Showing newest posts with label HB 3059. Show older posts
Showing newest posts with label HB 3059. Show older posts
As the year ended, congress gave the people a gift in the form of a paralyzed CARP. Representatives passed a resolution extending the life of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program for another six months. This time they cut its claws by excluding the compulsory mode of acquisition.
The resolution is said to give the House of Representatives more time to discuss and debate an “acceptable” form of the Program. They did not have time because they were busy crafting ways of extending the term of their boss. Of course there are several good people in Congress who genuinely bring the peoples voices in its halls but sadly, they are outnumbered by Gloria Arroyo’s followers imposing her whims and voice in the House.
What are these options then?
Option 1: Simple Extension
This is captured by a number of proposed bills, including the CUA bill. This position proposes a simple extension of funding for DAR, for between five and ten years. Most of these bills propose a level of funding similar to current levels. One, the CUA bill also contains a vague, but contentious clause on the use of DAR papers as collateral for bank loans; this provision is in response to the wishes of Malacanang but is one that is deeply opposed by many AR advocates and farmers groups.
Simple extension is the position favoured by DAR. A number of these bills contain clauses mandating specific allocations for support services rather than mere land acquisition. As well as being reflective of the DAR position, a number of AR advocates also take this position because of their view that it is the most politically feasible one within the current conjuncture of political forces. A number of advocates for extension with reforms also privately admit that “simple extension may be the best we can hope for”.
Option 2: Major Changes to CARP
A third position is advanced by Kilusan para sa Tunay na Repormang Agraryo (KTRA, or Movement for Genuine Agrarian Reform) On November 11, KTRA announced that it is filing a bill in Congress to be sponsored by Rep. Edno Joson of Nueva Ecija that aims to strengthen the land reform law by plugging all its loopholes that allow landowners to evade land distribution.
The draft bill contains the coalition’s 5-point demands that include among others the immediate distribution of large private estates within two years, the abolition of non-redistributive land reform schemes such as leaseback, voluntary land transfer and voluntary-offer-to-sell, the review and revocation of anomalous exemption and land conversion permits, the strengthening of support services for agrarian reform beneficiaries, and the re-inclusion of fishponds and pasture lands in the coverage of CARP.
This position would appear to hold much in common with the RCM position except it more explicitly prioritizes the distribution of large estates, and ensures coverage of fishponds and livestock areas; and, rather than permitting Voluntary Offers of Sale to DAR and permitting direct Voluntary Land Transfer to beneficiaries, it proposes to abolish such processes on the grounds that they are subject to frequent anomalies in terms of beneficiaries and corruption.
The KTRA position reflect the positions of some of the more militant members of RCM, which is hardly surprising since there is some overlap in membership; however KTRA also includes others that chose to remain outside RCM for a variety of reasons, including some who have only recently chosen to engage in the legislative arena or with legally mandated forms of agrarian reform.
As part of their campaign for the bill KTRA have vowed to “name and shame” the country’s largest landowners who have managed to retain their landownings over 20 years of CARP.
Option 3: CARP Extension with Reforms
This bill is the result of widely held and prolonged conversations among Peoples Organisations and NGOs engaged in AR work. The bill is proposed by Rep. Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel, Akbayan party-list representative and backed by a broad range of groups known as the Reform CARP Movement (RCM) for which Centro-Saka is the secretariat and with which Kaisahan and Saligan worked on drafting of the bill.
This bill seeks the extension of CARP with a minimum funding of 3.8% of the total government budget, or 38 billion pesos, and the completion of land acquisition over a period of seven years. Thirty per cent of the funds would be used for support services with a third of those funds for the provision of agricultural credit, as opposed to current legislation which does not specify the proportion of funds allocated for this purpose.
The bill also proposes that land covered under agrarian reform may not be sold for a period of thirty years except back to the DAR. In addition the bill closes various loopholes in the current law by making Certificates of Land Ownership Agreements (CLOAS) noncontestable after a period of one year and also by allowing proposed beneficiaries to claim their rights as interested parties in court and adjudication hearings. The bill also proposes to prevent stock distribution and leaseback schemes and declares that installation as agrarian reform beneficiaries that mean the “direct and physical distribution of land” to beneficiaries.
The bill also tries to overcome some of the delaying tactics of landowners by insisting on a one-time valuation of standing crops and by attempting to prevent harassment cases for fraud or non-payment of rent where these are related to completion of land distribution. A further provision also strengthens existing laws against land conversion from agricultural to other uses as a means of avoiding coverage by agrarian reform and provides for much harsher penalties for landlords who try to evade coverage.
The bill does not address the issuance of collective versus individual titles (collective titles having provided a convenient but often untidy short-cut for DAR). While the bill has provides for inter-agency coordination with other line agencies responsible for items such as roads, irrigation, marketing support etc. it makes no specific provisions for the responsibilities of those agencies, just as it makes no specific provisions for the collection of amortization payments by the land bank. This bill appears to address a number of the criticisms concerning implementation of the current agrarian reform program but for a number does not go far enough…
Option 4: Genuine Agrarian Reform Act (HB 3059)
Anakpawis (toiling masses), Bayan Muna (people first) and Gabriela Women’s Party (GWP) filed House Bill 3059 or the Genuine Agrarian Reform Act of 2007 on Nov. 13 2007. The declared intent of the bill is to break up land monopoly and distribute lands for free.
At first glance the coverage proposed by the bill is considerably larger than the proposals of others. The modes of acquisition, the bill proposes that the state shall expropriate all private agricultural lands exceeding five hectares and that all land and non-land assets of transnational corporations shall be nationalized. Not only does it propose to cover all military reservations, lands owned by educational establishments and areas of community-based forestry, and all undeveloped or idle lands including in such areas as export processing zones but it also covers all lands that have already been covered by the
Department of Agrarian Reform but have since passed into the hands of those not classified as beneficiaries.
The bill also proposes that the lands are made available to beneficiaries for free. Compensation is proposed to be the average of the tax valuations for the last three years with negotiated sums for “benevolent landowners”. The bill proposes an annual budget of 18 billion pesos in the first year and an annual increment of 2 billion pesos thereafter.
The proposals in the draft act will substantially change the current definition of “just compensation” and along with the provisions for nationalization of TNC assets and the proposals to broaden coverage they are most unlikely to gain much consideration by a Congress which remains dominated by landed interests and their allies. Even the bill’s own proponents recognize this saying “for the proposed land reform law to be approved by a landlord-dominated Congress requires something short of a miracle.”
In addition to the above bills there are various resolutions in the house seeking a review of CARP stating the view that agrarian reform has failed to address rural productivity and poverty. For the most part these bills are supported by landlords within the house and led by President Arroyo’s brother-in-law from Negros. However, Bayan Muna has also submitted a similar resolution before it moved on with its GARA bill.
(Note: this is based on a paper, "Agrarian Reform and Rural Development - Mapping the Terrain" by Arthur Neame)
The resolution is said to give the House of Representatives more time to discuss and debate an “acceptable” form of the Program. They did not have time because they were busy crafting ways of extending the term of their boss. Of course there are several good people in Congress who genuinely bring the peoples voices in its halls but sadly, they are outnumbered by Gloria Arroyo’s followers imposing her whims and voice in the House.
What are these options then?
Option 1: Simple Extension
This is captured by a number of proposed bills, including the CUA bill. This position proposes a simple extension of funding for DAR, for between five and ten years. Most of these bills propose a level of funding similar to current levels. One, the CUA bill also contains a vague, but contentious clause on the use of DAR papers as collateral for bank loans; this provision is in response to the wishes of Malacanang but is one that is deeply opposed by many AR advocates and farmers groups. Simple extension is the position favoured by DAR. A number of these bills contain clauses mandating specific allocations for support services rather than mere land acquisition. As well as being reflective of the DAR position, a number of AR advocates also take this position because of their view that it is the most politically feasible one within the current conjuncture of political forces. A number of advocates for extension with reforms also privately admit that “simple extension may be the best we can hope for”.
Option 2: Major Changes to CARP
A third position is advanced by Kilusan para sa Tunay na Repormang Agraryo (KTRA, or Movement for Genuine Agrarian Reform) On November 11, KTRA announced that it is filing a bill in Congress to be sponsored by Rep. Edno Joson of Nueva Ecija that aims to strengthen the land reform law by plugging all its loopholes that allow landowners to evade land distribution.
The draft bill contains the coalition’s 5-point demands that include among others the immediate distribution of large private estates within two years, the abolition of non-redistributive land reform schemes such as leaseback, voluntary land transfer and voluntary-offer-to-sell, the review and revocation of anomalous exemption and land conversion permits, the strengthening of support services for agrarian reform beneficiaries, and the re-inclusion of fishponds and pasture lands in the coverage of CARP.
This position would appear to hold much in common with the RCM position except it more explicitly prioritizes the distribution of large estates, and ensures coverage of fishponds and livestock areas; and, rather than permitting Voluntary Offers of Sale to DAR and permitting direct Voluntary Land Transfer to beneficiaries, it proposes to abolish such processes on the grounds that they are subject to frequent anomalies in terms of beneficiaries and corruption.
The KTRA position reflect the positions of some of the more militant members of RCM, which is hardly surprising since there is some overlap in membership; however KTRA also includes others that chose to remain outside RCM for a variety of reasons, including some who have only recently chosen to engage in the legislative arena or with legally mandated forms of agrarian reform.
As part of their campaign for the bill KTRA have vowed to “name and shame” the country’s largest landowners who have managed to retain their landownings over 20 years of CARP.
Option 3: CARP Extension with Reforms
This bill is the result of widely held and prolonged conversations among Peoples Organisations and NGOs engaged in AR work. The bill is proposed by Rep. Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel, Akbayan party-list representative and backed by a broad range of groups known as the Reform CARP Movement (RCM) for which Centro-Saka is the secretariat and with which Kaisahan and Saligan worked on drafting of the bill.This bill seeks the extension of CARP with a minimum funding of 3.8% of the total government budget, or 38 billion pesos, and the completion of land acquisition over a period of seven years. Thirty per cent of the funds would be used for support services with a third of those funds for the provision of agricultural credit, as opposed to current legislation which does not specify the proportion of funds allocated for this purpose.
The bill also proposes that land covered under agrarian reform may not be sold for a period of thirty years except back to the DAR. In addition the bill closes various loopholes in the current law by making Certificates of Land Ownership Agreements (CLOAS) noncontestable after a period of one year and also by allowing proposed beneficiaries to claim their rights as interested parties in court and adjudication hearings. The bill also proposes to prevent stock distribution and leaseback schemes and declares that installation as agrarian reform beneficiaries that mean the “direct and physical distribution of land” to beneficiaries.
The bill also tries to overcome some of the delaying tactics of landowners by insisting on a one-time valuation of standing crops and by attempting to prevent harassment cases for fraud or non-payment of rent where these are related to completion of land distribution. A further provision also strengthens existing laws against land conversion from agricultural to other uses as a means of avoiding coverage by agrarian reform and provides for much harsher penalties for landlords who try to evade coverage.
The bill does not address the issuance of collective versus individual titles (collective titles having provided a convenient but often untidy short-cut for DAR). While the bill has provides for inter-agency coordination with other line agencies responsible for items such as roads, irrigation, marketing support etc. it makes no specific provisions for the responsibilities of those agencies, just as it makes no specific provisions for the collection of amortization payments by the land bank. This bill appears to address a number of the criticisms concerning implementation of the current agrarian reform program but for a number does not go far enough…
Option 4: Genuine Agrarian Reform Act (HB 3059)
Anakpawis (toiling masses), Bayan Muna (people first) and Gabriela Women’s Party (GWP) filed House Bill 3059 or the Genuine Agrarian Reform Act of 2007 on Nov. 13 2007. The declared intent of the bill is to break up land monopoly and distribute lands for free.At first glance the coverage proposed by the bill is considerably larger than the proposals of others. The modes of acquisition, the bill proposes that the state shall expropriate all private agricultural lands exceeding five hectares and that all land and non-land assets of transnational corporations shall be nationalized. Not only does it propose to cover all military reservations, lands owned by educational establishments and areas of community-based forestry, and all undeveloped or idle lands including in such areas as export processing zones but it also covers all lands that have already been covered by the
Department of Agrarian Reform but have since passed into the hands of those not classified as beneficiaries.
The bill also proposes that the lands are made available to beneficiaries for free. Compensation is proposed to be the average of the tax valuations for the last three years with negotiated sums for “benevolent landowners”. The bill proposes an annual budget of 18 billion pesos in the first year and an annual increment of 2 billion pesos thereafter.
The proposals in the draft act will substantially change the current definition of “just compensation” and along with the provisions for nationalization of TNC assets and the proposals to broaden coverage they are most unlikely to gain much consideration by a Congress which remains dominated by landed interests and their allies. Even the bill’s own proponents recognize this saying “for the proposed land reform law to be approved by a landlord-dominated Congress requires something short of a miracle.”
In addition to the above bills there are various resolutions in the house seeking a review of CARP stating the view that agrarian reform has failed to address rural productivity and poverty. For the most part these bills are supported by landlords within the house and led by President Arroyo’s brother-in-law from Negros. However, Bayan Muna has also submitted a similar resolution before it moved on with its GARA bill.
(Note: this is based on a paper, "Agrarian Reform and Rural Development - Mapping the Terrain" by Arthur Neame)
Congress has passed a Joint Resolution No. 19 which extends the life of CARP for another six months. The extension excluded the compulsory mode of acquisition which is the “the life and soul of carp” . Prospero Nograles said the resolution saved the life of CARP which ends this month. It saved (kuno) but paralyzed it.There are still 1.3 million hectares of land waiting to be distributed, more than 60% of these or 640,000 hectares are under the compulsory acquisition mode. Joint Resolution No. 19 is obviously protecting these 640, 000 hectares of land. Congress is dominated by landlords, this bill is “their bill” and not for the people which they are supposed to represent. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is really leading by example not only in corruption but also in pushing for Agrarian Reform. The Arroyo family is reported to own roughly 500 hectares of sugar lands in Negros Occidental, including the 150-ha Hacienda Bacan, which has evaded CARP coverage.
The extension is supposed to give congress more time to come-up with an “acceptable legislation”, acceptable to whom? I just hope that they will not extend and extend CARP until it is dismantled and lifeless. Agrarian reform advocates are already fearful of a slow kill of the program.
There are several bills in the House of Representatives which are waiting for more debates and discussion, bills which have been put in the background in their efforts to extend the term of their boss.
In the next post, I will try to write about the four options among the many bills in Congress on CARP Extension.
1. Simple Extension
2. CARP-ER (CARP Extension with Reforms)
3. Major Changes to CARP
4. GARA (Genuine Agrarian Reform Act)
The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform was supposed to be completed in ten years since the start of its implementation. After a decade it was extended for 8 years which ended last june 2008. Under the program, the Department of Agrarian Reform is tasked to distribute public agricultural lands while the Department of Environment and Natural Resources is tasked to distribute public lands.DAR Claims that it has accomplished 85% (most are public lands) of the total targeted lands for distribution, with 2.129 million farmer beneficiaries at a total cost of 103.9 billion pesos. But these figures are highly disputed.
It is believe that only 40% of the targeted lands were distributed (this according to UNORKA, PEACE AND PAARDS). DAR also decreased its scope from 10.3 to 8.064 million hectares. In 1996, DAR also made change in CARP scope. There are also many exemptions including the so-called cattle ranches, an example is the 3000 hectare Sutton estate in Masbate in which the supreme court affirmed that lands devoted to raising livestock, poultry and swine have been classified as industrial. As a result, 150 tenants and 147 landless laborers have been denied the opportunity to acquire land. The reduction in target is also attributed to Land Conversion like in the case of the Sumilao Farmers.
Despite the many weaknesses of the program which includes weaknesses in the law, poor administrative capacity, institutional weaknesses, corruption and the use of political influence, CARP also made some gains. That is why there is a push for reforming and extending it.
(Note: this is based on a paper, "Agrarian Reform and Rural Development - Mapping the Terrain" by Arthur Neame)
The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program or CARP, was implemented on June 10, 1988 under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law or Republic Act 6657. It withstood an intense and furious debate in and outside of Congress. CARP is backed by provisions in Article XIII of the 1987 Philippine constitution which states that;
The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program 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 farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end,the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing.
Section 5. The State shall recognize the right of farmers, farmworkers, and landowners, as well as cooperatives, and other independent farmers' organizations to participate in the planning,organization, and management of the program, and shall provide support to agriculture through appropriate technology and research, and adequate financial, production, marketing, and other support services.
Section 6. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship, whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization of other natural resources, including lands of the public domain under lease or concession suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands.
These are beautifully worded paragraphs from our constitution. At first glance, it seems that social justice is at hand. But it is not what it seems, “the devil is in the details” so this say. There are loopholes and the farmers already know about this. I have attended one of the Mindanao Rural Congress and farmers from different places experience the same things. A simple legal technicality can turn the tables against them. Landlords can escape coverage in their lands in crevices in the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.
The implementation of the Program ended last June 2008, its fate yet to be decided and farmers and civil society seems to be divided. Some support the Genuine Agrarian Reform Bill (HB 3059), while the others support a CARP Reform and Extension.
