Angeles University Foundation College of Arts and Sciences

Literature Research on Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)

Submitted by: Musni, Rheinlander C. AB Communication 2

Submitted to: Mr. Arnold Bucud

Back then, the agrarian system of the Philippines was being dominated by big landlords for a long time. In these periods of domination, small farmers were fighting for their rights and privileges to land and other resources. Based on the observations during those times, about 2.9 million small farms occupied about half of the total arable land of Philippines, while the medium and large farms occupied about 11.5% of the total farmland. It was evident back then that the agrarian system of the Philippines followed a feudalistic approach and there is a need for a just and fair land reform law. So, here comes the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program or CARP. (Retrieved from http://www.economywatch.com/agrarian/law/comprehensive.html. Date and time of retrieval: October 1, 2011, 9 a.m.) The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) was the fifth land reform law in five decades, succeeding the land reform laws from the times of Presidents Manuel Quezon, Ramon Magsaysay, Diosdado Macapagal and Ferdinand Marcos. It was a land reform law mandated by Republic Act No. 6657 which was signed by President Corazon Aquino on June 10, 1988. This law defined agrarian reform as redistribution of all public and private agricultural lands to farmers, either regular or not, who do not have their own lands. It will also include the essential services which are meant to improve the economic status of those who will benefit and provide them a fair share of the fruits and crops in the land where they work. (Citation needed) The industrialization of the Philippines along with social justice was the focus of this law. The centuries-old problem of landlessness in rural areas was the major problem that agrarian reforms in the Philippines seek to give solution and this is the reason why the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program came to existence. Through the

implementation of CARP, the government tackled key national goals. First is the promotion of equity and social justice; second is food security and third is poverty alleviation in the countryside. After over how many years of CARP, however, the goals are yet to be achieved and it is being weighed down by several major issues which come from the opposing landlords, unsupportive legislators and the lack of fund resources. (Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/j0415t/j0415t08.htm. Date and time of retrieval: October 1, 2011, 6:30 p.m.)

Throughout the years of its existence and implementation, from 1988 when it was called CARL (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) until twenty years later, land remains beyond the grasps of masses. In 2009, CARPER (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Extension with Reforms) was signed into law by former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo with the aim of redefining the scope of the program. (Retrieved from http://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=CARPER. Date and time of retrieval: October 1, 2011, 7:00 p.m.) Though the CARPER was criticized to have pro-landlord provisions, the Congress pushed through with extending it. This particular event only proves that agrarian reform is imperative to accelerate the agricultural sector of the country, as well as Agro-based industries. The question now is: What benefits will the beneficiaries acquire from the agrarian reform? Studies have shown that agrarian reform will deal a great impact in the lives of farmer beneficiaries. This includes increased per capita incomes, reduced poverty incidence, higher investments in physical capital, and greater household welfare and productivity. Social justice and peace achieved in the countryside can also be counted as such. Liberation of small farmers from poverty and the success of the CARP cannot be accomplished by land distribution alone, so there is a need for support services for the agrarian reform communities wherein it becomes essential in enhancing food security and building infrastructures that promote food production, enhance community trading and increase rural household income. (Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/ 006/j0415t/j0415t08.htm. Date and time of retrieval: October 1, 2011, 6:30 p.m.) However, one cannot avoid the fact that the agrarian reform has somehow failed on its objectives. Some said it was partly a success and partly a failure because it was not able to fully meet its goals within the given time it was implemented. Also, it was not able to give solutions to the existing problems pertaining to the agrarian system. How can they say that CARP is a failure? First, even though there is already an agrarian reform, the absence of balance in the land allocation pattern persevered as an enduring dilemma to the agricultural sector of Philippines. Next, the relationship between the landlords and the farmers barely met any

change; it was not liberalized but remained to be feudal. Lastly, the landownership became somewhat monopolistic since the landowners were putting their agricultural land on rent to the farmers for cultivation. The wealth concentrated in the hands of the wealthy and influential landlords; therefore the farmers were driven towards poverty. (Retrieved from http://www.economywatch.com/agrarian/world/philippines.html. Date and time of retrieval: October 1, 2011, 6:35 p.m.) Actually, there were some reasons why the CARP was considered a failure by some Filipinos. These reasons came from the flaws in the sides of the landowners, the legislators and the farmers. In the Inbox World section of the philstar.com (2009), the question Has the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) benefited farmers as intended? was asked. Several people gave their opinions about the question and pointed out some points why CARP somehow failed in doing so. Below are the salient points they have presented regarding CARP. (Retrieved from

http://www.philstar.com/article.aspx?articleid=498223. Date and time of retrieval: October 1, 2011, 6:10 p.m.) Why are we still importing agricultural products? For over two decades, CARP has been implemented to alleviate the agricultural sector of our country. But the fact that we have to import hundreds of tons of rice, every kind of fruit and vegetable, sugar, and even salt, every year is a proof that CARP has been a failure. If CARP was indeed effective, then we should not be importing much of the agricultural products mentioned above. (Yap, R. & Young, B. Jr., 2009) Farmers lack entrepreneurial skills. No matter how noble the intention of CARP to elevate the living status of farmer is, it will keep on failing due to lack of educational programs for the farmers. Basic financial management, the farmers role in nationbuilding, and better ways of farming should have been part of the educational program included in CARP. Since the farmers has no adequate knowledge in entrepreneursip, they tend to sell their lands to enterprising ones. Thus, they are back to square one again. (Sison, G., 2009)

CARP was hindered by corruption and red tape. The reason why the CARP did not benefit the farmers as intended was because there were alleged anomalies like in other government programs. The funding, corruption and bureaucratic red tape have impaired its effectiveness. (Brown, L. & Veneracion, J., 2009) Farmers lack some support from the government. CARP is neither a complete success nor a complete failure due to lack of monetary support and technical assistance on agricultural production from the Department of Agriculture. Farmers here in the Philippines are often poor unlike in Japan where the farmers are wealthy, productive and supported by their government. (Todcor, D., 2009) Most landowners are politicians. The farmers cannot benefit as intended if the haciendas are untouchable by the government. Not to mention, there are many politicians who are landowners themselves. Since they are ones with power, they can manipulate the law to retain the lands that they have. In some cases, they have expanded their lands, thus the poor farmers were dislocated in adjacent and nearby places. (Deoferio, J., & Que, E., 2009) Many farmers ended up selling their lands. Due to lack of capital in order to buy farm implements, beneficiaries sold their rights back to rich and powerful landowners. Some farmers only wanted to own hectares of land they have been tilling so that they can sell them back and have money. It has to be admitted that the division and distribution of lands is not enough to sustain the needs of the farmers families. Thus, farmers are forced to sell their lands to the landlords, making them poorer than ever. (Gonzaga, W., Manalastas, C. Sunico, M., & Talledo, R.,2009) The program is seemingly ineffective. Farmers have not really benefited from the P100 billion in funds mandated by CARP. According to the farmers, the funds are being wasted or being pocketed by government officials, thus the progress meant by CARP has been slowed down. And we should also put into consideration that farmers are staging protests every now and then and they are still suffering from poverty which only proves that the program has not been that effective as it was thought to be. Therefore,

the goals of CARP to eliminate rural poverty and improve farm productivity were not fully accomplished. (Aglibot, I., Rejano, L., & de Leon, N., 2009) Sated above are the salient points cited from the varying opinions of Filipinos about CARP. To wrap it all up, CARP has benefited the farmers, but not fully as intended. The inevitable flaws which originated from the farmers, the landowners and the legislators have been the hindrances and nuisances in the effectiveness of CARP. After twenty years of its implementation, it seemed that there were only slight changes in our agricultural sector. Yes, the farmers may have acquired some small parcels of lands through CARP, however because they lack entrepreneurial skills, support from the government and capital, they tend to give what they have acquired back to landowners. Will there be any change at all if the process will be like what I have mentioned? Looking back in our history, CARP was a legacy initiated by the late President Corazon Aquino. Counting from the year 1988 when it was signed into a law, CARP is now over two decades old. However, its effectiveness was criticized by many Filipinos, saying that it was a failure. But we cannot deny that land reform is a key element in economic development of our country and that must be the reason why the Congress kept on extending CARP through CARPER, which was passed a year after CARP has expired in 2008. So, how will an agrarian reform like CARP affect the economy of a country? The implementation of the agrarian reform comprises agricultural issues like rents, cooperatives, taxation and the like which are crucial for developing countries like the Philippines. In fact, agrarian reform has several effects on rural communities and these effects will tell us about the result of reallocation of a countrys agricultural resources. For instance, the agricultural productivity of our country may be affected by the agrarian reform. It can either decrease the agricultural productivity if collectivization and land fragmentation is introduced or enhance productivity if there will be use of new inputs and technology in the agricultural process. If agricultural productivity is enhanced, then the income of people will rise. So, increasing the income will improve the living standards of people automatically. Also, poverty in the rural areas is affected by the agrarian reform. Through agrarian reform, poverty can be minimized and with that, it

improves the real per capita income of the country. Better employment also results from agrarian reform measures although the introduction of a new technology may bring about displacement of labor. It can also change the capital output ratio that is needed for economic development. (Retrieved from http://www.economywatch.com/

agrarian/effect/. Date and time of retrieval: October 2, 2011, 10:34 a.m.) The effects of the agrarian reform in a country can bring about progress and development in the economy. However, in the case of our country, why does it seem that there is barely a change happening? If CARP was meant to enhance agricultural productivity, then why do we have to import agricultural products during the period that CARP was taking effect? If CARP was meant to alleviate the status of farmer beneficiaries, then why are many of them poor? If CARP was indeed effective, then why do farmers keep on staging rallies and protests? If we will take these questions into consideration, we can say that CARP has been a failure in some aspects. So, to what extent did the CARP help improve the economy of the Philippines? After reading several articles about CARP, I believe that CARP has somehow helped improve our economy despite the errors, flaws and loopholes that hindered it from being a fully effective and efficient program. The major problems in land ownership and farmers welfare were somehow given solutions when CARP was implemented. Without it, the agrarian system of the Philippines will be chaotic and the economy will fluctuate eventually. CARP has given some justice to the cries of the farmers, the productivity of the agricultural sector of the country and the promotion of agro-based industry as well. And now, the Congress has amended several of the CARPs provisions by passing the CARPER bill,

Based on documentary evidence available at the DAR, the program has indeed benefited target farmer beneficiaries, although some of them sold their rights to the land awarded to them to other individuals for easy money and unproductive endeavors. Thus, they have remained landless. There may be some

loopholes in the original CARP law enacted during the term of Pres. Macapagal that have somehow contributed to this scenario. GMAs recently approved CARPER Law, which extends the agrarian program for five years, remedies the loopholes. Farmers are provided easy credit loan facilities, etc. so that they will no longer be tempted to sell the awarded land to private persons and will be encouraged to till the land as intended by law.