Virnadette L.

Lopez
JD-2B

REACTION PAPER
Section 21 of Article II: Declaration of Principles and State Policies of the Philippine
Constitution provides: The State shall promote comprehensive rural development and agrarian
reform1. Thus, as an action done by the Legislative is enact law in support of rural development
and agrarian reform which include Republic Act No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law of 1988.
As stated in Section 2 of RA 6657, agrarian reform program is founded on the right of
farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they
till or, in the case of other farm workers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. Furthermore,
the CARP considers the welfare of the landless farmers and farmworkers will receive the highest
consideration to promote social justice and to move the nation toward sound rural development
and industrialization, and the establishment of owner cultivatorship of economic-size farms as
the basis of Philippine agriculture.2
However, I personally think that the agricultural land reform program falls short to be a
success. An article published by Inquirer.net entitled “CARP: After 28 ‘successful’ years, where’s
development?” 3 states that although World Bank considered our CARP as a success, it did not
however improve the agricultural and rural development. It was further compared to land reform
of other neighbor countries such as South Korea and Taiwan which land reform in these countries
was limited to five years and to rice lands alone. Calixto V. Chikiamco. President of Foundation
for Economic Freedom said that ”The fact is that vested interests have developed in the perpetual
extension of CARP, including the DAR (which wants to exist forever and extract rent for every
approval of land conversion) and NGOs (which make a living in selling the tired nostrum of land
reform).”
Considering the political status and system in our country, we cannot see any
improvement to the lives of our farmers and up until now, their job is being belittled and
considered that in farming, there is no farming. Despite the fact that we are an agricultural
country for we our blessed of abundant and rich soil and tropical climate that is very good for
cultivation of different crops, we considered tiling land is a lowly occupation. Even the children
of the farmers does not want to continue the legacy of farming for a lot of people look down on
them. I cannot see great improvements of their lives. My grandparent for a fact could be
considered farmworker but they did not know the existence of the Agrarian Reform and until
their old age, they continue tiling the farm of others.
In an article “Is Land Reform A Failure In The Philippines? An Assessment On Carp by Jose
Elvinia”4, it was mentioned that “The CARP may not be a complete failure; however, it possessed
serious deficiencies to succeed as an agenda on poverty reduction. We have witnessed that we
cannot split up the personal interest of landlords from landless poor‘s interest in any land reform
1
1987 Philippine Constitution
2
Republic Act No. 6657 “An Act Instituting A Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program To Promote Social Justice
And Industrialization, Providing The Mechanism For Its Implementation, And For Other Purposes”
3
CARP: After 28 ‘successful’ years, where’s development? (2015, April 14). Inquirer.net. Retrieved from
https://opinion.inquirer.net/84077/carp-after-28-successful-years-wheres-development
4
Elvinia, J. (n.d.). Is Land Reform a Failure in the Philippines? An Assessment on CAR
Virnadette L. Lopez
JD-2B

laws and programs in the country. Land reform has been a polity reality, and the politics played a
significant role on the various policies and programs in each regime.”
Included in the flaws of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 are its
provisions and implementing rules and regulation.
Section 6 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 provides the retention
limits of 5 hectares per landowner with provision for their children. The landowners has the right
to choose which part of their landholdings will retain as theirs. If this is the case, they could
choose the area which is most rich and healthy and the beneficiaries will be left with the area
that could possibly difficult to cultivate or needed most investment in order to cultivate the land.
This is unfair to them.
Section 17 of the same law provides the determination of just compensation.
Jurisprudence repeatedly claims that valuation shall be based at the time of taking of the subject
property, not the date of the filing of or period of pendency of the suit, or the rendition of
judgment. It should be stressed that the purpose of payment is not to reward the owners for the
property taken but to compensate them for the loss thereof.5 Also, Section 18 of the said law
provides the Mode of Compensation for taking of agricultural land.
I think that if the government has enough money, the percentage of the money
compensation must be increased in order to encourage the landowners to sell their land. 35%
cash compensation for the taking of agricultural land below 24 hectares could be too small to
entice the landowners. I think this is not reasonable. The payment of government bonds limits
the landowners on how to use the balance when they could possibly invest it to business that
could give them higher profits.
Also the installments that must be paid by the beneficiaries also earns interest. Some may
find this reasonable but I don’t think so. The price of the land must be subsidized by the
government to make it less burdensome to the government or if this is not possible, interest
must be removed. The land was given to them as a right and not a loan from the government. It
is for them and the government must not realize any profit from it.
There was also a mention in the law that the Special Agrarian Courts must hear the cases
in case there is an issue for just compensation. What if it is unfairly in favor to the landowners?
Do the farmworkers afford to question and give time to fight for what is just? I do not think so.
Although it was mentioned that it should be heard and resolve at shortest time possible,
with the current justice system in our country, it will take a lot of time. The landowners which
are richer could possibly continue raising their claims on their land, however, the farmworkers
who are earning enough for their daily living, they don’t have the means to undergo tedious
administrative and judicial process. The fact that a lot of cases exist until today that remains
unresolved and pending in the court even though the CARL had long expired, it shows that there
are cases that took decades before being resolve which one example is the case of Hacienda
Luisita. I think the issue here is that the landowners, as an owner, do not want to part with their

5
Mateo vs DAR, GR No. 186339, February 15, 2017
Virnadette L. Lopez
JD-2B

property. Land is a non-depreciable asset. It is reasonable for them to fight for it regardless if
rights of small farmworkers are being abused.
During the effectivity of the law, they should increase the number of Special Agrarian
Courts. Also, they should consider the interest of the parties involve and not mere the interest of
the state. If the priority of the Agrarian Reform is for the farmworkers, should not be the law
worded in the most favorable way as possible to them?
Currently, we could possibly resolve the issues of agrarian reform by increasing the
Special Agrarian reform. For cases pending in DAR, I think government must implement a stricter
rules as to their process. The thing about government offices, as mention in previous article being
cited is the fact that DAR wanted to extend its existence. Changing the DAR office is actually a
way and changing its leadership could possibly help.
I strongly recommends the removal of Senator Cynthia Villar as head of Senate
Committee on agriculture, food and agrarian reform. It is a conflict of interest on her part
knowing that she’s owning the Vista Land. How sure we are that she represents the farmers when
they themselves are eyeing for land areas to convert to the commercial or residential lot?
I would suggest that once DAR has finished distributing the land to beneficiaries, it must
be abolished and a different such as Department of Agricultural Development must be
established. In agrarian reform, it mostly focused on the distribution of land. However, uplifting
the lives of the farmers does not stop of having land. They needed the money to cultivate the
land. One function for example is the implementation of Rice Tariffication Law which must be
given to the new Department since its goal is to modernize the agricultural sector.
We are too outdated as to agricultural development. Section 13 of the Rice Tariffication
Law6 vested the accountability of the “Rice Fund” from the Rice Tariffication. Although the funds
must be used directly to the rice industry sector, the funds must be handled by a department
which could primarily focus on the improvement of the farmer. Having a Department that will
focus on the Agricultural Development using funds availably given by the law, there will be more
transparency. We could easily judge whether the establishment of the new Department is
effective to bring positive changes to our agricultural sectors.
The farmers do too much effort when they could be given knowledge to improve and be
more efficient. They needed the finances and support of our government. Government initiative
and transparency is the reason why our agricultural sector does not improve. Government favors
who could give them instant money and not invest to farmers who are actually the
representation of our country.
As a conclusion, political system in the Philippines favors people who are in power. In our
country, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. This is a reality in our country.
I know for a fact that although some farmers own agricultural land, they still sell it on
corporations with interest to develop it to a commercial land. Although it is not allowed in being
sold, the corporation still circumvent the law by using connections and power to reclassify those

6
Republic Act No. 11023 “An Act Liberalizing the Importation, Exportation and Trading of Rice, Lifting for the
Purpose the Quantitative Import Restriction on Rice and other Purposes”
Virnadette L. Lopez
JD-2B

lands into commercial land. Since there is no concrete and consistent support for the
government, the farmers are more inclined to sell their lands than to continuously cultivate it
with small income and high risk.
I do not think that CARP is failure but I don’t also consider it a success. I don’t see
improvement of the lives of our farmers and corporations with interest of their land continuously
buy and own their land. We can clearly see the abundance of horizontal and vertical residential
improvements but I cannot here news of many farmers having an improved life with agrarian
reform law.
If the creation of new department and the dissolution of DAR will results to better focus
to our farmers, then I will support the dissolution of DAR. They been in effect for too long after
the expiration of RA 6657. The undistributed land, if will remain undistributed for 5 years more
means inefficiency. And the lives of our farmer should not be dependent on whether they will do
or not. We should now be done in distributing the lands rightfully theirs and start focusing more
on improving their lives of our farmers vis-à-vis agricultural processes.