under the retention limit and lands not yet acquired, the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR) was mandated by this law to determine and fix the lease
rentals. The rental structure for different crops of different regions would be
reviewed and adjusted periodically to improve progressively the conditions of the
farmer, tenant or lessee.
The appropriate government agency was also directed to supervise the execution of
production sharing plans favorable to farm workers. Also, farm workers who own
shares of stocks would be provided with effective guarantees. Their shares must
have the same rights and features as all other shares. They would have the right to
demand for a periodic audit of the books of the corporation or association by
certified public accountants of their choice.
5. CARP provided for effective support services
Farm productivity was ensured through the provision of support services to both the
beneficiaries and land owners. A support Services Office under the DAR was
specifically created to ensure the provision of the necessary services. For the
beneficiaries the services would consist of:

Land surveys and tilting

Liberalized terms on credit facilities and production loans. The credit facilities
would include concessional and collateral-free loans, for agro-industrialization
based on social collateral like guarantees of farmers organizations.
Promotion, development, and financial assistance would be extended to smalland medium-scale industries in agrarian reform areas.
Price support and guarantee for all agricultural produce. Infrastructure
development such as access trails, mini-dams, irrigation systems, marketing and
storage facilities, and other facilities for a sound agricultural development.
Government subsidies would be provided for the use of irrigation facilities.
There would be provision of timely and adequate extension services by way of
planting, cropping, production, and post-harvest technology transfer, as well as,
marketing and management assistance and support to cooperatives and
farmers organizations. Cooperatives would be provided with intensive training
courses for their development.
There should also be research, development, and dissemination of information
on agrarian reform and low-cost and ecologically sound farm inputs and

technologies, such as production of organic fertilizers and other local substances

necessary in farming and cultivation, to minimize reliance on expensive and
imported agricultural inputs.
6. CARP would effect mechanisms and structures
To ensure the swift and expedient, systematic and effective implementation of the
agrarian reform program, the necessary mechanisms, structures, and functions
were created and defined.

The Presidential Agrarian Reform Council. The PARC was created to ensure the
timely and effective delivery of the necessary support services. The Council would
be headed by no less than the President of the Republic of the Philippines S
Chairman, and the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform as ViceChairman. The members would be composed of secretaries or heads of the
following agencies:
Department of Agriculture
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
Department of Budget and Management
Department of Local Government
Department of Public Works and Highways
Department of Trade and Industry
Department of Labour and Employment
Department of Finance
President, Land Bank of the Philippines
Administrator, National Irrigation Administration
The Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committees and Barangay Agrarian
Reform Committees. The PARCC was tasked with coordinating and monitoring the
implementation of CARP in the province. The functions of the Barangay Agrarian
Reform Committee was crucial to the implementation of the program. In
responsibilities would be to mediate and conciliate between parties in agrarian
disputes; landowners within the barangay, to attest to the initial parcellary mapping
of the beneficiarys tillage; to assist qualified beneficiaries obtaining credit from
lending institutions; to assist in the initial determination of the value of the land and
so on.
The quasi-judicial powers of DAR. The CARP granted expansive powers to the DAR
so that it would be given primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian
matters. It could hear and decide all cases and disputes or controversies in a most
expeditious manner without strictly being bounded by technical rules of procedure
and evidence.

COMPARE CARP TO CARPER

Some provisions of the CARP were amended like the provision on the award to
beneficiaries and the schedule of acquisition and distribution, were introduced like
the Gender provisions and the Congressional Oversight Committee, which oversee
and monitor the implementation of the act, and a number of Supreme Court
decisions legislated like the indefeasibility of titles given under agrarian reform and
exclusive jurisdiction of DAR in agrarian dispute criminal cases.
Moreover, CARPER law provides for clarification of policies and its interpretation by
CARP implementation agencies including the decision of judicial courts. RA 6657,
the original CARP law (CARL) has not been superseded by the CARPER law but
strengthens or improves the CARL. The fund allocated for CARPER is to further
implement the CARP which means that the CARPER law provides funding needed
to implement CARP.
One of the sharpened policies in the CARPER law is the relationship of conversion of
agricultural land to non-agricultural uses and food security. Under CARP, only the
DAR has the mechanism to regulate the conversion of agricultural lands to nonagricultural uses. And, when the country experienced rice crisis, government
realized that many of the food producing lands have been converted to nonagricultural uses. So, the CARPER law strengthens the ban on any conversion of
irrigated and irrigable lands and mandates the National Irrigation Administration to
identify these.
Under CARPER law, any conversion to avoid CARP coverage is a prohibited act. The
word any makes the defense of good faith or ignorance of the law untenable.
Also, Compulsory Acquisition and Voluntary Offer to Sell will be the main mode of
land acquisition when the law takes effect. Many studies have shown that VLT or
Voluntary Land Transfer has been abused by the landowners to put people who are
not qualified or people who are loyal to them as beneficiaries. Thus, No VLT
applications will be allowed after 1 July 2009, and so on.

CARP or RA 6657

CARPER or RA 9700

SECTION 3. Definitions. For the purpose

of this Act, unless the context indicates
otherwise:
xxx

xxx

SECTION 2. Section 3 of Republic Act No.

6657, as amended, is hereby further
amended to read as follows:

xxx

(f) Farmer refers to a natural person

whose primary livelihood is cultivation of
land or the production of agricultural
crops, either by himself, or primarily with
the assistance of his immediate farm

SEC. 3. Definitions. For the purpose

of this Act, unless the context indicates
otherwise:
xxx

xxx

xxx

household, whether the land is owned by

him, or by another person under a
leasehold or share tenancy agreement or
arrangement with the owner thereof.

xxx

xxx

xxx

(f) Farmer refers to a natural person

whose primary livelihood is cultivation of
land or the production of agricultural
crops, livestock and/or fisheries
either by himself/herself, or primarily
with the assistance of his/her immediate
farm household, whether the land is
owned by him/her, or by another person
under a leasehold or share tenancy
agreement or arrangement with the
owner thereof.
xxx

SECTION 17. Determination of Just

Compensation. In determining just
compensation, the cost of acquisition of
the land, the current value of like
properties, its nature, actual use and
income, the sworn valuation by the
owner, the tax declarations, and the
assessment made by government
assessors shall be considered. The social
and economic benefits contributed by
the farmers and the farmworkers and by
the Government to the property as well
as the non-payment of taxes or loans
secured from any government financing
institution on the said land shall be
considered as additional factors to
determine its valuation.

SECTION 65. Conversion of Lands. After

xxx

xxx

(l) Rural women refer to women who

are engaged directly or indirectly in
farming and/or fishing as their source of
livelihood, whether paid or unpaid,
regular or seasonal, or in food
preparation, managing the household,
caring for the children, and other similar
activities.

SECTION 7. Section 17 of Republic Act

No. 6657, as amended, is hereby further
amended to read as follows:
SEC.
17.
Determination
of
Just
Compensation. In determining just
compensation, the cost of acquisition of
the land, the value of the standing crop,
the current value of like properties, its
nature, actual use and income, the
sworn valuation by the owner, the tax
declarations, the assessment made by
government assessors, and seventy
percent (70%) of the zonal valuation of
the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR),
translated into a basic formula by the
DAR shall be considered, subject to the
final decision of the proper court. The
social and economic benefits contributed
by the farmers and the farmworkers and

the lapse of five (5) years from its award,

when the land ceases to be economically
feasible and sound for agricultural
purposes, or the locality has become
urbanized and the land will have a
greater economic value for residential,
commercial or industrial purposes, the
DAR, upon application of the beneficiary
or the landowner, with due notice to the
affected parties, and subject to existing
laws, may authorize the reclassification
or conversion of the land and its
disposition: Provided, That the
beneficiary shall have fully paid his
obligation.

SECTION 74. Penalties. Any person who

knowingly or willfully violates the
provisions of this Act shall be punished
by imprisonment of not less than one (1)

by the Government to the property as

well as the nonpayment of taxes or loans
secured from any government financing
institution on the said land shall be
considered as additional factors to
determine its valuation.
SECTION 22. Section 65 of Republic Act
No. 6657, as amended, is hereby further
amended to read as follows:
SEC. 65. Conversion of Lands. After
the lapse of five (5) years from its award,
when the land ceases to be economically
feasible and sound for agricultural
purposes, or the locality has become
urbanized and the land will have a
greater economic value for residential,
commercial or industrial purposes, the
DAR, upon application of the beneficiary
or the landowner with respect only to
his/her retained area which is tenanted,
with due notice to the affected parties,
and subject to existing laws, may
authorize
the
reclassification
or
conversion of the land and its
disposition: Provided, That if the
applicant is a beneficiary under agrarian
laws and the land sought to be
converted is the land awarded to
him/her or any portion thereof, the
applicant, after the conversion is
granted, shall invest at least ten percent
(10%) of the proceeds coming from the
conversion in government securities:
Provided, further, That the applicant
upon conversion shall fully pay the price
of the land: Provided, furthermore, That
irrigated and irrigable lands, shall not be
subject to conversion: Provided, finally,
That
the
National
Irrigation
Administration
shall
submit
a
consolidated data on the location
nationwide of all irrigable lands within
one (1) year from the effectivity of this

month to not more than three (3) years

or a fine of not less than one thousand
pesos (P1,000.00) and not more than
fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000.00), or
both, at the discretion of the court.
If the offender is a corporation or
association, the officer responsible
therefor shall be criminally liable.

Act.
Failure to implement the conversion
plan within five (5) years from the
approval of such conversion plan or any
violation of the conditions of the
conversion order due to the fault of the
applicant shall cause the land to
automatically be covered by CARP.
SECTION 25. Section 74 of Republic Act
No. 6657, as amended, is hereby further
amended to read as follows:
SEC. 74. Penalties. Any person who
knowingly or willfully violates the
provisions of this Act shall be punished
by imprisonment of not less than one (1)
month to not more than three (3) years
or a fine of not less than One thousand
pesos (P1,000.00) and not more than
Fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000.00), or
both, at the discretion of the court:
Provided,
That
the
following
corresponding
penalties
shall
be
imposed for the specific violations
hereunder:

SECTION 68. Immunity of Government

Agencies from Undue Interference. No
injunction, restraining order, prohibition
or mandamus shall be issued by the
lower 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
(DOJ) in their implementation of the
program.

(a) Imprisonment of three (3) years and

one (1) day to six (6) years or a fine of
not less than Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) and not more than One
hundred
fifty
thousand
pesos
(P150,000.00), or both, at the discretion
of the court upon any person who
violates Section 73, subparagraphs (a),
(b), (f), (g), and (h) of Republic Act No.
6657, as amended; and
(b) Imprisonment of six (6) years and
one (1) day to twelve (12) years or a fine
of not less than Two hundred thousand
pesos (P200,000.00) and not more than
One million pesos (P1,000,000.00), or
both, at the discretion of the court upon

any person who violates Section 73,

subparagraphs (c), (d), (e), and (i) of
Republic Act No. 6657, as amended.
If the offender is a corporation or
association, the officer responsible
therefor shall be criminally liable.
SECTION 23. Section 68 of Republic Act
No. 6657, as amended, is hereby further
amended to read as follows:
SEC. 68. Immunity of Government
Agencies from Undue Interference. In
cases falling within their jurisdiction, no
injunction, restraining order, prohibition
or mandamus shall be issued by the
regional trial courts, municipal trial
courts, municipal circuit trial courts, and
metropolitan trial courts against the
DAR, the DA, the DENR, and the
Department
of
Justice
in
their
implementation of the Program.

OBSERVATION
As of this writing, the implementation of CARP/ CARPER had a differential impact on
the lives of the farmers because of the new agrarian reform law, which changed the
shape of the landscape for the betterment of many tillers of the soil.
We already had half a century of land reform
First, the bulk of the remaining lands for distribution are private agricultural lands.
These are private agricultural lands above 24 hectares, where relations between the
tenants and landlords continue to be highly feudal and exploitative. DAR is up
against the landowners who have successfully evaded land distribution for the last
22 years. These were the same landowners who have aggressively and unceasingly
opposed CARP since its inception in 1988. Worse, the government oftentimes has
accommodated the demands of these landowners to delay if not to avoid
distribution.
Second, DARs record in distributing private agricultural lands has been historically
disappointing. Since 1987, DAR has missed its own target. It was only able to meet
its target for two consecutive years. This was in 2001, when DAR distributed
104,261 hectares vis--vis its 101,108 hectares target and in 2002, when it

distributed 111,722 against its target of 110,917 hectares. Looking back, these were
the same years when former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo lowered
government agrarian refo
The technical working paper of the World Bank (2009) also posited that the modest
impact of CARP on poverty and growth is mainly due to DARs inability to prioritize
the acquisition of private agricultural lands through compulsory acquisition.
Third, there is lack of interest and sense of urgency from the current administration
when it comes to the issue of agrarian reform. Despite the fact that agrarian reform
was a major issue hurled consistently at the President when he was still running for
the presidency, agrarian reform was never mentioned in the inaugural speech and
the first State of the Nation Address of President P-Noy. The agrarian reform was
also one of the programs whose budget was slashed in 2010 to fund the priority pro
http://focusweb.org/philippines/fop-articles/articles/533-beating-2014-pushing-forthe-decisive-implementation-of-carper
http://www.scribd.com/doc/49033321/CARP-and-CARPER-distinctions
With this situation, we can say that state-led reform is slowly reaching its threshold
or limits, private landlord interest remains the dominant force and is dictating the
tempo of reform. Post-Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (GMA), after her stint of almost ten
years without much agrarian reform gains, and with the new administration under
President Noynoy Aquino, a new political situation was seen as an opening for
reform again, an opportunity to be grappled by the organized peoples movement.
However, with his silence on agrarian matters during his first State of the Nation
Address (SONA) and continuous failure to implement agrarian reform on his own
family estate, the Hacienda Luisita 1, the hope for the land redistribution remains
bleak.
Being optimistic about it, I argue that at the current juncture, given that CARPER
that was extended at least for five years (now less than four years remain), and the
current administrations expected reformists Cabinet members (although as
noted, The President did not even mention AR in his national agenda and given his
bleak stance on Had. Luisita), theres still space for manoeuvre to exercise or assert
land rights. But ultimately, what determines the outcome to a considerable degree
is the power relationship within the overall context of inequality in class and in
gender and the peoples agency.
1 Hacienda Luisita Inc. is the largest plantation in the country which has been
owned by former President Cory Aquino and present RP President Noynoy
Aquinos family, since 1958. It evaded CARP through SDO during Corys
Presidency (see also Monsods (2010) report to CBCP-NASSA). The aim is to press
the state to implement the program and for policy reform, expose the landlords
violations of their human rights and the states failure, and raise public awareness
of the situation at the local level - the injustices going on.

The land reform issue in the Philippines remains a battlefield for both the peasant
men and women and its advocates in the country until today. It has already taken a
number of lives and continues doing so but the poor people and their support
groups are not giving up, instead, as showed above, continues building and
strengthening their forces by utilizing the existing laws (i.e. CARL and CARPER). The
people are still hopeful for its implementation. Winning the battle for its extension in
itself for the next five years (2009-2014) provides a window of opportunity to
continue its struggles to claim their land rights.
Specifically, in the case of the peasant women, the existing laws and policies that
provide equal rights for women and ownership of land are regarded as instruments
to justify their pursuing a distinct claim on land rights. In fact, these specific
provisions are also a result of the constant push and persistence of women on
advocating this particular agenda. Therefore, for them, this is already a success in
itself.
On the other hand, the landowners opposition is more than persistent and stronger
given its historically embedded influence and power in the country utilizing all
avenues to continuously delay if not evade the program, from manoeuvre to the
legislative, judiciary and the executive to continuous harassment and even killing of
the active peasants and activists.
The present active involvement of the church, civil society and individual activists,
the local and national movements among others in active monitoring of the land
reform implementation strengthens the hope for reform.
CARPERs other reform provisions: Misunderstood and UnimplementedAs mentioned
above, reform provisions form the bulk of the amendments that were included in the
CARPER law. Unfortunately, many of these reform provisions had been mangled in
essence when the implementing rules and regulations for the provisions were
drafted. A good example would be the misinterpretation of the provisions on
support services, specifically credit and initial capital subsidy. CARPER mandates
that socialized credit be

References
Dhyne_619 Accessed May 13, 2014 http://www.scribd.com/doc/49033321/CARP-andCARPER-distinctions
Fabella, Raul V. Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP): Time to Let Go
Accessed May 13, 2014http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?
q=cache:http://www.econ.upd.edu.ph/dp/index.php/dp/article/download/1455/924