CARP and CARPER Distinctions
CARP and CARPER Distinctions
CARP and CARPER Distinctions
for
say it is better. You be the judge. Considering the context where Congress castrated CARP last
December 2008, CARPER has restored Compulsory Acquisition with 150 Billion budget and 26
reform provisions.
Congress approved the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program extension with reform
(CARPER) bill separately. The House of Representative’s version is HB 4077 and the Senate’s
version is SB 2666. The Senate passed its version earlier which gave some pressure to the
House to pass a better version. Although each version has its strengths and weaknesses, the
Bicameral Committee Conference (BICAM) came out to be the best of both versions. Generally,
the BICAM version of CARPER is better than the Senate or the House version and closely
approximates the Civil Society CARPER proposal. Definitely, the BICAM version comes as a
strengthened CARP to face to the challenge of fierce landlord resistance and bureaucratic
inefficiencies. The passage of the CARPER law was fought by able Champions in the House
through Rep. Risa and Rep. Lagman and in the Senate by Sen. Pimentel and Sen. Honasan and
the countless farmers’ march, hunger strikes, fora and dialogues with the Church, Academe and
Agrarian Reform Advocates.
The RA 9700 or the CARPER law which was signed by GMA on August 7, 2009 contains an
extension of the budget for CARP especially the Land Acquisition and Distribution (LAD)
program for five years starting July 1, 2009 and the necessary reforms to complete the
acquisition and distribution of the remaining One Million Hectares of private agricultural lands
to landless farmers[1]. Moreover, CARPER law provides for clarification of policies and its
interpretation by CARP implementation agencies including the decision of judicial courts.
RA 6657, the original CARP law (CARL) has not been superseded by the CARPER law but
strengthens or improves the CARL. Some provisions of the CARL were amended like the
provision on the award to beneficiaries and the schedule of acquisition and distribution, new
provisions were introduced like the Gender provisions and the Congressional Oversight
Committee and a number of Supreme Court decisions legislated like the indefeasibility of titles
given under agrarian reform and exclusive jurisdiction of DAR in agrarian dispute criminal cases.
The most challenging part in the crafting of the CARPER law was how to balance the
landowners’ interest, the farmer’s interest and the Department of Agrarian Reform’s (DAR)
interest. One can see the tension in the provisions of the CARPER law. For instance, the
landowners’ interest is dominant in the provision on Just compensation, the 90% trigger
completion for acquisition of small land (below 10 hectares), the consideration of 70% of zonal
valuation, attestation requirement to ensure that loyal farmers will get the land, priority of
tenants and regular farmworkers in distribution to ensure easy consolidation and the support
services for land owners; while the farmer’s interest is evident in the provisions on the rights
and obligation will begin from the receipt of CLOAs and EPs, distribution of CLOAs and EPs and
actual possession, installation of ARBs within 180 days from date of registration in the title of
Republic of Philippines, usufructuary rights of identified ARBs pending award and subsidies for
initial capital of new ARBs; and the DAR’s interest is apparent in the budget provision and
phasing of land acquisition. Although the majority of the provisions in the CARPER law are pro-
farmers, many reforms are still pending and continuously advocated at the executive, legislative
and judiciary. The succeeding parts will discuss the salient provisions of the CARPER law.
I. New and Bold Provisions
CARP is a Continuing Program
With the CARPER law the debate whether CARP will end and DAR will close shop after five years
from the extension has been clarified.. Under the Constitution, the State is mandated to
undertake an agrarian reform which supports the opinion that CARP is a continuing program. It
will only end when ALL agricultural lands have been distributed to landless farmers and that
tenancy system has been converted to ownership. What ends in RA 6657 and RA 8532 is the
funding for CARP and this is clarified in section 21 [2] of the CARPER law. The fund allocated for
CARPER is “to further implement the CARP” which means that the CARPER law provides funding
needed to implement CARP. The same section emphasizes that the CARP will not end after five
(5) years and even after 5 years when the LAD is completed, DAR will continue with the delivery
of support services and agrarian justice [3]. Section 30 of the CARPER law provides a way to
legally continue the implementation of pending CARP cases after the 5-year extension [4] by
filing the initiatory process of CARP.
Creation of a Joint Congressional Oversight Committee
The Oversight Committee[5] is composed of members of Congress equally distributed between
the House of Representatives and the Senate who will closely monitor the implementation of
the CARP. Many cases involving implementation of CARP have reached Congress and Congress
calls for a legislative investigation. The problems are mostly rooted in the implementing
agencies, budget and gaps in the CARL. It has been anticipated that for the next 5 year
extension, Congress wants to closely monitor the implementation of CARP in order to achieve
its target and complete the distribution of more than 1 Million hectares of agricultural lands.
The oversight committee will report periodically to Congress for possible adjustments of the
law and executive polices in order to strengthen the implementation of the CARP [6].
Clear Policy against Conversion of Agricultural Lands
One of the sharpened policies in the CARPER law is the relationship of conversion of agricultural
land to non-agricultural uses and food security. At present, only the DAR has the mechanism to
regulate the conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses because all agricultural
lands are covered under CARP. Many landowners convert their land to non-agricultural uses to
evade CARP coverage. When the country experienced rice crisis last year, government realized
that many of the food producing lands have been converted to non-agricultural uses. Studies
show that small farms are food producing farms compared to big plantation. This can be seen in
the distributed lands in Negros where the ARBs awarded with less than a hectare of land plant
vegetables, raise chicken and other food products which contributed to their food needs as well
as the community.
The CARPER law strengthens the ban on any conversion of irrigated and irrigable lands and
mandates the National Irrigation Administration to identify these [7]. Moreover, it also legislates
the resolution of the “Sumilao farmers case” that the non-implementation or violation of the
conversion plan will result to automatic coverage of the subject by CARP.
Under the CARPER law, any conversion to avoid CARP coverage is a prohibited act. The word
“any” makes the defense of good faith or ignorance of the law untenable [8]. Moreover the
penalty for conversion is heavier. It will merit imprisonment of 6 to 12 years and/ or a penalty
of 200,000 pesos to 1 million pesos[9].