CARP vs. GARB
the agrarian reform dilemma
BY RONNIE C. CLARION
February|2009
Land distribution to landless Filipino farmers is a preset of provision under Art. XIII Sec.4 of the 1987 Constitution.
Prior to this provision, former Pres. Corazon Aquino mounted the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) which was later enacted through the passage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) or RA 6657 on June 10, 1988. However, the program had been excoriated for its failure to completely distribute lands to the beneficiaries within its target completion timeframe of 10 years. It was later extended for another 10 years yet the struggle for genuine agrarian reform continues. To date, the Senate pledged support to re-extend the program for yet another three years while HB4077 in the House of Representatives proposes a five-year extension of CARP.
Instead of serving the basic interests of landless peasants, the landlord-dominated Congress per se lacks the political will to break the land monopoly once and for all.
In opposition to what seems to be a neverending CARP extension and as an alternative thereto, Rep. Rafael Mariano of Anakpawis partylist introduced HB3059, the Genuine Agrarian Reform Bill (GARB) in 2007, supported and endorsed by Bayan Muna and Gabriela Women’s Party. But just like the P125 across the board nationwide wage and salary increase proposed by the late Anakpawis representative Crispin Beltran, the bill remains to be at the bottom list of the House agenda.
GARB’s Objectives
The central aim of this bill is to break land monopoly and implement free land distribution to the peasantry. After lands shall have been equitably distributed to peasant-beneficiaries, cooperatives and other mutual aids shall be implemented and strictly monitored by peasant organizations, and the government shall appropriate full financial assistance to raise agricultural production so as to ensure that the distributed lands will not fall back into the hands of the landlords, either through leasing or selling.
All of these are peripheral objectives under CARP, however, government subsidy to the beneficiaries and farm collectivization and mechanization are given more emphasis under the proposed GARB. Lands shall also be distributed to beneficiaries for free unlike CARP in which beneficiaries will be paying an amortization for a period of 30 years after the Certificate of Land Ownership (CLOA) had been granted.
GARB’s Scope, Coverage, and Time-frame
The coverage of lands that are to be distributed has radically been widened under Rep. Mariano’s bill. It shall include the A to K classification as stated in HB3059 from which I made a summary and coined a phrase: “All agricultural lands of any Kind.” It shall also include non-land assets or immovable and movable properties apart from lands that are used as facilities and equipment or accessories in the operation of agribusiness enterprise.
GARB’s scope and coverage is undeniably wider as compared to that of CARP which only covers land areas that are 50has. and below. HB3059 shall cover all lands that are reservations of state colleges and universities, and all lands that have been declared by various presidential decrees and presidential proclamations as part of reserved or devoted areas for tourism development, military reservations to name a few other classifications that have not been covered by CARP.
The distribution of lands shall be completed within five years from the effectivity of the Act. The Department of Agrarian Reform is mandated to expedite the distribution to meet the specified deadline. GARB requires a short span of time for the completion of sharing unlike CARP’s 10 years, since it presses the government to employ land expropriation (with just compensation as provided for by law), thus radically breaking land monopoly and empowering the peasantry.
A comprehensive study of HB3059 would show similar provisions and measures with that of the “Maximum Agrarian Revolution” program of the National Democratic Front which it proposed during the stalled Peace Negotiations with the government panel. It is thus seemingly dubious if the bill would reach its 2nd reading given that the Congress is dominated by big land owners, and more so now that the Arroyo government is ready to grant 100% land ownership to foreign businesses should charter change be finally executed.#
the agrarian reform dilemma
BY RONNIE C. CLARION
February|2009
Land distribution to landless Filipino farmers is a preset of provision under Art. XIII Sec.4 of the 1987 Constitution.
Prior to this provision, former Pres. Corazon Aquino mounted the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) which was later enacted through the passage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) or RA 6657 on June 10, 1988. However, the program had been excoriated for its failure to completely distribute lands to the beneficiaries within its target completion timeframe of 10 years. It was later extended for another 10 years yet the struggle for genuine agrarian reform continues. To date, the Senate pledged support to re-extend the program for yet another three years while HB4077 in the House of Representatives proposes a five-year extension of CARP.
Instead of serving the basic interests of landless peasants, the landlord-dominated Congress per se lacks the political will to break the land monopoly once and for all.
In opposition to what seems to be a neverending CARP extension and as an alternative thereto, Rep. Rafael Mariano of Anakpawis partylist introduced HB3059, the Genuine Agrarian Reform Bill (GARB) in 2007, supported and endorsed by Bayan Muna and Gabriela Women’s Party. But just like the P125 across the board nationwide wage and salary increase proposed by the late Anakpawis representative Crispin Beltran, the bill remains to be at the bottom list of the House agenda.
GARB’s Objectives
The central aim of this bill is to break land monopoly and implement free land distribution to the peasantry. After lands shall have been equitably distributed to peasant-beneficiaries, cooperatives and other mutual aids shall be implemented and strictly monitored by peasant organizations, and the government shall appropriate full financial assistance to raise agricultural production so as to ensure that the distributed lands will not fall back into the hands of the landlords, either through leasing or selling.
All of these are peripheral objectives under CARP, however, government subsidy to the beneficiaries and farm collectivization and mechanization are given more emphasis under the proposed GARB. Lands shall also be distributed to beneficiaries for free unlike CARP in which beneficiaries will be paying an amortization for a period of 30 years after the Certificate of Land Ownership (CLOA) had been granted.
GARB’s Scope, Coverage, and Time-frame
The coverage of lands that are to be distributed has radically been widened under Rep. Mariano’s bill. It shall include the A to K classification as stated in HB3059 from which I made a summary and coined a phrase: “All agricultural lands of any Kind.” It shall also include non-land assets or immovable and movable properties apart from lands that are used as facilities and equipment or accessories in the operation of agribusiness enterprise.
GARB’s scope and coverage is undeniably wider as compared to that of CARP which only covers land areas that are 50has. and below. HB3059 shall cover all lands that are reservations of state colleges and universities, and all lands that have been declared by various presidential decrees and presidential proclamations as part of reserved or devoted areas for tourism development, military reservations to name a few other classifications that have not been covered by CARP.
The distribution of lands shall be completed within five years from the effectivity of the Act. The Department of Agrarian Reform is mandated to expedite the distribution to meet the specified deadline. GARB requires a short span of time for the completion of sharing unlike CARP’s 10 years, since it presses the government to employ land expropriation (with just compensation as provided for by law), thus radically breaking land monopoly and empowering the peasantry.
A comprehensive study of HB3059 would show similar provisions and measures with that of the “Maximum Agrarian Revolution” program of the National Democratic Front which it proposed during the stalled Peace Negotiations with the government panel. It is thus seemingly dubious if the bill would reach its 2nd reading given that the Congress is dominated by big land owners, and more so now that the Arroyo government is ready to grant 100% land ownership to foreign businesses should charter change be finally executed.#
No comments:
Post a Comment