Results

Table 1
Summary of Results
CARP as a
form of
communism

CARP as a
flawed law

CARP as
pro-poor

CARP as a
framework of
formality

CARP as an
abstraction

Discourse

Economic

Legal

Socioeconomic

Legal

Conceptual

Action
Orientation

Blaming
authorities,
resenting
farmers ,
pursuing a
pitiable front

Blaming
authorities

Emphasizes
CARPs
beneficiality,
affirms
worthiness to
get the land

Asserting
feelings of
antiquated
land
ownership

Dependency
on
landowners

Positionings

The Victim

The Informed

The
Underdog

The Claimant

The Ignorant

Practice

Legal
actions,
direct
negotiations

Obedience to Obedience to Legal actions,

the law,
the law, legal
Nondialogue with
actions,
compliance to
stakeholders dialogue with
regulations
stakeholders,
SES
comparison

Mindless
compliance
to
regulations

Subjectivity

Marginalizati
on,
frustration

Regret

Thankful,
jubilant

Constructio
n of land
ownership

Family affair,
possible only
when land is
not covered
by CARP

Legal matter

Means of
uplifting SES

Complacency, Indifference,
unapologetic
apathy
Utility, selfproclaimed
ownership

Only
possible
when
permitted by
legal owner

The researchers have identified a number of discourses regarding land, land

ownership, and the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) from the interviews
that they have conducted. These discourses operate to primarily establish CARP as either
harmful or beneficial. Subsequently, these function to rationalize, preserve, or blatantly reject
such benefits or hazards by re-examining the limits, dispositives, and implications of the

concept of land ownership within the specific CARP discourse that they ascribe to. This
suggests that the CARP discourse that a farmer or a landowner complies with, is crucial and
influential to how he understands his role and his functions as regards to the realm of agrarian
reform. The discourses that were unearthed were CARP as a form of communism, CARP as a
flawed law, CARP as pro-poor, CARP as a framework of formality, and CARP as an
abstraction. Ultimately, these discourses function to determine how one grasps the notion of
land ownership. All of these shall be explained further in the succeeding paragraphs.
CARP as a form of communism
This economic discourse positions the landowners as the injured party, the victims,
and the disregarded heirs. Adhering to this discourse allows the landowners to place blame on
the government for taking their land away from them and to feel resentment towards their
tenants for applying for CARP coverage. Additionally, this discourse empowers the
landowners to pursue a pitiable front. This was most apparent in one of the landowners
statement: We're all covered by CARP. I said- I said we have fixed 5 hectares for the owner,
3 hectares for every child. That is a- bibili ka pa ng lupa? Para kunin nanaman (So will you
still buy land? Just for them to sequester it again?) So there's- it's communism eh. It can be
assumed that feelings of betrayal, exclusion, powerlessness, frustration, and anger are
procurable to the landowners positioned within this particular discourse regarding CARP. The
landowners conformity to this discourse is manifested by taking legal actions. An example
for this is the filing of ejectment cases that leads to the disqualification and removal of a
tenant, regardless of existing familial ties. This was exemplified in the ejectment case filed by
Cellona against Borbe where the former was the brother-in-law of the latter. (public
document). One of the landowners exhibited this through this statement: In-eject ko talaga
siya (I really had him ejected). No need for me to say na (that) "Uy, umalis ka diyan (Hey, get
out)." Order of the court. Additionally, the landowners who are under this particular

discourse also resorts to personally asking the farmers to abstain from applying for CARP
coverage. This was illustrated in one of the landowners statement: Huwag na kayong
magpalagay ng cover ng land transfer (Please dont apply for CARP coverage). Sa akin din
ang lupa, pero kayo ang farmer (The land is still mine but youll still remain as the farmers).
Hindi kayo ang aalis diyan habang kayoy magbibigay ng rental ninyo, hindi ba? (You wont
be let go as long as you pay rent, right?) Landowners who comply with this discourse
perceive that land ownership is a family affair and is possible only when the land is not
covered by CARP. Such construction was evident through this statement: Once you are
covered, ayan na (thats it).
The foregoing implies that a titleholder who is located along the spectrum of this
particular economic discourse is predisposed to the role of the victim; and being in such a
role, these landowners find pursuing lawsuits, making personal appeals towards the tenants
justified. Thus, this discourse insinuates a completely antagonistic stance towards CARP.
Subsequently, not all landowners fall under this discourse as some act in accordance to a
more evaluative discourse that establishes CARP as a flawed law.
CARP as a flawed law
Being under this legal discourse, the landowners, having an extensive proficiency
about the law, are prescribed the role of informed and active participants. Abiding by this
discourse permits the landowners to attribute accountability to the authorities with regard to
the inherent inefficiencies and limitations of the enactment of CARP. This was evident in one
of the landowners statement: Sa aking opinyon lang yan, ewan ko sa iba (I dont know
about the others but in my opinion,). But sa-sa ngayon, kung ang agrarian policy na yan,
susundin natin, maganda ang nasa libro pero ang akin ngang apprehension eh ang
implementation, imonitor naman ng husto ng gobyerno (If we were to follow the agrarian
policy, in terms of writing, its impressive; however, it falls short in terms of implementation.

The government should conscientiously monitor it). Assuming an informed stance within the
construction of CARP as a flawed law leads the landowners to believe that it is justifiable to
have feelings of regret over their perceived underutilization of CARPs potential. A
landowner personified this through his utterance of the succeeding statement: Oh, sa
program, sa papel, napakaganda (The program, in paper, is very outstanding). Pagimplement, wala na (But its implementation does not live up to the potential of the law.).
Kaya sayang lang, sayang lang lupa ng Pilipinas (Thats why the countrys lands are put to
waste). Attending landowner forums, speaking with authorities and with the farmers, and
following the law, concretizes the landowners compliance with this discourse. This was
exhibited in this particular statement by one of the landowners that were interviewed: In
fact, I was present during the landowners forum. Yun din ang ibinigay ko kay Secretary Delos
Reyes (Thats the same thing I told Secretary Delos Reyes). Ako mismo nagtanong (I
personally asked him). Landowners who adhere to this discourse establish land ownership as
a legal matter. This was encapsulated by the pronouncement of one of the landowners stating,
Masasabi mo yung lupa pag legally, pag hawak mo ang titulo, pag nasa posisyon (You can
only claim ownership of the land if you possess the deed).
The aforementioned suggests that landowners who are positioned under this legal
discourse are inclined to assume the role of the informed and active participants. These
landowners who feel dismay over the wasted potential of CARP engage in forums, discuss
with authorities and farmers, and obey the law. Therefore, this discourse proposes a
conditional affirmative stance towards CARP. Whereas all of the discourses identified from
the farmer-interviewees take on a purely pro-CARP stance. The first of which, views the
CARP as having a preference for the destitute.
CARP as pro-poor

This socio-economic discourse situates the farmers as the underdogs. Concurring to

this discourse enables farmers to emphasize CARPs beneficiality and affirms their
worthiness to get the land. This was most pronounced in one of the farmers statement:
Kahit sabi ko ganito na ang edad ko at least makakaranas din kami ng ano nung
pinaghirapan (Even at this age, at least I can say that we will have a chance to experience
what we have worked for). It can be inferred that feelings of thankfulness and jubilance are
obtainable to the farmers who comply with this discourse. The interviewed farmers expressed
this in their account: Sa tuwa ko, na-- sabi ko talagang napasaamin! (Out of happiness and
joy, we were finally able to claim ownership to the land). The farmers abidance to this
discourse is displayed by their following of the law, applying for coverage, and talking to the
authorities. This was exemplified by one of the farmers articulation: Naisipan namin yun
nung lumabas na yung mga ganitong mga patakaran kaya kami lumapit para makuha yung
[lupa] (During the time when land reform policies came out, we thought of seeking
assistance from DAR to acquire the land). In addition, the farmers also communicate with
landowners and other farmers, and constantly reiterate their financial and educational
inadequacies as explicitly affirmed by the farmers responses when asked. Therefore, the
subject positions dispensed by this construction are those of underdogs who believe that
despite their lack of proficiency, land ownership is a vehicle that can uplift their current
situation in the socioeconomic hierarchy. And this was particularly evidenced in the farmers
assertion saying: May habol rin kami dahil mag- wala naman kaming ibang pinag-anohan-pinag-aralan, kundi magtanim lang (We also have a goal, since we were only taught how to
farm). Para sa amin.. Ano interesado rin kami sa lupa, siyempre mapagka mapagkahanap
buhay namin (For us, we are interested in the land, because it is a source of livelihood for
us).

The preceding paragraph proposes that farmers who ascribe to this socio-economic
discourse are oriented to take the role of the underdogs. This means that farmers who feel
gratitude and elation respond by acting in accordance to law. Hence, this discourse offers a
completely pro-stance towards CARP. Furthermore, there are farmers who submit to a
discourse which denotes CARP as a framework of formality.
CARP as a framework of formality
Abiding by the legal discourse that CARP is a framework of formality, assumes that
the farmers have considered the land to be theirs for a long time even without lawful basis.
The farmers utilize words that connote possession of the land that they are renting such as
bukid namin (our farmland). Thus, this discourse establishes the farmers as the claimant of
the land. Conforming to this discourse allows the farmers to assert their feelings of antiquated
ownership with regard to the land in question. This is apparent in the farmers statement:
Noong araw pa yan nagplano, matagal na matagal na yan pigplano pero ngunyan lang (It
was planned years ago, but its only now that its actually pursued). Consequently, adherence
to this particular discourse makes practices such as applying for DAR coverage and not
paying the full amount of rent justified. It can be postulated that feelings of complacency and
being unapologetic are felt by the farmers who are positioned under this particular discourse.
These were made blatant as the farmers found humor in the fact that they have not paid the
right amount of rent as displayed in this statement: Kami nga meron din, may utang din
yung father namin pero ano, hindi mo yan maiwasan (laughs) (Even in our family, our father
also has outstanding debt but you cant really avoid that). The farmers under this discourse
perceive land ownership as something achieved by utility and is substantiated by their selfproclaimed ownership of the land. This was obvious in the farmers acquiescent response
when asked whether they think they deserve the land after years of tilling it.

The antecedent clause stipulates that the farmers who conform to this legal discourse
are directed to assume the position of the claimant. These farmers who feel complacent and
unapologetic exercise noncompliance with the settled rental arrangement. Ergo, this discourse
argues a pro-CARP stance. In contrast, there are farmers who remain detached from CARP as
the law failed to reach them. Simply put, they observe a discourse which presents CARP as
an abstraction.
CARP as an abstraction
By accepting the conceptual discourse that CARP is nothing but an abstraction, the
farmers are conditioned to become naive, ignorant or uninformed. This was signified in the
farmers inquiry, Ano po yung CARP? (What is CARP?). Moreover, this discourse propels
the farmers to develop even more dependency towards the landowners. This is demonstrated
by blindly following the stipulations of the landowners as denoted in the farmers
proclamation: Depende po sa may-ari kung partehan (It depends if the owners decide to
grant us a portion of their land). Hence, feelings of indifference and apathy are found among
farmers who adhere to this certain discourse. Land ownership then is deemed by the farmers
as something that is only possible if permitted by the legal owner. This is saliently visible in
the farmers statement: Syempre kasi matagal na ... Depende sa may-ari kung ibigay nila.
The prior passage conveys that the farmers who are ruled by this conceptual discourse
are propelled to take an ignorant part. They are the farmers who feel indifferent and apathetic
toward CARP which brings about great reliance to their respective leaseholders. Thereafter,
this discourse is devoid of a stance with respect to CARP.
Discussion
To discover how farmers and landowners construct land ownership within the context
of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), the researchers used Foucauldian
Discourse Analysis (FDA) as the theoretical framework. The proponents of this study,

through this framework, have arrived at five prominent discourses that shape such
construction of land ownership. These discourses are CARP as a form of communism, CARP
as a flawed law, CARP as pro-poor, CARP as a framework of formality and CARP as an
abstraction. Consequently, the discourses allowed the researchers to propose key points that
both affirm and contradict previous literature.
CARP as a form of communism
The results of this study concur with the findings of the Institute of Human Rights
(n.d.) that landowners suffer persecution and marginalization due to CARP. Titleholders
perceive that CARP breaches their constitutional rights to property, fair compensation, and
to life (Institute of Human Rights, n.d., p. 19). Landowners feel cheated by the amount and
mode of compensation offered to them by the government, and by the confiscation of their
source of livelihood (Institute of Human Rights, n.d.). This perceived experience of
oppression leads them to employ a victimized front. Research has shown that accounts of
victimhood start from a moralised narrative of experienced sufferingsomething wrong
has been done to me; someone else was responsible for this (Williams, 2008, p. 80). In
response, landowners resort to taking legal actions such as filing ejectment cases in order to
find a sense of justice. More interestingly, the results of this study show that feelings of
injustice felt by landowners transcend familial ties as there have been ejectment cases filed
against family members. All these prompted these landowners to ultimately assume an
antagonistic stance towards CARP. As a result, landowners establish land ownership as
possible/attainable/obtainable only when the land is not under the coverage of CARP.
However, this study also discovered that not all landowners share this particular mindset.
CARP as a flawed law
In contrast with prior literature, findings of this study suggest that there are
landowners who positively perceive CARP in paper, but criticizes its implementation. <insert

rrl about yung ayaw ng landowners ng CARP> As stated in the Institute of Human Rights
(n.d.), There are conflicting implementing rules, regulations, memoranda and circulars issued by
agencies which conflict with the letter and spirit of the law. There is non-observance of proper
procedures in the implementation as well as the lack of standards and/or the non-uniform application
of such. With

this regard, it is necessary to consider the contexts from which landowners who

adhere to this discourse hail from.

CARP as pro-poor
Results of this study resonate with previous literature that CARP was implemented to
serve as a beacon of social justice to post-Martial Law Philippines (Institute of Human
Rights, n.d.).
CARP as a framework of formality
In agreement with Pierce, Kostova, and Dirks (2003), psychological ownership serves
as the driving force for the farmers to apply for CARP coverage. Farmers recognize that
through their labor, they have devoted not only their time and physical effort but also their
psychic energy into the product of that labor (Pierce, Kostova, & Dirks, 2003, p. 93).
Findings of this study manifest that farmers perceive that their years of hard work merits
them rightful ownership of the land. This is supported by John Lockes political philosophy
stating that individuals possess that which they build, mold, or generate (Pierce, Kostova, &
Dirks, 2003). Consequently, farmers construct land ownership as merely something that can
be accorded with feelings of attachment towards the land. In effect, noncompliance with the
leasehold payment arrangements are justified while legal actions, such as applying for CARP
coverage, are encouraged. It is important to note that since they already have a sense of selfproclaimed ownership towards the land, CARP becomes a matter of protocol that will
legitimize their ownership. While this may seem to be dominant/common? case among
farmers, there are still some who are still disconnected from CARP.. idk
CARP as an abstraction

According to Hirtz (1998), individuals who exert time and energy on land which are
not their own, are fundamentally reliant; hence, they are diffident. Furthermore, he argues
that this trepidation impels farmers to reject every opportunity which could potentially
advance their individual outputs. This indicates that hesitancy and uncertainty are
contributory to the stagnation or liberation of farmers from poverty (Hirtz, 1998). Juxtaposing
the discourse stating that CARP is an abstraction to Hirtz (1998) rationale, one can infer that
the farmers experience of detachment from the land reform policy may have stemmed from
their refutation, unintentional or not, of the idea of subjecting their land, and in principle,
their way of life, to CARP.
With all these discourses, landowners who ascribe to CARP as a form of communism
and CARP as a flawed law primarily construct land ownership as a family and legal affair. On
the other hand, farmers who follow the discourses of CARP as pro-poor and CARP as a
framework of formality establish land ownership as a means of climbing the social ladder and
as a utility. Lastly, farmers who construct land ownership as only attainable when permitted
by the owners abide by the discourse of CARP as an abstraction.
Implications to theory/practice
Limitations and Recommendations
The researchers have identified several limitations in this study. First of which was the
fact that the studys data source was confined to Albayano farmers and landowners. Hereafter,
the results cannot be generalized to farmers and landowners outside of Albay. This is why, the
researchers propose that future replications of this study should gather respondents from other
provinces or regions to have more comprehensive findings. Another limitation to this study is
the employment of Foucauldian Discourse Analysis (FDA). FDA gives utmost importance to
statements without considering the respondents inflection, gestures, and facial expressions.
This suggests that false statements that the respondents may have imparted, delimits the

study. In return, the researchers recommends that future research attempts of the same issue
should deliberate on using a different framework; particularly, one that gives regard to the
aspects that the current framework overlooks. Lastly, the utilization of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) as the prevailing context for this study can also be
perceived as a limitation. The statements obtained are juxtaposed to CARP, meaning, these
statements are interpreted relative to CARP. Thereafter, the alternative ways that these
statements could have been interpreted are disregarded.
Reflexivity
Lucille Ju