|
By Ernesto M. Hinojas Sr., Special To The
Manila Times
Undoubtedly, one of the most contentious issues
of the year is whether Congress will extend the coverage of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) under R.A. 6657 or the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988. CARP’s funding
ends on June 10, 2008—but did its life not end in 1998?
Wide and deep study by this writer yielded
massive data to prove that CARP—in its objective of alleviating
the country’s poverty problem through the introduction of an
effective agrarian reform program—has failed to accomplish its
assigned task.
This failure is mainly due to lack of funds
needed for the just compensation of the private agricultural lands
acquired by the government under the program.
Many provisions of the CARL are also too onerous
to farmer-beneficiaries, who are not given enough service-support,
so that they end up selling their land.
In addition, CARP implementation has been
saddled with administrative inefficiencies and, many have claimed,
corruption.
On top of those problems, the law itself (CARL
or R.A. 6657) has so many defects. It needs a full and rigorous
review. It must be radically amended.
Fate not certain
Because of defects and need for zealous review,
contrary to reports that the House of Representatives had already
endorsed the “extension” of the CARP for another five years, the
congressmen have yet to deliberate—and debate—on the CARP
extension in plenary sessions.
Some senators are also playing it safe by
scrutinizing the pros and cons of the Senate bills and the
consolidated substitute bill in the House.
I have received reports that the senators have
formed a consensus that the Department of Agrarian Reform has
miserably failed and for that reason they want to make sure that any
CARP extension should only be given after radical amendments in the
law have been introduced.
First things first
Before the House of Representatives finally
decide—whether or not to extend or totally scrap the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program, it is extremely necessary for the
congressmen to first address questions about the infirmities of CARL
(R.A. 6657) and the reasons for CARP’s failure.
What good will it do if the extension will
further deepen the problems now engulfing the agrarian reform
program?
Proponents of the agrarian reform program should
be more circumspect in proposing new measures, and deliberation of
the bills must be given wider dissemination in tri-media, so that
the public will get a clearer picture.
In the more than 19 years that the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program has existed under the force of CARL, what
are its positive effects on farmer-beneficiaries? Why did CARP fail
to accomplish its objectives? What are the causes of such failure?
China and Vietnam
Why did China and Vietnam, despite their
communist orientation, decide to forgo their agrarian reform
program?
Pertinent to CARP is the worldwidely accepted
economic dogma that once thousands of hectares of farmlands have
been chopped up into parcels owned by individuals, each parcel
becomes too small to deliver good production values and profits.
Why? Because it suffers from the so-called economies of scale.
Is it not clear that the CARP experience in the
last 19 years gives more than enough lessons?
AR through the years
Driven by the desire to implement a social
justice program, all Filipino presidents since Manuel Quezon to
Ferdinand Marcos introduced various agrarian reform programs.
The ratification of a new Constitution in 1987
and the election of the members of the revived Congress paved the
way for the enactment of R.A. No. 6657 or CARL in 1988.
Before its enactment on June 10, 1988,
then-President Corazon Aquino issued Proclamation No. 131 (1987)
instituting a comprehensive agrarian reform program and Executive
Order No.229 (1987) which provides the mechanics for its
implementation. CARL (R.A. 6657) took effect on June 15, 1988.
CARL placed the whole country under agrarian
reform, and began taking private agricultural lands from their
owners, subject to prescribed retention limits.
The constitutionality of R.A. 6657 has been
upheld in Association of Small Landowners v. Secretary of Agrarian
Reform, 175 SCRA 342 (1989) and companion cases. The Supreme Court
held that the requirement of public use has already been settled by
the Constitution itself. It noted that “[No] less than the 1987
Charter calls for agrarian reform which is the reason why private
agricultural lands are to be taken from their owners, subject to the
prescribed retention limits.”
While declaring R.A. 6657 itself as
constitutional, the Supreme Court in a subsequent case, Luz Farm v.
Secretary of Agrarian Reform, 192 SCRA 51 (1990), declared
unconstitutional Sec 3 (b), 10 and 11 in so far as they include
lands devoted to the raising of livestock, swine and poultry within
its coverage. As a result of such ruling, Congress enacted R.A. 7881
(1995) amending these provisions and incorporating new provisions to
existing ones. The amendments adopted the Luz doctrine by removing
livestock, swine and poultry farms from CARP coverage. Hence, one of
the major developments in the CARP is the amendment of Section 3 (b)
of R.A. 6657 by R.A. 7881, brought about by the ruling made by the
Supreme Court.
The Declaration of Principles and Policies of
R.A. 6657 [Section 2], declares that, “It is the policy of the
State to pursue a Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program [CARP]. The
welfare of the landless farmers and farm workers will receive the
highest consideration to promote social justice and to move the
nation toward sound rural development and industrialization, and
establishment of owner cultivatorship of economic-size farms as the
basis of Philippine agriculture.”
In line with that stated “Principle,” the
Congress of the Philippines has fittingly provided that, “To this
end, a more equitable distribution and ownership of land with due
regard to the rights of landowners to just compensation and to the
ecological needs of the nation, shall be undertaken to provide
farmers and farm workers with the opportunity to enhance their
dignity and improve the quality of their lives through greater
productivity of agricultural lands.”
Because of lack of funds, CARP implementation by
DAR has very often failed to give “due regard to the rights of
landowners.”
Ernesto Hinojas Sr., himself a landowner, is a
columnist for Panay News.
(In Part 2, the author will discuss other
problems of the CARP. He will argue that the CARL has the basic flaw
of having never been extended although a law for the funding for an
extended CARP was passed.)
To be continued
|
