The land will feed us, but…

By Ma. Ceres P. Doyo
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 22:58:00 01/28/2009

The land will feed us, we could always say. It is our mother. It will suckle and nourish us, it will give us strength and vigor. Generations will look upon it and embrace it with gratitude.

At a time when thousands of Filipinos are losing their jobs almost daily because of the global economic crisis, when industries are closing down or streamlining operations using lean work forces, we could wax sentimental and turn our gaze upon the land. How sweet it is for the jobless to say, we must go home again. We imagine them beholding the waiting vastness. We imagine the landless poor romancing the land, at last, and turning it productive for themselves and for the rest of us who must eat during these hard times.

But when I think of those who do not want to part with vast acres of land and justly share them with the landless jobless, I recall again the words of the great tribal chief and martyr Macliing Dulag: “Such arrogance to speak of owning the land when we instead are owned by it. Only the race owns the land because the race lives forever.”



Recently, Centro Saka Inc. (CSI) researcher Eugene Tecson had a commentary in the opinion section and it was about the government’s abandonment of agrarian reform. Legislators, he said, have killed the social justice program at a time when the world is calling for the recognition of the rights of the landless rural poor. By forsaking agrarian reform and social justice, Congress has exposed itself as the weakest democratic institution, Tecson wrote.

Last December 2008’s deliberations on the bill extending the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) went nowhere. Are extralegal means the next step?

CSI will soon publish its survey findings that show why CARP needs to be extended. I was able to get a copy of the findings.

In 2006 and 2007, CSI surveyed close to 1,500 agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARB) to validate the accomplishments of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) in the distribution of private agricultural land (PAL) in 12 provinces.

Among the provinces were Isabela, Cagayan, Nueva Ecija, Camarines Norte, Bohol, Leyte, Negros Occidental, Negros Oriental, Bukindon, Davao del Norte, Cotabato and Zamboanga del Sur. The criteria used to validate CARP accomplishment were: actual award of land or title, physical occupation/installation of the ARB in the awarded land, and provision of support services for the awarded land.

Here are some findings:

The majority (82 percent) of the respondents received titles as proof of their being recognized as CARP beneficiaries. But 18 percent said they have not received any title. CSI says that since all the respondents were drawn from the DAR master list of beneficiaries who were reported as having been awarded titles, how do you explain that 18 percent?

CSI says that one of the strategies adopted by former Agrarian Reform Secretary Ernesto Garilao to hasten land distribution was the issuance of collective or “mother” certificate of land ownership agreements (CLOA). Instead of waiting for the costly and time-consuming land subdivision, the DAR issued mother CLOAs covering big parcels of land. The names of qualified beneficiaries, size and location of the land were written on these mother CLOAs.

Of the 829 respondents who were awarded CLOAs, 54 percent received collective or mother CLOAs and 46 percent were issued individual titles.

Of the 919 respondents who were awarded titles under CARP, 65 percent confirmed that they were still holding their titles. But 35 percent said they didn’t hold their awarded titles. And why? Reasons given: They have not yet received their titles but were aware they had a pending title. The titles were being held by the cooperatives because they were mother CLOAs. Others said they pawned or used their titles as collateral. Some sold the titles or lost them. Still others declined to say why.

The most frequently stated reason was: no titles have been issued them.

But there is a difference between awarded lands and awarded titles. There were respondents who have been awarded lands but didn’t have possession of titles. And vice versa. The good news is that 85 percent of the surveyed ARBs have actually occupied the land awarded to them. And when asked whether they were still occupying or in possession of the land, 82 percent said yes while 17 percent said no.

Reasons why some no longer occupy their land awarded to them: Some have pawned while other have sold the land. Others are still waiting to be installed or allowed to physically occupy the land. Others have leased the land. Some lands have been re-acquired by the former landowners or have been occupied by cultivators.

Only 35 percent or 421 respondents answered that they had access to support services provided by the government. The majority (65 percent or 782 respondents) said they had no access to support services despite the fact that 76 percent of them confirmed that their areas were agrarian reform areas.

So you see, agrarian reform is an unfinished business. But the CARP extension bills, House Bill 4077 and Senate Bill 2666, are in limbo, CSI laments. CSI accuses the legislators of ignoring the results of regional consultations that showed overwhelming support by the farmers for CARP extension with reforms. The House and the Senate have turned a deaf ear even to the appeal of the bishops and supporters of the extension. They have dismissed recommendations of experts that compulsory acquisition is the best way to address social inequities in the countryside.