Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program of 1988, also

known as CARP, is a Philippine state policy that ensures and promotes welfare of landless farmers and farm workers, as well as elevation ofsocial justice and equity among rural areas. CARP was established by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (CARL) which aimed for a nation with equitable land ownership and empowered agrarian reform beneficiaries while, at least, improving social lives. The law was outlined by former President Corazon C. Aquino through Presidential Proclamation 131 and Executive Order 229 on June 22, 1987. The law was finally enacted by the 8th Congress of the Philippines and signed by Aquino on June 10, 1988. Presidential Decree 27 In 1972, President Ferdinand Marcos, issued a second presidential order after the Martial Law, stating that the Philippines is a land reform nation. A month later, he issued Presidential Decree No. 27 which detailed the first comprehensive agrarian reform order that was attempted in the country. According to the law, an individual cannot own more than seven hectares of land. If this may happen, the remaining area will be parceled out and will be divided into individual tenants. Such tenant may enjoy a maximum of three hectares of irrigated land, or five hectares of unused land, where the new owners will pay royalty taxes and the computable amount of land to the original landholders for a maximum of fifteen years. If, however, there are sharecroppers sharing lands with less than seven hectares of land area, the land will be converted to leaseholders with fixed rents. Only rice and corn fields were included to the PD 27 The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) was a land reform law mandated by Republic Act No. 6657, signed by President Corazon Aquino on June 10, 1988. It was the fifth land reform law in fifty years, following the land reform laws of Presidents Manuel Quezon, Ramon Magsaysay, Diosdado Macapagal and Ferdinand Marcos. According to RA 6657, CARP aims for a more equitable distribution and ownership of land. It meant to distribute lands to farmers in a span of 10 years, but was extended by the 11th Congress due to delays in land distribution and lack of budget allocation. Section 3 of RA 6657 defined agrarian reform as the redistribution of lands, regardless of crops or fruits produced, to farmers and regular farm workers who are landless and all other arrangements alternative to the physical redistribution of lands, such as production or profit-sharing, labor administration and the distribution of shares of stock which will allow beneficiaries to receive a just share of the fruits of the lands they work. Vast agricultural lands are distributed to the farmers tilling the land, whereas only a maximum of five hectares can be retained by the landlords, and three hectares for each of their children. However, a common CARP loophole was that landlords escaped relinquishing their lands through land reclassifications. Lands classified by local zoning ordinances as residential, commercial and industrial lands are excluded from CARP. 1.3.1 Objectives of Agrarian Reforms Agrarian reforms usually have an entire package of goals. They are often imprecisely formulated and can only be deduced by looking at the list of measures. This is because the laws are passed during unsettled periods in which there is very little time to formulate them precisely. Sometimes it is also done on purpose, especially if the government is forced to introduce the reforms through inner or external pressure. Imprecise formulating of the goals makes it easier to effect changes later on and increases, therefore, flexibility. Most reforms comprise political, social, and economic components. Classifying them is somewhat arbitrary because there are many overlappings, even goal conflicts. The kernel of agrarian reforms are changes in the power structures, i.e., political events. The goal behind abolishing large scale land ownership and feudal forms of power and liberating the small farmers and tenants is to put an end to unrest among the rural population and integrate it, in many cases, in the overall society for the first time. Stabilizing the political system likewise often plays an important role as a goal. Reforms passed shortly before a revolution maintain the old order, while reforms carried out after a revolution help legitimize the new order. In the social sector, the goal is to reduce inequality in income, wealth, and chances in life. Since this inherently means a conflict of interests between those who own property and those who own nothing, it is as impossible to separate this target from the political goals as in the case of improving the status of the rural population and liberating it from feudal bonds. The economic goals consist of increasing production and productivity in agriculture, improving capital formation and transfer, employing more labourers, and later on discharging them with progressing development, as well as increasing the demand for inputs and services that work as incentives towards development in nonagricultural sectors. An improvement in the balance of payments by increasing exports or avoiding imports by raising domestic production is likewise an aspiration. In addition, mutual promotion of the agricultural and non-agricultural sectors by increasing coordination between them is a goal of some agrarian reforms.

In the individual cases, the goals and goal combinations are determined by the existing situation and are especially influenced by the conditions at the beginning, by the already achieved degree of economic development, and the existing social system. The package of goals has grown continually more complicated over the years. Whereas in past centuries more equality was the main goal of most struggles for agrarian reform, there are many variations today. According to the particular political ideology, the target will be collectivization of family farms based on individual property or permanent rights of use. In these cases the attempt is also made to attain the advantages of larger units by founding cooperatives. If the priority is given to making a contribution towards economic development, the measures may concentrate on an increase in production and more employment. In the case of an already achieved higher level of development. and already existing occupational alternatives, income distribution gains more significance than the distribution of land. Higher incomes bring with them a tendency towards larger farm units. The changing technology that results presents special demands on the agrarian structure, especially the suitability for mechanization. Just as agrarian reform is not a one time process, but rather an adoption to changing requirements and circumstances, the reform goals shift in type and intensity in the course of time. Objectives Of Agrarian Reform There are many objectives of agrarian reform. Majority of the laws are formulated during periods of unrest. As a result, the reforms are not formulated with much precision. The objectives of the agrarian reform are flexible due to lack of precision. The objectives of agrarian reform are discussed below. Objectives of agrarian reform- political: The main objective was to put an end to conflicts pertaining to land ownership. Aim to bring about harmony between the rural people and the urban residents is also called for. Therefore, bringing stability in the political set up of the country is also regarded as one of the objectives of agrarian reform. The political set up of the country plays an important role. If there is political unrest, leaders would usually concentrate on resolving the crisis, instead of dealing with land conflicts. Objectives of agrarian reform-social: The socio agrarian reform include bringing about equality in terms of opportunities, income as well as wealth. This leads to a dispute between the people who own land and those who do not possess land. The dispute cannot be avoided unless some steps are taken for the betterment of the rural population. Objectives of agrarian reform- economic: The economic objectives can be listed below: y Enhancing agricultural production y Enhancing agricultural productivity y Bettering capital formation y Providing employment to more agricultural workers y Enhancing demand for raw materials and services y Improving balance of payments by facilitating export activities y Trying to increase production at home so that imports do not have to be relied upon. y Enhancing cooperation as well as regulation between agricultural sector and the non agricultural sector. The aims and objectives have become more and more complex with every passing day. In earlier times, more stress was laid on equality among the people. However, things have changed a lot these days. The focus has shifted to collectivization and rights to use land. If one seeks economic objectives, the production ought to be encouraged. In the event, there is tendency of acquiring bigger farming units. A high income level indicates that a certain development level has been achieved already. Conclusion: What we can gather from the above scenario is that the objectives cannot become stagnant or static. The objectives change or are rather updated as per requirements. Just as the reforms offer flexibility so do the objectives in an effort to restore equilibrium whenever necessary. Mandate The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) leads the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) through land tenure improvement, agrarian justice, and coordinated delivery of essential support services to client-beneficiaries. Mission "To lead in the implementation of agrarian reform and sustainable rural development in the countryside through land tenure improvement and provision of integrated development services to landless farmers, farmworkers and small landowner-cultivators, and the delivery of agrarian justice". Vision "A nation where there is equitable land ownership and empowered agrarian reform beneficiaries who are effectively managing their economic and social development for a better quality of life". Logo The DAR logo shows the Department's acronym representing the institution and its role as the lead agency in the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian

Reform Program (CARP). The sun radiates its light into the field of green divided into 12c segments representing the original 12 regions covered by the program. Green stands for fertility and productivity while yellow represents hope and a golden harvest of agrarian reform beneficiaries who are the recipients of the services provided by the Department via CARP. Both colors imply that economic growth and sound rural development can be achieved through agrarian reform. Farmers blamed for CARP's failure PHILIPPINE NEWS SERVICE -- Farmers themselves are to blame for the failure of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, members of the Senate committee on agrarian reform said yesterday. During a public hearing in the proposed extension of CARP, Senators Rodolfo Biazon and Juan Miguel Zubiri criticized farmers who lost interest in tilling the lands granted to them under CARP by selling these properties, a practice which reduced land reform to a farce. Biazon cited the case of several land reform beneficiaries in Mexico, Pampanga, who, two years after acquiring their certificate land ownerships, collectively sold 350 hectares of their farmlands to a private developer of a housing subdivision. He presented to the committee duplicate copies of the Torrens titles of the CARPcovered lands that were sold. Senator Juan Miguel Zubiri said that about 3,000 hectares of agricultural lands owned by his family in Bukidnon were parceled out and distributed to tenant-farmers have changed ownerships through selling and reselling in flagrant violations of the CARP law. We do not know anymore who own these parcels of lands the legal titles of which are not supposed to be transferred to others except to the family members of the farmer-beneficiaries, Zubiri said. Agrarian Reform Secretary Nasser Pangandaman did not deny that the illegal sale and transfer of titles of these lands was rampant due to poor monitoring of his department, especially during the early stage of the agrarian program. The Agrarian Reform Department has recommended a l0-year extension of CARP and allocation of an additional Pl60 billion budget to complete the distribution of lands. Senator Juan Ponce Enrile said that he will not object to the extension of CARP as long as this will not entail land acquisition and distribution anymore. He said the government must instead focus on the development of farmlands already distributed to farmers by extending them adequate assistance in the form of farm inputs and extension services. Data from the department showed that P130 billion has already been spent for CARP since its was implemented in 1988. This is on top of over P300 billion that the Land Bank of the Philippines is asking Congress to fund payments of about 600,000 hectares of land already taken but not yet paid for. Stakeholders in the agriculture sector have assailed the way CARP extension is being rushed through pending bills in both the Senate and House of Representatives. They said that almost everybody agrees that the program has failed and yet Congress is being asked to approve its extension after the lapse of the CARP law on June l3. Lawyer Gil Alba of the Confederation of Rice and Grains Producers said the government has incurred outstanding loans of $464 million to implement CARP. The data was taken from a paper of the Freedom from Debt Coalition presented at the recent Rural Poverty Seminar of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines. Where did all the money go? Congress is being asked to rush the approval of CARP extension and ask questions later. This is like giving our prodigal son the rest of the familys wealth without asking to what kind of vice he has lost his inheritance, the Confed official said Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law was laid down in the year 1988, to protect the agricultural workers in Philippines. The comprehensive agrarian reform law aimed at helping the small and marginal farmers of Philippines by providing them easy access to land and other necessary inputs. A brief history: Agrarian Condition in Philippines For a long period of time, the agrarian system of Philippines was being controlled by the large landlords. The small farmers in Philippines were struggling for their rights to land and other natural resources. It was observed that about 2.9 million small farms occupied about half of the total arable land of Philippines, whereas the medium and large farms occupied about 11.5% of the total farmland. The agrarian system in Philippines followed a feudalistic approach. Implementation of Agrarian Reform in Philippines: Drawbacks The implementation of Agrarian reforms proceeded at a very slow pace. This was due to the lack of political will. The redistribution of land was also very slow. As a consequence, a large amount of agrarian land in Philippines was converted to industrial land. Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law: Philippines The Republic Act No. 6657, alternatively called the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law was signed by President Corazon C. Aquino on 10th June, 1988. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law is responsible for the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) in Philippines. The law focussed on industrialisation in Philippines together with social justice.

The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law: Objectives The primary objective of instituting the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform law was to successfully devise land reform in Philippines. It was President Arroyo, who signed the Executive Order No. 456 on 23rd August to rename the Department of Land Reform as Department of Agrarian Reform. This had been done to expand the functional area of the law. Apart from land reform, the Department of Agrarian Reform began to supervise other allied activities to improve the economic and social status of the beneficiaries of land reform in Philippines. Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Extension with Reforms The renewal/extension of the Philippines land reform program, CARP, which is called Carp (Extensions and Reforms) could be described as almost invalidating the expiring policy, or as giving it teeth, depending on your point of view. In particular, the provision for voluntary land transfer was abolished.Landlords were using it in illegal ways to transfer land effectively back to themselves (to their own families). So you could argue that made it harder for landlords. On the other hand, who "polices" the rules was "clarified" and much restricted. One could argue that by having only thePhilippines Supreme Court having the power to retrain government, that would be a defense against more local judicial bribery. But both that reform, and the "strengthening" Congressional oversight, need to be proved in action. That remains to be seen, especially under the new Presidency of "Noynoy" Aquino.. Land Tenure Improvement (LTI) The LTI component seeks to secure the tenurial status of the farmers and farmworkers in the lands they till. This is operationalized either through land acquisition and distribution and leasehold operations. LAD involves the redistribution of government and private agricultural lands to landless farmers and farmworkers. Leasehold operation, on the other hand, is an alternative non-land transfer scheme which seeks to improve the quality of life of the farmers. It covers all tenanted agricultural lands such those in the retained areas, not yet acquired for distribution under CARP, and those wihich may be validly covered under existing laws. Land to the tiller is the essence of land reform. Land distribution secures farmers' tenure, promotes social equity, and provides them with necessary productive resources needed to ensure their economic viability and productivity.From 1972 to December 2008, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) covered 4,106,528 hectares of agricultural lands or 80 percent of its total program scope of 5,163,751 hectares. This made some 2.39 million farmers owners of land titles through emancipation patents and certificates of land ownership awards.The DAR also implements leasehold program to secure the tenure of farmers' in landowners retained areas and CARP covered properties that are not yet distributed. Since 1964 a total of 1,686,045 hectares were placed under leasehold arrangement benefiting 1,190,913 farmers. pBD is the support services component of CARP. It aims to capacitate ARBs and provide them access to the necessary support services to make their lands more productive, enable them to venture in income generating livelihood projects and actively participate in community governance. Agrarian reform does not rely on land distribution alone, but also on the delivery of support services, including farm-to-market roads, bridges, irrigation, post harvest facilities, rural electrification, potable water supply, school buildings, multi purpose buildings; extension services, credit assistance, and trainings. 709,187 ARBs fully served under the foreign-assisted projects 7,170 infrastructure projects 976 communal irrigation projects completed 3018 functional ARB-organizations operate (ALDA Level 3,4,5) 316,610 ARB members are already managing their own farm & non-farm enterprises Support services delivered through the Foreign Assisted Projects (FAPs) and Agrarian Reform Fund (ARF): 13,259 kilometers of FMR 226,015 hectares serviced by irrigation systems 194 multi-purpose buildings 174 bridge projects (10,473 linear meters) 428 units of post harvest facilities 999 units of potable water systems Other infrastructure projects provided: Health centers, school buildings, flood control, rural electrification,& sanitation systems. Non-infrastructure programs include: Demonstration farms, rural micro-enterprises, training of ARB leaders, & health and nutrition The DAR adopted the development of agrarian reform communities (ARC) in 1993 to improve the lives of agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs). It was the department's key strategy to accelerate and sustain economic growth in agrarian reform and rural areas through a people-centered, holistic and area focused approach in community development. Since then, the DAR has launched 2,100 ARCs covering 1.2 million of ARBs in 9,076 barangays. Because of the size limitation of ARCs and the increasing number of ARBs in need of basic support services, the DAR expanded the coverage of its support services through the KALAHI (Kapit-Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan) Agrarian Reform Zones (KARZones). A KARZone is a contiguous area which embraces both ARC barangays and non-ARC barangays within the zone. Agrarian Justice Delivery (AJD)

Delivery of agrarian justice has two features: the agrarian legal assistance and adjudication of cases. Agrarian legal assistance is comprised of resolution of agrarian law implimentation (ALI) cases, ARB representation before judicial and quasijudicial bodies, and mediation and conciliation. On the other hand, Adjudication of cases involves the resolution of cases by the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) and any of its salas. Under RA 6657, the DAR is vested with the primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and to extend free legal assistance to farmerbeneficiaries affected by agrarian cases. There are three types of cases under this program namely: judicial or court cases, quasi-judicial, and cases related to agrarian law implementation (ALI). The first two types involve representation of farmers by DAR lawyers before the regular courts and DAR Adjudication Board, respectively. The third type involves the administrative rendering of decision on exemption, conversion and retention. The DAR at present utilizes more aggressive alternative dispute resolution techniques in mediation to reduce conflicts maturing into court cases. The general objective is to persuade the contending parties to settle their disputes amicably or out of court before the DAR. he Programang Agraryo Iskolar is an innovative program designed to provide qualified dependents of the beneficiaries of the agrarian reform program an opportunity to study and complete an agriculture-related four (4)-year college degree course from SUCs with financial support from the Department under a competitive screening system. The scholarship grant consists of tuition fee assistance, monthly stipend and book allowance. Objectives To develop a pool of highly motivated, technically equipped and well educated dependents of Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs) who will assume responsibility for managing and making productive the land awarded to them under CARP; and To act as agents of change in the agricultural sector in order to spur rural growth and development. 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 nonagricultural 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]. Phasing Schedule of LAD To Ensure Completion by June 14, 2014 Under the CARPER law, Congress updated the phasing of the LAD implementation[16] in the CARP for the next five (5) years. The intention was to provide a time table for DAR to manage the acquisition and distribution of the remaining backlog. The target period for each phase mandates DAR to work hard in order to be on schedule. The BICAM clarified that the target period does not stop the coverage of agricultural land after the deadline. At first glance, the phasing schedule seems complicated but a careful reading of provision will show straight forward schedule. The first phase will cover the landholdings 24 hectares and above which have been issued notice of coverage by December 10, 2008, government lands and those offered under Voluntary Land Transfer (VLT) and Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS). This phase will start on July 1, 2009 and should be completed on June 30, 2012. The second phase will cover the landholdings 24 hectares and above which have not been issued notice of coverage by December 10, 2008 and all landholdings below 24 but above 10 hectares which have been issued notice of coverage by December 10, 2008. This phase will start on July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013. The last phase covers below 10 hectares. However, this last phase will only begin if all the previous phase has been 90% completed in a particular province. The last phase will start on July 1, 2013 and end on June 30, 2014. Public Agricultural lands will not be covered by the phasing and can be covered anytime. Another important improvement for this provision is the deletion of the phrase insofar as the excess hectarage in the CARL. The phrase was interpreted to limit the coverage to the excess area of a piece of landholding for that phase. Then cover the next excess for the next phase and so on. To illustrate the interpretation before, given 51 hectares; for the first phase, 1 hectare will be covered being the excess of 50 hectares, the next phase will cover the 26 hectares the excess from 24 hectare and the next phase the entire 24 hectares. Such interpretation was absurd, expensive and would definitely prolong the LAD. In the CARPER law, a particular landholding above 10 hectares can be acquired and distributed only once. There is a mandate in the CARPER law to resolve by June 30, 2012 all the valuation cases pending in the DAR. No More Voluntary Land Transfer (VLT) After June 30, 2009 Compulsory Acquisition and Voluntary Offer To Sell will be the main mode of land acquisition when the law takes effect. Many studies have shown that VLT has been abused by the landowners to put people who are not qualified or people who are loyal to them as beneficiaries. A cut-off date for VLT applications has been set on June 30, 2009. No VLT applications will be allowed after July 1, 2009. Retention Limit Exemption Of Local Government Units (LGUs) LGUs except the Barangays can own agricultural lands beyond the five (5)-hectare limit set by CARL. This privilege is only applicable to lands that will be used for public purposes such as roads, bridges, public markets, school, resettlement, LGU facilities, public parks and barangay plazas. There are two limitations to this exemption: 1.) the use of the land must be actual, direct and exclusive; and 2.) the use must be consistent with the approved comprehensive land use plan[17]. Moreover, if the land is covered under CARP and the LGU wants to use it for one of the public purpose mentioned earlier then it must be expropriated first and the farmers therein must be justly compensated. The law on conversion will still apply to the LGUs because the public purpose projects will entail conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses. The LGUs are not exempted from the application of the Conversion Order from DAR. Review of Land Size Limits For Each Type of Crop For the next six (6) months, DAR will submit a study to Congress for the appropriate land size of each crop[18]. The purpose is for a possible review on the limit of land sizes. For instance, for coconut what is the most productive land size to maximize yield and minimize cost. However, before the 3 hectare award be adopted, a new law is needed. Tenants and Regular Farmworkers Are First Priority Beneficiaries This provision[19] was formulated and strongly advocated by Rep. Pablo Garcia (hence this was known as the Garcia Amendment). The provision provides that in a certain landholding the qualified beneficiaries who are tenants and regular farmworkers will receive 3 hectares each before distributing the remaining land to the other qualified beneficiaries like seasonal farmworkers and other farmworkers under Section 22 of CARL. The practice now is that any qualified beneficiary in the area will receive a piece of land however small through collective ownership. Such is beneficial to farmers because no matter how small the land, they can always make it productive. If this provision will be implemented strictly, a number of

seasonal farmworkers in Negros and many other places that will not receive land because they can only benefit if there is extra land or if there are no tenants or regular farmworkers. Most of the time, the Tenants and Regular Farmworkers are the most loyal workers to the landowners and it will be easier for the landowner to get back, lease back or consolidate the lands distributed under CARP. Attestation Requirement of Farmer Beneficiary Another Garcia Amendment[20], under the CARPER law a new procedure for the identification of agrarian reform beneficiaries requires the Barangay Agrarian Reform Council (BARC) to first certify that the potential beneficiaries are Farmers or Regular Farmworkers actually tilling the lands and the list should by attested under oath by the Landowner and lastly will state under oath before a judge that he/she is willing to work on the land and make it productive and assume the obligation of paying the amortization. The problem will arise because landowners are not the most available persons to make an attestation. The attestation requirement can be used as leverage against the farmers. Secondly, with this requirement the Landowner can choose the beneficiaries and only those favorable to him/her will be on the list. Another problem is the proximity of the Judge from the place of the farmer beneficiaries which are far from the farms. This requirement will actually pose a serious problem to the farmer beneficiaries and hamper the selection process of beneficiaries. A provision to check the correctness of the attestation and the undue delay in giving out the attestation might cause in the implementation is in place. Section 25 provides penalties to the landowner who will cause undue delay in complying with the obligation of attestation and/or falsification of the certification or attestation required is prohibited and is punishable with 6 to 12 years imprisonment or up to 1 million pesos penalty. Encourage Empowerment and Organizing of Farmer Beneficiaries The CARPER law has a bias for organized farmers to be beneficiaries. Congress believes that the success rate of organized farmers is high and can make their awarded lands productive. The DAR is mandated to conduct seminars and trainings for the farmers to organize. The DAR shall also assist the farmers form or join cooperatives. Individual Titles of Award The CARPER law adopted the recommendation from the economists that individualized Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) and Emancipation Patent (EP) is beneficial for the farmer beneficiaries. This will encourage farmers to invest in the awarded land and will have a sense of ownership. As a matter of policy in the CARPER law, land awarded should be in the form of individual title. The DAR will do the parcelization of the existing collective CLOAs and must be completed within three (3) years from the effectivity of the law. However, this is without prejudiced to collective CLOAs that are effective and need not be parcelized. A group of farmer beneficiaries can also decide to have a collective CLOA subject to the conditions[21] in section 10 of CARPER. Their collective CLOA must indicate the names of the beneficiaries. Shortened Period For Installation of Farmer Beneficiaries The CARPER law mandates that the award of the land must be completed within 180 days from the date of registration of title in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. Such period is shorter than that of CARL. Another reform that can help shorten the period for installation is the inclusion of the standing crop in the computation of the just compensation for the land[22]. This is the learning from the Hacienda Malaga Case were the only reason for the delay in installation is the standing crop. From experience, delay in installation causes violence and insecurity to the farmers. The CARPER law emphasize that farmer beneficiaries will only start payment of amortization if they have been physically installed on the awarded land for one (1) year. Ministerial Duty for the Registry of Deeds To Register Land in the Name Republic of the Philippines and CLOA The unfortunate experience in Negros (especially the Arroyo Lands in Bacan, Negros) where Registry of Deeds refuse to register the title in the name of the Republic of the Philippines bring about the provision under the CARPER law which states it is the ministerial duty of the registry of deeds to register the title of the land in the name of the republic of the Philippines, after the Landbank of the Philippines (LBP) has certified that the necessary deposit in the name of the landowner constituting full payment in cash or in bond with due notice to the landowner and the registration of the certificate of land ownership award issued to the beneficiaries, and to cancel previous titles pertaining thereto[23]. Upon certifying the payment of Land Bank, the Registry of Deeds cannot refuse to cancel the title of the landowner, register the same title under RP title and to register the CLOA to be awarded to beneficiaries. This will lessen the stumbling blocks in the process of CLOA generation. Actual and Physical Distribution

The CARPER law specifies that award of land must be actual and physical possession[24] of the land which is in contrast to non-distributed schemes like Stock-Distribution Option and Leaseback arrangements. This can be the basis for the farmers to demand from the DAR for an actual and physical award of the land to them and they can legally reject any non-distributive schemes similar to the Hacienda Luisita experience. Impact of CARP Assessing the impact of CARP vis--vis its objectives, i.e., equity and poverty reduction, is quite difficult because the observed household and communitylevel data are the outcomes of many factors that have influenced the evolution of the rural economy. The policy and institutional environment in the Philippineshas changed quite significantly during the programs implementation period. Various policy reforms involving international trade and finance, localnational fiscal relations, and public investment and regulations, as well as the environment for global agricultural trade, have likely affected rural welfare and income distribution in ways that either enhance or diminish any effects that agrarian reform may have had on equity and poverty reduction. Put differently, the fact that rural poverty and income inequality have persisted, as shown in recent studies (see Balisacan 2003, ADB 2005), is not, by itself, evidence that CARP is a failure. A few studies have attempted to systematically identify the contribution of CARP in the observed changes in rural welfare and overall economic outcomes. The most comprehensive one was the series of volumes that came out of the CARP Impact Assessment Studies (CARP-IA) supported by a number of multilateral and bilateral agencies, including the Philippine Government. The CARP-IA studies, covering the first 12 years of CARP implementation, examined the impact from different angles: micro (household-level), meso (community level), and macro (sectoral and economy-wide level).Follow-up studies (CARP-IA Phase 2) are ongoing, aimed at re-examining the earlier findings in light of newly available national household surveys, agriculture and population censuses, updated panel data, and related data. While the first CARP-IA studies covered program implementation up to 2000, the Phase 2 studies focus on the period 1990-2006. Unfortunately, the results of the latter study are not yet available. The findings of the CARP-IA studies, as drawn from Lim (2003), are summarizedas follows: Panel data survey in select provinces shows strong increase in ownercultivator shipand significant declines in share tenancy and leaseholding between 1989 and 1999. These results are consistent with the land-to-thetiller emphasis of CARP.12 The macro study and the panel data survey indicate that ARBs and landowners who voluntarily complied with the CARP provision on land acquisition and distribution (LAD) tend to invest more on farm assets compared with non-ARBs and LAD-pending landowners. This suggests that a more secure land tenure and secure land ownership enhance the willingness of landowners and beneficiaries to invest. An ARB has lower chances of being poor than a non-ARB. Moreover, the length of time of being an ARB and being in an ARC reduces ones chances of being poor. The ARC approach to beneficiary development, if properly implemented, improves the economic conditions, social capital, and democratic participation of the communities. This result is supported by studies made by FAOTSARRD (1998) and Edillon and Velarde (2004). In areas where social conflicts exist, the implementation of agrarian reform tends to reduce such conflicts and increase peace and order. A disturbing finding from the micro studies is that the real agricultural and rural incomes for both ARBs and non-ARBs between the 1990 survey and the 2000 survey actually fell. Lim (2003) noted, however, that this outcome conformed to the long-run fall in real per capita value added in agriculture, to the decline in agricultural investment, and to the deterioration of the overall investment climate in the Philippines, especially in the latter part of the 1990s. This finding demonstrates that the positive micro-level effects of the program could only be translated into higher long-term incomes and lower poverty if the general environment (macroeconomic policies, rural development strategies, trade policy egime, natural resource management, governance institutions) is conducive to development and growth in the rural economy. In a related vein, using panel data of provincial aggregates for the period 1988-2003, Balisacan (2007) found that the effects of CARP on poverty reduction arefelt mostly indirectly through the income growth process, not directly through improvement in equity. One interpretation of this result is that the CARP implementation has actually not been efficiently targeted to effect direct gains for the tiller beneficiaries. This insight finds similar evidence in many of the countrys direct anti-poverty programs: food subsidies, credit subsidies,irrigation subsidies, etc. (Balisacan and Edillon 2005).