The Difficulties with CARL’s Retention Limits

Republic Act No. 6657 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian

Reform Law of 1988 (or CARL) was passed into law in 1988 by former
President Corazon C. Aquino. With the passage of said law, the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program was introduced in response to
the call of farmers for equitable distribution and access to the lands that
they till. The program is an expanded version of previous land reform
programs in the country beginning the mid-1930s. Similar to the early
land reform initiatives, CARP included both developmental and
redistributive programs. The developmental program provides for the
disposal of public alienable and disposable (A&D) lands with the intent
to open up frontier lands while the redistributive program involves the
redistribution of property or rights on private agricultural lands and the
abolition of agricultural (or share) tenancy1.
While the program was put forth to pursue noble objectives, it is now
widely argued that aspects of its implementation are rife with flaws.
Some sectors and scholars say that the CARP was only meant to protect
the landlords’ interests and rights more than providing social justice
through the distribution of land to the landless farmers2. The chairperson
of the Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (or KMP) and a staunch critic
of the CARP Danilo Ramos has said that the problem with the program
is not simply the implementation itself but also with some of the
provisions under the CARL. Among them and the ones that will be
focused on are (a) the right given to the landowner to choose the 5-hectare
area to be retained, and (b) the provision which entitles the landowners’
children to 3 hectares of land provided that certain conditions are met
which reduces the area that will be covered by the program.
Landowners’ right to choose the area to be retained
The first sentence of Section 6(2) of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law provides that the “right to choose the area to be retained, which shall
be compact or contiguous, shall pertain to the landowner.” On its face, the
cited provision seems to be acceptable and without issue. However, upon
deeper analysis, once can see the possible bias inherent in the given
provision especially in the light of the law’s purpose. From the provisions
of CARL, it can readily be gleaned that the program is intended to temper
the greed of wealthy landowners and distribute the excess area of their
lands to qualified beneficiaries. However, it is our submission that owing
to the discretion given to the landowners to choose the land to be
retained, they are given the opportunity to keep hold of the beneficial
area of their land and leave to the government a portion which may have
already been impaired and no longer completely viable for agricultural
use. This would in effect allow the unscrupulous landowners to
1
The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program After 30 Years: Accomplishment and Forward Options, Ballesteros,
Ancheta, Ramos, December 2017.
2
Giving Land To Farmers, Quousque Tandem?, Mayuga, https://www.pids.gov.ph/pids-in-the-news/2429
circumvent the law and yield to the government for distribution those
lots which would no longer bring benefit to the beneficiaries. Taking into
account the landowners’ tendencies to use creative methods to find a way
around the law based on the history of CARP’s implementation, it is not
unlikely for the hacienderos to take advantage of this option to retain
gain at the expense of the farmer beneficiaries. We have not come across
jurisprudence which specifically deals with this particular problem pn
the option of the landowners to choose. However, the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR) has promulgated DAR Administrative Order No.
9 series of 2011 to prevent the problem which might arise due to the cited
provision. DAR AO No. 9-11 was circulated since there have indeed been
instances where the DAR and Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP)
discover only upon the valuation stage that the excess landholdings
surrendered by the landowners are no longer suitable for agriculture or
that the lands have already been devoted to non-agricultural use3. To
avert this mockery, Section 7 of the same administrative order provides
that “if the landowner exercised his/her/its right to retain, the DAR shall
choose the retention area even if he/she/it had submitted to the DAR
his/her/its choice of retention area.” It is our opinion that this particular
provision would be advantageous on the part of the qualified beneficiaries
since the government, through DAR, would be able to ensure that the
lands that would reach the qualified beneficiaries are still suitable for
agricultural use and would still benefit the farmers. Unfortunately, a
careful perusal of DAR AO No. 9-11 would reveal that it only applies in
cases where the conduct of Survey and/or Field Investigation is
considered “problematic” as defined therein, as where the landowner or
occupant refuses to allow the entry of the field personnel to conduct the
Survey and/or Field Investigation. In other words, DAR AO No. 9-11 is
merely an exception to the general rule, which is still the first paragraph
of Section 6(2) of R.A. 6657 and, in addition, Section 30 of DAR AO No. 7-
11, which provides that the “LO [landowner] may choose a retention area
at the same time that he/she/it manifested to exercise the right of
retention. If this is not done at the same time, the LO can choose the area
within a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days after manifesting
his/her/its desire to exercise the said right.” It is our humble submission
that the rule provided for under Section 7 of DAR AO No. 9-11 should be
the general rule and be made applicable irrespective of the
characterization of the Survey and/or Field Investigation so as to prevent
devious landowners from taking advantage of their power and
circumventing the law. In addition to giving DAR the power to select the
area to be retained by the landowner, it is also our submission that the
DAR should likewise issue a comprehensive guideline on the criteria in
relation to said power. This is to guarantee that said power will not be
exercised arbitrarily and consequently prevent corruption on the part of

3
The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program After 30 Years: Accomplishment and Forward Options, Ballesteros,
Ancheta, Ramos, December 2017.
the authorities. We believe that these measures would strengthen and be
more consistent with the law’s objective to provide benefit to the farmers
in the form of lands to till.
Award to landowners’ children of 3 hectares
The second sentence of Section 6(1) of CARL states that “Three (3)
hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner, subject to the
following qualifications: (1) that he is at least fifteen (15) years of age; and
(2) that he is actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm.”
Section 46 of DAR AO No. 7-11 adds that the child must be a Filipino
Citizen, at least 15 years old as of the issuance of June 15, 1988, and is
actually tilling or directly managing the farm as of the time of the conduct
of the field investigation of the landholding under CARP. In our opinion,
this provision seems to be a concession granted to landowners who belong
to huge and wealthy families. It is but a clever excuse for landowners to
retain the majority of the portion of their lands without seemingly
violating the spirit of the law. Although there may not be much of a
problem if the landowner has only a few children, but an issue might
arise when the landowner has several. For instance, if a landowner who
owns 15 hectares of agricultural land has 3 children, provided that each
of his/her children complies with the mentioned qualifications, he/she
will be entitled to 5 hectares, and his children will be awarded an
aggregate of 9 hectares of land. The landowner and his children will then
be able to retain 14 hectares of his/her land, and only the remaining 1
hectare, or more or less 6.7% of his total estate, will be covered by the
CARP and distributed to qualified beneficiaries. If one puts things in
perspective, it would introduce a scenarios wherein there’s a gross
discrepancy in favor of the landowner between the land retained and the
land surrendered. Furthermore, it can be reasonably assumed that the
landowner exercises moral ascendancy over his/her children, especially if
the child is still below the age of majority. Consequently, although the
fact of possession might ostensibly be with the child, actual control on the
lot awarded to him/her might still rest with the landowner. In our
opinion, this is inconsistent with the declared principles of CARL that
the “welfare of the landless farmers and farmworkers will receive the
highest consideration to promote social justice” and that “agrarian reform
program is founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who
are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the
case of other farm workers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof.” Of
course, one may argue that these are all just though experiments or
dubious presumptions. But one must not forget that our country is
dominated by cunning (to say the least) landowners who would do
everything to protect their interests, even if it means infringing the letter
and, most of the time, spirit and intent of the law. This is manifested by
the fact that even after years of implementation of CARP, farmers are
still being exploited and many still without land.