Has the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) benefited farmers as intended?

Eddie Yap, Kabankalan City: CARP has benefited a good number of farmers. However, disgruntled sectors always look at the negative side. 

Robert Young Jr., San Juan: We’ve had CARP for over two decades. The fact that we have to import hundreds of tons of rice, every kind of fruit and vegetable, sugar, and even salt, every year is proof that CARP is a failure.

We’re still importing rice

Col. Ben Paguirigan Jr., Ret., Zamboanga City: CARP was intended to benefit our farmers, but it seems that we do not feel it. Why? Well, we are still the biggest importer of rice, aren’t we?

Ed Ledesma, Iloilo City: We’re still importing rice, when we used to export it before CARP. So, what will five years’ extension do that the past 20 years could not? Just asking.

Farmers lack entrepreneurial skills

Germi C. Sison, Cabanatuan City: It is regrettable that no matter how noble the intention of CARP to uplift the living conditions of farmers, it is still failing due to lack of educational programs. The program should have included training on basic financial management, their role in nation-building, and better ways of farming. Since farming is a tiresome, risky, and thankless job, many farmers, after gaining possession of the land, merely sold it to enterprising ones who amassed a considerable land area. Thus, it was back to square one. Another setback is the failure of the government to provide just compensation to landowners, causing injustices to many concerned parties.

Joe Nacilla, Las Piñas City: Because of CARP, farmers were convinced of theoretical benefits that could not be delivered. It has even made the country less productive and highly dependent on imports. CARP gave to farmers who did not have capital and entrepreneurship fully-developed lands forcibly taken from qualified owners. Farmers then had to fend for themselves and face the burden of risks and losses because of their meager resources. Farmers had to plan, capitalize, and market their goods by themselves, which always results in losses due to their lack of entrepreneurial skills. I’ve personally observed farmers selling their rice at a very cheap price only to buy it at a very expensive price.

Hindered by corruption and red tape

Renato Taylan, Ilocos Norte: The predictable answer would be: Yes, on a 60-40 sharing. Sixty per cent of allotted funds for CARP went to the intended beneficiaries.

Louella Brown, Baguio City: CARP did not benefit farmers as intended because as with most other government programs, there were alleged anomalies.

Jim Veneracion, Naga City: The idea behind CARP is noble, but funding, corruption and bureaucratic red tape have impaired its effectiveness. It’s now like a white elephant.

Pedro Alagano Sr., Vigan City: Yes, but its very slow implementation has given way to too much speculation that has tainted its good purpose.

Ignacio Anacta, Metro Manila: As intended? A big no! Many of our government programs have good intentions, but the implementation is distorted in a way that only a selected few harvest the fruits! It’s so disheartening to learn that PGMA and her entourage spent $20,000 to dine in New York, while many Filipinos can’t even afford to eat more than once a day! Indeed, life isn’t fair, especially when it is made so by our very own leaders!

Farmers need more support

Delfin Todcor, Mt. Province: CARP is partly a failure and partly a success due to lack of financial support and technical assistance on agricultural production from the Department of Agriculture.

GeeAnn Rivera, Laguna: Well, not all farmers have benefited from CARP. Up to now there are those who have problems with land ownership. Farmers here are often poor whereas in Japan, farmers are wealthy, productive, and supported by their government.

Manuel Abejero, Pangasinan: Some beneficiaries sold their farmlands to build houses; some were lucky enough to send their sons and daughters abroad as OFWs. On the average, a farmer earns P8,000 to P10,000 per hectare on a 120-day planting period. Because the hacienda is not within the NIA’s service area, rice planting is only possible during therainy season. It is like giving guns without bullets to fight poverty or vehicles with empty gas tanks. Naturally, they’ll decide to sell the guns and vehicles.

CARP is difficult to implement

Dencio Acop, Baguio City: Not 100 per cent as intended. It is a good thing that the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law was passed at all. Indeed, it is a legacy of the Aquino administration despite the fact that the Aquinos and Cojuangcos are members of the elite in Philippine society. However, like most bills in Congress, this law is a watered-down version of the original one, which would have revolutionized a significant portion of wealth redistribution in the country. It is difficult, perhaps near impossible, to really pass into law a bill that affects the interests of the rich and powerful in Philippine society, which happens to include those sitting in Congress themselves. A lot of land has been redistributed throughout the Aquino, Ramos, Estrada, and Arroyo years, but a recurring complaint has been the beneficiary farmers’ lack of access to self-sustaining credit needed to finance the farmers’ livelihood following land acquisition. Of course, it is not also entirely the law’s fault that some farmers have been unsuccessful. The farmers themselves may not have done enough at their end. But, in an elite-dominated society like developing Philippines, the rich and powerful whose tentacles are all over Congress call the shots, until the ordinary folks take control. Realistically speaking, this is not going to be for the next hundred years, but I hope I am wrong. 

Many landowners are politicians

June Deoferio, Cavite: I think the majority of farmers have benefited from the CARP, but it has not been implemented 100 per cent because many landowners are politicians.

Gerii Calupitan, Muntinlupa City: Yes, but, not the farmers of Hacienda Luisita. It seems that an unseen force field protected it from the selective agrarian reform program during Tita Cory’s six-year term. Farmers were taken for a ride way back during FM’s reign with his decree of seven hectares per owner, which gave him and his cronies the ability to grab vast tracts of land legally. Ah, the fringe benefits of power.

Elpidio Que, Vigan: How could CARP have benefited the farmers as intended when haciendas are untouchable by the government, with so many in the government being landowners themselves? These people, by the power of money, circumvent the law to keep the lands they have. In some cases, they have even expanded, dislocating poor farmers in adjacent and nearby places. Hacienda Luisita is a classic case that made Tita Cory helpless in her desire to give land to their farmers.

Edwin Castillo, Tanauan City: Hacienda Luisita is not covered by CARP. It opted for stock options for farmers instead of land ownership.

Many farmers ended up selling their land

C.B. Manalastas, Manila: I don’t think so, since reports say that most CARP beneficiaries sold their rights back to moneyed landowners due to lack of capital to buy farm implements.

M. Sunico, Caloocan City: Although lacking in complete information and data, and with farmers unwilling to work harder with the use of new techniques and equipment, CARP could not be as effective as the government wants it to be. Most farmers simply want to own the lands they have been ineffectively tilling just to sell it back and take the money. By the way, Gabriela advising women not to take the MMDA footbridges “para hindi mabosohan” is downright stupid. They’d rather that women jaywalk and expose themselves to life-threatening danger than be modest. The stair trends were meant to make almost every angle visible to prevent robbery and other crimes. The leadership of Gabriela does not protect women. It is meant to go against every bit of imagined mistake by the administration.

Rodolfo Talledo, Angeles City: Dividing lands in small parcels can never provide enough family sustenance. In many cases, the awarded lands were illicitly sold for cash.

William Gonzaga, Marikina City: CARP has largely failed in its mission to improve the impoverished landless whereby the seven hectares awarded to deserving beneficiaries were either tilled producing scantly contrary to general expectations. Thus, most of the awardees were forced to sell their lands and they remained poor like before. Blame was attributed to government’s failure to provide support systems such as seeds, fertilizers, farms to markets roads, etc. It is imperative that the government learns from its mistakes thereby insuring the eventual success of CARPER avoiding possible wastage of public funds and further erosion of people’s trust in government’s capability to improve the condition of the impoverished masses.

Jose Parco, Aklan: Only those that got their share benefited from it. Then again, there are stories of farmers selling back the land to the landlords themselves. Check out the records of DAR in Negros Occidental and Iloilo provinces. These areas have the lowest percentage of CARP implemented. It just follows, because they also have the most powerful and influential landowners in the region, many of whom are in the House of Representatives as well. That’s CARP in a nutshell.

The program is seemingly ineffective

Lolong Rejano, Marinduque: In 20 years of CARP, farmers have not truly benefited from the P100 billion in funds that have been allocated for the program. The funds, according to farmers, are being wasted or go only to the pockets of government officials. Just recently, PGMA signed a five-year extension despite hostile action from farmers. Again, I can see that the problem is the sincerity of the government in solving the landlessness of farmers.

Imee Aglibot, USA: Seeing farmers from all over the country staging protests from time to time, I think the program has not been that effective. It is still fresh in my mind how those Hacienda Luisita farmers bravely fought for their rights. I also still remember how the Cojuangcos generously distributed lands to their sugar land farmers. 

Nony de Leon, Bulacan: CARP was meant to eliminate rural poverty and improve farm productivity. Neither has been achieved, and yet it would now be politically difficult to end the program. Until the government is able to summon the courage and political will to do what is right but unpopular, we will keep throwing good money after bad.

It’s difficult to make a fair analysis

Edgar Artates, Parañaque City: It’s hard to make a fair analysis because there is no comprehensive performance report about CARP. What you read is that the farmers are always complaining and that there are rallies and marches, but there is no extensive report about the accomplishments of the program.

Jimmy Donton, Puerto Princesa City: For those who benefit from it, it is good news. In my case, I don’t feel the effect of CARP on farmers.

Giving land to farmers is not enough

Juan Deveraturda, Subic, Zambales: Giving land to our farmers is not enough. They should also be given financial support and loan facilities so that they can own modern farm machines, like farm tractors and dryers, and buy fertilizers and pesticides. The government should also construct farm-to-market roads so farmers can conveniently and efficiently transport their products to the market. Without this support system for farmers, CARP is not going to effectively help our farmers.

CARP must continue

Jose Fabello Jr., Cagayan de Oro City: The intentions of CARP are very good, but as the poor farmers hardly benefit at all, the program has yet to be completed. That is the reason for the extension.

Lucas Banzon Madamba II, Laguna: CARP has not yet benefited farmers completely as intended because a significant number of farmers are still suffering from poverty. Farmers work hard for their produce, not only for themselves but also for the benefit of humanity. It is just proper to give them the opportunity to savor and enjoy the benefits of the program.

Tino Abella, Masbate: If only for the memory of Pres. Cory who initiated CARP, the government should ensure that it will serve its noble purpose sincerely.

Leandro Tolentino, Batangas City: CARP truly benefited farmers as intended, for how could one explain their presence in Congress, calling for its extension?

Johann Lucas, Quezon City: Extending CARP without completing the acquisition and distribution of lands covered by the program will result in an anomalous situation where a few own big land holdings in excess of what the Constitution deems equitable while leaving hundreds of thousands of farmers landless.

CARP is a failure

Luisito Vallo, Pangasinan: No, the small farmers who were the beneficiaries of CARP were supposed to benefit from the program, but because of lack of logistics, they ended up becoming poorer. It also greatly affected the rice production in our country, because most farmers who were given their titles were forced to sell their lands to subdivision developers. As it is, what was supposed to be a good program ended up into a fiasco.

Ishmael Q. Calata, Parañaque City: Land reform in the Philippines is now two decades old, and it has generally resulted in failure, as time and again highlighted by policy researchers and academic experts. Despite these observations, Congress has kept on extending it, as is, with the latest extension on August 5, 2009, when PGMA signed to extend it another five years. Land reform per se is unquestionably good, but CARP has failed on the other intention for which it was created: Apart from giving land to landless farmers, it was more importantly meant to improve agricultural productivity in the country. The failures, to me, have arisen from the lack of the necessary component of service and support by the government in upgrading the skills of the beneficiaries, providing them with the necessary tools and techniques, to be more productive in the long run.

Amendments are necessary

Leonard Villa, Batac City: Half of it, yes, but there are loopholes in the program that necessitate amendment to the said law. Feudalism must be subdued for social justice.

Rod Villar, Iriga City: Based on documentary evidence available at the DAR, the program has indeed benefited target farmer beneficiaries, although some of them sold their rights to the land awarded to them to other individuals for easy money and unproductive endeavors. Thus, they have remained landless. There may be some loopholes in the original CARP law enacted during the term of Pres. Macapagal that have somehow contributed to this scenario. GMA’s recently approved CARPER Law, which extends the agrarian program for five years, remedies the loopholes. Farmers are provided easy credit loan facilities, etc. so that they will no longer be tempted to sell the awarded land to private persons and will be encouraged to till the land as intended by law.

Thumbs up for CARP

Erwin Espinosa, Pangasinan: Of course. Mga leftist farmers lang naman ang nagsasabi na hindi.

My Two Cents’ Worth

Germi C. Sison, Cabanatuan City: Infomercials by any means must not show the name and picture of the politician or public official nor have their voices heard. This should include the President. Infomercials are no prescription to attention deficiency or “KSP” among our government officials.

Views expressed in this section do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of The STAR. The STAR does not knowingly publish false information and may not be held liable for the views of readers exercising their right to free expression. The publication also reserves the right to edit contributions to this section as it sees fit.

NEXT INBOX QUESTION: Do you go for a Mar-Noynoy or a Noynoy-Mar Liberal Party tandem?

(Editor’s Note: We have just added another channel to reach Inbox World via the growing Facebook community. If you have a Facebook account, add up PhilStar Inbox and give us a glimpse of your views on raging issues of the day. Selected comments will be published in The Philippine STAR Inbox World. Readers may also post intriguing questions for other Inbox friends to comment on. See you there.)