The year 1986 marked a pivotal moment in Philippine history. The EDSA People Power Revolution brought an end to the Marcos dictatorship and ushered in a new era of democracy and hopeful change. Millions cheered, symbols of freedom were raised, and there was a collective sense that the nation could finally address its deep-seated problems. While significant political reforms were enacted, one persistent and crucial issue continued to cast a long shadow over the fledgling democracy: the complex and often-unresolved problems of land ownership and access, particularly for the vast majority of rural Filipinos.
Land has always been central to Philippine society, economy, and even identity. For centuries, control over land has been linked to wealth, power, and social status. Unfortunately, this has historically resulted in extreme inequality, where a small number of landowners controlled vast tracts of land, while millions of farmers worked as tenants, owning little or none of the land they tilled. This imbalance wasn’t just an economic problem; it fueled social unrest, poverty, and conflict, especially in rural areas.
Successive governments, even before EDSA, recognized the need for agrarian reform – the redistribution of agricultural land to landless farmers and farmworkers. However, implementation was always difficult, facing strong resistance from powerful landowning families and hampered by flawed laws and insufficient resources. The Marcos regime had its own land reform program, but many saw it as limited in scope and selectively applied, often benefiting allies while suppressing dissent fueled by landlessness.
The EDSA Revolution presented a unique opportunity for a fresh start. There was widespread expectation, particularly among peasant groups and civil society organizations, that the new government would prioritize genuine land reform as a cornerstone of social justice and national development. The idea was simple but profound: giving farmers ownership of the land they worked would empower them, reduce poverty, boost agricultural productivity, and lessen the appeal of armed rebellion that often found support among dispossessed rural populations. The Philippine Land Reform program, particularly the ambitious plan that would follow, became a symbol of the promise of EDSA.
However, translating this hope into reality proved incredibly challenging. The path forward was fraught with legal battles, political maneuvering, bureaucratic hurdles, and even violence. The unresolved land issues, inherited from centuries of inequality, remained a significant source of conflict, demonstrating that while the political landscape had changed dramatically, the fundamental structures of power and ownership were deeply entrenched.
The Birth of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)
In the immediate aftermath of EDSA, land reform advocates pushed hard for a strong, sweeping law. The new government, led by President Corazon C. Aquino, herself from a prominent landowning family, faced immense pressure from various sides. Farmers’ groups demanded radical redistribution, while landowners lobbied fiercely to protect their properties.
After much debate and political wrangling, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) was enacted into law in 1988 through Republic Act No. 6657. This was envisioned as the most extensive land reform program the Philippines had ever seen, and indeed, one of the most ambitious in the world. Its stated goal was the just distribution of all agricultural lands, regardless of crop or tenancy arrangement, to qualified beneficiaries. This included not just tenanted rice and corn lands (covered by previous laws) but also private lands planted to other crops like sugarcane, coconuts, and fruits, as well as public lands suitable for agriculture.
CARP aimed to cover approximately 10.3 million hectares of agricultural land and benefit around 3.9 million farmers and farmworkers. It was designed to be implemented over ten years, from 1988 to 1998. The program encompassed various aspects beyond just land distribution:
- Land Tenure Improvement: This involved identifying lands for distribution, determining their value, and transferring ownership to beneficiaries. Various modes of acquisition were included, such as compulsory acquisition (where the government acquires land and compensates the owner), voluntary offer to sell (landowners voluntarily sell their land to the government), and voluntary land transfer (direct transfer from landowner to beneficiary).
- Support Services: Recognizing that simply giving land was not enough, CARP included provisions for providing essential support services to beneficiaries. This included access to credit, infrastructure (like irrigation and roads), training, extension services, and marketing assistance. This component was seen as crucial for ensuring the productivity and sustainability of farms managed by new landowners.
- Agrarian Justice: The program established mechanisms for resolving disputes related to land distribution, land valuation, and other agrarian issues through special agrarian courts and the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB).
The creation of CARP was seen as a major step forward, a tangible effort by the post-EDSA government to address the root causes of rural poverty and inequality. However, its design contained compromises that would later prove to be significant hurdles, reflecting the complex political landscape in which it was born.
The Long and Difficult Road of Implementation: Challenges and Controversies
Despite its ambitious goals and comprehensive framework, the implementation of CARP was plagued by difficulties from the outset. The initial ten-year timeline proved utterly unrealistic. Year after year, deadlines were missed, targets were not met, and the program had to be extended multiple times, becoming a fixture of the post-EDSA political agenda for decades.
One of the most significant challenges was landowner resistance. Powerful landowning families often used legal tactics to delay or block the acquisition of their lands. This included questioning the constitutionality of the law, challenging land valuation, or filing numerous cases that tied up the process in courts for years. Some landowners also resorted to less legal means, such as intimidation, harassment, or even violence against farmers attempting to claim their rights. The government’s political will to push back against this resistance was often questioned.
Another major hurdle was bureaucratic inefficiency and corruption. The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), the primary agency responsible for implementing CARP, faced immense challenges in surveying vast tracts of land, identifying qualified beneficiaries, processing paperwork, and ensuring fair land valuation. The complexity of the process, coupled with limited resources and alleged corruption within the bureaucracy, slowed down implementation considerably. Land valuation, in particular, was a frequent point of contention, with landowners demanding high prices and farmers arguing for lower, more affordable rates.
The lack of sufficient support services also severely hampered the program’s success. While CARP mandated support services, the funding and coordination required to provide them effectively were often inadequate. Many beneficiaries received land but lacked the necessary capital, technical knowledge, irrigation, or market access to make their farms productive. This sometimes led to new landowners selling or leasing their land back to former landlords or bigger companies, undermining the core goal of land distribution.
Land conversion became another way to circumvent CARP. Landowners would apply to convert agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses (like commercial, residential, or industrial) to avoid distribution. While rules were put in place to regulate conversion, abuses were rampant, further shrinking the land available for distribution and displacing farmers.
One of the most high-profile and contentious cases that highlighted the challenges of CARP was Hacienda Luisita. Owned by the family of President Corazon C. Aquino, this large sugar plantation became a symbol of the difficulties of implementing land reform on large estates and among politically influential families. While a Stock Distribution Option (SDO) was initially implemented (giving farmworkers shares in the company instead of land), it was widely criticized for not genuinely empowering farmers. After a long and bitter struggle that included protests and violence, and a landmark Supreme Court decision years later, physical land distribution eventually commenced, though not without ongoing disputes. The Hacienda Luisita case underscored the deep political resistance and the long, winding path to securing actual land ownership for farmers.
The sheer scale of the program also posed a challenge. Distributing millions of hectares to millions of beneficiaries across an archipelago with diverse land types, crops, and social dynamics was an unprecedented administrative task. Different types of land and arrangements required different approaches, adding to the complexity.
Impact and Outcomes: A Mixed Picture
After decades of implementation and multiple extensions (CARPER, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Extension with Reforms, extended it until 2014, and efforts continue to complete distribution), the impact of CARP presents a mixed picture.
On one hand, significant amounts of land were indeed distributed. By the end of CARPER in 2014, government data claimed that around 4.8 million hectares had been distributed to some 2.8 million beneficiaries. This is a substantial achievement compared to pre-CARP efforts. For some farmers, receiving land titles meant greater security, dignity, and the opportunity to improve their lives. It provided a tangible asset and a basis for future investment and productivity.
However, the promised transformation of rural life did not materialize on the scale initially envisioned. Many distributed lands were problematic – less fertile, lacking irrigation, or located in remote areas. As mentioned, the lack of adequate support services meant that many beneficiaries struggled to make their farms profitable. Indebtedness, difficulty accessing markets, and the prevalence of natural disasters further exacerbated their vulnerability.
Furthermore, the total land area originally targeted by CARP was significantly reduced over time due to various factors, including legitimate conversions, exclusions, and undocumented areas. Even the reported distribution figures faced scrutiny, with questions raised about the quality of land distributed, the validity of titles, and whether beneficiaries were genuinely empowered or remained dependent.
The issue of ancestral domains also emerged as a significant challenge and intersection with agrarian reform. While the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997 recognized the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands, the process of delineating and titling these domains sometimes overlapped or conflicted with the process of distributing agricultural lands under CARP, leading to disputes between indigenous communities and farmer-beneficiaries.
The initial ten-year plan for CARP was extended multiple times because the government failed to meet its targets. The program officially ended in 2014 with remaining land still to be distributed. Even after 2014, DAR continues to work on distributing lands already under process, resolving disputes, and providing support services, but the major legislative mandate has expired.
Let’s look at some figures to illustrate the scale and status:
| Program / Period | Coverage (Hectares) | Beneficiaries | Status (Relative) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-CARP Programs | ~1.7 million | ~1 million | Limited/Partial | Primarily tenanted rice/corn lands; varied success. |
| CARP (RA 6657, 1988-1998) | Targeted ~10.3 M | Targeted ~3.9 M | Significant Implementation Challenges | Ambitious, faced strong resistance, missed targets. |
| CARPER (RA 9700, 2009-2014) | Extension of CARP | Continued Distribution | Continued Challenges | Addressed some loopholes, but still faced land acquisition issues. |
| Total Distributed (as of end 2014, DAR data) | ~4.8 million | ~2.8 million | Program Ended (legislatively) | Represents combined efforts, but debate exists on impact/quality. |
| Remaining for Distribution (Post-CARPER estimate) | Significant (varies) | Unmet Target | Ongoing Challenges / Legal Issues | Lands under ongoing processes, legal disputes, problematic areas. |
This table provides a simplified overview based on reported data around the end of CARPER. Actual figures and interpretations vary.
The table shows the massive undertaking CARP represented and the gap between initial targets and reported achievements by the time the legislative mandate expired. Even after millions of hectares were distributed, millions of hectares of agricultural land remain with large landowners or corporations, and many farmers remain landless or face precarious land tenure.
The Unresolved Conflict in the Shadow of EDSA
Why are land issues still an unresolved conflict in the Philippines, years after the EDSA Revolution? Several factors contribute to this enduring problem:
- Persistence of Elite Power: The fundamental power structure, where land ownership translates into political influence, has remained largely intact. Landowning elites have consistently found ways to protect their interests, whether through legal challenges, influencing legislation, or resisting implementation on the ground.
- Flaws in the Law and Implementation: While CARP was comprehensive, it had weaknesses. The lengthy process for land valuation and acquisition, the multiple modes of acquisition (some easier to circumvent than others), and insufficient penalties for non-compliance created loopholes. Implementation was slow, inconsistent, and vulnerable to corruption.
- Inadequate Support Services: The failure to provide timely and sufficient support services meant that receiving land did not automatically lead to sustainable livelihoods for beneficiaries. Without credit, irrigation, and market access, many struggled, and the risk of losing the land remained.
- Changing Economic Landscape: Economic policies sometimes prioritized industrialization or real estate development over agriculture, leading to pressure for land conversion away from farming. Globalization and trade liberalization also impacted the profitability of small-scale farming, making it harder for beneficiaries to compete.
- Weak Rule of Law: The difficulty in enforcing the law, particularly against powerful individuals and groups, has allowed resistance and circumvention tactics to thrive. Delays in the justice system further exacerbated this.
- Ongoing Land Grabbing and Displacement: Beyond formal land reform, issues like land grabbing, displacement of farmers for development projects (mining, tourism, infrastructure), and conflicts over resource-rich areas continue to fuel land disputes.
The promise of land reform was intrinsically linked to the promise of social justice and a more equitable Philippines that the EDSA Revolution was supposed to usher in. The fact that Philippine land reform remains an unfinished and contentious process signifies that this promise has not been fully realized for a large segment of the population.
The unresolved land conflict has several negative consequences:
- Persistent Rural Poverty: Despite economic growth in urban centers, rural poverty remains high. Landlessness or insecure tenure is a major contributor to this.
- Social Unrest and Conflict: Land disputes are a frequent cause of local conflicts and continue to be a root cause cited by various armed groups operating in the countryside.
- Hindrance to Agricultural Modernization: Fragmented landholdings, lack of capital, and insecure tenure can make it difficult to implement modern farming techniques and improve productivity on a larger scale.
- Migration to Urban Centers: Frustration with lack of opportunity and ongoing struggles in rural areas contributes to migration to already crowded cities, creating new social and economic challenges there.
Blockquote:
“Land is not just a resource; it is the basis of livelihood, identity, and dignity for millions of Filipino farmers. The failure to achieve genuine land reform means the failure to dismantle the very structures that have perpetuated inequality for centuries.” – A statement often echoed by peasant advocates in the Philippines.
The struggle for land rights continues today, albeit perhaps less visibly than during the height of CARP’s implementation. Farmers’ groups continue to advocate for the completion of land distribution, the provision of adequate support services, and the protection of beneficiaries’ rights. Legal battles over land ownership and tenure persist in many parts of the country.
Beyond CARP: Current Landscape and Future Prospects
While CARP’s legislative life ended, the challenges it aimed to address have not disappeared. The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) continues its mandate to complete the distribution of remaining lands under its coverage, resolve land disputes, and provide support services within its capacity. However, the urgency and political priority that CARP once held have arguably diminished.
New challenges have also emerged or become more prominent. The impact of climate change disproportionately affects small farmers who often lack resources to adapt. Competition for land use is increasing due to population growth, urbanization, and the demand for land for non-agricultural purposes. The rights of indigenous peoples to their ancestral domains require ongoing attention and protection.
Discussions about land issues in the Philippines now often include debates about:
- Support Services: Renewed focus on ensuring that beneficiaries not only receive land but also succeed as farmers. This involves improving access to credit, technology, irrigation, and markets.
- Agrarian Justice: Strengthening the mechanisms for resolving land disputes fairly and quickly, protecting farmers from harassment and illegal eviction.
- Land Use Planning: Developing comprehensive land use plans that balance agricultural needs with environmental protection, urbanization, and industrial development, while safeguarding the rights of farmers and indigenous peoples.
- Alternative Models: Exploring alternative models of land tenure or cooperative farming for lands that may be difficult to distribute individually or are better suited for collective management, such as large plantations.
- Addressing Historical Injustices: Continued efforts to resolve long-standing disputes, including those involving ancestral domains and cases where farmers were unfairly treated under previous programs.
The goal is no longer just about distributing land titles, but about ensuring rural development and social equity. This requires a multi-faceted approach involving various government agencies, civil society organizations, and the private sector.
The legacy of CARP is complex. It made inroads into addressing land inequality, but it did not fundamentally alter the landscape of power and ownership as dramatically as hoped. The political will to enact and enforce truly transformative land reform proved difficult to sustain against deeply entrenched interests.
The unresolved land conflicts are a constant reminder that achieving social justice requires more than just political change at the top; it demands a fundamental restructuring of economic power and persistent effort to ensure laws are effectively and fairly implemented. For millions of Filipino farmers, the struggle for genuine control over the land they work continues, representing a critical test of the nation’s commitment to the ideals that inspired the EDSA Revolution. The shadow of unresolved land issues serves as a stark contrast to the aspirations for a more equitable and just society that blossomed in 1986.
Lists:
- Major Challenges faced by CARP:
- Strong landowner resistance
- Bureaucratic inefficiency and corruption
- Inadequate provision of support services
- Prevalence of land conversion and circumvention
- High cost of land acquisition and administrative overhead
- Political interference and lack of sustained political will
- Key Components of CARP:
- Land Tenure Improvement (Acquisition and Distribution)
- Support Services for Beneficiaries
- Agrarian Justice (Dispute Resolution)
Key Takeaways:
- Land inequality has deep historical roots in the Philippines, leading to poverty and conflict.
- The post-EDSA government enacted CARP (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program) in 1988 as an ambitious plan to distribute agricultural lands.
- CARP aimed to cover all agricultural lands and provide support services to beneficiaries.
- Implementation of CARP faced significant hurdles: landowner resistance, bureaucratic problems, insufficient support services, and land conversion.
- The Hacienda Luisita case became a high-profile example of the challenges in distributing land from powerful families.
- While millions of hectares were distributed, CARP did not fully meet its targets and faced criticism for effectiveness and impact.
- Unresolved land issues continue to contribute to rural poverty, social unrest, and hinder agricultural development.
- The struggle for land rights continues today, involving efforts to complete distribution, provide support, and address issues like ancestral domains and land use.
- The persistence of these issues highlights the difficulty of achieving deep social and economic reform despite political change.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ):
Q: What is agrarian reform? A: Agrarian reform in the Philippines refers to government programs designed to redistribute agricultural land from landowners to landless farmers and farmworkers, along with providing support services to help them make the land productive.
Q: What was the main goal of CARP? A: The main goal of CARP was the just and equitable distribution of all agricultural lands in the Philippines to qualified beneficiaries to improve their lives, reduce poverty, and promote social justice and peace in the countryside.
Q: Why is land reform in the Philippines so difficult? A: It’s difficult due to historical power structures where land ownership is linked to political influence, strong resistance from landowning elites, challenges in implementing complex laws fairly, bureaucratic inefficiencies, lack of adequate support services for farmers, and ongoing issues like corruption and violence related to land.
Q: Did CARP succeed? A: CARP had mixed results. It distributed millions of hectares of land, benefiting millions of farmers, which is a significant achievement. However, it did not fully meet its targets, faced numerous implementation problems, and many beneficiaries still struggled due to lack of support, meaning the program did not fully achieve its goal of fundamentally transforming rural poverty and inequality for everyone.
Q: What happens to land issues after CARP ended in 2014? A: While the main legislative mandate for CARP expired in 2014, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) continues to work on completing the distribution of lands already under process, resolving existing land disputes, and providing support services to beneficiaries. However, acquiring new lands under the CARP framework is no longer possible without a new law.
Q: How do ancestral domains relate to land reform? A: Ancestral domains are lands traditionally owned and occupied by indigenous peoples. Sometimes, areas identified for agricultural land distribution under CARP overlap with ancestral domains. Laws like the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) recognize ancestral domain rights, and mechanisms are needed to ensure these rights are respected and conflicts between potential farmer-beneficiaries and indigenous communities are resolved justly.
Q: Why are support services important for land reform beneficiaries? A: Simply giving land is not enough for farmers to succeed. Support services like access to credit, irrigation, training on farming techniques, infrastructure (roads to markets), and marketing assistance are crucial for beneficiaries to make their farms productive, earn a living, and avoid falling back into poverty or losing their land.
Conclusion
The EDSA People Power Revolution brought hope for fundamental change in the Philippines. While it restored democratic institutions, the deep-seated issue of land inequality remained a persistent challenge. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) was the post-EDSA government’s primary vehicle to address this, an ambitious effort to redistribute land and rectify historical injustices.
However, as this article has explored, the path of Philippine Land Reform under CARP was fraught with difficulties. Strong resistance from powerful landowners, bureaucratic hurdles, insufficient support for beneficiaries, and the sheer complexity of the task meant that the program’s implementation lagged significantly and did not fully achieve its transformative potential.
Even after the legislative mandate for CARP ended, land issues continue to be a source of conflict and poverty in the Philippines. Millions of farmers still lack secure land tenure, support services remain inadequate in many areas, and disputes over land ownership and use persist. The dream of a truly equitable distribution of the nation’s most fundamental resource—land—remains, for many, unresolved.
The struggle for land in the Philippines is more than just an economic issue; it is a struggle for dignity, security, and justice. The continued existence of significant land-related conflicts in the shadow of the EDSA Revolution serves as a powerful reminder that the fight for a more just society is an ongoing process, requiring sustained political will, effective governance, and the unwavering commitment to the rights of the most vulnerable members of society. Addressing these unresolved land issues is crucial for achieving lasting peace and equitable development in the Philippines.