Philippines Country Report_sept 2010

7/27/2019 Philippines Country Report_sept 2010

1/28

Country Land Monitoring Report: Philippines

Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources

In Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA)

1

Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources in Rural Areas

COUNTRYLAND MONITORING REPORT:PHILIPPINES

September 2010

With support from:

Asian NGO Coalitionfor Agrarian Reform and Rural Development

PhilDHRRA


2/28




2

Table of Contents

I. Introduction 3

II. Objectives and Limitation of the Study . 3

III. Methodology .. 3

IV. Agrarian Reform in the Philippines ... 3

V. Land Monitoring Framework . 6

a. Regional Indicators .. 6b. Country Indicators ... 7

VI. Study Findings ... 8a. Inputs: Budget and Policies . 8

b. Land Tenure Improvement .... 11c. Agrarian Justice Delivery .. 17

VII. Recommendations .... 25

References


3/28




3

I. Introduction

In 1988, Republic Act 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law was enacted. This landmark law pavedthe way for the distribution of land to landless farmers and farm workers. After more than two decades of

implementing the agrarian reform program, there are still more than one million hectares that need to bedistributed.1 In 2009, RA 9700 or the CARP Extension with Reforms Law was passed which extended the agrarianreform program to 5 years.

Though the program has been plagued by a number of problems that hinder its speedy implementation (for

instance, cases of agrarian disputes and conflicts), it remains as a means to promote the security of tenure andaccess to land of farmers. After all, land distribution inequality is a social justice issue that should be addressed bythe State.

II. Objectives and Limitations of the Study

This study aims to provide an overview of the state of land tenure and access to land in the Philippines.Specifically, the study aims to do the following:

1. provide a review of agrarian reform in the Philippines2. conduct data gathering for the set of indicators developed by ANGOC

3. appraise the indicators in terms of appropriateness and feasibility

This study does not intend to provide an exhaustive monitoring of all forms of land. Rather, the scope of this study

is limited to the ownership and access to agrarian lands, with rural farmers as stakeholders. Since this is only a pilotstudy, other sectors with stake on land, such as indigenous people, forest dwellers, and other cross-cutting themes

such as gender, governance, food security, and environment will not be tackled. As mentioned above, the mainfocus of the study is to look at the regional indicators on and land tenure and access to agrarian lands.

III. Methodology

Review of literature on agrarian reform, land security, and access to land was conducted, with focus on studies thatdeveloped indicators Secondary data gathering was conducted in relevant agencies, such as the DAR, CHR, DBM,

NEDA, and DA. Main data used are official government data. Where government data is not accessible, proxy datawere used gathered from other sources such as CSO studies and databanks of international development

organizations.

IV. Agrarian reform in the Philippines

Land reform has been a major policy intervention in the Philippines as early as the 1900s. It was facilitated by theAmericans in 1902 mainly to address the growing insurgency problems caused by the excesses of the friars, whocontrolled most agricultural estates under the Spanish rule. The Friars Land Act ushered in redistributive land

reform but was confined to large estates mostly owned by the Catholic Church.

The Friars Land Act has influenced subsequent land redistribution policies in the country as evident from the landreform laws that followed. Under Republic Act 1400 of 1955 and Republic Act 3844 of 1963, redistributive landreform was confined to specific estates and land prices both for valuation and transfers to tenants followed market

principles. The acquisition of landed estates was not confiscatory but voluntary on the part of the landowner orselective based on request by a majority of the tenants (i.e., at least 1/3 of tenants). The acquisition process was

1 Per DARs accomplishment report as of June 2009, balance for land distribution is 1,044,550 hectares.


4/28




4

undertaken through expropriation proceedings by the Courts which determined the valuation of the land based onthe principle of just compensation.

The earlier land reform laws paid greater attention on tenancy reforms, primarily, the regulation of landlord tenant

contracts and abolition of tenancy. Land redistribution was not prioritized because resettlement on publicagricultural lands was considered an alternative to redistributive land reform. In the early years, Philippine frontierland was extensive and government chose to finance the opening up of these lands for farming rather thanredistribute existing private agricultural estates. The tenancy situation was not also considered critical in thecountry at that time. It was believed that as long as the tenancy rate was kept below 60% of agriculture population,

the tenancy condition is not critical. The Census of Agriculture in 1918 showed that the fraction of cultivated landunder share tenancy and labor tenancy amounted to only 19%. While this proportion increased to 30% in 1960,tenancy rate was still way below the critical level. Moreover, government increased expenditure on credit,technology and marketing had raised productivity to a significant level without challenging existing propertystructure.

In the early 1970s, a radical departure from the earlier land reform policies was undertaken. The Marcos

administration issued Presidential Decree 27 (PD 27) in 1972 to provide for a national and confiscatory land reformprogram. Ownership ceiling was pegged to 7 hectares per individual, a significant fall from the 75-hectare ceiling inthe 1960s. The law potentially placed the bulk of agriculture lands under land reform except that the coverage of

PD 27 was limited to rice and corn farmlands. Plantations and sugar lands thus were protected from the program.The program had positive effects as land redistribution moved at a fast pace in the initial years specifically in some

regions (e.g., Region 3). But in the later years, the program succumbed to bureaucratic inertia possibly due todwindling funds and legal battles usually with landowners that challenged the valuation of their lands. PD 27 wasnot completed within 10 years and was soon taken over by events as the Marcos government was unseated as

President of the Philippine Republic by the Peoples Power Revolution in 1986.

The enactment of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) was a response to a new political order. ThePeoples Revolution that installed the Aquino government, led to the rise of the grassroots and non-governmentorganizations as major players in Philippine politics. However, the Aquino government had also the support of the

elite since Aquino herself belonged to the landed families. The framers of the law under Aquino combined bothliberal and conservative policies on land reform. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1987

expanded coverage to all agricultural lands but it also promoted market-oriented policies. The law provided for the

inclusion of voluntary modes of transfers by landowners and applied just compensation in the valuation of land.The adoption of just compensation was said to be consistent with the Bill of Rights of the Philippine

Constitutions of 1970 and 1987; therefore, the confiscatory scheme of PD 27 was considered unconstitutional. Thegovernment retained the subsidy on credit and the administrative costs of land transfer to farmers. The land reform

program under CARL is also referred to as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) because of theinclusion of beneficiary support services to the land redistribution program.

The CARL has also altered the institutional arrangement in the implementation of the land reform program. Theimplementation of PD 27 was presided over by the Philippine President and administered mainly by the DAR while

CARP is governed by a Presidential Agrarian Reform Council or PARC which is headed by the President with theheads of implementing agencies and private sector representatives as members. DAR acts as the PARC Secretariatand co-administers land redistribution with the DENR which takes charge of the subdivision and distribution of

public lands. In particular, the DAR bureaucracy has been expanded to include an Adjudication Board to handle thedelivery of agrarian justice in lieu of the special agrarian courts attached to the Department of Justice under PD 27.

It was envisioned that with these institutional changes, land redistribution would be fast tracked and completedwithin a period of ten years from 1987 to 1997. However, did this not happen and CARP was extended for anotherten years (1998 to 2008). In 2009, Congress has approved another extension of the program for five years, or untilJune 2014. The new Act (RA 9700 of 2009) calls for the strengthening of the CARP primarily through the infusionof additional funding of P150 billion for the next five years and reform provisions that will accelerate agrarian

reform.


5/28




5

Table 1. Comparative Policies on Distributive Land ReformElements 1900s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1990s 2000s

Legal BasisFriars Land

Act of 1902

Land Reform

Act (RA 1400 of

1955)

Land Reform

Code (RA 3844

of 1963)

Emancipation

of Rice/Corn

Tenant Farmers

(PD 27 of

1972)

Comprehensive

Agrarian

Reform Law

(RA 6657 of

1988)

Comprehensive

Agrarian

Reform

Program

Extension with

Reforms Law

(RA 9700 of2009)

Coverage

Friar Lands

Selective Based

on Sanggunian

recommendation

Selective Based

on Sanggunian

recommendation

Mandatory for

all Rice and

Corn Lands

Mandatory for

all Private and

Public

Agricultural

Lands*

Mandatory for

all Private and

Public

Agricultural

Lands*

600 hectares

(individual)

300 hectares

(individual)Land

Ownership

Ceiling1,024 hectares

(corporation)

600 hectares

(corporation)

75 hectares 7 hectares 5 hectares 5 hectares

Maximum Size/

Beneficiary16 hectares 6 hectares 3 hectares 3 hectares 3 hectares 3 hectares

Mode of Land

AcquisitionExpropriation Expropriation Expropriation Confiscatory

Compulsoryacquisition

(CA),

Voluntary offer

to sell (VOS),

Voluntary land

transfer (VLT)

Compulsoryacquisition

(CA),

Voluntary offer

to sell (VOS),

Voluntary land

transfer (VLT)

Valuation

Method

Fair Market

Value

Fair Market

Value

Fair Market

Value

Average

Annual Gross

Production

(AGP) x 2.5

Fair Market

Value

Fair Market

Value

Land

processing and

transfer costs

Land

processing and

transfer costs

Land

processing and

transfer costs

Credit subsidy Credit Subsidy

Credit Subsidy

Initial

capitalization

Subsidy

ComponentCredit Subsidy Credit Subsidy Credit Subsidy

Land cost

(transfer from

land owner)

Land

amortization

subsidy

Land

amortization

subsidy

Implementing

Agency

Bureau of

Public Lands

Land Tenure

AdministrationLand Authority

Department of

Agrarian

Reform

Department of

Agrarian

Reform

Department of

Agrarian

Reform

Limitations and

Implementation

Issues**

Hardly

implemented,

it only enabled

the American

agricultural

interests to

control huge

tracts of land

Failed to break

up big estates,

expropriation

was allowed

when majority of

tenants

petitioned for it,

accommodated

share tenancy

Reduced the

number of

beneficiaries, it

only covered rice

and corn lands,

compulsory

leasehold took

effect only when

an area is

declared a land

reform area,

exempted

plantation crops

from coverage,

no timetable set,

Lack of

services to new

landowners,

limited to rice

and corn areas,

amortization

rate was too

high, a slow

distribution of

Certificate of

Land Transfer,

exemption of

untenanted

lands gave

landlords

Budget

constraint, lack

of support

services, land

distribution

focused on

non-private agri

lands/govt

lands, use of

CARP funds

for non-ARBs

(fund

diversion)

None yet


6/28




6

Elements 1900s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1990s 2000s

Congress did not

provide funding

incentive to

discharge

tenants and hire

seasonal

laborers instead

* Excludes aquaculture and livestock farms

** Source: Philippine Agrarian Reform: Partnerships for Social Justice, Rural Growth, and Sustainable Development, 2006

V. Land reform monitoring framework

Regional indicators

Based on consultations with experts by ANGOC, the framework for the land monitoring initiative will strategically

focus on land tenure and access to land, as well as the implementation of land reform program by the government.The framework will establish a set of common indicators for national focal points to use, which will then beconsolidated at the regional level to elevate the discussion on land to appropriate regional and international

platforms.

The report will generally focus on landless and marginal farmers/peasantry. The following indicators had beenidentified by ANGOC based on consultations from experts:

Table 2. Regional indicators developed by ANGOC

Variables Indicators

A. Inputs

Agrarian reform budget

R & D expenditure in agriculture as % of total agriculture budget

Budget

ODA in agriculture

Land use planning

For marginalized groups IPs, women, fishers, etc

Policies

Policies or guideline on agricultural investments

B. Land tenure# of people killed (per 100,000 population)

# of people detained (per 100,000 population)

# of people harassed (per 100,000 population)

# of cases received (per 100,000 population)

# of cases investigated (per 100,000 population)

# of cases adjudicated (per 100,000 population)

# of cases of land grabbing

% area of land grabbed

Average time in years for dispute resolution

Annual loss of time due to disputes

Disputes

Monetary loss

# of HH evicted/displaced from farms (per 100,000 population)Evictions

# of HH becoming totally homeless due to eviction

C. Access to land

Ownership Ownership according to size of landholdings

# of sharecroppers

# of sharecroppers having legal documents

Tenancy rights

% of contract farmers area in relation to total agricultural area

Landlessness Gini coefficient/bottom to top ratio


7/28




7

Country indicators

As earlier stated, the DAR is the lead government agency mandated to implement agrarian reform. Other CARP-implementing agencies (CIAs) are the DENR, LBP, DOJ-LRA, DA-NIA, DPWH, DTI, and DOLE. The DAR has

identified three major final outputs (MFOs) in its logframe2. These three MFOs are also the agrarian reformprograms main components:

1. Security of land tenure provided through land distribution and leasehold arrangements (Land TenureImprovement or LTI)

The two basic schemes by which ARBs could have security of land tenure: land transfer through acquisitionand distribution (LAD) and leasehold operations (i.e., execution of leasehold arrangements between thelandowners and tenant farmers). Other LTI services include subdivision of collective CLOA into individualtitles, redocumentation of lands already distributed but not yet paid, and installation of uninstalled ARBs.

2. Legal intervention provided by ARBs (Agrarian Justice Delivery or AJD)This pertains to: 1) delivery of agrarian justice which includes the resolution of agrarian cases filed within the

DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD), and the ProvincialAgrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD), and 2) the provision of legal assistance to ARBs.

3. Support services implemented, facilitated, and coordinated for delivery to ARBs (Support Services Delivery orSSD)

Component services include social infrastructure and local capacity building (SILCAB), sustainableagribusiness and rural enterprise development (SARED), access facilitation and access enhancement.

For each MFO, performance indicators had been identified, as shown in the table below.

Table 3. Performance indicators of DAR

Variable Indicators

MFO1: Land Tenure Improvement

Area distributed (EP/CLOA generated/distributed)

ARBs covered

Area valued (landowners compensation)

Area with final survey (land survey)

Area with approved survey (IVAS)

Area registered (emancipation patents/CLOAs)

Land Acquisitionand Distribution

Area covered by processed patents

Leasehold Area placed under leasehold

Area of CLOA subdivided

Area of individual CLOA redocumented and registered

Other LTI

Area of redocumented lands covered/identified as DNYP

MFO2: Agrarian Justice Delivery

Adjudication of ARcases

Cases resolved

Disputes settled through mediation/conciliationCases disposed/submitted to judicial court and prosecutors office

Agrarian legalassistance

ARBs represented in quasi-judicial court

MFO3: Support Services Delivery

ARCs with ARCs level of development assessment (ALDA)SILCAB

ARBs trained

2 The logframe was developed by DAR for its Organizational Performance Indicators Framework (OPIF), a performance-based

monitoring system implemented by the DBM which started in 2007. The DARs MFOs are based on the major programs and

services provided by the agency.


8/28




8

Variable Indicators

ARCs developed into agribusiness land

Area developed

Marketing tie ups/agreements/contracts established, trade fairs, market linkage, productdevelopment

MSMEs established

SARED

Upland development

FMR projects approved and fundedFMR constructed

Irrigation projects approved

CIS projects implemented

Small enterprise projects implemented

Access facilitationand enhancement

services

Coops/POs assisted in credit and rural financing

These indicators will be matched/compared with the regional indicators identified by ANGOC. Since governmentregularly collect and compile data for their indicators, data collection will not be difficult. Where data is not readilyavailable or not officially gathered by specific agencies, these data gaps will be identified and proxy indicators will

be used if applicable.

Table 4. Comparison of regional and country indicatorsRegional indicators Country indicators

Inputs: Budgets and policies CARP/DAR budget, per MFOLand use policies

Access to Land- Ownership

- Tenancy rights- Landlessness

Land Tenure Improvement- Land Acquisition and Distribution

- Leasehold

Land Tenure- Disputes- Evictions

Agrarian Justice Delivery- Adjudication of agrarian reform cases- Agrarian legal assistance

VI. Study Findings

The analysis will be arranged based on the 3 country indicators for the CARP: 1) Inputs, 2) LTI, and 3) AJD.

A. Inputs

Budget

The DAR has two major sources of funds to implement its activities for agrarian reform. The first comes from its

own General Appropriations Act (GAA)-authorized budget, consisting of Fund 101 or the general fund and Fund102 for foreign-assisted projects. The second comes from the Agrarian Reform Fund (ARF), or Fund 158, as

administered by the PARC. The ARF is drawn from the following sources: a) proceeds of the sales of the AssetsPrivatization Trust (APT); b) all receipts from assets recovered and from sale of ill-gotten wealth recovered throughthe Presidential Commission on Good Governance (PCGG); c) proceeds of the disposition of government property

abroad; and d) portion of amounts accruing to the Philippines from all sources of official foreign aid grants andconcessional financing from all countries for specific purposes of financing production credits, infrastructures, and

other support services required by the CARL. While the ARF covers those of other CIAs, more than 60% of thetotal CARP budget is allocated to DAR.

Disaggregating the budget based on CARPs major final outputs, land tenure improvement comprises the bulk ofthe budget. Only 4% was allocated to agrarian justice delivery based on the cumulative budget from 2007-2010.


9/28




9

ARF Allotment and Obligation, 2000-2007

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year

Amount(inPhPm

illion

Allotment

Obligation

Table 5. Budget per MFO, 2007-20102007 2008 2009 2010Major Final

Output Amount % Amount % Amount % Amount %Total %

MFO1: Land

Tenure

Improvement

9,009,326 60% 9,015,183 72% 10,773,003 67% 9,387,081 48% 38,184,593 61%

MFO2:

Agrarian

JusticeDelivery

779,124 5% 877,421 7% 203,240 1% 928,030 5% 2,787,815 4%

MFO3:

Support

Services

Delivery

5,348,756 35% 2,600,634 21% 5,170,964 32% 9,404,995 48% 22,525,349 35%

Total 15,137,206 12,493,868 16,147,207 19,720,106 63,497,757

Figure 1. ARF Allotment and Obligation, 2000-2007Comparing allotment and obligation,3

obligation significantly exceeded allotmentin 2003. In contrast, allotment greatly

exceeded obligation the following year,2004. Over releases are observed in 2004and 2007, which coincidentally are electionyears.

In terms of external fund sources, the DAR is one of the agencies with the largest recipients of overseasdevelopment assistance (ODA) loans. Based on data from the Foreign-Assisted Projects Office of the DAR, a total

of 59 projects had been implemented as of 2009, amounting to PhP 76 billion. In addition, 26 projects are in thepipeline.

Table 6. Number and amount of foreign-assisted projects of DAR

Cost (PhP Million)Project/Type of Assistance

No. of

projects ODA GOP Counterpart Total

Total 59 58,258.47 18,352.81 76,611.28

Loan 17 52,087.17 16,921.50 69,008.67

Grant 42 6,171.30 1,431.31 7,602.61

Completed Projects 51 24,363.86 9,160.60 33,524.46

Loan 10 18,212.56 7,734.29 25,946.85

Grant 41 6,151.30 1,426.31 7,577.61

On-going Projects 5 33,894.61 9,192.21 43,086.82

Loan 4 33,874.61 9,187.21 43,061.82

Grant 1 20.00 5.00 25.00

In the Pipeline 26 23,502.88 4,281.34 27,784.22

3 Allotment refers to the authorization to incur obligations or enter into contracts, which is issued by the DBM to government

agencies. The DBM ensures that allotments are covered by appropriations both as to amount and purpose. Obligation refers to

the actual expenditures of government agencies from the perspective of said agencies actually having contracted for the

delivery of goods and services.


10/28




10

After conducting a rapid review of foreign-assisted projects, it was observed noticed that a majority of the projectsfocus on support services delivery and only three projects contain a land tenure improvement component. This isunderstandable since ODA loans are intended to provide support services to ARBs as the government funding forLAD gets the biggest share of the CARP budget.

Given that the budget for the 5-year extension of CARP is PhP150 billion, it is imperative to see if the allocationfor LAD will suffice given the backlog for distribution. It is stipulated in RA 9700 that 60% of the total budget will

be allocated for LAD or roughly PhP 90 billion. Average cost of LAD per hectare (covering landownerscompensation and land processing cost) is estimated at PhP 92,600. With more than 1 million hectares still for

distribution, DAR needs roughly PhP 96 billion to complete LAD. A study by the Land Bank also reflects that to beable to complete LAD by 2014, PhP300 to 400 billion is required.

Table 7. Average cost of LAD, without OLT (2007 prices)

Item Average cost per year (PhP M) Average cost per hectare (PhP)

Landowners compensation 3,525.98 70,175.18

Land processing cost 3,717.83 22,426.54

Agrarian justice delivery 79.52 1,888.31

Legal assistance 35.33 839.04

Adjudication 44.18 1,049.27

Policies

There are various policies that mandate the issuance of land tenure instruments to specific beneficiaries.

Table 8. Policies and land tenure instruments

Policy Land tenure instrument Instrument holder

Comprehensive AgrarianReform Law (CARL)

Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) Farmers

Indigenous PeoplesRights Act (IPRA)

Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) Indigenous peoples

EO 263

Community-based Forest Management Agreement (CBFMA),

Certificate of Forest Stewardship Agreement (CFSA), andSustainable Industrial Forest Management Agreement (SIFMA) Forest dwellers

Fisheries Code LGU Ordinance on municipal water delineationLGU (for municipal

fisherfolks)

UDHACertificate of Entitlement and Lot Award (CELA), Transfer

Certificate Title (TCT)Urban poor

Though there are clear policies on identification of beneficiaries and issuance of land tenure instruments, there are anumber of documented cases of overlapping land titles, causing disputes across sectors.4 Unless the various land

redistribution policies are harmonized, disputes will continue to persist.

The table below shows the number of memos and orders issued per administration. This can be an indicator of

administrative and bureaucratic outputs of the DAR. However, these indicators will not suffice to gauge theperformance and efficiency of the agency in terms of agrarian reform implementation.

Table 9. Administrative and bureaucracy indicators

Administration No. of DAR SecretariesNo. of Memorandum

Circulars issued

No. of Administrative

Orders issued

C. Aquino (1987-1992) 6 43 72

Ramos (1992- 1998) 1 136 56

Estrada (1998-2000) 1 44 13

4 Based on findings of the Philippine Asset Reform Report Card (PhilDHRRA, 2008)


11/28




11

Administration No. of DAR SecretariesNo. of Memorandum

Circulars issued

No. of Administrative

Orders issued

Arroyo 6 103 46

Total 326 187

B. Land Tenure Improvement

The LTI component seeks to secure the tenurial status of the farmers and farmworkers in the lands they till. This isoperationalized either through land acquisition and distribution and leasehold operations. LAD involves the

redistribution of government and private agricultural lands to landless farmers and farmworkers. Leaseholdoperation, on the other hand, is an alternative non-land transfer scheme which seeks to improve the quality of life ofthe farmers. It covers all tenanted agricultural lands such those in the retained areas, not yet acquired for

distribution under CARP, and those which may be validly covered under existing laws. Under the law, private andnon-private agricultural lands will be acquired for distribution. The table below shows the accomplishment of land

acquisition by mode and land type. Land distribution has been particularly slow for private agricultural lands undercompulsory acquisition, which total 1.5 million hectares or roughly one-third of the program scope. Theaccomplishment for this mode is only 19%. Interestingly, it is in these landsparticularly lands planted to

sugarcane, coconut and other tree crops, and nontraditional export cropswhere most of the remaining problemswith landholding inequality exist. On the other hand, rate of accomplishment is pushed up by excess in the

distribution of non-private agricultural lands, with 134% accomplishment rate and under the VLT scheme at 247%accomplishment. If accomplishment is recomputed, reflecting over accomplished modes as 100%, then totalLAD accomplishment is only at 70%.

Table 10. Accomplishment per mode of acquisition

Type of land/Mode of acquisitionScope

(hectares)*

Share from

total scope

Accom.

(hectares)

%

accom.

Share from

total accom.

Recomputed

% accom.

Private Agricultural Lands 3,093,251 70% 2,336,127 76% 57% 57%

Operation Land Transfer 616,233 14% 571,989 93% 14% 93%

Government Financing Institutions 243,434 5% 165,399 68% 4% 68%

Voluntary Offer to Sell 437,970 10% 601,817 137% 15% 100%

Compulsory Acquisition 1,507,122 34% 285,100 19% 7% 19%

Voluntary Land Transfer 288,492 7% 711,822 247% 17% 100%Non-Private Agricultural Lands 1,335,106 30% 1,783,074 134% 43% 100%

Settlements 604,113 14% 746,977 124% 18% 100%

Landed Estates 70,173 2% 81,045 115% 2% 100%

Government Owned Lands 660,817 15% 955,052 145% 23% 100%

Total 4,428,357 100% 4,119,201 93% 100% 70%

Table 11 shows the annual accomplishment in distribution in terms of area and number of ARBs. Average area orfarm size per ARB is 1.49 hectares, which is within the maximum area per beneficiary.

Table 11. Annual LAD accomplishments

Year Area (has) No. of ARBs Average area per ARB (has)

1999 132,069 89,511 1.482000 110,478 77,275 1.43

2001 104,261 72,188 1.44

2002 111,722 75,560 1.48

2003 97,795 71,962 1.36

2004 104,069 71,682 1.45

2005 131,069 88,152 1.49

2006 125,184 72,280 1.73

2007 134,035 94,807 1.41

2008 146,278 90,738 1.61


12/28




12

Year Area (has) No. of ARBs Average area per ARB (has)

Jan-June 2009 12,662 8,617 1.47

Total 1,209,622 812,772 1.49

Figure 2. Total LAD accomplishment per administrationThe highest accomplishment in land

distribution was realized during the Ramos

Administration, with almost 2 millionhectares of land distributed. This is mainlydue to the programming of land acquisitionand distribution. According to the law, Phase

One shall be implemented to rice and cornlands under PD 27 and all private lands

voluntarily offered by the owners. In addition,Phase Two will prioritize all alienable and

disposable public agricultural lands. Theselands maybe considered easy targets,explaining the speedy acquisition and

distribution in the early years.

Figure 3. Average LAD accomplishment per administrationHowever, looking at the average area of landdistributed annually in the past years, the range

is between 100,000 to 110,000 hectares. If thelag in distribution is more than 1 million

hectares, this means that annual distributionshould be at an average of 200,000 hectares.

Table 12 below shows the average size of farms(may include both ARBs and non-ARBs) and

the scope and accomplishment of agrarian

reform. Average farm size has generallydecreased by 0.2 hectares from 1991 to 2002 inmost of the regions. This maybe an indicator thatthe CARP was able to breakdown big

landholdings, thus, decreasing average farmsize.

Table 12. Average farm size, 1991 and 2002

Average size (ha/farm)Region

2002 1991

Philippines 2.0 (-0.2) 2.2

CAR 1.5 (0.1) 1.4

I - Ilocos Region 1.0 1.0II - Cagayan Valley 1.7 (-0.2) 1.9

III - Central Luzon 1.6 (-0.2) 1.8

IVA - CALABARZON 2.1 (-0.1) 2.2

IVB - MIMAROPA 2.5 (-0.2) 2.7

V - Bicol Region 2.3 (-0.2) 2.5

VI - Western Visayas 1.6 (-0.2) 1.8

VII - Central Visayas 1.2 (-0.1) 1.3

VIII - Eastern Visayas 2.2 2.2

IX - Zamboanga Peninsula 3.1 (0.2) 2.9

Total area of land distributed

923,065

1,847,653

311,226

967,075

-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

Aquino

(1987-1992)

Ramos

(1992-1998)

Estrada

(1998-2000)

Arroyo

(2001-2009)

Administration

Hectares

Average area of land distributed

153,844

263,950

103,742 107,453

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

Aquino (1987-1992)

Ramos (1992-1998)

Estrada(1998-2000)

Arroyo (2001-2009)

Administration

Hectares


13/28




13

Average size (ha/farm)Region

2002 1991

X - Northern Mindanao 2.3 (-0.4) 2.7

XI - Davao Region 2.5 (-0.5) 3.0

XII SOCCSKSARGEN 2.3 (-0.5) 2.8

XIII Caraga 2.5 (-0.2) 2.7

ARMM 2.1 (-0.4) 2.5

In terms of LAD scope, Region XII has the biggest area for agrarian reform (11% of total scope), followed byRegion VI (10%), Region VIII (9%), and Region III (9%). In this case, LAD scope could be a proxy indicator forareas with the most number of landless farmers. In addition, one of the factors in identifying LAD scope is the area

of alienable and disposable lands, as evidenced by the positive correlation of the two in most regions.

Table 13. Area of alienable and disposable lands and LAD scope

RegionArea of A&D

land (ha)

Share from

total

LAD Scope

(ha)

Share from

total% Accom

LAD Balance

(ha)

Philippines (excl. NCR) 14,159,351 100% 5,163,751 100% 80% 1,044,550

CAR 355,252 3% 120,445 2% 78% 26,460

I Ilocos Region 810,922 6% 148,118 3% 93% 10,211

II - Cagayan Valley 972,822 7% 408,563 8% 84% 66,888

III - Central Luzon 1,204,650 9% 443,720 9% 90% 43,283

IVA - CALABARZON 1,051,948 7% 214,662 4% 75% 54,461

IVB - MIMAROPA 998,563 7% 198,536 4% 83% 34,557

V Bicol Region 1,222,060 9% 397,336 8% 73% 109,095

VI - Western Visayas 1,417,978 10% 521,846 10% 70% 154,241

VII - Central Visayas 964,169 7% 236,701 5% 65% 83,746

VIII - Eastern Visayas 1,024,955 7% 488,710 9% 85% 75,541

IX - Zamboanga Peninsula 762,460 5% 233,717 5% 88% 28,605

X - Northern Mindanao 659,196 5% 349,351 7% 80% 68,897

XI - Davao Region 1,079,824 8% 300,595 6% 75% 75,563

XII - SOCCSKSARGEN 546,828 4% 561,269 11% 85% 84,005

XIII - Caraga 544,897 4% 235,259 5% 91% 21,203

ARMM 542,827 4% 304,923 6% 65% 107,794

Under the CARL, the DAR is mandated to determine and fix immediately the lease rentals in accordance with

Section 34 of RA 3844 or the Agricultural Land Reform Code, but expressly repealed section 35 of RA 3844. This,therefore, abolished the exemptions and made all tenanted agricultural lands subject to leasehold. The changes in

the law have significant implications, as follow: 1) abolition of share tenancy now covers all agriculturallandholdings without exceptions, 2) the conversion of share tenancy into leasehold is mandated by law, 3) leaseholdcan be a preliminary step to land ownership, hence, all share-crop tenants were automatically converted into

agricultural lessees, whether or not a leasehold agreement has been executed, and 4) leaseholders security of tenureshall be respected and guaranteed.

As of June 2009, there are almost 1.2 million holders of leasehold contracts covering 1.6 million hectares of land or18% of total farmlands. Almost one-fifth of the leaseholders are in Region I while a majority of the areas under

leasehold are in Regions VIII and X. There is no available aggregate data on the target area and number ofbeneficiaries for leasehold for the duration of the CARP so matching the accomplishment with the target cannot be

done.

Table 14. Accomplishment in leasehold

Region Area (has) % No. of ARBs %

Philippines (excl. NCR) 1,698,341 100% 1,196,653 100%

CAR 1,791 0.1% 3,015 0.3%

I - Ilocos Region 150,957 9% 219,916 18%

II - Cagayan Valley 88,843 5% 66,048 6%


14/28




14

Region Area (has) % No. of ARBs %

III - Central Luzon 160,271 9% 101,494 8%

IV CALABARZON, MIMAROPA 160,025 9% 102,956 9%

V - Bicol Region 67,000 4% 48,928 4%

VI - Western Visayas 123,529 7% 108,053 9%

VII - Central Visayas 74,940 4% 99,750 8%

VIII - Eastern Visayas 221,078 13% 106,533 9%

IX - Zamboanga Peninsula 142,407 8% 104,294 9%X - Northern Mindanao 214,223 13% 102,684 9%

XI - Davao Region 180,573 11% 79,673 7%

XII SOCCSKSARGEN 94,875 6% 45,976 4%

XIII Caraga 6,393 0.4% 2,277 0.2%

ARMM 11,436 1% 5,056 0.4%

The total and average numbers of leasehold contracts per administration are shown in the figures below.

Figure 3. Total leasehold accomplishment, per admin Figure 4. Average leasehold accomplishment per admin

The National Statistics Office conducts the Census of Agriculture and Fisheries every 10 years, which undertakes acomplete count of all farm operators. So far, five rounds of the survey had been conducted since its inception in

1960. This section will focus on the results of the census, focusing on the whole agriculture sector instead of onlyagrarian reform lands.

Figure 5. Number of farms based on farm size

As earlier discussed, average farm size is

decreasing, from 2.2 hectares in 1991 to 2hectares in 2002. The graph on the leftshows that the number of farms with less

than 3 hectares in size is increasing overtime, while an opposite trend is happeningfor farms with more than 10 hectares. Theincrease has been significant after the

passage of the CARL in 1988.

Total no. of leasehold contracts

295,925

238,461

22,262

90,944

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

Aquino

(1987-1992)

Ramos

(1992-1998)

Estrada

(1998-2000)

Arroyo

(2001-2009)

Administration

Number

Average no. of leasehold contracts

49,321

34,066

7,421 10,105

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Aquino

(1987-1992)

Ramos

(1992-1998)

Estrada

(1998-2000)

Arroyo

(2001-2009)

Administration

Number

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

2,000,000

Under 1.00 1.00 2.99 3.00 4.99 5.00 9.99 10.00

24.99

25.00 and

over

Size of farm s, in hectares

Numbero

ffarms 1960

1971

1980

1991

2002


15/28




15

Figure 6. Number of farms based on tenurial statusBy tenurial status, owned and partly ownedlands are increasing in number particularlyafter the passage of PD 27 and the CARL, as

shown by the 1980 and 1991 levels. On theother hand, tenanted lands have beendecreasing particularly after the abolishmentof shared tenancy and conversion to leasehold.Based on the Census definition, owned lands

include ownerlike possessions such as CLTand CLOA holders, lands to be inherited, etc.In addition, partly owned means some parcelsof the farm were fully owned and the otherwere either tenanted, etc.

Focusing on the most recent Census (2002), almost 80% of the total number of farms is less than 3 hectares andowned or partially owned.

Table 15. Number of farms by farm size and tenurial status

Farm size (has) Number of farms Percent Tenurial status Number of farms Percent

Total 4,822,739 100% Total 4,810,146 100%

Under 1.00 1,935,874 40% Owned 2,292,666 48%

1.00 2.99 1,974,572 41% Partly owned 1,500,328 31%

3.00 4.99 508,880 11% Tenanted 621,989 13%

5.00 9.99 303,139 6% Leased 111,085 2%

10.00 24.99 88,658 2% Other forms 284,078 6%

25.00 and over 11,616 0.2%

In terms of area, almost 40% of the farms are less than 3 hectares in size, though more than 20% of the farms are

more than 10 hectares in size. This may include farms owned by ARBs that were not parcelized (those withcollective CLOAs). A majority (83%) is either owned or partly owned.

Table 16. Area of farms by farm size and tenurial status

Farm size (has) Area (has) Percent Tenurial status Area (has) Percent

Total 9,670,793 100% Total 9,648,247 100%

Under 1.00 827,031 9% Owned 4,896,765 51%

1.00 2.99 3,001,608 31% Partly owned 3,105,017 32%

3.00 4.99 1,778,383 18% Tenanted 1,115,283 12%

5.00 9.99 1,914,396 20% Leased 202,518 2%

10.00 24.99 1,192,189 12% Other forms 328,664 3%

25.00 and over 957,187 10%

Though farmers are given titles in the lands that they till, security of tenure remains a pressing issue. Land grabbingis a case where farmlands are being leased and, in some cases, eventually owned by local and foreign entities.

Another term coined by advocates and used by the World Bank in its upcoming report is global land rush. Thereport, entitled The Global Land Rush: Can it yield sustainable and equitable benefits?, is the broadest study yet

of on farmland grab, in which countries invest in overseas land to boost their food security, or investors (who aremostly local, buy arable land. The Philippines is one of the targets of foreign countries; as termed by the WorldMission Magazinea lease hotspot.

-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

Own

ed

Partlyow

ned

Tena

nted

Leased

Oth

erform

s

Tenurial status

Num

beroffarms

1960

1971

1980

1991

2002


16/28




16

There is no consolidated data on the extent, scope, and history of farmland grabbing in the Philippines. There areinternational organization and websites that attempt to document international land grabbing in order to raiseconsciousness and support over the increasing phenomenon. The table below is a result of internet research oncases of farmland grabbing.

Table 17. News reports on farmland grabbing in the PhilippinesNo. Entity/Country Description Location Year Data source

1 Bahrain 10,000 has. for agrofishery Unknown 2009

http://english.bna.bh/?ID=76356;

http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=businss5_mar30_2009

2 China1.24 million has. leased;

deal put on holdUnknown 2008

www.pambazuka.org/en/category/africa_china/526

5; http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/vieDec

3 Qatar 100,000 has. leased Unknown 2008http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/natio/vie w/20090105-181407/Rich-states-target-poors-

farmland

4Saudi Arabia

(ANI/FEAICO)

50,000 has. for crop

plantations and processing

plants

Mindanao 2010 http://farmlandgrab.org/12807

5 Saudi Arabia Exploratory meetings Unknown 2010http://farmlandgrab.org/14218,http://farmlandgrab.org/13677,

6 Legacy Group Illegal transfer of ownership

Kalanggaman

Island,Palompon,

Leyte

2009

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=

che:RxMw4SmPDUJ:www.philstar.com/Article.asx%3Farticleid%3D443957+land+grab+philippinescd=13&hl=tl&ct=clnk&gl=ph&client=firefox-a

7

Capitol

Development

Bank and Manila

Brickworks, Inc.

Illegal transfer of ownershipNorzagaray,

Bulacan2010

http://pnoypinay.org/updates-list/103-the-dumagatsand-the-villar-land-grab

8

New Zealand

(Dairy

SolutioNZ)

Agreements underway for a

dairy farmUnknown 2010 http://farmlandgrab.org/10648

9 China 1.2 million has.Various

locations

Various

years

10 Bahrain1,000 has. for crop

plantationDavao 2009 http://farmlandgrab.org/9798

11 Saudi Arabia 50 has. for crop plantation

Malungon,

Gen. Santos

City

2009 http://farmlandgrab.org/9267

12 Korea94,000 has. for corn

productionMindoro 2009 http://farmlandgrab.org/8913

The Department of Agriculture, through the Philippine Agricultural Development and Commercial Corporation(PADCC) is key is playing a role of identifying and matching available land to prospective agribusinessinvestors. Table 18 below summarizes the lands to be matched by the PADCC to foreign investors' requests forland.

Table 18. Areas to be matched by PADCC for investments by foreign agri-business corporationsLocation Area matched (consolidated, ha.)

Philippines 1,997,642.16

Northern Luzon Agri-business Quadrangle 638,820.07

Region I 80,154.72

Region II 512,093.47

CAR 46,571.88

Luzon Urban Beltway 390,242.41

Region III 131,217.83

Region IV-A 23,301.47


17/28




17

Location Area matched (consolidated, ha.)

Region IV-B 235,723.11

Central Philippines 385,659.67

Region V 117,555.05

Region VI 48,782.18

Region VII 114,133.44

Region VIII 105,189.00

Agribusiness Mindanao 582,920.00Region IX 30,867.00

Region X 78,850.00

Region XI 279,274.00

Region XII 109,169.00

Region XIII 66,177.00

ARMM 18,583.00

By policy, our Constitution prohibits foreign companies from buying land. The best option available is to leaseprivate land. In addition, foreign companies must get approval from the Board of Investment for long-term leases.Land may be leased for an initial term of 50 years, renewable for another 25 years. Moreover, there are restrictions

on the amount of land that may be leased. A foreign companys exercise of rights over the land such as subleasing,

subdivision, or making improvements is limited by the terms of the lease contract and only absolute owners of theland may mortgage it. Also, the transfer of the lease to other foreign entities is restricted. Registration of leases isnot mandatory. It is recommended that the lease be registered with the local register of deeds to ensure that leaserights are enforceable against third parties. The following policies govern ownership of land and properties for

various purposes:1. RA 7042: Foreign Investment Act of 1991

2. RA 8179: An act amending RA 70423. RA 4726: Condominium Act4. RA 7652: Investors Lease Act5. PD 715: Anti-Dummy Law6. Batas Pambansa 185 (1982)

C. Agrarian Justice Delivery

Delivery of agrarian justice has two features: the agrarian legal assistance and adjudication of cases. Agrarian legalassistance is comprised of resolution of agrarian law implementation (ALI) cases, ARB representation before

judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, and mediation and conciliation. On the other hand, adjudication of cases involvesthe resolution of cases by the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB). The DAR at present utilizes more aggressivealternative dispute resolution techniques in mediation to reduce conflicts maturing into court cases. The generalobjective is to persuade the contending parties to settle their disputes amicably or out of court before the DAR.

ALI cases involve administrative cases and falls under the jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary and or his/herauthorized representative and the Regional Director, such as:

1) application for exemption from coverage under RA 6657 and application for exemption pursuant to DOJ

opinion no. 44;2) determination of rights of ARBs such as disposition of excess area of the tenants/farmer beneficiarys

landholdings, rights to homelots, and rights of retention by landowner;3) matters or concerns referred to it by the DAR Secretary;4) identification and classification of landholdings for coverage under the agrarian reform program and the

initial issuance of CLOAs and EPs, including protests or oppositions thereto and identification,classification, inclusion, exclusion, qualification, or disqualification of potential/actual farmer-

beneficiaries, issuance of Certificate of Exemption for land subject of VOS and CA found unsuitable foragricultural purposes;

5) not yet registered documents with the Register of Deeds such as CLOAs and recall or cancellation ofprovisional lease rentals, CLTs and CBCs in cases outside the purview of PD 816;


18/28




18

6) conflict of claims in landed estates administered by DAR and its predecessors;7) application for conversion of agricultural land to residential, commercial, industrial, or other non-

agricultural uses and purposes including protests or oppositions thereto;8) subdivision survey of land;

9) exclusion from CARP coverage except agricultural land used for livestock, swine, and poultry raising andexemption of fishpond and prawn from the coverage of CARP pursuant to RA 7881; and

10) settlements administered by DAR and its predecessors involving conflict of claims.

The DAR receives an average of 46,000 ALI cases annually and has an average accomplishment rate of 94% in

terms of cases resolved.

Table 19. Number of ALI cases received and resolved, per yearYear Cases received Cases resolved %

C. Aquino Administration

1987 41,394 41,394 100%

1988 37,068 34,728 94%

1989 49,480 41,586 84%

1990 36,965 27,328 74%

1991 90,867 72,074 79%

Jan to June 1992 43,351 37,542 87%

Total 299,125 254,652 85%Average 49,854 42,442 85%

Ramos Administration

July to Dec 1992 43,352 37,542 87%

1993 56,972 43,169 76%

1994 35,094 32,875 94%

1995 47,071 45,470 97%

1996 45,242 43,644 96%

1997 47,697 49,405 104%

Jan to Jun 1998 18,482 19,597 106%

Total 293,910 271,702 92%

Average 41,987 38,815 92%

Estrada Administration

July to Dec 1998 27,153 28,577 105%1999 58,768 56,153 96%

2000 63,096 60,591 96%

Total 149,017 145,321 98%

Average 49,672 48,440 98%

Arroyo Administration

2001 61,192 60,285 99%

2002 34,580 34,182 99%

2003 38,742 38,982 101%

2004 41,822 38,923 93%

2005 66,350 67,496 102%

2006 40,641 41,798 103%

2007 45,490 49,652 109%

2008 57,932 62,021 107%

Jan to June 2009 30,524 27,889 91%

Total 417,273 421,228 101%

Average 46,364 46,803 101%

Overall total 1,159,325 1,092,903 94%

Overall average 46,969 44,125 94%


19/28




19

A majority of ALI cases were received from Regions IV and VIII. Least number of cases was received inCARAGA. In addition, Regions X, XII, and VI exhibit low percentage of cases resolved relative with the otherregions.

Table 20. Number of cases received and resolved, per region

Region Cases received Share from total Cases resolved %

Philippines (excl. NCR) 1,159,325 1,092,903 94%

CAR 28,639 2% 27,929 98%

I Ilocos Region 114,709 10% 106,337 93%




V - Bicol Region 113,863 10% 103,932 91%




IX - Zamboanga Peninsula 41,171 4% 40,017 97%

X - Northern Mindanao 79,598 7% 67,050 84%

XI - Davao Region 48,732 4% 47,034 97%

XII SOCCSKSARGEN 33,588 3% 28,950 86%XIII Caraga 58,219 5% 57,519 99%

ARMM 243 0.02% 226 93%

Central Office 21,731 2% 21,655 100%

On the other hand, DARAB cases falls under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the DARAB and its Regional or

Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicators (RARAD/PARAD). These cases involve:1) determination of title to agricultural lands where this issue is raised in an agrarian dispute by any of the

parties or a third person;2) annulment or cancellation of lease contract or deeds of sale or their amendments involving lands under the

administration and disposition of the DAR and LBP;

3) rights and obligations of persons, whether natural or juridical, engaged in the management, cultivation, and

use of all agricultural lands covered by RA 6657 and other related agrarian laws. This also includes reviewof leasehold rentals;

4) boundary disputes over lands under the administration and disposition of the DAR and the LBP which aretransferred, distributed, and/or sold to tenant/beneficiaries and are covered by deeds of sale, patents, and

certificates of title;5) cases involving the collection of amortizations on payments for lands awarded;

6) acquired lands under PD 27 and CARP for preliminary administrative determination of reasonable and justcompensation;

7) sale, alienation, pre-emption, and redemption of agricultural lands under the coverage of CARL or other

agrarian laws;8) ejection and dispossession of tenants and/or leaseholders, exclusive jurisdiction of the defunct Court of

Agrarian Relations except those cases falling under the proper courts and other quasi-judicial bodies; and

9) secondary and subsequent issuances of CLOAs and EPs which are registered with the LRA and those casedinvolving correction, partition, disputes, matters or concerns referred to it by the DAR Secretary.

The DAR receives an average of 14,000 DARAB cases annually. It can be noticed that more cases were received in

more recent years (2000 and onwards) since the coverage of LAD has shifted to private lands subject to compulsoryacquisition where landowners resistance will be prevalent. Average accomplishment rate for resolution of cases is

96%.


20/28




20

Table 21. Number of DARAB cases received and resolved, per yearYear Cases received Cases resolved %

C. Aquino Administration

1988 726 67 9%

1989 2,623 1,107 42%

1990 2,793 683 24%

1991 5,955 3,981 67%

Jan to June 1992 3,201 2,341 73%

Total 15,298 8,179 53%Average 3,060 1,636 53%

Ramos Administration

July to Dec 1992 3,209 2,351 73%

1993 8,623 8,872 103%

1994 9,967 11,248 113%

1995 28,306 25,949 92%

1996 34,784 31,816 91%

1997 32,602 31,823 98%

Jan to Jun 1998 7,559 5,795 77%

Total 125,050 117,854 94%

Average 17,864 16,836 94%

Estrada Administration

July to Dec 1998 9,756 12,381 127%

1999 23,659 23,832 101%

2000 21,955 20,578 94%

Total 55,370 56,791 103%

Average 18,457 18,930 103%

Arroyo Administration

2001 21,515 18,212 85%

2002 16,459 15,925 97%

2003 14,016 14,030 100%

2004 17,277 17,764 103%

2005 13,270 14,716 111%

2006 15,388 16,475 107%

2007 16,232 17,431 107%2008 24,180 23,441 97%

Jan to June 2009 9,584 8,347 87%

Total 147,921 146,341 99%

Average 16,436 16,260 99%

Overall total 343,659 329,165 96%

Overall average 13,954 13,416 96%

A majority of DARAB cases were received from Regions III and V. Least number of cases was received in RegionXII and ARMM. In addition, Regions VI and IV exhibit low percentage of cases resolved relative with the otherregions.

Table 22. Number of cases received and resolved, per regionRegion Cases received Share from total Cases resolved %

Philippines (excl. NCR) 343,659 100% 329,165 96%

CAR 9,044 3% 8,944 99%

I Ilocos Region 7,890 2% 7,660 97%




V - Bicol Region 55,303 16% 53,789 97%



21/28




21

Region Cases received Share from total Cases resolved %



IX - Zamboanga Peninsula 8,902 3% 8,404 94%

X - Northern Mindanao 9,580 3% 9,430 98%

XI - Davao Region 9,802 3% 9,550 97%

XII SOCCSKSARGEN 4,527 1% 4,163 92%

XIII Caraga 13,275 4% 13,042 98%ARMM 156 >1% 305 196%

Central Office 18,188 5% 18,841 104%

Though percent of resolution of ALI and DARAB cases is high, there is a significant number of pending cases

aging for several years. For ALI, judicial, and quasi-judicial cases, there are 7,889 pending cases. Getting theweighted average of all the cases, the average age of pending ALI cases is 1 year and 4 months. This period could

be an underestimation since the actual number of years for cases that are pending for more than 6 years is notknown.

Table 23. Aging of pending ALI, judicial, and quasi-judicial cases (as of June 2009)

Age of ALI cases No. of cases Region with the most cases

> 1 year 5,996 Region VI1 year 863 Region IX2 years 301 Region V3 years 245 Region V4 years 190 Region III5 years 65 Region V> 6 years 229 Region V

Total 7,889 Region V

Meanwhile, there are more pending DARAB cases compared with ALI cases. The region with the most number ofpending DARAB cases is Region VI. Average age of pending DARAB cases is 1 year and 5 months. Again, this

period may be an under estimation. Based on reference from the DAR, the DARAB takes an average of one year

and three months to resolve its cases and five years and eight months to implement agrarian law cases.

Table 24. Aging of pending DARAB cases (as of June 2009)

Age of DARAB cases No. of cases Region with the most cases

> 1 year 7,186 Region VI

1 year 1,465 Region III

2 years 777 Region III




> 5 years 121 Region III

Total 10,756 Region VI

In terms of costs of adjudication, average cost for legal assistance is PhP 839 per hectare while average cost foradjudication is PhP 1,049 per hectare. A more important indicator of efficiency is the average time of adjudicating

cases.

Despite the legal mechanisms in settling agrarian disputes, human rights violations continue to be committedagainst farmers. There are no official aggregated data on the number of human rights violation brought about by

agrarian disputes from the DAR. The Commission on Human Rights compiles data on the number of human rightsviolations by type (e.g., harassment, killings, illegal detention). However, it is difficult to discern if these violations


22/28




22

are agrarian-related. Specific data are compiled in their regions, which will takes ample time to aggregate.Available data as of report writing is found in the table below.

Table 25. Human rights violation cases related to agrarian reform dispute/conflict (2005-Sept 2010)

RegionKilling

(No. Of Cases)

No. Of People

Detained

Harassed

(No. Of Cases)

CAR 0 0 1

I Ilocos Region 0 0 1

II - Cagayan Valley 1 0 3

III - Central Luzon 1 * 1

IV CALABARZON, MIMAROPA * * *V - Bicol Region 1 0 1

VI - Western Visayas 8 0 7

VII - Central Visayas * * *VIII - Eastern Visayas 1 1 18

IX - Zamboanga Peninsula 0 0 0

X - Northern Mindanao 2 0 5

XI - Davao Region 1 0 1

XII SOCCSKSARGEN 1 * *

XIII Caraga 0 0 1TOTAL 16 1 39

* no report

In addition, there are organizations that monitor and document agrarian-related violence. Based on research, 5

organizations were identified. Scope and areas of coverage of monitoring is limited to the focused areas of theseorganizations.

Table 26. Organizations that document agrarian-related violence

No. Organization

1 Asian Human Rights Commission

2 Task Force Detainees of the Philippines

3 Task Force Mapalad4 Partnership for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Services (PARRDS)

5 FIAN International (Food First Information and Action Network)

Based on records of the organizations cited above, a total of 2,377 cases of agrarian-related violence committed

against farmers were documented.

Table 27. Number of agrarian-related violence, by type

No. Type Number of Persons Affected

1 Killing 20

2 Attempted killing/physical injury 107

3 Arrest/detention 131

4 Destruction of property/demolition of home/eviction 638

5 Others (accusations of stealing, violent dispersal, delay in installation) 677

6 Human rights violation not classified 804

Total 2,377

Summary of findings

Table 28 summarizes the data available for each indicator.


23/28




23

Table 28. Summary of findings per indicatorVariables Indicators Findings

A. Inputs

1. Agrarian reform budget Agrarian reform budget increased by 22% from 2009-2010; observed

overreleases during election years (2004 and 2007)

2. R & D expenditure in

agriculture as % of total

agriculture budget

Disaggregated budget data not available

Budget

3. ODA in agriculture DAR is one of the largest recipients of ODA; total of 59 projectsimplemented amounting to PhP 76 billion; projects focus on support

services delivery

4. Land use planning National Land Use Act (NLUA) pending for enactment

5. For marginalized groups IPs,

women, fishers, etc

Asset reforms laws already passed (IPRA, Fisheries Code, UDHA, EO

263 for CBFM), but overlapping land titles continue to persist, causing

disputes across sectors

Policies

6. Policies or guidelines on

agricultural investments

The Philippine Constitution prohibits foreign companies from buying

lands. The best option available is to lease private land (initial term of 50

years, renewable for another 25 years).

B. Land tenure

7. # of people killed (per

100,000)

No aggregated data

8. # of people detained (per100,000)

No aggregated data

9. # of people harassed (per

100,000)

No aggregated data

10. # of cases received (per

100,000)

ALI and DARAB cases received (1988-2009): 1,509,984

Average ALI cases received per year: 46,000 cases

Average DARAB cases received per year: 14,000 cases

11. # of cases investigated (per

100,000)

Average accomplishment rate of ALI case resolution: 94%

12. # of cases adjudicated (per

100,000)

Average accomplishment rate of DARAB case adjudication: 96%

13. # of cases of land grabbing

(per 100,000)

No aggregated data; Proxy data: 1,997,642 hectares of land to be matched

by the PADCC for investments by foreign agribusiness corporations

14. % area of land grabbed Cannot be determined15. Average time in years for

dispute resolution

Average time of DARAB cases resolution: 1.25 years

Average time of ALI cases resolution: 5.6 years

16. Annual loss of time due to

disputes

No. of pending ALI cases: 7,889 cases

No. of pending DARAB cases: 10,756 cases

Disputes

17. Monetary loss Average cost for legal assistance: PhP 839 per hectare

Average cost for adjudication: PhP 1,049 per hectare

18. # of HH evicted/displaced

from farms (per 100,000)

No aggregated dataEvictions

19. # of HH becoming totally

homeless due to eviction

No aggregated data

C. Access to land

Ownership 20. Ownership according to size

of landholdings

Number of farms according to farm size and tenurial status

Farm size(has)

Number offarms

% Tenurialstatus

Numberof farms

%

Total 4,822,739 100% Total 4,810,146 100%

Under 1.00 1,935,874 40% Owned 2,292,666 48%

1.00 2.99 1,974,572 41% Partly owned 1,500,328 31%

3.00 4.99 508,880 11% Tenanted 621,989 13%

5.00 9.99 303,139 6% Leased 111,085 2%

10.00 24.99 88,658 2% Other forms 284,078 6%

25.00 and over 11,616 0.2%


24/28




24

Variables Indicators Findings

Area of farms according to farm size and tenurial status

Farm size

(has)Area (has) %

Tenurial

status

Area

(has)%

Total 9,670,793 100% Total 9,648,247 100%

Under 1.00 827,031 9% Owned 4,896,765 51%

1.00 2.99 3,001,608 31% Partly owned 3,105,017 32%

3.00 4.99 1,778,383 18% Tenanted 1,115,283 12%

5.00 9.99 1,914,396 20% Leased 202,518 2%

10.00 24.99 1,192,189 12% Other forms 328,664 3%25.00 and over 957,187 10%

21. # of sharecroppers No aggregated data

22. # of sharecroppers having

legal documents

As of June 2009, there are almost 1.2 million holders of leasehold

contracts

Tenancy

rights

23. % of contract farmers area in

relation to total agricultural area

Leasehold contracts cover 1.6 million hectares of land or 18% of total

farmlands

Landlessness 24. Gini coefficient/bottom to top

ratio

Not computed (coefficient may not reliable if based on size of

landholdings since some of the ARBs are issued collective CLOAs)

Accessibility of data of regional indicators

Of the 24 regional indicators identified, 14 indicators have data that can be secured from related government

agencies. Alternative sources are listed in the table below.

Table 29. Accessibility of data


Official

data

available?

Official

SourceRemarks

Alternative

source

A. Inputs

1. Agrarian reform budget Yes DAR, DBM Detailed budget not

available online, can be

requested from DAR

2. R & D expenditure inagriculture as % of total

agriculture budget

Yes DA

Budget

3. ODA in agriculture Yes FAPSO-

DAR,

NEDA

Complete info available

in FAPSO-DAR website

4. Land use planning Yes Various

sources

Policies available online

5. For marginalized groups

IPs, women, fishers, etc

Yes Various

sources


Policies

6. Policies or guidelines on

agricultural investments

Yes Various

sources


B. Land tenure

7. # of people killed No - Database of HRorganizations

8. # of people detained No - Database of HR

organizations

9. # of people harassed No - Database of HR

organizations

Disputes

10. # of cases received Yes DAR Data on two types of

cases available: ALI and

DARAB


25/28




25


Official

data

available?

Official

SourceRemarks

Alternative

source

11. # of cases investigated Yes DAR Data on two types of

cases available: ALI and

DARAB; data is on # of

cases resolved

12. # of cases adjudicated Yes DAR Data on two types of

cases available: ALI andDARAB; data is on # of

cases resolved

13. # of cases of land grabbing No - Website search

14. % area of land grabbed No -

15. Average time in years for

dispute resolution

Yes DAR Data available is age of

pending cases

16. Annual loss of time due to

disputes

No - Review of

literature

17. Monetary loss No - Review of

literature

18. # of HH evicted/displaced

from farms

No - Database of HR

organizations

Evictions

19. # of HH becoming totallyhomeless due to eviction

No - Database of HRorganizations

C. Access to land

Ownership 20. Ownership according to size

of landholdings

Yes NSO Data is generated every

10 years

21. # of sharecroppers No - Data available is on no. of

leaseholders

22. # of sharecroppers having

legal documents

Yes DAR Data available is on no. of

leaseholders

Tenancy

rights

23. % of contract farmers area

in relation to total agricultural

area

Yes DAR

Landlessness 24. Gini coefficient/bottom to

top ratio

Yes/No NSO Data available is on

landholdings by farm sizebut not based on income

VII. Recommendations

Land monitoring is imperative and should be done on a regular basis. Comprehensive monitoring can be done invarious components: 1) inputs, processes, 3) outputs, 4) outcomes, and 5) impacts. The table below shows variousindicators and methods on how to generate data. The variables and indicators below is a combination of theregional and country indicators.

Table 30. Recommended variables and indicators

Component Variables Indicators Method of data gatheringInputs Laws and policies,

budget Share of LAD budget in total

agrarian reform budget

Average cost of LAD

Review of DARs budget perprogram component

Review of studies on cost of LAD

Processes Institutional capacity,administration andimplementation

processes, processingtime

Average processing time of

CLOA (from issuance todistribution) per mode ofacquisition

Average number of staff requiredfor land surveying and titling vs.

Review of policies in CLOA

processing per mode ofacquisition

Key informant interviews of DARpersonnel and ARBs

Capacity assessment survey of


26/28




26

Component Variables Indicators Method of data gathering

number of DARs current fieldstaff for LAD

DAR

Outputs Land and titlepossession

Targets vs. accomplishments

Number of CLOAs issued per

type of CLOA (individual,collective)

Number of leasehold contractissued

Targets vs. accomplishments

Compilation of data from DARs

annual report, OPIF

Outcomes Decrease in rate oflandlessness andconflict

Number of farmers by type of

tenure (yearly comparison)

Number of cases filed andresolved, rate of resolution

Data from Census of Agriculture

(NSO)

Compilation of data from DARsannual report

Impacts Poverty reduction Poverty incidence of

farmers/ARBs (yearly

comparison)

Change in income (farm vs. non-

farm)

Poverty statistics (NSCB)

Family Income and Expenditure

Survey (NSO)

Survey of ARBs (baseline) and

FGDs

Impact of land security may be more difficult to assess since baseline data is needed. The table below is an attemptto correlate poverty incidence and being an ARB.

Table 31. Share of ARBs on total farmers and poverty (incidence and magnitude) among farmers

Region

Estimated

number of

farmers

No. of ARBs

(2009)

Share from

total

farmers

Poverty

incidence

(2006)

Magnitude of

poor (2006)

Philippines (excl. NCR) 4,762,832 2,396,096 50% 44.0 2,095,646

CAR 162,330 74,499 46% 46.1 74,834

I - Ilocos Region 326,146 112,704 35% 32.2 105,019

II - Cagayan Valley 278,805 195,455 70% 16.9 47,118

III - Central Luzon 306,223 256,172 84% 20.2 61,857

IVA - CALABARZON 371,088 101,940 27% 40.9 151,775IVB - MIMAROPA 239,706 115,141 48% 47.3 113,381

V - Bicol Region 376,316 172,849 46% 47.4 178,374

VI - Western Visayas 392,839 258,265 66% 39.8 156,350

VII - Central Visayas 379,010 117,357 31% 51.4 194,811

VIII - Eastern Visayas 330,244 184,092 56% 54.0 178,332

IX - Zamboanga Peninsula 270,481 117,203 43% 54.7 147,953

X - Northern Mindanao 275,867 158,944 58% 54.3 149,796

XI - Davao Region 257,610 159,927 62% 46.1 118,758

XII SOCCSKSARGEN 301,227 204,202 68% 41.0 123,503

XIII Caraga 146,749 104,811 71% 53.7 78,804

ARMM 340,591 62,535 18% 62.3 212,188

For the land monitoring index, it is suggested to utilize indicators that are annually generated by the agencies, for

ease of data gathering and ensure data availability. In the course of monitoring, ample time should be allocated fordata gathering, as it takes a month to secure data from government agencies. Where primary data gathering isrequired (i.e., surveys, FGDs), the scope should be significant to make the findings generalizable.


27/28




27

References:

Asian NGO Coalition. Securing the Right to Land: A CSO Overview to Land in Asia. 2009.

Balisacan, A. Agrarian Reform and Poverty Reduction in the Philippines. Southeast Asian Regional Center forGraduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA). Policy Dialogue on Agrarian Reform Issues in RuralDevelopment and Poverty Alleviation, Traders Hotel, Manila. 2007.

Ballesteros, M. The Cost of Redistributive Land Reform in the Philippines: Assessment of PD 27 and RA 6657

(CARL). Philippine Institute for Development Studies Discussion Paper Series No. 2010-09. 2010.

Bending, T. Monitoring Secure Access to Land: Progress and Prospects. Land Monitoring Handbook. InternationalLand Coalition. 2010.

Braun, J. and Dick, R. Land Grabbing by Foreign Investors in Developing Countries: Risks and Opportunities.International Food Policy Research Institute Policy Brief 13. 2009.

Daniel, S., et al. (Mis)investment in Agriculture: The Role of the International Finance Corporation in Global LandGrabs. The Oakland Institute. 2010.

Daniel, S., et al. The Great Land Grab: Rush for Worlds Farmland Threatens Food Security for the Poor. The

Oakland Institute. 2009.

Dela Cruz, J. The New Conquistadores And One Very Willing Colony: A Discussion on Global Land Grabbing

and the Philippine Experience. Peoples Campaign for Agrarian Reform (AR Now!). 2010.

Department of Agrarian Reform. Accomplishment Report CY 2009.

Department of Agrarian Reform. Rules and Procedures of DARAB and ALI. Bureau of Agrarian Reform

Information and Education (BARIE) and Communications Development Division (CDD). 2008.

Department of Budget and Management. Organizational Performance Indicators Framework for the Department of

Agrarian Reform: Book of Outputs. 2010.

Institute of Philippine Culture. Community-Based Forest Management in the Philippines: A PreliminaryAssessment. Ateneo de Manila University. 2001.

International Fact-Finding Mission on Agrarian Reform Related Violations of Human Rights in the Philippines.Running amok: Landlord lawlessness and Impunity in the Philippines. 2006.

Jha, P., et al. Land Reform Experiences: Some Lessons from Across the Globe. Ekta Parishad, India. 2007.

Laksa, K. and El-Mikawy, N. Reflections on Land Tenure Security Indicators. Discussion Paper 11. UNDP OsloGovernance Centre. 2009.

LandWatch Asia. Philippine Country Paper. 2008.

Leonen, M. CARP Institutional Assessment in a Post-2008 Transition Scenario: Reforms for the Agrarian JusticeSystem. Philippine Institute for Development Studies Discussion Paper Series No. 2008-10.2008.

National Statistics Office. Census of Agriculture and Fisheries. 2002.


28/28


Pangandaman, N. Philippine Agrarian Reform: Partnerships for Social Justice, Rural Growth, and SustainableDevelopment. Country paper presented in the International Conference on Agrarian Reform and RuralDevelopment, Brazil. 2006.

Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA), et al. Land, Life and Justice: The Challenge ofAgrarian Reform in the Philippines. An NGO Report on Agrarian Reform and Human Rights Situation. 2006.

Philippine Human Rights Information Center (PhilRights). Philippine NGO Network Report on the Implementationof the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). 2008.

Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources in Rural Areas. Philippine Asset Reform ReportCard (PARRC). 2008.

Task Force Mapalad. Cases of Agrarian Related Violence in TFM Landholdings. 2006.

World Bank. Land Reform, Rural Development, and Poverty Reduction in the Philippines: Revisiting the Agenda.

2009.

World Organization Against Torture. Preventing Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment in the

Philippines by Acting on their Economic, Social and Cultural Root Causes: An alternative report to the CommitteeAgainst Torture. 2009.

Documents

Philippines Country Report_sept 2010