“Honor the hands that harvest your crops” – Anonymous
During the pre-Spanish occupation era, land was tilled and made productive by everybody because it was believed that “it was God’s given treasure” to man. It was in full utilization by everyone despite stratification of classes and status in communities.
When the Spaniards came the concept of privatization surfaced evident to land as the system of encomienda was introduced but later abused as taxation emerged under the guise of land protection. Not only that there was ownership of land that came to fore unknowingly accepted but the culture of greed and profit took shape as exploitation among natives was now explicitly evident. The land that was accessed and made productive by everyone has become concentrated to a few and secured with a set of rules.
For centuries the land for all has been extinguished. More than a hundred laws were enacted, and executive orders were issued since the Philippines gained independence from the Spaniards. This means that societal evolution was creeped by exploitation that denied the basic rights among natives and Filipinos to this day over land, especially in the countryside, where the main source of livelihood of the rural folk is farming – agriculture.
WHAT WENT WRONG
The call for land rights and ownership was renewed because land, especially agricultural land, were now concentrated in the hands of the few and the fruits of labor resulting from therein. There were proactive measures undertaken, starting from the Quezon government up until the Marcos Jr., as far as land reform laws are concerned. Ideally one land reform law would suffice to effect genuine land reform but laws and orders that were passed and implemented were marred with controversy and the political will at ensuring was utterly insufficient and suspect, notwithstanding opposition and resistance.
The Mendiola Massacre propelled the eventual passage of the RA 6657 and its implementation was not only circumvented but was callously violated by many landowners, out of their resistance to the law that even caused lives of some beneficiaries. In the same breath, small ARB’s themselves resorted to leasebacks, up to the extent of selling their CLOAs because of lack of support – financial, technology, and machinery, to make the land productive.
SIGNIFICANT OR NOT
Contentious debates hound land reform, whether it is still of importance or not, in alleviating poverty in the countryside. Critics who argue that land reform is not the main solution to address this major problem.
The “urbanization” – infrastructure, BPOs, service and entertainment industries abound where younger generations are lured to the urban centers after senior high school. According to the 2018 National Migration Survey 48 percent of Filipinos live in the urban centers and this almost entirely changes the country’s demographic landscape, where the largest age bracket ranges from 25-34 years old. This simply indicates that there are more economic opportunities provided in the city compared to the countryside.
The ARB’s of the old generation try their best that their children do not follow their footsteps in toiling and undertaking almost excruciating and labor intensive sugar and other production, because their production areas are not equipped with technologies, machinery, and capitalization. Existing government programs and projects are inadequate and existing policies are to their disadvantage.
Many contend that the land reform program in 1988 is still the main form in addressing such poverty of the farmers and farm workers. And yes, land redistribution increased their income enjoining them in partaking roles in agricultural productivity. It initiated and ensured equitable land ownership by providing legal documents among tenants and landless farmers and inspired them to make the land productive because it gave them rightful ownership. And through land reform, farmers and farmworkers accessed technologies, support programs, and financial subsidies and reasonable loans.
CLEAR GAINS, INSURMOUNTABLE GAPS
The agrarian reform has produced concrete and evidential gains – irrefutable. The CARP was perhaps the main driver in rural development and a major instrument in conflict resolutions in war-torn areas that evolved into peace. And, there was quality delivery of programs and services to many ARB’s.
On the other hand, the major gaps and challenges remain the same – lack support systems relevant, imperative and pertinent to poverty alleviation towards modernization. We do not aspire for a perfect land reform implementation, this is impossible, so much so that we do not want to bridge the gaps temporarily. The countryside and the agriculture sector want the gaps to be addressed towards sustainability and regeneratively. It is enough after a “hundred and one” laws and executive were passed for more than a century.*
