Some say that CARPER is a worse CARP, other say it is just the same while those who fought

for
say it is better. You be the judge. Considering the context where Congress castrated CARP last
December 2008, CARPER has restored Compulsory Acquisition with 150 Billion budget and 26
reform provisions.
Congress approved the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program extension with reform
(CARPER) bill separately. The House of Representative’s version is HB 4077 and the Senate’s
version is SB 2666. The Senate passed its version earlier which gave some pressure to the
House to pass a better version. Although each version has its strengths and weaknesses, the
Bicameral Committee Conference (BICAM) came out to be the best of both versions. Generally,
the BICAM version of CARPER is better than the Senate or the House version and closely
approximates the Civil Society CARPER proposal. Definitely, the BICAM version comes as a
strengthened CARP to face to the challenge of fierce landlord resistance and bureaucratic
inefficiencies. The passage of the CARPER law was fought by able Champions in the House
through Rep. Risa and Rep. Lagman and in the Senate by Sen. Pimentel and Sen. Honasan and
the countless farmers’ march, hunger strikes, fora and dialogues with the Church, Academe and
Agrarian Reform Advocates.

 
The RA 9700 or the CARPER law which was signed by GMA on August 7, 2009 contains an
extension of the budget for CARP especially the Land Acquisition and Distribution (LAD)
program for five years starting July 1, 2009 and the necessary reforms to complete the
acquisition and distribution of the remaining One Million Hectares of private agricultural lands
to landless farmers[1].  Moreover, CARPER law provides for clarification of policies and its
interpretation by CARP implementation agencies including the decision of judicial courts.
 RA 6657, the original CARP law (CARL) has not been superseded by the CARPER law but
strengthens or improves the CARL. Some provisions of the CARL were amended like the
provision on the award to beneficiaries and the schedule of acquisition and distribution, new
provisions were introduced like the Gender provisions and the Congressional Oversight
Committee and a number of Supreme Court decisions legislated like the indefeasibility of titles
given under agrarian reform and exclusive jurisdiction of DAR in agrarian dispute criminal cases.
The most challenging part in the crafting of the CARPER law was how to balance the
landowners’ interest, the farmer’s interest and the Department of Agrarian Reform’s (DAR)
interest. One can see the tension in the provisions of the CARPER law. For instance, the
landowners’ interest is dominant  in the provision on Just compensation, the 90% trigger
completion for acquisition of small land (below 10 hectares), the consideration of 70% of zonal
valuation, attestation requirement to ensure that  loyal farmers will get the land, priority of
tenants and regular farmworkers in distribution to ensure easy consolidation and the support
services for land owners; while the farmer’s interest is evident in the provisions on the rights
and obligation will begin from the receipt of CLOAs and EPs, distribution of CLOAs and EPs and
actual possession,  installation of ARBs within 180 days from date of registration in the title of
Republic of Philippines, usufructuary rights of identified ARBs pending award and subsidies for
initial capital of new ARBs; and the DAR’s interest is apparent in the budget provision and
phasing of land acquisition.  Although the majority of the provisions in the CARPER law are pro-
farmers, many reforms are still pending and continuously advocated at the executive, legislative
and judiciary. The succeeding parts will discuss the salient provisions of the CARPER law.        
 
I. New and Bold Provisions
 
CARP is a Continuing Program
With the CARPER law the debate whether CARP will end and DAR will close shop after five years
from the extension has been clarified.. Under the Constitution, the State is mandated to
undertake an agrarian reform which supports the opinion that CARP is a continuing program. It
will only end when ALL agricultural lands have been distributed to landless farmers and that
tenancy system has been converted to ownership.  What ends in RA 6657 and RA 8532 is the
funding for CARP and this is clarified in section 21 [2] of the CARPER law. The fund allocated for
CARPER is “to further implement the CARP” which means that the CARPER law provides funding
needed to implement CARP. The same section emphasizes that the CARP will not end after five
(5) years and even after 5 years when the LAD is completed, DAR will continue with the delivery
of support services and agrarian justice [3]. Section 30 of the CARPER law provides a way to
legally continue the implementation of pending CARP cases after the 5-year extension [4] by
filing the initiatory process of CARP.
 
Creation of a Joint Congressional Oversight Committee
The Oversight Committee[5] is composed of members of Congress equally distributed between
the House of Representatives and the Senate who will closely monitor the implementation of
the CARP. Many cases involving implementation of CARP have reached Congress and Congress
calls for a legislative investigation. The problems are mostly rooted in the implementing
agencies, budget and gaps in the CARL. It has been anticipated that for the next 5 year
extension, Congress wants to closely monitor the implementation of CARP in order to achieve
its target and complete the distribution of more than 1 Million hectares of agricultural lands.
The oversight committee will report periodically to Congress for possible adjustments of the
law and executive polices in order to strengthen the implementation of the CARP [6].
 
Clear Policy against Conversion of Agricultural Lands
One of the sharpened policies in the CARPER law is the relationship of conversion of agricultural
land to non-agricultural uses and food security. At present, only the DAR has the mechanism to
regulate the conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses because all agricultural
lands are covered under CARP.  Many landowners convert their land to non-agricultural uses to
evade CARP coverage.  When the country experienced rice crisis last year, government realized
that many of the food producing lands have been converted to non-agricultural uses. Studies
show that small farms are food producing farms compared to big plantation. This can be seen in
the distributed lands in Negros where the ARBs awarded with less than a hectare of land plant
vegetables, raise chicken and other food products which contributed to their food needs as well
as the community.
The CARPER law strengthens the ban on any conversion of irrigated and irrigable lands and
mandates the National Irrigation Administration to identify these [7]. Moreover, it also legislates
the resolution of the “Sumilao farmers case” that the non-implementation or violation of the
conversion plan will result to automatic coverage of the subject by CARP.
Under the CARPER law, any conversion to avoid CARP coverage is a prohibited act. The word
“any” makes the defense of good faith or ignorance of the law untenable [8]. Moreover the
penalty for conversion is heavier. It will merit imprisonment of 6 to 12 years and/ or a penalty
of 200,000 pesos to 1 million pesos[9].

Gender-Sensitive Agrarian Reform

The CARPER law institutionalizes reforms recognizing the rights of rural women to be
beneficiaries of the CARP and to have meaningful participation in its planning [10] and
implementation. Aside from making the language of all the provisions of the law gender-
neutral, the policy statement declares the right of rural women– 
“the State shall recognize and enforce, consistent with existing
laws, the rights of rural women to own and control land, taking into
consideration the substantive equality between men and women as
qualified beneficiaries, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof, and
to be represented in advisory or appropriate decision-making bodies.
These rights shall be independent of their male relatives and of their
civil status”[11].
Such policy pronouncement on rural women is a great improvement of the CARL. The
CARPER law defines the identity to the countless of rural in agrarian reform
communities and recognizes their productive and reproductive labor [12]. The design of
the support services[13] of the ARBs takes into account the specific needs of rural
women through the creation of a women’s desk. Moreover, rural women will have a
representative in the highest policy make body of DAR which is the Presidential Agrarian
Reform Council (PARC) ensuring also that the composition of the PARC will have 20%
women members[14].
 
II.LAND ACQUISITION AND DISTRIBUTION
 
150-B Budget For CARPER Implementation
The budget allocated for the 5-year extension is 150 Billion pesos [15] which will be sourced
from three funds namely: 1.) Agrarian Reform Fund, 2.) other sources of funding like
privatization of government asset, foreign donors, etc. and 3.) General Appropriations Acts
(GAA). So far, this budget is the largest per year in the history of CARP.
In the 2009 GAA, only 13 Billion pesos was allocated for the DAR because of the absence of the
law that extends the funding of CARP. Sen. Arroyo specifically inserted a provision in the GAA
that disallows any use of this budget for LAD. This has been foreseen in the deliberation of
CARPER and the intention of the lawmakers was to allocate the budget to be used for CARPER
immediately available when the law takes effect on July 1, 2009.
Another improvement in the CARP budget is the continuing appropriation during the 5-year
period and the clarification that interest payments of the bonds and just compensation used to
acquire private lands will be part of the debt servicing in the GAA or any unprogrammed items
in the GAA. This will ensure that the landowners will be paid. The usual complaint of
landowners in the implementation of the program is that they are not paid for their land taken
under CARP.   
Phasing Schedule of LAD To Ensure Completion by June 14, 2014
Under the CARPER law, Congress updated the phasing of the LAD implementation [16] in the
CARP for the next five (5) years. The intention was to provide a time table for DAR to manage
the acquisition and distribution of the remaining backlog. The target period for each phase
mandates DAR to work hard in order to be on schedule. The BICAM clarified that the target
period does not stop the coverage of agricultural land after the deadline.
At first glance, the phasing schedule seems complicated but a careful reading of provision will
show straight forward schedule. The first phase will cover the landholdings 24 hectares and
above which have been issued notice of coverage by December  10, 2008, government lands
and those offered under Voluntary Land Transfer (VLT) and Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS). This
phase will start on July 1, 2009 and should be completed on June 30, 2012. The second phase
will cover the landholdings 24 hectares and above which have not been issued notice of
coverage by December 10, 2008 and all landholdings below 24 but above 10 hectares which
have been issued notice of coverage by December 10, 2008. This phase will start on July 1, 2012
to June 30, 2013. The last phase covers below 10 hectares. However, this last phase will only
begin if all the previous phase has been 90% completed in a particular province. The last phase
will start on July 1, 2013 and end on June 30, 2014. Public Agricultural lands will not be covered
by the phasing and can be covered anytime.  
Another important improvement for this provision is the deletion of the phrase “insofar as the
excess hectarage” in the CARL. The phrase was interpreted to limit the coverage to the excess
area of a piece of landholding for that phase. Then cover the next excess for the next phase and
so on. To illustrate the interpretation before, given 51 hectares; for the first phase, 1 hectare
will be covered being the excess of 50 hectares, the next phase will cover the 26 hectares the
excess from 24 hectare and the next phase the entire 24 hectares. Such interpretation was
absurd, expensive and would definitely prolong the LAD. In the CARPER law, a particular
landholding above 10 hectares can be acquired and distributed only once. 
There is a mandate in the CARPER law to resolve by June 30, 2012 all the valuation cases
pending in the DAR.
No More Voluntary Land Transfer (VLT) After June 30, 2009
Compulsory Acquisition and Voluntary Offer To Sell will be the main mode of land acquisition
when the law takes effect. Many studies have shown that VLT has been abused by the
landowners to put people who are not qualified or people who are loyal to them as
beneficiaries. A cut-off date for VLT applications has been set on June 30, 2009. No VLT
applications will be allowed after July 1, 2009.
 
Retention Limit Exemption Of Local Government Units (LGUs)
LGUs except the Barangays can own agricultural lands beyond the five (5)-hectare limit
set by CARL. This privilege is only applicable to lands that will be used for public
purposes such as roads, bridges, public markets, school, resettlement, LGU facilities,
public parks and barangay plazas. There are two limitations to this exemption: 1.) the
use of the land must be actual, direct and exclusive; and 2.) the use must be consistent
with the approved comprehensive land use plan [17]. Moreover, if the land is covered
under CARP and the LGU wants to use it for one of the public purpose mentioned earlier
then it must be expropriated first and the farmers therein must be justly compensated.
The law on conversion will still apply to the LGUs because the public purpose projects
will entail conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses. The LGUs are not
exempted from the application of the Conversion Order from DAR.
Review of Land Size Limits For Each Type of Crop
For the next six (6) months, DAR will submit a study to Congress for the appropriate land size of
each crop[18]. The purpose is for a possible review on the limit of land sizes. For instance, for
coconut what is the most productive land size to maximize yield and minimize cost. However,
before the 3 hectare award be adopted, a new law is needed.  
 
Tenants and Regular Farmworkers Are First Priority Beneficiaries
This provision[19] was formulated and strongly advocated by Rep. Pablo Garcia (hence this was
known as the Garcia Amendment). The provision provides that in a certain landholding the
qualified beneficiaries who are tenants and regular farmworkers will receive 3 hectares each
before distributing the remaining land to the other qualified beneficiaries like seasonal
farmworkers and other farmworkers under Section 22 of CARL. The practice now is that any
qualified beneficiary in the area will receive a piece of land however small through collective
ownership. Such is beneficial to farmers because no matter how small the land, they can always
make it productive. If this provision will be implemented strictly, a number of seasonal
farmworkers in Negros and many other places that will not receive land because they can only
benefit if there is extra land or if there are no tenants or regular farmworkers. Most of the time,
the Tenants and Regular Farmworkers are the most loyal workers to the landowners and it will
be easier for the landowner to get back, lease back or consolidate the lands distributed under
CARP.
Attestation Requirement of Farmer Beneficiary
Another Garcia Amendment[20], under the CARPER law a new procedure for the identification
of agrarian reform beneficiaries requires the Barangay Agrarian Reform Council (BARC) to first
certify that the potential beneficiaries are Farmers or Regular Farmworkers actually tilling the
lands and the list should by attested under oath by the Landowner and lastly will state under
oath before a judge that he/she is willing to work on the land and make it productive and
assume the obligation of paying the amortization. The problem will arise because landowners
are not the most available persons to make an attestation. The attestation requirement can be
used as leverage against the farmers. Secondly, with this requirement the Landowner can
choose the beneficiaries and only those favorable to him/her will be on the list. Another
problem is the proximity of the Judge from the place of the farmer beneficiaries which are far
from the farms. This requirement will actually pose a serious problem to the farmer
beneficiaries and hamper the selection process of beneficiaries.  
A provision to check the correctness of the attestation and the undue delay in giving out the
attestation might cause in the implementation is in place. Section 25 provides penalties to the
landowner who will cause undue delay in complying with the obligation of attestation and/or
falsification of the certification or attestation required is prohibited and is punishable with 6 to
12 years imprisonment or up to 1 million pesos penalty.
 Encourage Empowerment and Organizing of Farmer Beneficiaries
The CARPER law has a bias for organized farmers to be beneficiaries. Congress believes that the
success rate of organized farmers is high and can make their awarded lands productive. The
DAR is mandated to conduct seminars and trainings for the farmers to organize. The DAR shall
also assist the farmers form or join cooperatives.   
Individual Titles of Award
The CARPER law adopted the recommendation from the economists that individualized
Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) and Emancipation Patent (EP) is beneficial for the
farmer beneficiaries. This will encourage farmers to invest in the awarded land and will have a
sense of ownership. As a matter of policy in the CARPER law, land awarded should be in the
form of individual title. The DAR will do the parcelization of the existing collective CLOAs and
must be completed within three (3) years from the effectivity of the law. However, this is
without prejudiced to collective CLOAs that are effective and need not be parcelized. A group of
farmer beneficiaries can also decide to have a collective CLOA subject to the conditions [21] in
section 10 of CARPER. Their collective CLOA must indicate the names of the beneficiaries.
Shortened Period For Installation of Farmer Beneficiaries
The CARPER law mandates that the award of the land must be completed within 180 days from
the date of registration of title in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. Such period is
shorter than that of CARL. Another reform that can help shorten the period for installation is
the inclusion of the standing crop in the computation of the just compensation for the land [22].
This is the learning from the Hacienda Malaga Case were the only reason for the delay in
installation is the standing crop. From experience, delay in installation causes violence and
insecurity to the farmers.
The CARPER law emphasize that farmer beneficiaries will only start payment of amortization if
they have been physically installed on the awarded land for one (1) year.
Ministerial Duty for the Registry of Deeds To Register Land in the Name Republic of the
Philippines and CLOA
The unfortunate experience in Negros (especially the Arroyo Lands in Bacan, Negros) where
Registry of Deeds refuse to register the title in the name of the Republic of the Philippines bring
about the provision under the CARPER law which states–
“it is the ministerial duty of the registry of deeds to register the title of
the land in the name of the republic of the Philippines, after the
Landbank of the Philippines (LBP) has certified that the necessary deposit
in the name of the landowner constituting full payment in cash or in bond
with due notice to the landowner and the registration of thecertificate of
land ownership award issued to the beneficiaries, and to cancel previous
titles pertaining thereto[23].
 Upon certifying the payment of Land Bank, the Registry of Deeds cannot refuse to cancel the
title of the landowner, register the same title under RP title and to register the CLOA to be
awarded to beneficiaries. This will lessen the stumbling blocks in the process of CLOA
generation. 
Actual and Physical Distribution
The CARPER law specifies that award of land must be actual and physical possession [24] of the
land which is in contrast to non-distributed schemes like Stock-Distribution Option and
Leaseback arrangements. This can be the basis for the farmers to demand from the DAR for an
actual and physical award of the land to them and they can legally reject any non-distributive
schemes similar to the Hacienda Luisita experience.  
 
Indefeasibility of EP and CLOA
The CARPER law legislates the Supreme Court decision in Estribillo vs. DAR (G.R. No. 159674,
June 30, 2006) declaring titles of land awarded under any agrarian reform program are
indefeasible and imprescriptible. The titles (i.e. EP and CLOA) will be afforded the same
protection as Torrens title under the Torrens system [25]. This provision provides protection to
the CLOA’s or EP’s of farmers being cancelled after it has been registered already for a long
time.
 
Usufructuary Rights Over Awarded Land Pending Award of EP or CLOA
Under the CARPER law, “identified and qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries, shall have
usufructuary rights over the awarded landas soon as the DAR takes possession of such land, and
such right shall not be diminished even pending the awarding of theemancipation patent or the
certificate of land ownership award”. This is will be useful to secure the rights of farmers in
cases when the title of the landholding is in the name of the Republic but there is a delay in
installing them as farmer beneficiaries. Instead of waiting for the awarding of the CLOAs, the
farmers can already occupy the land and cultivate it to prevent the land from being idle or
abandoned.
 
Cancellation of CLOA or EP is under the Exclusive and Original Jurisdiction of the DAR
Secretary
Congress intended to change the current rules on cancellation of CLOAs or EPs. The cancellation
of registered CLOA goes to the DARAB while unregistered CLOAs to the DAR Secretary. The
transfer of all cases on cancellation of CLOA to the DAR secretary will make it easier to the
petitioner because of the simpler rules. The appeal to the Office of the President (OP) is
available and is strategic for dialogue. Again this provision is double edge because the
landowners can also go to the OP and will have chances of getting a favorable decision. This is
the case of Banasi farmers in Camarines Sur where the favorable decision of the DAR secretary
was reversed after seven (7) years at the OP.  Moreover, the decision of the DAR Secretary
under the CARPER law is immediately executory even pending appeal to judicial courts.
 
Affordability Clause Made Mandatory
The CARPER law explicitly mandates that farmers will pay reduced amortizations established by
PARC for the first 3 years. For the next years, the law put a ceiling on the annual amortization to
not more than 5% to 10% of the value of the annual gross production [26]. The Land Bank of the
Philippines (LBP) is mandated to reduce the interest or the principal to make repayment
affordable. The amortization depends on the annual gross production determined by the DAR
which will effectively make the amortization of farmer beneficiaries affordable. This is a great
improvement from the CARL because the affordability clause here is made mandatory for LBP
and DAR to implement.