Quizon Paper

Bridging Issues on Access to Land through
LAND Partnerships
in the Philippines
By Antonio Quizon, Meynardo Mendoza, Gregorio

Quitangon and Maricel A. Tolentino
Revised for the 2nd Regional Policy Dialogue on Agrarian Reform and Rural
Development: The case of the Philippines, of the Centre on Integrated Rural
Development for Asia and the Pacific (CIRDAP)
(Derived from a Discussion Paper prepared for a project of the Asian NGO Coalition for
Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ANGOC), the Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR) and the International Land Coalition (ILC)
Quezon City, Philippines

July 2004, revised April 2007
ANGOC
1
GLOSSARY OF SELECTED TERMS

ADSDP
ANGOC
AR
BARC
CADC
CADT
CARL
CARP
CISFA
CLOA
CSO
ancestral domain sustainable development plans

Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
agrarian reform
Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee
Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claim
Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
Comprehensive and Integrated Shelter Finance Act
Certificate of Land Ownership Award
civil society organization
DAR
DENR
FPIC
GO
HLURB
HUDCC
ILC
IP
IPRA
ISF
KSA
Department of Agrarian Reform

Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Government/ government organization
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council
International Land Coalition
indigenous people
Indigenous Peoples Rights Act
Integrated Social Forestry
Key Shelter Agencies
LAMP
LARA
LGC
LGU
NAPC
NEDA
NGO
NHA
NHMFC
NIPAS
Land Administration and Management Project

Land Administration Reform Act
Local Government Code
local government unit
National Anti Poverty Commission
National Economic and Development Authority
non-governmental organization
National Housing Authority
National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation
National Integrated Protected Areas System
PAMB
PARC
PARCCOM
PCSD
PHILDHRRA
RA
TriPARRD
TWG
UDHA
WSSD
Protected Area Management Board

Presidential Agrarian Reform Committee
Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee
Philippine Council for Sustainable Development
Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources in Rural Areas
Republic Act
Tripartite Partnership for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
Technical Working Group
Urban Development and Housing Act
World Summit on Sustainable Development
Free and Prior Informed Consent
DISCUSSION PAPER:
Bridging Issues on Access to Land through
Land Partnerships in the Philippines*
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Land partnerships is a general term coined by the International Land Coalition (ILC) to
refer to a wide range of forms of collaboration between state, civil society, and bilateral and
international stakeholders to address issues of access to land. Depending on the particular
need addressed, and based on negotiations among different stakeholders and interest groups,
such partnerships may take on different forms i.e., alliances, forums, joint commissions, or
joint field programs. Land partnerships are multi-stakeholder mechanisms established for the
purpose of debating, negotiating and/or implementing a range of policy, program and service
delivery systems in order to create the enabling conditions to improve access to land by the
rural poor.
This study examines the feasibility, challenges, and potentials for establishing land
partnerships in the Philippines. It is largely exploratory, and delves into three main topics: (i)
an overview of Philippine policies and programs on access to land; (ii) a review and
assessment of joint GO-CSO mechanisms (past and present) that were established to address
land-related policy and implementation issues; and (iii) a discussion of future options for
establishing new (or to strengthen existing) land partnership mechanisms in the Philippines.
This discussion paper has been commissioned by the Asian NGO Coalition (ANGOC) under a
project with the International Land Coalition. It is meant to provide input to a National
Workshop on Land Partnerships for discussing the feasibility of adapting a multi-stakeholder
approach for pursuing the issue of access to land.
Part 1 of this paper discusses the broad, enabling policy environment in which GO-CSO
cooperation and partnership has taken place on issues of access to land. It provides a
sweeping view of the land-related policy reforms that have been instituted ever since February
1986, starting with the mandates under the Philippine Constitution of 1987, and subsequently
implemented through a series of enabling legislations and sector-focused programs. It
summarizes the salient features of the three major reform programs, namely the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL, 1987), the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act
(IPRA, 1997), and the Urban Development and Housing Act (UDHA, 1992). This section
also identifies other legislations that have affected land administration and land use
classification, such as the Local Government Code (LGC, 1991), as well as other recent
legislations that have had major impact on access by the poor to lands under the public
domain primarily the National Integrated Protected Areas Law (NIPAS, 1992) and the
*
Paper prepared by Tony Quizon, Roy Mendoza & Dodgie Quitangon with the assistance of Maricel
Almojuela. Paper commissioned by the Asian NGO Coalition (ANGOC). Views expressed are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect those of ANGOC or the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR).
Philippine Mining Act (1995). The study points out how the numerous legislations have often
brought about policy conflicts, questions about land use classification, overlapping functions
of government agencies, and competing interests among the various sectors affected.
Part 2, which constitutes the major section of this paper, then reviews the various forums and
institutional mechanisms of engagement that have been instituted between government and
CSOs on land-related issues over the past 16 years. It particularly examines those joint GOCSO mechanisms that have focused on land issues affecting three basic sectors: the
farmers/agrarian sector, the urban poor, and indigenous peoples. A total of 24 such joint
mechanisms are discussed, and trends/ observations are then presented based on key
informant interviews, as well as from secondary sources.
In Part 3, the authors examine the various options for establishing and/or strengthening multistakeholder partnerships on land issues, as identified through an assessment of current gaps, a
review of related studies, as well as interviews and discussions conducted with representatives
of NGOs, farmer organizations and government agencies. This section highlights some of the
emerging issues and challenges on land-related reform policies and programs, and categorizes
these into five (5) broad thematic areas that will require multi-stakeholder consultation,
consensus-building and joint action. The paper suggests that any of these themes/ sub-themes
could well constitute the focus of a potential land partnership. These are:
(i)
Regular mechanisms that monitor and ensure the inclusion of access to land,
especially Agrarian Reform, in the national development agenda/ programs
(ii)
The implementation of existing land redistribution/ reform programs (CARL,
IPRA, UDHA) by addressing program requirements, resolving policy bottlenecks
and by improving field-level complementation between government and CSOs;
(iii) The convening of inter-sectoral & multi-stakeholder discussions and negotiations
to resolve policy conflicts and overlapping institutional mandates related to land
reforms and land administration policies;
(iv)
Undertaking consensus-building and pro-active advocacy for new legislation (e.g.,
towards enactment of a comprehensive land use policy); and
(v)
Convening policy forums on pending bills & programs that threaten to reverse the
gains made under land-related reforms (e.g., Farmland as Collateral bill, Mining
Act and Charter Change).
Part 3 raises several questions as to what would be the most appropriate mechanism(s) for
pursuing GO-NGO dialogue, negotiation and cooperation on land issues, based on the
selected theme(s). The intention of this section is not to provide specific recommendations,
but rather, to provide a discussion guide to Workshop participants for assessing the potentials
of a possible land partnership.
Finally, Part 4 relates the outcome of a project that resulted from this study on finding
common ground to address concrete land conflicts between Indigenous Peoples and Farmers.
Two areas in the provinces of Bukidnon and Oriental Mindoro were looked into, each having
an unresolved case wherein an IP group and farmers laid claim to the same landholding. The
IPs based their ancestral domain claim on the IPRA while the farmers alleged ownership of
the land as identified beneficiaries under CARP.
At present, there is no active mechanism ironing out the issues of these two very poor sectors
contending for their legal rights over the land. The project attempted to revive the dialogue
process among major stakeholders, namely the IPs, farmers, NGOs and concerned
government agencies such as the Department of Agrarian Reform, the National Council for
Indigenous Peoples, and the National Anti-Poverty Commission. A major breakthrough was
achieved at the end of the project with President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo ordering the
reactivation of the defunct Task Force 63 that addressed issues of IPs on their ancestral
domain claims and expanding it to include IP-farmer land conflicts. #
Working notes:
The authors note that in much of development literature, the terms multi-sectoral and multistakeholder are often used interchangeably.
For purposes of this paper, the term multi-sectoral is used to refer mainly to different
occupational/interest groups or economic sections of society. Furthermore, the related term basic sectors
is used here to refer to the poor and disadvantaged groups i.e., farmers, indigenous peoples, fisherfolk,
urban poor, and women. In the Philippines, the term multi-sectoral has taken on a deeper socio-political
connotation, as it has evolved within the context of political organizing among social movements.
On the other hand, the term multi-stakeholder has a much broader scope and meaning. When discussing
the concept of partnerships at national level, however, the three major groupings of stakeholders referred
to here are the state/government, the private sector, and civil society including funding institutions.
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Background and working context of the Study
Objectives of this study
1. This study examines the feasibility, challenges, and potentials for establishing land
partnerships in the Philippines. It has three overall objectives:
i. To provide an overview of the policy context, as well as a general status of the
partnership mechanisms formed by key stakeholders in support of land-related
reforms and policies (CARP and others) vis--vis programs, projects and policy
advocacy (e.g., by government, NGOs/POs, donors, and the private sector);
ii. To provide a brief assessment about the working context, issues and
accomplishments of these mechanisms, their factors for success and insights
gained from their experiences; and
iii. To assess how these mechanisms can be improved or whether there is a need for a
new mechanism(s), i.e., the feasibility of a land partnership in the Philippines.
Meaning of land partnerships
2. The term land partnerships was coined by the International Land Coalition (ILC) to
refer to a wide range of mechanisms for collaboration between state, civil society, and
bilateral and international stakeholders to address issues of access to land. Depending
on the particular need addressed, and based on negotiations among different stakeholders
and interest groups, such partnerships may take on different forms i.e., alliances,
forums, joint commissions, or joint field programs. Land partnerships are multistakeholder mechanisms established for the purpose of debating, negotiating and/or
implementing a range of policy, program and service delivery systems in order to break
through the constraints impeding improvement in the resource rights of poor rural
households.
The origins & context of this initiative
3. The global programme on land partnerships (i.e., Land Alliances for National
Development) was initially launched by the International Land Coalition/ILC (formerly,
the Popular Coalition to Eradicate Hunger and Poverty)1 during the 2002 World Summit
on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg, South Africa, where
participating governments had affirmed the importance of secure access to land under the
Plan of Implementation for Agenda 21.
This global programme was initiated by the ILC in order to strengthen the implementation of
Agenda 21 through country-level partnerships for land. The stated aim is to nurture arenas,
fora, events, committees and land alliances or other mechanisms at country level, where
1
The International Land Coalition, with headquarters in Rome, initially grew out of an international
conference convened in Brussels in 1995 by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).
Currently, it is a global alliance of inter-governmental and civil society organizations working on issues of
access to land and resources. It was formerly known as the Popular Coalition to Combat Hunger and
Poverty.
diverse vested interests in land can find a common basis for progress.2 It is noted that while
stated commitments to the resource rights of the poor is not new, this programme itself
reflects a growing global consensus on the cross-cutting contribution of resource rights
towards eradicating poverty, achieving food security, resolving conflicts and implementing
sustainable practices for natural resource management.
What has been done so far
4. At the 2002 WSSD conference, the Philippine government, as represented by the
Philippine Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD)3, initially expressed its desire to
endorse the Land Partnerships as one of its selected type II partnerships.4 The PCSD
also noted then that access to land remains critical for both its social justice aspect as well
as for peace and development.
5.
In 2003, follow-up discussions were then held between ILC-Rome and its regional
partner, ANGOC, towards initiating land partnership discussions in the Philippines.
ANGOC involved the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) which agreed to act as coconvenor of this initiative. ANGOC also consulted various institutions that might be
willing to collaborate on land-related issues NGOs, farmer organizations, and
government agencies. The various stakeholders agreed to a proposal for a mapping
study, noting that the last thing the project should do was to create another bureaucracy,
and to reinvent the wheel.
6.
To further crystallize the concept of Land Partnerships and the outline for this mapping
study, a series of roundtable discussions and separate meetings with government
agencies, donors, NGOs and farmer organizations were held in conjunction with the ILC
country mission to the Philippines on 20-25 October 2003. The roundtable discussions
enabled DAR, ILC and ANGOC to present the first step of the Land Partnership with this
Land Study. The participants agreed to pursue the study to ascertain the problems that
need to be acted on with the agrarian reform program. The discussion also called upon
ILC to expand Land Partnership to the donor community and perhaps open up the
existing Donor Forum on Agrarian Reform to civil society and other government
agencies aside from the DAR. The civil society groups expressed the need for the study
to be broader than agrarian reform policies and examine legal frameworks, environment
and conservation issues, indigenous peoples, among others. The need to institutionalize
International Land Coalition, LAND Programme Description and Guidelines for Establishing Land
Partnerships, 2003.
The Philippine Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD) was established in July 1992 through Executive
Order 15, to ensure implementation of the countrys commitments to sustainable development principles in
UNCED. The PCSD structure has an NGO-PO counterpart with a multi-sectoral representation, and operates
through a National Secretariat based in NEDA. In 1996, PCSD formulated Philippine Agenda 21, an action
agenda for advancing the goals of sustainable development.
Based on diplomatic protocol, Type II partnerships to people to people exchanges, in contrast to type I,
which is official or government to government.
Land Partnership to ensure sustainability even with the changes in leadership was
highlighted.5
7.
On 7 November 2003, the LAND Partnership Protocol was signed between DAR, ILC
and ANGOC in Rome that formalized the agreement and identified lead roles for DAR
(for government agencies) and ANGOC (for CSOs) in encouraging participation in the
Land Study and subsequent activities for LAND Partnership in the Philippines. 6
Purpose of the Study

8. This study is jointly coordinated by the Asian NGO Coalition (ANGOC) with the
International Land Coalition and the Department of Agrarian Reform. It has been
intentionally written as a discussion paper with the purpose of providing input at a
National Multi-Stakeholder Workshop in July 2004. It was revised in March 2007 to
include the results of the Land Partnerships Project that followed the first process
studying how can land partnerships improve the poors access to land in the Philippines.
This adjusted version of the paper will serve as input to the 2nd Regional Policy Dialogue
on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development of the Centre on Integrated Rural
Development for Asia and the Pacific (CIRDAP) meeting on May 30, 2007.
Scope and limitations
9. The main focus of this study is on the major partnership mechanisms and working
arrangements that have been established or have been in operation between government
and CSOs on land-related issues since 1992. The countrys land policies are presented
here only to provide an overview of the broader policy environment in which such GOCSO mechanisms have taken place. As such, the study does not intend to provide a
comprehensive account nor an assessment of the specific provisions or content of such
land policies and programs in the Philippines. Finally, a major limitation is that this paper
does not cover the fisherfolk sector with its related subjects of inland and coastal waters,
mangroves, coastal lands and marine resources.
Methodology and sources
10. The study is purposive, intended more as a practical guide and tool for discussion among
stakeholders. The study relied mainly on secondary materials as well as key informant
interviews conducted between April-May 2004. Where possible, assessments of the GOCSO mechanisms presented here have been based on views of different stakeholders as
culled from interviews and secondary sources. A draft was discussed at a Round-Table
Discussion Workshop conducted on 13 July 2004, and participants feedback has been
incorporated into this paper.
How this paper is organized
11. This paper is presented in three major sections. Part 1 provides an overview of Philippine
policies and programs on access to land. Part 2 presents a review of joint GO-CSO
5
6
LAND Partnerships Progress Report, January 2003-May 2004, International Land Coalition, p.18.
Contract signed between DAR Secretary Roberto Pagdanganan, ILC Coordinator Bruce Moore and ANGOC
Executive Director Nathaniel Don Marquez, November 7, 2003, Rome, Italy.
mechanisms (past and present) that were established to address land-related policy and
implementation issues. Part 3 initiates a discussion of future options for establishing new
(or to strengthen existing) land partnership mechanisms in the Philippines.
B. The policy context of access to land

The meaning of access to land
12. The issue of access to land in the Philippines is particularly compelling; our colonial
history has been marked by over a hundred uprisings, many of them peasant-led and
rooted in agrarian discontent. Until today, several active insurgencies persist, fueled in
large measure by land and territorial issues the hunger for land and resource access,
tenurial security, and even quests for territorial rights, autonomy and nationhood.
13. In the Philippines, the poor heavily depend on access to land for their livelihood and
welfare. About three-fourths of the poor make a living from agriculture and fisheries.
The urban poor, who account for 25% of the total poor population, are also dependent on
land, as housing provides them access to the urban economy. For many poor urban
families, the house also serves as base for income-generating activities (e.g., vending,
services, processing of recyclable materials.)
14. The access to land issue holds diverse meanings to different sectors of society. To most
poor Filipino families, access to land, whether to a farm or a homelot, brings access to a
source of livelihood, an increased sense of security, an increased level of resilience, or
the opportunity to break out of ones poverty. For indigenous people (IP) communities,
the right to land carries the right to self-determination, cultural integrity and autonomy.
At higher levels of community and society, the need to improve access to land has been
cited as a necessary step to reduce unemployment and poverty, reduce tensions and
conflicts over resources, increase productivity to ensure the nations food security,
improve sustainable management of lands, and improve overall peace for greater
economic and political stability.
Brief overview of the policy context on private land ownership
15. Private land ownership was first introduced under the Regalian doctrine during the
Spanish colonial period, and this became the basis for all land laws in the country as
expressed in the 1935, 1973 and the 1987 Constitutions. The Regalian doctrine stipulated
that all lands of the public domain and other natural resources belonged to the King of
Spain, and thus, when the republican system was later introduced, the State became the
rightful heir. Traditional systems of communal ownership were broken up and not
accorded legal recognition; thus, natives were disenfranchised. The later American
occupation period did little to break up the land monopolies created under Spanish
colonization; instead, the Philippine Bill of 1902 upheld the Spanish system of cadastral
laws; private land ownership was also further strengthened through the introduction of
the Torrens Title system under the 1902 Land Registration Act.
Early land-related reforms
16. Earlier policy efforts to broaden access to public land consisted mainly of opening up
new areas for application of land patents, reforms in land titling and administration
systems, and the introduction of systems for recognizing occupancy rights. (See Annex A
for a listing of selected Philippine laws related to lands of the public domain and
ancestral land, 1902-1985). The Homestead Act of the 1960s encouraged the creation of
new settlements in Mindanao, by providing 24 hectares to migrant families. In terms of
private agriculture lands, land reform policy was introduced as early as 1963 through the
Agricultural Tenancy Act, which sought to improve tenancy systems in agriculture. Two
decades later, in 1972, a policy of compulsory land acquisition and redistribution, limited
to all rice and corn lands nationwide, was introduced by then President Marcos through
Presidential Decree 27, for the emancipation of tenants from their bondage to the soil.
However, many saw this as more of as a counter-insurgency measure intended to quell
agrarian unrest in heavily tenanted areas, rather than as a sincere effort at instituting
broader access to land. Large plantations remained untouched; and corporate farming was
even encouraged in rice, for up to 500 hectares. Under Martial Law, poor communities
were displaced as lands were taken over by government corporations, large-scale
development projects and logging & mining concessions; squatting was decreed as a
criminal act under Presidential Decree 772.
Social and land-related reforms under the 1987 Constitution
17. The Peoples Power Revolution that ousted the Marcos regime in February 1986, and
restored democratic processes in government signaled a period of widespread reforms.
The 1987 Philippine Constitution was heavily reform-oriented, nationalistic and detailed
in emphasizing human and social rights, and the limitations of State powers.
18. General provisions related to social justice and participation provide for, i.e.:
a. Filipino rights to ownership and control of the countrys resources and industries.
b.
Social justice and human rights (in addition to the Bill of Rights) to safeguard the
rights of marginalized sectors farmers, fisherfolk, indigenous peoples, urban
poor.
c. Social Justice in all phases of national development (Art. 2, Sec. 10); a
comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform as well as the rights of
indigenous cultural communities. (Art.2, Sec.21 and 22)
d.
The right of all people to human dignity; reduce social economic and political
inequalities and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and
political power for the common good. (Art. 13, Sec.1)
e. The right of the people and their organizations to participation at all levels of
social, political, and economic decision-making; the State is required to facilitate
adequate consultation mechanisms. (Art. 13, Sec.15)
19. The 1987 Constitution also had specific provisions on access to land, among them:
10
a.
Non-ownership by aliens/foreigners (Art. 12, Sec. 117) of public utilities, which

should be at least 60% Filipino-owned.
b.
Alienable lands of public domain can only be leased by private corporations or

associations for not more than 25 years, and not exceeding 1,000 hectares (Art. 12,
Sec. 3). Filipino citizens may lease not more than 500 hectares, or acquire not
more than 12 hectares by purchase, homestead, or grant. (Art. 12, Sec. 3)
c.
Agrarian Reform: The State shall undertake just distribution of all agricultural
lands to landless farmers and farmworkers based on their rights over the lands they
till. Retention limits are to be set by Congress and subject to just compensation.
Farmers and landowners should participate in the planning, organization, and
management of the program. The principles of agrarian reform are to be applied in
natural resources and lands of 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. (Art. 13, Sec. 4-6)
d.
Protection of the rights of subsistence fishermen to the preferential use of both

inland and offshore communal marine and fishing resources. (Art. 13, Sec. 7)
e.
A continuing program on Urban Land Reform and Housing (Art. 13, Sec. 9)
between the state and the private sector which will make available and affordable,
decent housing and basic services to under-privileged and homeless citizens.
Urban or rural poor dwellers should not be evicted nor their dwellings demolished
illegally without adequate consultation with communities where they are to be
relocated.
f.
Protection of Indigenous Peoples Rights (Art.12, Sec.5) to their ancestral lands

and use of customary laws governing property rights or relations in determining
the ownership and extent of ancestral domain.
g.
Conservation Areas may be acquired, developed, held, or leased based on the

requirements of conservation, ecology, and development, as well as agrarian
reform. (Art. 12, Sec. 3). Congress also determines the specific limits of forest
lands and national parks. (Art. 12, Sec. 4)
Subsequent legislations on land-related reforms

20. In addressing the social justice provisions mandated under the 1987 Constitution, three
major Congressional legislations were instituted on land-related reforms, each with a
strong sectoral bias and focus. These were:
21. Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). Republic Act 6657, passed in 1987,
aims to redistribute 10.3 million hectares of agricultural land and integrated social
7
Only Philippine citizens, corporations or associations organized under Philippine laws are granted with
franchise, certificate, or any other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility. These should
not be exclusive in character or for a longer period of 50 years.
11
forestry areas (ISF) to 3.9 million landless tenant farmers and farmworkers over an initial
10-year period (1987-1997). It provides for different tenurial instruments based on land
classification: tenurial security for forestry areas, and tenancy reforms and land
redistribution for private and alienable lands. Land redistribution is complemented by the
delivery of support services such as extension, credit, infrastructure facilities and
assistance in livelihood projects. The law imposes a five-hectare retention limit for the
landowner and provides three hectares for each heir who is actually tilling the land. It
exempts from distribution ancestral lands inhabited by indigenous cultural communities,
lands with a slope above 18 degrees, reserved lands like national parks, forest reserves,
fish sanctuaries and watersheds, lands for national defense and education and
experimental farms, churches and mosques, cemeteries, etc. Overall, the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) is managed by the Department of Agrarian Reform,
while the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) takes the lead role
in providing tenurial security in forestlands, under the Integrated Social Forestry (ISF)
program of CARP. As of March 2004, about 76% of the total physical target has been
reported as accomplished by both agencies. However, the program began the more
difficult part of reforming private lands (60% accomplishment in physical target) only in
1997. The timetable for completion of CARP has been extended to 2008.
22. Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA). Passed in 1997, R.A. 8371 or the Indigenous
Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) seeks to recognize, promote and protect the rights of
Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs). These include the right
to ancestral domain and lands, self-governance, and the right to cultural integrity. In a
reversal of the Regalian doctrine, IPRA recognizes the prior rights, including the preconquest rights of indigenous peoples, thus superseding other land and resource rights.
ICCs/IPs comprise an estimated 13% of the population (10 million people). It is projected
that between 5 million to 7 million hectares will be covered under ancestral domain titles
or claims.
23. Under the principle of self-determination, ICCs/IPs shall formulate their own sustainable
development and management plans (ADSDPs) for the land and natural resources within
their ancestral domains based on their indigenous knowledge systems and practices.
Contracts, licenses, concessions, leases and permits within the ancestral domains shall not
be renewed or allowed without the Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) of the IP
community i.e., consensus of all members of the IPs/ICCs to be determined in
accordance with their respective customary laws and practices, free from any external
manipulation, interference or coercion. (Chap 2, Sec.3g, IPRA)
24. Urban Development and Housing Act (UDHA). Passed in 1992, Republic Act.7279
aims to address the housing shortage of the country,8 laying down the groundwork for a
comprehensive and continuing urban development and housing program by prioritizing
8
The Philippines has one of the highest annual rates of urban growth among developing countries averaging
5.1% from 1960-1995. The estimated housing shortage from 1993 to 1998 was placed at 3.72 million
housing units. (Also see Annex B, Notes on Urbanization and Housing Issues in the Philippines)
12
the provision of decent shelter to the poorest of the poor; providing the framework for the
development and use of urban lands; encouraging people and community involvements
and initiatives in urban development and shelter construction; improving and maximizing
LGU participation especially in socialized housing; and, tap private sector resources for
socialized housing.
25. The law entitles squatters to due process before eviction and demolition can be
undertaken. Resettlement and relocation can be carried out only under a court order and
only when preliminary conditions, i.e. relocation site, fair compensation to the squatters,
availability of basic public utilities at the relocation site, etc. have been satisfied. The
UDHA specifically tasks local government units (LGUs) for the implementation of its
provisions. Among these are:
Prepare a comprehensive land use plan (Sec. 6, 39)
Inventory all lands (Sec. 7)
Identify lands for socialized housing and resettlement (Sec. 8)
List all qualified socialized housing beneficiaries (Sec. 17)
Provide facilities and basic social services in resettlement and socialized housing
projects (Sec. 21); and,
Provide opportunities for housing beneficiaries to participate in decision making
processes.
26. Ten years after the UDHA implementation was devolved to the LGUs in 1993, the results
appear far from satisfactory. Many LGUs foot-dragged on its implementation as UDHA
collided with another social reform legislation, the Local Government Code (LGC). In
contrast to UDHA that requires LGUs to implement its provisions under the law, the
1991 LGC empowers the LGUs to determine and enforce its rules on the issue of land
access. Under the LGC, the LGUs were given the prerogative and power to reclassify
lands to other uses. Many LGUs soon converted prime agricultural lands into other uses
such as (top and mid level) residential and commercial as the taxes generated from these
proved to be a far more stable source for LGUs. (See section below)
Decentralization context in land administration
27. The Local Government Code (LGC, 1991) (R.A. 7160) empowered local government
units and promoted peoples participation in all stages of local development work from
planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. The Local Government Code
included specific provisions i.e., Section 2 (a) LGUs are encouraged to be self reliant
and to continue exercising the powers and discharge the duties and functions as are
necessary, appropriate, or incidental to efficient and effective provision of basic services
and facilities; and Section 17 (a) Empathically, the responsibility to develop low cost
housing and mass dwelling projects were given to provinces and cities.
28. While the creation of Local Housing Boards was particularly mentioned in a later reform
legislation, the Comprehensive and Integrated Shelter Finance Act (CISFA, or R.A.
7835), its legal foundations rests on Title 6, Sec. 107, 108 and 109 of the LGC. It pertains
to the Nature, Composition and Functions of the Local Development Councils,
13
respectively. A function/power given to LGUs under this Act is that of land conversion.
Section 20 of the LGC states that through an ordinance passed by the Sanggunian, a city
or municipality may reclassify agricultural lands when: (1) the land ceases to be
economically feasible; and (2) where the land shall have greater economic value.
Other legislations with major impact on access to commons by the poor
29. The National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS, 1992) provides for the use
and enjoyment of protected areas consistent with the principles of biological diversity and
sustainable development. The NIPAS provides for the establishment and management of
protected areas as a key strategy for conservation of the country's biodiversity. This
legislation introduced the concept of local participation in protected area management at
a time when the common practice of most governments in the Asian region was a strict
protection zone (conservationist) policy. The NIPAS Act enabled local communities to
take part in deciding on how best to manage the forests that has been the source of their
livelihood.9
30. Philippine Mining Act (1995). R.A. 7942, or the Mining Act states that, "all mineral
resources in public or private lands, including timber or forestlands... shall be open to
mineral agreements or financial or technical assistance agreement applications." Due to
this provision, critics contend that the law has virtually opened up the entire country to
mining operations. The law declares areas covered by existing mining claims or that are
deemed ecologically crucial as closed to mining operations, such as old growth forests,
watershed forest reserves, mangrove and mossy forests, national parks, bird sanctuaries
and marine reserves, among others. But upon the consent of the government or other
concerned parties, areas barred from mining operations can still be mined. These areas
include military reservations, areas covered by small-scale mining and ancestral lands.
The Mining Act allows three major kinds of mining rights that would govern access to
mineral resources and for which an interested investor may apply. These are the
Exploration Permit (EP), the mineral agreement and the Financial or Technical
Assistance Agreement (FTAA).10
Impact of land reform policies
31. Impact studies have so far been completed only for the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP), as the other land reform programs (i.e., IPRA, UDHA) are still
relatively new.
32. The Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) seems to have been successful in promoting
social equity through the transfer of lands to landless or tiller farmers. Studies show that
distributional reform has had a positive impact on yield, specifically of rice, and impact
has been highest where technical change, e.g., adoption of HYVs, has occurred. Recent
studies have also shown that agrarian reform has had a positive impact on poverty
alleviation. In particular, there has been a decline in the incidence of poverty among
9
10
Working with People section, www.haribon.org.ph

Cruz, 1999.
14
agrarian reform households from 47.6% in 1990 to 45.2% in 2000. In contrast, the
proportion of non-AR beneficiaries has increased from 55.1% in 1990 to 56.4% in
2000.11
33. Land tenure security has also improved reforestation and environmental protection in
forest lands. In 1988, the government under the Integrated Social Forestry (ISF)
programme shifted to a policy of contract reforestation in lieu of issuance of licenses to
cut down timber. Massive contract reforestation efforts undertaken between 1989 and
1993 revealed a significant improvement in survival rate (76%) in contrast to the 26%
rate of government reforestation efforts. In 1995, government also shifted from
government-managed forestry to community-led forest management. About 4.9 million
hectares of forest lands have been under community management since 1998 compared to
only 32,000 hectares in 1982.12 The longer tenure given to local communities has
provided an incentive towards conservation and sustainable management of the
remaining forests. The effectiveness of such efforts is likely to improve with the issuance
of certificates on ancestral domain claim (CADC) areas.
34. CARP implementation, however, has been slower than originally targeted. Factors that
have contributed to the slow redistribution, especially of private lands include:13
Cumbersome and slow land valuation;

Bureaucratic documentation and difficulty of coordinating land reform activities; an
estimated 250 thousand hectares are problematic lands (without proper
documentation, with ownership conflicts, or conflicts over the actual area covered by
land reform);
Counterclaims by landowners with the DAR Adjudication Board, and failure to install
agrarian reform beneficiaries because of unsettled claims or bureaucratic inertia;
Land conversions, and unclear regulations on land conversion issues;
Opposition of local governments (LGUs) to land acquisition and redistribution. The
bias of some LGUs for land conversion for either of two purposes: (a) to evade
coverage of lands under agrarian reform; and/or (b) to generate larger tax revenues
from lands devoted to non-agricultural uses.
Conflicts and disputes in land policy issues

35. Land categories. Currently, there are three major categories of land in the Philippines:
(i) protected areas, (ii) alienable and disposable land, and (iii) privately owned land. Of
the total Philippine land area of 30 million hectares, approximately 16 million are forest
lands or protected areas, while 14 million hectares are alienable and disposable, of which
about two-thirds (64.8%) are titled or privately-owned. The rest of alienable and
disposable lands are public lands presently owned by the state for public use, which
can be alienated if current use is no longer appropriate.
11
12
13
G.M. Llanto and M.M. Ballesteros, Land issues in poverty reduction strategies and the development agenda:
the Philippines. Philippine Institute of Development Studies. Land Reform, 2003/3, special edition. pp 208209.
Ibid, p 214.
Ibid, pp 209-210.
15
36. State lands and resources. Lands with slopes above 18 degrees are classified as
forestlands. However, the actual delineation of forestlands remains unclear. Moreover,
the land categories do not reflect actual land use. Protected areas, for instance are
designated as common property, i.e. owned by the state, but private individuals and
groups through arrangements such as leasehold can enjoy usufruct rights. The
Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) which recognizes, protects and promotes
ancestral domain rights has also raised some property rights issues, for instance, with
regards to mines and minerals. The Philippine Constitution under the principle of Jura
Regalia (Regalian Doctrine) provides that all natural resources, particularly minerals, are
owned by the state. On the other hand, under IPRA, ancestral domains include mineral
lands. Some sectors have interpreted the indigenous peoples rights as superior over
other rights, e.g., concession rights granted by the government. Meanwhile, there have
been overlapping areas (e.g. in the CARAGA Region) between ancestral domain claims
and actual mining and timber concession areas granted by the government.
37. There have been overlaps in land related reforms as well. In some areas, tenurial rights
have been granted to upland dwellers under the Integrated Social Forestry (ISF) program,
or land certificates (CLOAs) given to lowland farmers under CARP covering lands
under pending ancestral domain claims. While Philippine laws clearly indicate that
indigenous peoples rights as superior over other rights, land access questions do arise,
such as how to treat equally poor non-IP settlers within CADC or CADT lands.
Furthermore, there is need to educate programme implementers away from the common
notion that ancestral domains are limited only to the uplands and forestlands.14
38. Questions of land use. A major weakness of Philippine land policy is the failure to
clearly identify societys preferences regarding land use. Hence, significant problems
often arise in the use and allocation of land, e.g., the continuing tension behind the
conversion of agrarian reform lands to non-agricultural uses. Moreover, various laws
have been enacted for the classification or re-classification of lands, such as for tourism
development (RA 7357; RA 7668), for economic zones (RA 7916), or with provisions
that define the utilization of mangroves (RA 8850, or the Fisheries Code). Land laws
need to be reviewed for consistency and social acceptability. Meanwhile, the need to
legislate a Land Use Act has been endorsed by civil society groups as early as 1996 under
Agenda 21 of the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD), yet a draft
bill has been languishing in Congress. Moreover, while local governments have been
given major responsibility for land use planning, only 10% of municipalities had updated
town plans as of 2001.
39. Questions of land administration. Land administration, including the information
system, is poor, and has been a major cause of fraudulent land titling. The Land
Administration and Management Project (LAMP) under the DENR has identified several
major issues in the land administration system in the Philippines, including:
Overlapping and fragmented responsibilities among 19 land agencies;
14
In fact, CADCs include even ancestral waters, as in the case of the Calamien waters of the Tagbanwa
community in Coron, Palawan.
16
Conflicting and/or outdated land administration laws, which often go through the
courts;
Poor management of land records (some incomplete, destroyed or altered);
Incomplete cadastral information; non-matching cadastral maps held by different
agencies
40. CSO concerns over emerging shifts in land policies. Meanwhile, from interviews
conducted, CSOs have expressed concern over an emerging policy shift towards more
market-oriented land reforms. Two major concerns cited were the Farmland as
Collateral Bill now pending in Congress, and proposals to amend the 1987 Constitution,
particularly the current restrictions concerning foreign ownership of land.
41. Meanwhile, there has been wide appreciation of the importance of the ongoing Land
Administration and Management Project (LAMP). The continuing success of this longterm project will depend on continued political support from successive administrations
and the public. Currently, the seven basic sectors represented at the National AntiPoverty Commission (NAPC) are engaged in LAMP consultations. (See Annex C,
Stakeholder Perspectives on Land Issues). Similar to LAMP, land administration
projects have been initiated by the World Bank and other donors in several Asian
countries (e.g., Indonesia, Cambodia). However, as CSOs have pointed out, good land
administration may indeed ensure the efficiency of the land titling system, but land
administration is not land reform itself. The Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan
(2001-2004) highlights the need for better access and secure land tenure for the poor, as a
major strategy towards poverty reduction, and at the same time notes the need for more
efficient land-use management for sustainable economic growth. The MTPDP
recognizes the need to simultaneously address four land-critical issues: (a) expand access
and secure tenure; (b) promote sustainable management; (c) accelerate infrastructure
development; and (d) improve land administration and management.
The overall policy environment for participation
42. After the EDSA People Power of 1986, NGOs and POs actively engaged government in
pushing for basic social reforms, especially towards institutionalizing mechanisms for
popular participation. The Philippine Constitution of 1987 is perhaps the only
Constitution in the world that makes an explicit reference to NGOs. Article 2, Section 3,
asserts that the State shall encourage NGOs, community-based or sectoral organizations
that promote the welfare of the nation.
43. It was NEDA Board Resolution No. 2, Series of 1989 that initially defined the overall
policy framework for GO-NGO relations, following a series of NEDA-NGO
consultations at local and national level. The Resolution specifically stipulates that GONGO coordinating mechanisms at various levels of government will be set-up, and the
respective government departments/line agencies/units will be given the authority to
collaborate and negotiate with the NGOs. The Social Development Committee (SDC) of
the NEDA Board will take the oversight function for GO-NGO relations at national level.
NGOs also should be informed of and consulted on all major policy and program
17
decisions, accreditation policies and proposed legislative programs/ agenda that concern
them.15
44. Recognizing that land reform issues are likely to be volatile and problematic, the various
reform policies after 1987 contained specific provisions for the establishment of
consultative and monitoring mechanisms involving civil society at national, provincial
and community level.
II. JOINT GO-CSO MECHANISMS ON LAND-RELATED POLICY

AND IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES
Description of mechanisms
45. There is a growing awareness and recognition that access to land and productive
resources can break the vicious cycle of poverty, and that improved security of tenure can
reduce the rate of environmental destruction. The reasons for improving access to land
are compelling since this would break land monopoly, reduce poverty and
unemployment, resolve conflict over resources and ensure the nations food security.
Providing the poor access to land will create better opportunities for underprivileged
households in improving their livelihoods and acquiring assets to reduce their
vulnerability. This would however require enabling laws and policies, programs,
financing by the government and highly-effective implementation mechanisms.
46. To resolve access to land problems and issues, institutional partnerships are forged at
different levels and in different stages of program development. Institutional partnership
refers to the interaction of various sectors, agencies, or groups to achieve a particular
task, objective, goal or vision while maintaining their own institutional autonomy.
Institutional partnerships are developed depending on the degree of urgency to respond to
a particular need, level of trust, organizational culture, target clientele/area, or
commonality of mandate. Vision, resources, expertise and systems are shared to create a
greater and meaningful impact on a certain sector, a community and the nation as a
whole.
47. Three major types of GO-CSO mechanisms are presented here:
a. Existing mechanisms by virtue of Republic Acts, Special Orders and Joint
Memorandum Circulars involving the cooperation of various national government
agencies and civil society groups;
b. Ad hoc Technical Working Groups, Task Forces and Quick Reaction Units/Teams
to augment and support existing mechanisms related to project implementation and
policy formulation; and
c. Partnerships and collaborations among government, civil society groups and the
private sector, often through direct donor support, bilateral programs and foreign
assisted projects.
15
Antonio Quizon, Study of NGOs in the Philippines, ADB, 1997, p.27.
18
48. The study identifies some of the key mechanisms that tackle issues on access to land by
basic sectors such as the farmers/farmworkers, urban poor and indigenous peoples. These
mechanisms involve at least two parties government agencies and civil society
organizations (CSOs). Some mechanisms engage donors indirectly through their funding
support.
49. Twenty-four (24) joint GO-CSO mechanisms that deal with issues on the implementation
of agrarian reform, indigenous peoples rights, urban poor housing, land administration,
conservation and protection of natural resources were scanned. These mechanisms are
then classified under six major areas on access to land including CARP (existing
mechanisms and special concerns), IPRA, UDHA, Land Administration, Environment
and Natural Resources (ENR), and CSO-led initiatives. The table in Annex D presents
these mechanisms dealing with issues on access to land. (See Annex D, Summary Table
of Mechanisms)
50. These mechanisms are categorized into seven main thematic blocks, namely:
1
2
3
6
7
Philippine Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD)

National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC)
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)
Existing PARC, PARCCOM, BARC
Task Forces/ Special Concerns:
SCAT later High Impact Priority Cases
DAR-NGO-PO LTI Working Group
CARP-Special Legal and Operations Team (SLOT)
Peasants Forum and Farmers Advisory Council
The CAD ARCs Projects
Task Force Sugarlands
Indigenous Peoples Right Act (IPRA)
Task Force 63 replaced by STRAT-QRU
Bukidnon TF 63
TF 63 Secretariat
TWG on the Harmonization of Law
DAR-NCIP Composite and Policy Review and Formulation Group
TWG on ARCDP2
Urban Poor Development Housing (UDHA)
Local Housing Board
Philippine Urban Forum
Land Administration Management Program (LAMP)
Task Force -Lara
Environment and Natural Resources
Protected Area Management Board (PAMB)
Observations/Trends from existing joint institutional mechanisms

19
51. Table 1 below presents a summary assessment of the 24 GO-CSO mechanisms (listed in
Annex D), as drawn from interviews and discussions, secondary sources, and researchers
assessment:
Table 1. Assessment of joint GO-CSO mechanisms
Themes
1. Overall focus
Assessment/ Main Comments
2. Structure/
Composition
Majority of the mechanisms have a highly sectoral focus (e.g., farmers/ agrarian
reform, indigenous peoples, etc)
On the other hand, there are few GO-CSO mechanisms that deal with crosssectoral land issues such as land conversion; or bring together different sectors
to dialogue
Mechanisms that discuss cross-sectoral land issues are mainly limited to
government agencies. These include the DAR-NCIP Composite Policy Review
& Formulation Group, the TWG on the Harmonization of IPRA, etc. These deal
mainly with harmonizing policies, administrative procedures and agency
responsibilities. Civil society is not involved.
Three (3) of the GO-CSO mechanisms, namely PCSD, NAPC and LAMP are
constituted by representatives from different sectors, as they deal with crosscutting and related themes sustainable development/ environment, poverty
eradication, and land administration, respectively. It is noted that NAPC and
LAMP relate with the same basic sector constituencies.
However, while the compositions of these bodies are multi-sectoral, discussions
on access to land still tend to remain largely sectoral (e.g., PCSD discussed
access to land per ecosystem e.g., lowland /agriculture, urban ecosystem,
uplands and IPs, etc.)
A major concern has been how to translate resolutions/ action agendas
formulated at the national level to the local level, as these are seldom adopted
by local government units unless funding or additional resources are made
available (e.g., efforts by PCSD to localize Agenda 21, or to develop local
sustainable development plans.) LGUs prefer to do investment plans in
order to capture external resources or to generate local revenues.
GO-initiated mechanisms tend to be dominated by government agencies
In all GO-CSO joint mechanisms, there are have been few representatives from
the private sector
Sometimes, there is confusion in distinguishing between NGOs and the private
sector (e.g., business foundations)
CSO representatives, mostly from the NGO/PO sector, either voluntarily became
involved, were selected by the sector itself, or even appointed by government (in
the case of GO-initiated mechanisms)
CSOs often demand a process of self-selection of their own representatives.
However, representation from CSOs is often difficult to determine/ select due to
the lack of established processes. Constituencies are often the basis for
selecting representatives.
Previous assessments on joint GO-NGO Mechanisms say that more effective
mechanisms often come in the form of special projects, task forces and
20
Themes
Assessment/ Main Comments
3. Function/ Mandate
4. Accomplishments
5. Funding/
Resources
6. Partnership
NGO/PO-led (or demand-side initiatives).

Continuity of the mechanism is often vulnerable to changes in government
(change in administrations and assigned staff/ personnel)
Difficulty to convene mechanisms when high officials are involved, due to hectic
schedules and changes in delegated representatives
Successful mechanisms highly dependent on facilitation i.e., the capacity of
particular individuals or groups in a secretariat or liaison role whether from
a CSO or government
National mechanisms tend to be too Manila-centered
On the reasons for establishment of joint mechanisms
o Mechanisms are usually backed-up by some legal mandate (i.e., law,
MOA, E.O., Special Order)
o On the other hand, mechanisms which are CSO/Basic Sector-led, are
usually born out of a process/campaign/advocacy
o A third type of mechanism are those that have been established in line
with a foreign-assisted project.
Stated positive outcomes:
o Political negotiations, whether or not a compromise is reached
o Better understanding of policy impacts and implications, from different
& even conflicting local perspectives and interests
o Transfer/exchange/ sharing of knowledge, experiences and resources
between government and CSOs
o On occasion, resolution of concrete, problematic cases
o Public constituency for pursuing reforms
Common issues:
o Accomplishments and continuity highly depend on political will of
incumbent government officials
o Turfing/ overlapping roles of government agencies on some functions
delay accomplishments.
o Changes in representatives may impede continuity of the processes/
programs
o Questions arise as to whether local constituencies are adequately
informed of national-level discussions and agreements
Government infused resources are often necessary to sustain mechanisms
Externally-driven donor-led mechanisms are often not sustained beyond the
project cycle
CSOs tend to be seen more as equal partners when they are able to raise their
own resources (e.g., as co-convenors, co-sponsors, or ability to maintain their
own counterpart secretariats)
Common stance taken by partners is one of critical collaboration; partnerships
are forged among independent, autonomous entities and groups
Generally, joint GO-CSO mechanisms arrive at decisions by consensus. Agree
to disagree is the path often taken when no clear decision is reached
Internal dynamics and differences exist among CSOs; hence, CSOs often have
to reach consensus first among themselves before engaging in discussions and
negotiations with other parties
On accountability: unclear whether there are clear and adequate feedback
mechanisms to the basic sectors concerned
21
III. OPTIONS FOR ESTABLISHING LAND PARTNERSHIPS

A. On Possible Themes
52. Is there a common platform for a land partnership? From key informant interviews
and the roundtable discussion held on 13 July, the following points were highlighted:
Land reform is a continuing political act, thus, the implementation of existing landrelated reform policies needs constant public pressure, monitoring, and the support of
an organized constituency. Government priorities tend to change with each successive
administration; reform agendas and programs must therefore compete with other
programs and priorities, including for continued funding and policy support. Moreover,
there is need for constant vigilance against efforts to thwart such reforms. The
common perception is that support for the redistributive aspects of land reforms has
been gradually diminishing over the years.
Secondly, as land is a highly contentious and complex issue, there is need for
mechanisms that allow constant problem-solving, dialogue and negotiations between
CSOs and government. There is wide scope to expand field implementation,
innovation, complementation, feedback and learning among partners in dealing with
issues.
Thirdly, as there are conflicting land policies, overlapping institutional responsibilities,
and an overall poor state of land records and land administration, there is need for more
public discussion and negotiation among the different sectors. Currently, inter-sectoral
discussions are largely confined among government agencies, which bring up two main
concerns among CSOs: (a) that on-ground realities are much more complex than just
reconciling interpretations of existing policies or establishing new administrative
procedures or protocols; (b) that while inter-agency discussions might improve
government efficiency, civil society needs to be involved to ensure that the
fundamental questions of land access, tenurial security and land redistribution are
addressed.
Finally, there is need to facilitate broad social consensus, so that societys preferences
regarding land use can be pro-actively and clearly identified, based on consistency and
social acceptability, and based on an overall framework of equity, welfare and
sustainability.
53. The following table attempts to identify the critical areas and issues on access to land,
and the existing mechanisms that address them. Five general themes are identified.
These are also possible themes for strengthening or establishing partnership
mechanism(s):
22
23
Table 2. Possible themes for establishing/ strengthening land partnerships

General thematic areas
Sub-themes
Key issues to address
What existing institutional GO-CSO

joint mechanisms address these
issues?
1. Regular mechanisms that monitor and ensure the inclusion of access to land, especially Agrarian Reform, in the national development agenda/
programs
Agrarian Reform
Addressing CARP program
CARP budget (congressional
requirements
allocations, recovery of ill-gotten wealth,
debt swaps)
Access to land, particularly Agrarian
Reform, are often least prioritized in the
countrys development agenda. In
President Arroyos 10-point agenda,
there was no specific mention of
agrarian reform or the protection of
indigenous rights although housing was
included.
NAPC, PCSD
2. Implementation and/or completion of existing land-focused reform programs CARP, IPRA and UDHA
2.1 CARP implementation
Addressing policy bottlenecks in CARP

implementation
16
Problematic land cases (land

conversion, landowner resistance,
etc)
Policy issues and gaps (UPALs,16
land valuation, etc)
PARC, PARCCOM, BARC

Ad hoc DAR task forces have been
created to respond to specific agrarian
cases.
No regular policy forum. Policy issues are
discussed during occasional forums.
UPAL refers to untitled, private agricultural lands.
24
Sub-themes
GO-CSO complementation of efforts at
field-level
2.2 IPRA implementation
2.3 Housing & finance
Negotiation, formulation of
implementing guidelines for IPRA
Complementation of efforts at field-level
Houses as habitat and not collateral
in the land market
Livability must factor in other
commons such as water, air, other
physical arrangement attributes
Secure tenure
Delivery of support services to AR

beneficiaries
Capacity building, staff training &
retooling
Formulation of local ancestral
domain plans (ADSDPs)
Pilot approaches
Delivery of support services
Affordable financing
Innovative approaches to secure
tenure like long term leases

issues?
Mainly project-based complementation at
municipal & provincial levels, especially
within those projects funded by ODA, &
sometimes under sub-contracting
arrangements with NGOs & POs.
Mainly within NCIP.
Land & housing issues are always

brought up in shelter related consultative
mechanisms like the Housing Summit but
these are temporary. What is needed is a
permanent joint mechanism.
3. Inter-sectoral discussions and negotiations to resolve inter-policy conflicts and to harmonize overlapping institutional mandates under different
land-related legislations
3.1 CARP vs LGC
Addressing overlaps in land use

classification & management
3.2 CARP vs IPRA
Addressing overlapping areas covered

by CARP & IPRA
Land conversions using LGU

powers to avoid coverage under
CARP
Premature urbanization (i.e., cityhood) & conversion of agricultural
lands to other uses in order to
widen the local tax base
None.
Overlapping land claims between

agrarian reform beneficiaries and
IPs, and between ISF farmers and
IPs
Vague delineation of public and
DAR/DENR-NCIP policy discussions

conducted to harmonize implementation
of CARP and IPRA, but no clear
participation of CSOs in such process.
25
Sub-themes

issues?
private domain including alienable

and disposable lands
3.3 CARP vs UDHA
Addressing the need for affordable

lands for housing purposes for the
urban poor
3.4 IPRA vs ENR Laws
Addressing policy conflicts and land

management overlaps
Need to convert raw agricultural

lands to provide cheap, affordable
housing for the urban poor
At the same time, need to ensure
that conversion of agricultural lands
is not done by landowners just to
evade coverage under CARP
Several consultative mechanisms

involving GOs, NGOs & the private sector
exist (e.g., Housing Summit, Philippine
Urban Forum), but the agricultural/
agrarian reform sector has not been
represented.
Overlapping land claims between

IPs and mining & timber
concessions
Entry & tenurial status of non-IP
migrants in ancestral domain lands
Need for harmonization between
ancestral domain plans (ADSDPs)
and ENR polices on conservation &
resource management
Others
DENR-NCIP Joint Committee established

to harmonize implementation of ENR laws
and IPRA, but no clear participation of
CSOs in such process.
Pilot efforts to harmonize land use plans
between IPs, DENR, and LGU have been
initiated at municipal level (i.e., creation of
a local conflict-resolution body, Task
Force Comadron in Impasug-ong,
Bukidnon)
Need to ensure continuing asset

reforms & land access for poor
sectors
Need to harmonize conflicts &
overlaps among different land
legislations
Congressional hearings have been

conducted at the initiative of sponsoring
legislators. However, no GO-CSO
institutional mechanisms have been
established to forge broader public
consensus on the issues.
4. Pro-active policy discussions towards new land legislations

4.1 Comprehensive land
use policy
Addressing overlapping claims among

different sectors; promoting equitable
and sustainable land use
26
4.2 Land administration

reform
Sub-themes
Addressing the reform of land
administration system in terms of
administrative institutions, laws, taxes &
fees, and land valuation
Ensuring transparency, efficiency,

responsiveness & accountability of
services
Removing political intervention in
land administration (e.g., land
valuation, land records)

issues?
Consultations were conducted on the
Land Administration Reform Act (LARA
Bill) with basic sectors in 2003, through
the National Anti-Poverty Commission
(NAPC). Separate consensus building
process being undertaken with the private
sector. Congressional hearings also
conducted at the initiative of legislators.
Ongoing discussions under the DENR
Land Management Project (LAMP)
5. Broad-based policy discussions, consensus-building & joint advocacy vis--vis pending bills & policies that threaten to reverse the gains of landrelated reforms
5.1 Planned & pending
amendments to existing
reform legislations
Protecting the gains made under

existing land-related reform policies in
the 1987 Constitution, in view of efforts
by certain sectors to amend the
Charter. (Charter change)
Need to anticipate & to address

possible efforts at Constitutional
amendments, including:
Possible reversals of land-related
reform provisions;
Possible removal of existing
restrictions over foreign ownership
of lands, natural resources &
utilities
The proposal towards Charter change

i.e., whether to proceed, how it is to be
instituted, and which sections are to be
reviewed & amended are still currently
under public discussion & debate. Hence,
no GO-CSO mechanisms have yet been
established.
27
Sub-themes

issues?
Addressing current efforts by the

Congress to amend the CARP Law
(i.e., under the Farmland as Collateral
Bill)
Need to forge broader public

awareness, debate & consensus on the
potential impacts of the Farmland as
Collateral Bill as currently pending,
especially on specific, proposed
provisions re:
Removal of land ceilings;
Use of agrarian reform farmland
as collateral, & removal of
restrictions on land transactions
involving reformed lands.
Congressional hearings have been

conducted at the initiative of sponsoring
legislators. However, no GO-CSO
institutional mechanism has yet been
established to promote broader public
information dissemination, debate or
consensus on the issue, especially within
the farmers sector which is likely to be
the most affected.
28
B. On Institutional Mechanisms for Partnership

54. Institutional land partnerships would have to involve the interaction of various sectors,
agencies, or groups to achieve a particular task, objective, goal or vision while
maintaining their own respective institutional autonomy. The process of negotiating land
partnerships, however, requires courage and innovation, since in many situations, the
systemic obstacles, the complex transaction processes and opposing self-interests are
firmly entrenched. Moreover, the process of establishing negotiating mechanisms to
resolve land-related issues requires sensitive facilitation, as it involves diverse public and
private interests, and oftentimes, competing claims between powerful vested interests and
hitherto weaker institutions of the poor.
Levels of Partnership
55. Partnerships may be categorized under different levels as follows:17
a. Consultative Partnership Exists among institutions hoping to establish new relations
with other organizations for information exchange or dialogue.
b. Coordinative Partnership Efforts are exerted to avoid duplication of activities and
synchronize separate institutional initiatives for greater efficiency and effectiveness in
field operations. Interagency committees could be an example.
c. Complementary Partnership Although stakeholders have separate initiatives, they
are all guided by a common program framework characterized by purposive efforts to
support each other.
d. Collaborative Partnership Institutions agree to work together, sharing a common
vision, establishing common objectives and plans of action on a program level.
Mechanisms are institutionalized so as to facilitate delivery of services to their target
communities.
e. Critical (i.e., Crucial/ Decisive) Partnership This may be the highest form and level
of partnership where institutions consider one another as indispensable partners in
pursuing broad development goals and visions. Sectors work together on a more
strategic long-term arrangement on various aspects of the socioeconomic and political
life of the community. NGOs are given access to government resources and are also
given the chance to participate in the policy formulation and decision-making process.
Structuring partnership mechanisms (for discussion):
56. Any future mechanism dealing with the cross-sectoral issue of access to land would need
to consider the following questions:
17
A common, multi-stakeholder agenda? Currently, sectors affected by issues of land

access tend to work for their own interests and seldom collaboratively, except for
common campaigns. From the review of mechanisms, inter-sectoral discussions have
been focused on two themes: poverty eradication (NAPC) and sustainable
development (PCSD); such mechanisms also tend to be more strategic and policyoriented, with both GO and CSOs acting as co-convenors. Former DAR Secretary
ANGOC, GO/NGO/PO Levels of Partnership Development Framework, Project Formulation for Peoples
Participation in Rural Development Activities Workshop Report, November 1990, p.11.
29
Ernesto Garilao says that there is potential for a effective multi-stakeholder

mechanisms, provided, (a) stakeholders are autonomous, (b) there is recognition of
differences, (c) there is a capacity to constructive engagement through dialogues and
negotiations; and (d) there is a commitment of every stakeholder to do collaborative
work from sharing of experiences and expertise, pooling of limited resources and
technology transfer to empower the grassroots communities.
A formal mechanism, or a loose consultative arrangement? Loose-consultative

forms of partnership usually succeed since they have specific, time-bound goals and
member institutions retain their autonomy. These are usually created for the resolution
of pressing issues threatening the sectors interests, and are dissolve afterwards, as is
usually done by CSOs. They are flexible in membership and strategies although
consensus is still a key element. Formal mechanisms, on the other hand, are created by
or pursuant to a law and have institutional resources. Hence, these are usually better
recognized as legitimate or credible. However, they are also seen as dependent on the
agency that created them. But with the proper representation and facilitation, formal
mechanisms could be more effective in influencing various government agencies and
branches to act on agreements.
Work on existing structures? From interviews and Roundtable Discussions, the

emerging consensus seems to be, to work with, and to improve on, the existing
mechanisms perhaps through task forces, inter-sectoral forums, liaison/coordinating
bodies or lead agencies.
At what level? Policy-directed forums are best established at national level. Nationallevel policy discussions are said to operate best if participants are informed through
case studies or documentations of field-based pilot initiatives and issues. Meanwhile,
partnerships for field implementation are best established at the level of a province or
a cluster of municipalities. Resolving specific land issues such as disputes in agrarian
reform should also be tackled more on the local than at the national level.
57. Possible options for next steps. At the Roundtable Discussion held on 13 July, the
researchers were requested to prepared and present concrete ideas on next steps for a
land partnership. As a later addition to this discussion paper, Table 3 below provides
some options on how such land partnership mechanism(s) could potentially be structured.
30
Table 3.
Mechanism
1. Coordination/
Umbrella
Framework
NAPC/PCSD
Description
Key examples of this type are NAPC
and PCSD, which bring together a wide
range of sectors and broad
constituencies under common themes/
shared agendas of poverty eradication
and sustainable development,
respectively. Such multi-sectoral
structure is best for formulating/
negotiating policies and programs, and
for monitoring progress and issues in
national programs.
A land partnership could be established
as a special thematic group within an
existing mechanism such as PCSD or
NAPC initially ad hoc, with the
possibility later of having a more
institutionalized presence with a
facilitating/ monitoring role.
2.
Special
Thematic
Forums
CARP
(farmers)
UDHA
(urban poor)
IPRA
(indigenous
peoples)
This arrangement takes cognizance of

the fact that the existing mechanisms
are still structured along sectoral
representations and thematic interests.
There is expressed interest, yet still
limited knowledge and appreciation of
cross-sectoral land issues. Specific
institutions could be assigned to
organize forums on specific themes or
topics. Initially, the issue of Land
Conversion has been identified as one
important topic, which could involve
CSOs from both the agrarian reform/
agriculture sector and the urban sector,
along with local government (LGU)
representatives. Discussions would be
better informed with specific case
studies and documentation of local
initiatives. Further follow-up actions
could be undertaken.
A small ad hoc committee, based on
GO-CSO counterparting
arrangements, could be organized to
coordinate the process.
31
3.
Mechanism
Legislative
Campaigns
Framework
Govt.
CSO
4.
Field
Implementat
ion within
Sectors
CSO
Legislative
Line
Agency
LGU
Description
CSOs naturally take the lead role in
such campaigns, and the selection of a
facilitating agency or committee will
depend on the specific legislation being
addressed. Existing forums could be
enlarged and made more inclusive
e.g., NAPC discussions on the LARA
bill, and follow-up of PCSD on the bill
for a Comprehensive Land Use Act. In
the agrarian reform sector, a major
legislation is the pending Farmland as
Collateral bill, which, to agrarian reform
advocates appears as a threat to the
reform program itself. Discussions and
negotiations could be established with
selected legislators under a Joint
Forum.
This involves working on a more local
area-based approach, based on
tripartite working arrangements among
CSOs, line agency and LGU. Task
forces and pilot-testing initiatives could
be undertaken to address particular
bottlenecks in current land-related
reform programs. Under IPRA, some
local initiatives are underway for
harmonizing local LGU land-use and
development plans with the ancestral
domain plans of IP communities
covered by CADCs or CADTs. Still,
other field approaches may have
potential for scaling-up, thus, a further
need for forums among field
implementing agencies and
practitioners.
32
IV. Establishing a Land partnership mechanism to address land conflicts

between farmers and indigenous peoples
From the abovementioned findings, ANGOC and its partners acted on two of the
recommendations, namely, 1)to intensify discussions of certain themes and issues affecting
access to land and their resolution within an umbrella or coordinative institution like NAPC or
PCSD, and 2) cross-sectoral discussions on land issues between indigenous peoples and
farmers.
A. Land Partnerships Project
As a concrete follow-up, the pressing issue of addressing conflicts from overlapping claims
on areas covered by Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and the Indigenous
Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) was given focus in the ensuing Land Partnerships Project. These
conflicts have unfortunately led to the loss of lives among the rural poor.
The project focused on the discussion of land conflicts between IPs and farmers, and with the
concerned government agencies that should be accountable for resolving these conflicts. The
objectives were to:
Convene inter-sectoral and multi-stakeholder discussions on the issue of overlapping land
claims at the national and field levels;
Create a venue for a common understanding of the basis of land claims made by IPs and
farmer groups; that both groups may understand the aspirations of each other in laying
claim on the land; and
Draw out policies and mechanisms from the process to address conflicting tenurial claims,
especially between farmers and IP groups.
Two cases on overlapping claims to land by IPs and farmers were looked at in Mindoro
Oriental and Bukidnon to renew discussions on the issue with the stakeholders involved and
generate recommendations to resolve these conflicts.
Ancestral Domains or CARPable lands?
Kaibigan ko na sila at lumaki kaming magkapit-bahay. Wala naman kaming away ng
Tagalog (lowlanders) sa lupa dati. Pero nung inalok sila ng DAR na gawing CLOA
beneficiary at nag-survey na sa lupa, nasakop din pati lupa namin. Sabi ng Tagalog, pag
binigay na ang CLOA sa kanila dapat kaming umalis doon. Paano ko siya titignan ngayon --kaibigan o kaaway? (We grew up as friends and neighbors but we never had any argument
over land with the lowlanders before. But when DAR started to survey the land and included
them as CLOA beneficiaries, our [ancestral] land was also covered. The lowlanders insist
that we leave the area once the CLOA has been issued. How do I look at them now--- friends
or enemies?)
Such was the question asked by Yaum Sumbad, an elderly Mangyan from Mindoro Oriental
that summarizes the issue faced by many Indigenous Peoples as they run into conflict with
farmers with government issuing two different tenurial instruments over the same piece of
land. The DAR, according to the Mangyan, is ready to award almost 200 hectares of land
33
within the Ancestral Domain of the Buhid Mangyan in Bongabong, Mindoro Oriental under
the CARP. The same area is covered by CADC No. 130 issued by the NCIP.
Apparently, this is not an isolated case. NCIP Commissioner Lagtum Pasag says the
Commission has been receiving complaints filed by different IP groups for the same reason -- that the DAR is likewise processing or issuing CLOAs from their ancestral domains, either
with CADCs already or with pending applications in NCIP.
The DAR cites Proclamation No.2282 for covering these ancestral domains. This presidential
ruling issued in 1983 potentially covers 1.5 million hectares of public lands declared as
agricultural nationwide. On the other hand, there has been no NCIP counter-argument to this
claim.
Meanwhile, in Bukidnon, conflict between farmers and IPs of Don Carlos Estate in the
municipality of Valencia already resulted in several deaths from both groups. A Manobo tribe
applied for a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claim (CADC) covering the 2,000 hectareestate, formerly owned by Danding Cojuangco. Although a Presidential Task Force was
already organized in 2003 to resolve the issue (Task Force 63 headed by then NAPC Lead
Convenor Ging Deles and Presidential Security Adviser Renato de Villa), there is still no final
resolution to the case.
On the other hand, some of the farmers in the estate, who were former tenants of the San
Miguel Corporation, claimed that some parts of the estate were already titled with a CLOA
before the passage of IPRA in 1997. Hence, they felt that these titles should be respected as
stated in Section 56 of the IPRA, which states that IPRA will respect pre-existing titles prior
to its passage in 1997.
Three deaths have preceded the intervention of Task Force 63 in Bukidnon. Hence,
antagonism has been high between the two sectors.
But both IPs and farmers articulated in the local consultation organized through this Project
that they want the process of arriving at a common and amenable resolution to continue. Tired
and poor, these sectors merely want government to clarify their rights over the land in
question so they can reap the fruits of the land.
Root of the Conflict
It became evident that the root causes of land conflicts could be attributed to the following: a)
lack of understanding on the cultures of the two sectors, b) conflicting policies and their
interpretation on laws relating to access to land, and c) poor implementation of the laws (i.e.,
CARL and IPRA).
Henceforth, the IPs and farmers agreed to:
o Increase awareness and understanding on their cultures as well as legal rights
o Initiate mechanisms for dialogue to discuss, mitigate and resolve conflicts
o Capacitate themselves and organizations
o Establish formal coordination between the farmer and IP sectoral representatives in the
National Anti-Poverty Commission
34
In relation to DAR, NCIP, DENR, NAPC, Congress, Local Government Units, the following
actions have been demanded:
o Better implementation and coordination among agencies, particularly in delineating lands
under CARP, IPRA and other policies related to access to land
o Involve farmers and IPs in terms of implementing their respective programs, particularly
in identifying the beneficiary groups
o Harmonize existing laws related to land
o Create a database of cases (potential and ongoing) of land conflicts
o Conduct information and education campaigns on CARP and IPRA
o Create task forces at local and national levels to mitigate/resolve land conflicts, with the
National Anti-Poverty Commission taking the lead
o Train respective NGO staff as well as farmers and IP groups themselves to be sensitive
of each others cultures
Creating a Mechanism to handle IP-farmer land conflicts
The Project was able to facilitate the discussion on the revival and expansion of a special Task
Force (TF 63) to address emergency situations adversely affecting the IPs and/or Farmers
sectors in the absence of a mechanism to resolve these issues. The NAPC Basic Sectors were
able to present the urgency of the issue before President Gloria Arroyo during the last En
Banc session of NAPC. It was then that the President already expressed support for reviving
the said Task Force.
Responsible agencies for this issue (i.e., the DAR, NCIP, NAPC, DENR, DOJ, DOJCOSLAP and the Office of the President) together with some CSO representatives then began
the process of drafting a Memorandum Order (MO) to revive the defunct Task Force 63 and
pursue the quest for a lasting solution of these intersectoral conflicts on land. NAPC has taken
the helm in re-establishing this mechanism by calling for Interagency meetings to finalize the
M.O. for submission to the Office of the President.
B. Insights from the Project
1. The need for common understanding between indigenous peoples and farmers over their
claims to land is crucial for a peaceful and lasting solution to land conflicts. There is no
conflict per se between the two groups. However, there are cultural differences on how land
ownership is viewed by each sector which may not be easy to accept. There has been little
effort even among organized farmers and IP groups to establish a collective analysis of their
issues and corresponding solutions they might work on together. Even NGOs, the DAR and
the NCIP need to do cross-sectoral analysis to arrive at a consensus on how to support these
POs to prevent or resolve further land conflicts.
2. A notion arose that DAR may be covering ancestral domains to plug their unaccomplished
targets since the former seem easier to acquire than the more difficult Private Agricultural
Lands (PALs) which are among the original CARP targets. These are vast tracts of hectarage
usually owned by powerful and even political families and comprise the most contentious
lands for distribution under CARP.
35
Agrarian reform NGO and PO groups fear that should the DAR mainstream the
implementation of Proclamation 2282, the Department may abandon the distribution of the
more difficult Private Agricultural Lands owned by the landed elite and the Untitled Private
Agricultural Lands (UPALs) in favor of these ancestral domains.
3. Land reconsolidation from farmer beneficiaries to former landowners or agribusinesses is
definitely becoming a growing second-generation setback of CARP. From the case in
Bukidnon, it was found that farmers are leasing their lands awarded to them under CARP to
agri-business ventures. This is basically due to the farmers lack of income for basic needs.
There are also reports that these efforts to reconsolidate land by private interest groups are
allegedly brokered by local DAR officials themselves. With their vested interests on land,
private groups can also capitalize on the tension between IPs and farmers by fanning the feud
and employing divide and rule tactics.
4. The NCIP seems to be a powerless agency in enforcing the IPRA. It receives a meager
budget which is not enough to expedite the processing of CADCs. NCIP also has difficulty in
securing the cooperation of other government agencies or branches to protect ancestral
domains. Though weak, it is still a vital mechanism to uphold IP rights in this country. Its
rehabilitation and empowerment is in order to achieve equal footing with other government
agencies, especially with the DAR.
5. The passage of a National Land Use Policy is integral in resolving present and future land
conflicts between multistakeholders. Government must have a national framework to analyze
the usage of land and other common property resources and ensure that the rights of
marginalized sectors depending on these resources are respected.
36
Annex A
Selected Philippine laws related to lands of the public domain
and ancestral lands (1902-1985)18
The following are land laws passed during the American Colonial Period:
1. 1902 Philippine Bill This upheld effectively the Spanish cadastral laws
2. 1902 Land Registration Act This required the acquisition of a Torrens title for
all land property or as proof of land ownership
3. 1905 Public Land Act All unregistered land and without Torrens title were
declared as public lands, under ownership and administration of the state.
4. 1918 Public Land Act This provided for the claiming and registration of lands
through a free patent system. However, metal and mineral deposits remain the
property of the government. Timberlands were also exempted from the free patent
ruling.
5. Mining Act 1905 This opened up the mineral resources found in the ancestral
lands of the minorities to the American prospectors as mine concessionaries. The
Mining Act of 1935 made gold panning and native mining punishable.
6. Proclamation No. 217 (1929; Governor-general Stimson) This created the
Central Cordillera Forest Reserve, which covers 81.8 percent of the land area of
the Cordillera provinces, including mountain areas of Abra, Ilocos Norte, Ilocos
Sur, Pangasinan, and Nueva Viscaya.
7. Proclamation No. 634 (Oct. 8, 1940) This created the Mount Data National Park,
covering 5,513 hectares.
Following are selected laws and administrative orders during the post-colonial period.
This first list recognizes the rights of indigenous peoples to the land they have occupied.
1. Executive Order 180 (Magsaysay Law of 1950) This prescribed rules and
regulations covering the acquisition of titles on favor[ed] lots within the Mount
Data National Park and the Central Cordillera Forest Reserve. It directed the
Bureaus of Lands, Forestry and Soils, and the Mountain Province Development
Authority to grant Igorots the right to acquire titles over lands they had occupied
and cultivated with the two reserves since July 4, 1945, provided that they
complete survey and registration of these lands.
2. R.A. 782 (Public Land Law of 1952) This grants occupants of public agricultural
lands the right to own the same, if they have been there since or before July 4,
1946.
3. R.A. 3872 (Manahan Amendment of 1964) This provides for automatic
acquisition of private, individual title by national cultural communities which have
18
Source: J.P. Brett, L.C. Mendoza, B.P. Tapang, G.A. Cruz, A.A. Colongon, V.C. Diaz, M.C. San Luis, and
A.G. Follosco. CBNRM and IP Land Rights: Issues of property rights and local collective action in the
ancestral domain of Cordillera communities of Northern Philippines. Cordillera Studies Center, University
of the Philippines Baguio. April 30, 2004.
37
4.
5.
6.
7.
for 30 years or more, since July 1935, occupied lands of public domain suitable to
agricultural purposes. This was intended to apply to ancestral lands even if these
had not yet been classified as alienable and disposable by the Bureau of Forest
Development.
Administrative Order No. 11 (Bureau of forestry 1970) This provides that all
forest concessions shall be subject to the private rights of cultural minorities
within the concession as evidenced by their occupation existing at the time a
license is issued.
Presidential Decree 410 (Ancestral Land decree 1974) This identifies all
agricultural lands occupied and cultivated by members of national cultural
communities since 1964 as alienable and disposable, with the exclusion of Panay,
Negros, Abra, Quezon, Benguet, and Camarines. This requires ethnic minority
citizens to acquire Land Occupancy Certificates, which can be used in
applications for free patents. It provides further that occupants of ancestral lands
have 10 years to perfect their titles, or otherwise lose their preferential right
thereto.
Presidential Decree 1529 (Property Registration Decree of 1978) This provides
for the registration of land ownership by those who by themselves or their
predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of all alienable and disposable land of the public
domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1946 or those who
have acquired ownership of land in any other manner provided for by law.
Presidential Decree 1998 (1985) - Authorizes the classification and/or
reclassification of lands 18 percent in slope or over in the provinces of Cebu and
Benguet as alienable and disposable provided that certain conditions and criteria
are met, viz., the area is developed, planted to agricultural crops using effective
erosion control practices like terracing, and there are basic structures clearly
existing like school, church, etc.
This second list of laws asserts the states ownership of all natural resources in the
public domain.
1. Presidential Decree 389 (Forest Reform Code of 1974) and Presidential Decree 705
(Revised Forestry Code of 1975) These declare that all lands of the public domain 18
percent in slope or over as permanent forests or forest reserves. Lands 18 percent in slope
previously classified as alienable and disposable but not yet titled are reverted to the
public forest category. P.D. 705 reiterates the law that no land 18 percent in slope
shall be classified as alienable and disposable.
2. Presidential Decree 1559 (Ejectment Amendment to the Revised Code of 1978) This
declared that kaingeros (slash and burn swiddeners), squatters, cultural minorities, and
other occupants of public forests or unclassified public land shall, whenever the best land
use of the area so demands as determined by the Bureau of Forestry Development
Director, be ejected and relocated to the nearest government settlement area.
38
Annex B
Notes on Urbanization & Housing Issues in the Philippines*
The demographic situation
The Philippines has one of the highest rates of urban growth rates in the developing world,
reaching 5.1% from 1960 to 1995. These are caused by many factors, among which are: one,
a very high national birth rate of about 2.3% per year, and an even higher birth rate of 2.9% in
urban areas; two, migration from rural areas as a result of extreme rural poverty as rural
incomes average one fourth or 25% from urban incomes as well as extreme landholding
disparities between the rich and the poor: and three, the premature reclassification of rural to
urban lands as a result of the National Statistics Offices definition of urban as having
500 to a thousand residents/sq. km., the existence of basic facilities such as church, plaza,
market and public buildings. Also, reclassifying towns into cities make the LGU beneficiaries
of the Internal Revenue Allotment, profit from land conversion processes and the subsequent
rise in real estate taxes.
Below is an estimate of the countrys projected population in the next 25 years.
Estimated Urban Population, 1995 to 2030
(Philippine Statistical Yearbook, 1995)
Year
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
Estimated Population
68,424,077
75,223,853
81,590,921
87,206,449
92,429,710
97,681,831
102,686,370
107,123,873
%Urban
45.5
48.2
50.9
53.5
56.0
58.4
60.0
62.7
This tremendous yet premature pull towards urbanization is marked by the incapacity of urban
areas to offer adequate facilities conducive to human habitation as indicated by the lack of
sufficient social services and shelter.
Economic and housing situation
In addition to tremendous population pressure, the Philippines has been transformed from a
predominantly agricultural to an increasingly industrial economy in the last four decades. The
share of GDP from industry and services rose from 28% in 1965 to 77% in 1990 and to nearly
81% in 1998. The key urban oriented sectors have increased their employment from 47% of
the total in 1986 to 63% in 1996. This means that more manpower, capital (like financial
resources and allocation) and resources (such as land and water sources) are being channeled
*
Prepared by Roy Mendoza, research study team.
39
away from agriculture and into urban oriented industries whether for manufacturing,
commercial or leisure and entertainment purposes.
At the same time, there is a great housing backlog that must be addressed by government.
From 1993 to 1998, the estimated housing shortage in the Philippines was placed at 3.72
million housing units. The countrys housing shortage can be attributed to the following
factors: one, the rapid increase in the growth rate of family formation - 2.4% at the national
level and 5% in the urban areas and compounded with a growing rural to urban migration;
two, lack of funds due to hesitancy of lending institutions to finance housing on account of
low-yield, long-term amortization nature of housing loans, prohibitive cost of lands especially
in urban areas and governments neglect of housing concerns on account that it is only
allotted less than 1% of the annual national budget.
Another problematic as far as the study is concerned is that of the Balanced Housing
Provision (Sec. 18) of the Urban Development and Housing Act (as discussed below). In its
desire to make housing more affordable for the urban poor, the law required private
developers to allot 20% of their housing projects for socialized housing. Note that many
developers prefer housing projects that range from the simple subdivision (mid~range) to the
condominium and open market (upscale) because of less government regulations or
restrictions. For example, developers complain that socialized housing is defined by price as a
150,000 peso house and lot and loaned that is subject to only 6% interest. To get away from
this predicament, the developers lobbied for the revision of the law by building this 20%
requirement from the metropolis to the adjacent region (Regions 3 and 4 in the case of
Manila). Thus, what started out as a noble intention to provide shelter to the poor ended up in
land conversions to the detriment of the agricultural sector.
To illustrate this point, Region 4 was the most affected in terms of complying with this
requirement. In 1998, this region accounted for 59.83% of the national total, 48.66% in 1999,
36.3% in 2000, 57% in 2001 and 39.41% in 2002. The same trend could also be said of the
open market scheme.
40
Annex C
Stakeholder Perspectives on Land Issues
A workshop conducted by LAMP with the seven basic sectors of NAPC identified the pervading
issues on the implementation of programs that address the poors access to land.19 More
specifically, the farmers, fishers, urban poor and informal sector, and the indigenous communities
raised the following problems and issues:
(a) Farmers and Fishers
On land titling and land valuation processes
Multiple/overlapping land titles of same lands
Slow, unclear and expensive land titling procedures
Slow approval of survey plans
Non-existent of land but with title; with CLOA but no land
Unclear procedures for land title transfer (transfer of rights)
Illegal issuances of titles
Land titling process does not have a time-frame
Disorganized/unsystematic processes
Overlapping land surveys
Marshlands and swamps are titled to private individuals
Illegal titling of foreshore lands
Land valuations are issued without the actual investigation of the LBP
DAR is slow in issuing CLOAs
On land records and information
Disorganized/unsystematic land records
No clear land information
Inconsistent NAMRIA technical description and cadastral survey
Inconsistent land description and boundaries
On land classification and land conversion
Irrigated and irrigable lands have been converted into residential subdivisions
Foreshore land conversion
Anomalies in land conversion favored influential few
Conversion of ISF are into alienable and disposable lands
Unclear boundary between foreshore lands and marshlands
On settlement areas and fishing grounds of small fishers
Provision of RA 8550 on the settlement areas for the fishers is not implemented
DENR does not have a settlement program for the fishers
Settlement disputes between small fishers and resort/fishpond owners
Conversion of mangrove areas to fishponds
Prioritization of aquaculture is not for small fishers
Marine lots occupants came from non-fishing sectors
19
From A Report on LAMP Consensus Building Activities With Civil Society Organizations, Philippines-Australia Land
Administration Project, August 2003, pp. 1-43
41
Unclear boundary of fishponds lease agreements (FLAs)

To the fisher, the 25-year effectivity of FLA is unjust
On government performance
Lack of support services for the fishers
Establishment of marine sanctuaries without consultation with concerned LGUs
DARAB is slow in resolving land conflicts
(b) Urban Poor and Workers In the Informal Sector
On land titling and land registration procedures
Slow land titling and land registration process
Expensive land surveys, land taxes and land expropriation
Long judicial process to correct errors in titles and difficulty in resolving land-related
conflicts
No clear process for cancellation of titles
Many types of land titles
Unclear policies on tax incentives for social housing
On Land Conversion
The processing of application for Community Mortgage Program and land conversion is
centralized in Manila
Problems in the implementation of zoning ordinances and land use policies
On land information/records
Problems in land information/records such as missing land titles, fake titles, overlapping
surveys, overlapping claims, no land records, typographical errors in land titles, surveying
is done only in tables and not on the ground/field
On Conflicting laws and policies
Conflicting laws such as RA 730 and EO 131
The Implementing Rules and Regulation (IRR) of UDHA conflicts with UDHA
On the performance of government agencies in land administration and local government
units
Most often, DENR-LMB favors the rich over the poor in awarding foreshore lands
Register of Deeds (ROD) increased their fees without consultation
No coordination among government agencies in the resolution of land0related problems
Non-inventory of lands by the LGUs such as in Gen. Santos City
Lack of knowledge of DENR, ROD and even the courts on the Urban Development and
Housing Act (UDHA)
Lack or weak capability of LGU in land administration
Titling of public lands through unscrupulous officials most public lands are owned by
relatives of government officials
Lack of information on land administration processes (no flowcharts in concerned
government agencies)
DENR and ROD are not updated on the status of lands in their respective areas. For
instance, DENR cannot provide maps of pasture lands with expired contracts
Corruption in government agencies providing land administration services. For instance,
fixers are rampant in DENR and ROD and many DENR, ROD and LRA people connive
with syndicates
42
There are multiple government agencies doing land administration functions and there is
no clear coordination with them
Reclassification of lands without conversion approval
Other major problems cited

Squatting problems
Conflicting concepts of land ownership of the Moros, Lumads and settlers/ migrants in
Mindanao
Lack of consultation on land conversion and proclamations
(c) Indigenous Peoples/Communities
On delineation of ancestral domain
No clear delineation of public and private domain including alienable and disposable lands
CBFMA within AD areas
Private titled lands within AD
Survey boundaries are not fixed at tie points
There are cases where ancestral lands is occupied by IPs, but is titled to other individuals
Forest and watershed boundaries are unclear
Unclear boundary between IP ancestral water domain and FARMC areas
On land titling, registration and records
Conflicting land tenure instruments (LTIs, LUIs)
Overlapping claims
Fake titles
Long and slow land titling process
Many titles are in the names of male heads of families, disregarding the rights of female
heads
Early titles of Cordilleras are nowhere to be founds (cadastral survey and early ancestral
application 1925-1949)
Inconsistent records of DENR and Assessors office
No recognized system of CADT Registration
IPs cannot afford to pay land taxes and the high cost of survey fee and title processing
IPs do not know where to register land because of political boundary conflict
IPs are not familiar with the land titling processes
On Land Valuation
No specific guidelines or policy on land valuation
On the performance of government agencies in land administration and local government
units
There are multiple agencies administering the land. These agencies protect more their
turfs than seek coordination for the betterment and systematization of land administration
services
Government is not providing funds for the survey, delineation and titling of ancestral
domain and ancestral lands
Government agencies in land administration do not provide the necessary assistance to the
NCIP
Too many proclamations of reservations and parks
Many LGUs do not recognize CADC and CADT
High level of corruption in government
43
Lack of political will to implement pro-poor policies (specific case: DENR awarded
ancestral land to DACON /David Consunji)
On laws and policies

RA 8371 conflicts with other laws
On non-recognition of IP concept of land and landownership
Non-recognition of the rights of the IPs to their ancestral domain
Non-acceptance of indigenous land tenure improvement
Traditional land ownership concept of the IPs conflict with the mainstream landownership
concept
44
Annex D
Table 3. Summary of Mechanisms on Land Issues
Context
Name of
mechanism
Objective / mandate
Lead
Agency
Composition / structure
1. Philippine
Council on
Sustainable
Development
(PCSD)
Established by virtue of Executive Order

No. 15, Sept. 1992 signed by former
Pres. Fidel Ramos.
PCSD
Secretariat
at the
NEDA
PCSD Council Composition (based on

EO 15)
Government Departments of Foreign
Affairs, Science and Technology,
Finance, Agriculture, Public Works and
Highways, Education, Culture and
Sports, Labor and employment,
Health, Trade and Industry, Social
Welfare and Development, Budget and
Management, National Defense, Office
of Energy Affairs
Observations/Trends (+/- based

on objectives /
accomplishments)
a. Cross-Sectoral
Led the making of
Philippine Agenda 21, a
multistakeholder
document which is
intended as the countrys
blueprint for sustainable
development. It roots
from a long and
extensive consultation
process across sectors
and regions. PA21
discusses the issue on
land access under the
Action Agenda for
Ecosystems.
1. To ensure implementation of the

commitments the Philippines made in the
1992 UNCED conference;
2. To establish guidelines and
mechanisms that will expand, concretize
and operationalize the sustainable
development principles as embodied in
the RIO declaration, UNCED Agenda 21,
the National Conservation Strategy, and
the Philippine Agenda 21, and
incorporate them in the preparation of the
Medium Term Development Plan both at
the national and local levels with active
participation from the NGO and PO
sectors;
3. To provide directions through policy
reforms, programs and new legislations
that respond to the continuing and
emerging issues and charting future
actions in relation to environment and
development;
4. To act as the coordinating mechanism
in cooperation with DFA-office of the
UNIO with the UNCSD and actively solicit
assistance and cooperation towards the
realization of our commitments made at
Civil society assigned seven (7)

representatives as selected by the
NGO community considering
commitment to the environment,
gender balance, and sectoral
representation through their own
process.
This has been superceded by a new
Executive Order in 1997 and 2001.
DAR was included as part of PCSD
in 1997.
45
Context
Name of
mechanism
Objective / mandate
Lead
Agency

on objectives /
accomplishments)
Presidential proclamations of five idle

sites for socialized housing for the
urban poor; ACEF, representation in
the National Marketing Umbrella (FTI)
for the peasant sector; Has a good
representation of the countrys poor
sectors
the UNCED;
5. To require any and all government
agencies for assistance in the form of
personnel, facilities and other resources
which is essential for the performance of
the duties of the Council;
6. To create sub-committees that it may
deem fit in the performance of its duties
7. To perform other acts necessary to
carry out its mandated functions and
responsibilities.
Social reform initiative of
the Ramos administration
and its institutionalization
through RA 8425
2. National Anti
Poverty
Commission
RA 8425 or the Social Reform and

Poverty Alleviation Act;
Sectoral intervention to poverty
alleviation
NAPC as
the
Secretariat
President is chairperson of the NAPC

and is assisted by two Vice Chairs,
for government and basic sectors.
There are 14 basic sectors each
represented by a rep. And two
alternates. They have a government
counterpart. The highest body is the
En Banc meeting, below it is the Exec.
Comm. and below it is the Inter
sectoral council
3. Presidential
Agrarian Reform
Council (PARC)
Formulate and / or implement policies,

rules and regulations necessary to
implement each component of the CARP
and may authorize any of its members to
formulate rules and regulations
concerning aspects of agrarian reform
falling within their area of responsibility
DAR
22 Members
President of the Philippines
(Chairperson), Heads of DAR, DA,
DENR (Vice-chairpersons), Members:
Executive Secretary, Heads of DBM,
DOF, DOJ, DOLE, DILG, DPWH, DTI,
DOTC, NEDA , LBP, PCGG
Members from Private Sector:
NGO/Po Representatives (3 reps)
Landowner Representative (3 reps)
b. CARP
Existing Mechanisms
CARL (RA 6657)
provides the legal
framework for the
implementation of CARP.
EO No. 299 Providing
Mechanisms for CARP
implementation
Strengths
Presence of all government
agencies which can identify
problems associated with the
coordination of CARP activities
Presence of private sector
representatives which can raise
their sectoral problems, issues
and concerns
Willingness of PARC ExeCom to
listen to the views of other
groups who are not even
46
Context
Name of
mechanism
Objective / mandate
Lead
Agency

on objectives /
accomplishments)
represented in the PARC
ExeCom
Weaknesses
Difficulty to meet regularly due to
hectic schedules of members
Lack of budget
CARL (RA 6657)

EO No. 299
4. Provincial
Agrarian Reform
Coordinating
Committee
(PARCCOM)
.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Overall CARP coordination to

harmonize working relationships
among CARP implementers and its
stakeholders, and integrate or
synchronize inter-agency inputs
Monitoring and Evaluation to check
on the progress of CARP and
identify need for further support
and/or corrective action
Policy Review/ Formulation to
provide needed direction, cohesion
and consistency to CARP
Resource Mobilization to ensure
PARCCOM sustainability and to
augment the seed fund presently
provided by the PARC Secretariat
Other functions that open the
PARCCOM to participate in
endeavors not falling under any of
the above
DAR
PARCCOM is composed of 12-13

members, as follows:
1. Chairperson from the private
sector appointed by the President
and recommended by the PARC
ExeCom
Government Sector Ex Officio
Members
2. DAR-PARO as the PARCCOM
Executive Officer
3. DA -Provincial Agricultural Officer
(PAO) or the LGU Provincial
Agriculturist
4. PENRO or CENRO
5. LBP representative
Private Sector Elective Members,
representing:
6. Farmer Organizations
7. Agricultural Coops
8. NGOs
9. Landowners (Principal crop in the
Province)
10. Landowners (Other crops)
11. Farmer/Farmworker Beneficiaries
(Principal Crop)
12. Farmer/Farmworker Beneficiaries
(Other Crops)
Strength
To some extent, the PARCCOM
usually presided by the Provincial
Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO), has
leverage on the disposition of the
mobilization of resources (human,
technical and financial) to fully support
the operations of provincial and
municipal CARP Implementing Teams
(CITs) composed of DAR along with
other government line agencies.
Weakness
Lack of Budget
Difficulty to convene due to hectic
schedule of members and
different program priorities
47
Context
Name of
mechanism
Objective / mandate
Lead
Agency

on objectives /
accomplishments)
13. Cultural Communities (if any)

Each PARCCOM connects to the
PARC ExCom/TechCom and the
PARC Secretariat. It links with the
CARP Implementing Team (PCIT)
through the Provincial Agrarian Reform
Officer (PARO) and PCIT Chairperson
(except in certain provinces where the
Provincial Agrarian Governor acts as
PCIT Chairmen). It also connects with
the BARCs downward through the
PARO and the Municipal Agrarian
Reform Officers (MAROs) concerned.
CARL (RA 6657)

EO No. 299
5. Barangay
Agrarian Reform
Council (BARC)
1.
2.
3.
SPECIAL CONCERNS
There are implementing
6. Quick Reaction
Operation (QRO)
To participate and give support to

the implementation of programs on
AR
To mediate, conciliate or arbitrate
agrarian conflicts and issues that
are brought to it for resolution
To perform such other functions that
the PARC, its ExeCom or the DAR
Secretary may delegate from time to
time
QRO System created by virtue of DAR

Special Order No. 284 dated May 6,
1994 to provide quick and efficient
DAR
DAR
The PCIT is designated by EO 406 to

be PARCCOMs implementing arm.
1. Reps of farmworker beneficiaries
2. Reps farmworker nonbeneficiaries
3. Reps of agricultural coops
4. Reps of farmer organizations
5. Reps of Barangay Council
6. Reps of NGOs
7. Reps of Landowners
8. DA official assigned to the
barangay
9. DENR official assigned to the
barangay
10. DAR Agrarian Reform
Technologist as Secretary
11. Reps of LBP
Within DAR Organizational Structure:
Office
1. Central Quick Response Officer
One of the weaker components of the

PARC system, most BARCs are either
non-existent or not functional. Some
are even manned by only the BARC
Chair. Preliminary data shows that out
of 29,859 CARP covered barangays,
only 16,787 or 56% have organized
BARCS. Of these, 8,218 (49%) fully
operational; 4,929 (29%) are semioperational; and 3,641 (21%) are not
operational (as of Dec 99)
Assessments show that majority of the
BARCs remain improperly organized
and tend to be headed by local officials
and landowners.
As a matter of policy, the DAR
management recognizes the
importance of responding immediately
48
Context
Name of
mechanism
mechanisms internal to
DAR which provide
venues for dialogue for
NGOs/POs concerns.
From an order of the

DAR Secretary to the
Regional and/or
Provincial Agrarian
Reform Adjudicator and
the Chiefs of the Legal
and Operations Division
to constitute a Task
Force for the immediate
resolution of a case. The
said Task Force is to be
headed by the most
senior official among
members.
7. Special Concerns
Action Team
(SCAT) later
replaced by the High
Impact Priority
Cases
Objective / mandate

on objectives /
accomplishments)
response mechanism within the DAR

organizational structure.
2.
3.
(1) To minimize, if not eliminate, the

concentration of complaints, issues and
/or disputes brought to the Central Office;
(2) To provide the CARP Field
Implementers and Quick Response
Officers fundamental guide in handling
and managing complains/ issues; and (3)
To facilitate early resolution of case and
implementation of the Writ of Execution
thus paving the way for smooth CARP
implementation.
4.
to complaints, issues and concerns

raised by farmers, landowners,
farmers organizations and other
clientele groups.
To fast track delivery of quality service to

farmers organizations, Special Orders
227-229 were drafted for the creation of
Special Concerns Action Team (SCAT)
dated April 22, 2003.
The Action Teams were tasked to:
Coordinate, liaise and strategize
with the proper DAR offices on all
legitimate issues and concerns
being raised by farmers groups;
Establish and maintain a responsive
feed backing-feed forward
mechanism between and among
heads of offices and the petitioners/
complainants thru a weekly meeting;
Provide the Office of the Secretary
with regular updates on all issues
Lead
Agency
5.
6.
7.
8.
DAR
1.
2.
3.
Regional Quick Response Officer

Provincial Quick Response
Officer
Special Concern Staff (SCS) as
the central coordinating and
monitoring unit under the Policy
Planning and Legal Affairs;
tasked to convene and monitor all
PO/NGO consultations at the
national level and consolidate
reports on PO consultations
conducted at the regional and
provincial levels including actions
taken by DAR.
NGO representatives
PO representatives
Landowner representatives
Other concerned
persons/agencies
Director of Special Concerns Staff
as Team Leader
PO Leader Representative as
Assistant Team Leader
Members/ Resource Persons may
likewise come from the following:
DARCO Special Concern
Staff
Regional and/or Provincial
Quick Response Officers
Bureau of Agrarian Legal
Assistance (BALA)
NGO representatives
The Quick Response Officers acting

as mediators help accelerate CARP
implementation through rationalized
and simplified operating procedures
and by ensuring a fair and inexpensive
settlement of agrarian disputes. During
dialogues, it was important that
concerned parties expressed their
views on the situations to be able to
understand each others interests and
find mutually acceptable settlements.
The farmers groups involved in SCAT

were the Kapulungan Para Sa
Ikasusulong ng mga Sandigang
Magbubukid sa Mindoro Oriental
49
Context
Name of
mechanism
Objective / mandate
To strengthen the
working relationship
between DAR and
POs/NGOs pursuing a
shared strategy towards
completing the LTI
component and
addressing policy gaps
in CARP
implementation, the LTI
Working Group was
created and
complemented by the
internal mechanism by
DAR creating the
Special Operations and
Legal Services Action
Teams.
8. DAR-NGO-PO LTI
Implementation
Working Group
and concerns as well as the

recommendations or options that will
ensure fast resolution of the case or
issue;
Assess bottlenecks in early
resolution of cases/issues within and
outside DAR and formulate set of
recommendations that would
address the same; and
Perform other duties which may be
assigned by the Office of the
Secretary as the need arises.
Initiate discussions for the
identification of problem areas in LTI
implementation and work for the
resolution of these problem areas;
Assist in identification, planning and
implementation of specific actions to
be initiated by the Regional Directors
(RDs) and Provincial Agrarian
Reform Officers (PAROs) to address
and resolve LTI issues;
Recommend and jointly implement
programs and projects that will
facilitate LTI implementation.
Formulate an Agrarian Reform
Agenda and Action Plan on specific
LTI concerns especially in the areas
covered by the members of the LTI
Working Group;
Monitor the effective and efficient
implementation of the Agrarian
Reform Agenda and Action Plans;
Identify policy actions to address
existing policy gaps in LTI
implementation especially those that
have direct impact on the formulated
Lead
Agency

on objectives /
accomplishments)
(KAISA-MO), Kilusan ng Mamamayan

ng Batangas (KMB) and Makabayan
Pilipinas under SO 227; Sandigan at
Ugnayan ng Magbubukid ng Pilipinas
(SUMAPI) and National Peasant
Democratic Caucus (NPDC) under SO
228; and Kilusang Demokratikong
Masang Malaya 2001 under SO 229.
DAR
1.
OIC Secretary Jose Mari B.

Ponce
2.
From DARCO headed by ASEC

Severino T. Madronio of the Field
Operations Office
Special Operations Action Team:
key officials and personnel of the
Field Operations Office (FOO),
Bureau of Land Acquisition and
Distribution (BLAD) and the
Bureau of Land Development
(BLD)
Members of the Legal Service
Action Team: key officials and
personnel of the Policy, Planning
and Legal Affairs Office (PPLAO)
and Bureau of Agrarian Legal
Assistance (BALA)
3.
There is a growing recognition of the

important contributions of NGOs and
POs, in assisting government on its
land transfer and redistribution
program Thus, they need to be given
proper orientation on the LAD process.
PO Representatives
Representatives from national
federations such as AMA, AMMA
Katipunan, KASAMA KA,
KASAMA-FPO, KAMMPIL,
50
Context
Name of
mechanism
Objective / mandate
Lead
Agency
agenda and action plans;

Coordinate with existing mandated
structures for agrarian reform
implementation such as the PARC
and its local counterparts;
Coordinate with existing structures
and mechanism within DAR
especially those relating to LTI
implementation;
Coordinate with other existing
government coordination structures
such as the National Anti-Poverty
Commission (NAPC) especially with
the Peasant Sectoral Council.
From an order of the

DAR Secretary to the
Regional and/or
Provincial Agrarian
Reform Adjudicator and
the Chiefs of the Legal
and Operations Division
to constitute a Task
Force for the immediate
resolution of a case. The
said Task Force is to be
headed by the most
senior officials among
members.
9. CARP-Special
Legal and
Operations Team
(SLOT)
OIC Secretary Mari Ponce issued SO 353

and SO371 , Series 2004 for the
Creation of CARP-Special Legal and
Operations Team (SLOT) for the
province of Negros Occidental dated
June 3 & 7, 2004.
To come-up and implement specific

and concrete legal and operational
action plans for the immediate
resolution of prevailing problems,
issues and/or concerns that continue
to impede program implementation
in the said province;
Directed to prioritize the installation
of CLOA holders within the various
landholdings identified comprising
15 Haciendas with a total of
4.
DAR

on objectives /
accomplishments)
MAKABAYAN, PAKISAMA,
PKSK, Task Force Mapalad and
UNORKA
Representatives from regional or
local formation such as AADC,
AMKB, DKMP-PARAGOS,
KASAKA-TK, and NMGL
NGO Representatives
AR Now, CARET, COIR,
KAISAHAN, PARFUND,
PARDDS, PBSP, PEACE, PDI,
PHILNET, PPI, PRRM and
SALIGAN
THE NAPC Peasant Sectoral

Representative and the Sectoral
Council who shall sit as ex-officio
members
1. Headed by USEC Rolando
Mangulabnan of the Field
Operations Office (FOO) and Al
Haj of the Bureau of Agrarian
Legal Assistance (BALA)
2. DARCO Personnel
3. DAR Provincial Office
An NGO advocate (Atty. Bagao) was

placed in a crucial post that involves
legal and operational action in Negros
Occidental.
Landowners and POs/NGOs are

usually involved in the dialogue and
consultations conducted by the DAR
personnel.
Atty. Arlene Bag-ao, Senior Legal
Consultant was designated by
Secretary Ponce as the over-all
coordinator and/or official linkage
between CARP-SLOT Team created
51
Context
Name of
mechanism
Objective / mandate
Lead
Agency
approximately 1,500 has.
10. Peasants Forum

and Farmers
Advisory Council
The DAR initiated the Peasants Forum

at the national level and the Farmers
Advisory Council at the provincial level
to air feedback from the NGOs and POs
concerning CARP implementation.
DAR
Special projects,
taskforces and NGO or
PO-led (demand side)
initiatives as better
mechanisms for DAR to
deal with NGO/PO
issues.
11. The DAR

Agrarian Reform
Communities
Projects, where
NGOs are contracted
to organize ARBs on
lands that have been
distributed in order to
facilitate the entry of
support services.
DAR EO 120-A (DAR reorganization Act)

emphasizes the importance of a close
collaboration between GO and NGO.
DAR
12. The Task Force

Sugarlands, where
NGOs are contracted
to organize farmers
among a targeted
394 sugar estates in
8 provinces, so as to
facilitate DARs land
acquisition and
distribution.

on objectives /
accomplishments)
and the Office of the Secretary. For

monitoring purposes, she will be
getting specific instructions directly
from the head Office Assistant and the
Secretary.
Forum for dialogue

between state and CSOs
toaddress farmers
problems.
Under AO 1-86, the Planning and Policy

Office (PPO) is tasked to formulate
values related to DAR-NGO
collaboration. It directed regional
directors and local unit officers to seek
cooperation and participation of NGOs,
under AO 11-89, NGOs who wish to
participate in DAR programs will be
credited.
1.
2.
DAR personnel headed by the

Secretary
NGO and PO representatives
from national and provincial level
1. DAR office and field personnel

NGO/PO representatives
According to former Secretary Garilao,

these are state-initiated mechanisms
to bring up farmers related problems to
the DAR. The state convened,
although depending of the
assertiveness of the stakeholders,
special meetings are called to discuss
their issues. These mechanisms have
their own resources and decisionmaking process.
The DAR people learned that the more
effective mechanisms in dealing with
NGOs and POs come in the form of
special projects, taskforces and NGO
or PO-led (demand side) initiatives.
NGOs played a lead role to program
beneficiaries development, particularly
the formation of POs. Policy positions
were communicated to DAR by NGOs
through policy papers and protest
actions. NGOs can be consulted on
policy level discussion, particularly
addressing bottlenecks in CARP
implementation given their field level
experiences.
To some extent, NGO concerns are
transmitted through the
representatives of the FBs at the
PARC ExeCom or sometimes directly
52
Context
Name of
mechanism
Objective / mandate
Lead
Agency

on objectives /
accomplishments)
to the PARC ExeCOM through written
communication. It is commonly
observed that provinces where NGOs
and POs have a significant presence
were more successful at LAD than
other provinces (e.g., TF Sugarlands).
Participation of NGOs are
institutionalized through ARISP and
other foreign assisted projects.
5.
IPRA
By virtue of R.A. 8371 or

the Indigenous Peoples
Rights Act (IPRA), the
National Commission on
Indigenous People
(NCIP) was created for
the formulation and
implementation of
policies, plans and
programs promoting and
protecting the rights and
well being of the
indigenous peoples and
the recognition of their
rights over their ancestral
domains.
Coming after the NCIP
reorganization, Task
Force 63 was created as
a mechanism to
immediately address
emergency situations and
actual threats to the lives
and properties of the IPs.
13. Task Force 63

which was later
replaced by STRATQuick Reaction Unit
14. Bukidnon Task
Force 63
Coordinating
Committee, a
counterpart
mechanism to ensure
sustainability and
follow-through of
quick response
measures and longterm proposals for
Bukidnon, Mindanao
operations
15. TF 63
Secretariat which is
a composite of staff
from NAPC and PMS
TF 63 shall have the following duties

and responsibilities:
Address specific cases of
emergency situation affecting IPs
which involve the installation of
immediate measures to halt
situations of violence, and crafting of
long-term solutions to address land
conflict.
Review and assess cases with
history of violence, and which
remain under unstable situation due
to unresolved conflicts in land claims
Institute policy-related measures &
solutions necessary for the
settlement of conflicts in land claims
Set up mechanism for Quick
Response and Coordination
NAPC and
PMS and
later by
NCIP
1.
2.
3.
President of the Republic of the

Philippines Chairperson
Presidential Adviser for Strategic
Concerns Vice-Chairperson
Lead Convenor, National AntiPoverty Commission Co-Vice
Chairperson and Executive
Officer
Members: Department Heads of

Environment and Natural Resources,
Agrarian Reform, Interior and Local
Government, Justice, Chairperson of
National Commission on Indigenous
Peoples (NCIP)
TF 63 deals directly with the problems,
issues and concerns of the IPs/ICs in
consultation and cooperation with the
NGOs/Pos operating within the
jurisdiction of IPs/ICs
During the Estrada administration, the

development of NCIP was very slow
because of the lack of support from the
Office of the President especially
funding support for its programs and
projects.
GMA administration supported the
development of NCIP especially the
creation of TF63 which were able to:
-Address specific cases of emergency
situations particularly in Bukidnon and
in other regions where there is the
presence of IPs/ICCs.
Instituted policy-related measures and
solutions necessary for the settlement
of tenurial issues.
Set-up a mechanism for Quick
Response and Coordination
53
Context
Name of
mechanism
Objective / mandate
Lead
Agency

on objectives /
accomplishments)
By virtue of NCIP EnBanc Resolution No. 13,

Series of 2003, the NCIP
has created a Special
Policy Team (SPOT) to
formulate policy positions
of the Commission
regarding conflicting
policy positions between
RA 8371 (IPRA) and
other national laws such
as the Forestry Law,
Mining Act, National
Integrated Protected
Area System (NIPAS)
and CARL.
16. Technical
Working Group on
the Harmonization
of Law
Pursuant to this Joint DENR-NCIP

Memorandum Circular No. 2003-1, a
Technical Working Group on
Harmonization of Law was created last
October 31, 2002 signed by DENR Sec.
Elisea Gozun and Atty. Reuben Dasay
Lingating, Chairperson of NCIP.
DENR/
NCIP
The Technical Working Group is

composed of representatives from:
There are parallel efforts for interagency cooperation to address the

overlapping of laws, policies, functions,
boundaries. Such efforts resulted in
the creation of Technical Working
Groups between NCIP, DAR and
DENR.
SPOT by virtue of NCIP

En-Banc Resolution No.
13, Series of 2003
TWG aims to:

Clarify the jurisdiction, authority and
responsibilities of the NCIP and
DENR in the management,
protection, utilization and
rehabilitation of the environment and
natural resources within ancestral
ancestral domains;
Strengthen all on-going policy
harmonization efforts of the DENR
and NCIP; and
Recognize and support related
initiatives of the NCIP, Indigenous
Cultural Communities/ Indigenous
Peoples, DENR, LGUs and other
concerned agencies and the civil
society group
17. DAR-NCIP
Composite Policy
Review and
Formulation Group
NCIP facilitated the drafting of Joint DARNCIP Special Order 807. Series of 2003
for the Creation of DAR-NCIP Composite
Policy Review and Formulation Group.
NCIP /
DAR
1.
2.
3.
4.
NCIP
DAR
DA
DENR
The Harmonization efforts of the

DENR and NCIP shall be
expanded up to the regional and
provincial levels through the
creation of Technical Working
Groups to serve as venue for
gathering inputs that will facilitate
policy revision and/or formulation.
The DENR shall strengthen its IP

Desks which shall serve as the
focal unit on all matters pertaining
to ICCs/IPs vis--vis ENR laws,
programs and projects;
The IP Desk shall closely

coordinate with the NCIP offices
concerned; and
1. NCIP Representatives
DAR Representatives
The TWG meets regularly. In fact, a

workshop was organized to identify
issues and concerns of the
implementing agencies as well as
explore areas for cooperation and
collaborations.
As a result of the creation of this

group, it facilitated the drafting of the
following:
A. Joint DAR-NCIP Memorandum
Circular No. 12 for the Temporary
Suspension of Land Acquisition and
Distribution (LAD) and Ancestral
Domain/Ancestral Land (AD/AL) Titling
Activities in Contentious Areas signed
by USEC Ricardo Arlanza of DAR last
54
Context
Name of
mechanism
Objective / mandate
Lead
Agency

on objectives /
accomplishments)
January 23, 2004
Coverage of subject lands under
the CARL and IPRA;
Conflicts on claims of ownership
over subject property; and
All other issues and concerns as
may be determined by the Secretary
of the DAR and/or the Chairperson
of the NCIP as meriting policy
clarifications
B. Joint NCIP-DAR Administrative
Order Harmonizing the Implementation
of RA 8371 (IPRA) and RA 6657
(CARL)
A Memorandum of
Agreement was signed
by former DAR Secretary
Roberto Pagdanganan
and NCIP Chairperson
Atty. Reuben Lingating
last May 16, 2003 for the
implementation of
ARCDP2 in some ARCs
where ICCs/IPs exist.
18. TWG on ARCDP

2
ARCDP2 is a 4-year
development project
which seeks to
strengthen farmers
and community
organizations in
selected ARCs to
plan and undertake
development
activities which would
uplift their socioeconomic conditions
A Technical Working Group was created

to ensure that the partnership scheme
would enable the ICCs/IPs in covered
ARCs to have adequate access to
assistance in accordance with the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of
RA 8371 (IPRA).
The project shall be implemented in 80
ARCs located in 12 Provinces such as
Isabela, Batanes, Bataan, Zambales,
Quezon, Mindoro Occidental, Albay,
Masbate, Negros Oriental, Zamboanga
del Norte, Misamis Occidedntal and
Compostela Valley/Davao del Norte.
DARARCDP2
TWG on ARCDP2 is composed of 8

members
A. DAR-ARCDP
1. Mr. Adelberto B. Baniqued - Chief
Technical Advisor
2. Ms. Celerina Afable - Project
Management Specialist
3. Ms. Jean Fornoles -Chief, Subproject Appraisal Unit
4. Ms. Remedios Aguila -Chief,
CDCB Unit
5. Ms. Ranelisa Saminao - Gender
& Social Safeguard Specialist &
TWG Sect.
B. NCIP
The relationship of DAR and NCIP has

improved because of series of
conference and workshops initiated by
both parties. These are efforts to
temporarily suspend LAD operations
while they are trying to harmonize
CARP and IPRA.
Funded by the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development
(IBRD), the organization of the TWG is
to facilitate dialogue and cooperation
involved in the actual implementation
of ARCDP II.
Given that the IPRA Law is new, there
are many areas that needs to be
amended. One of which is the slow
and tedious process of getting
Certificate of Free and Prior Informed
Consent from the concerned IP/ICC
community given ARCDP2 is subject
to a limited timeframe.
55
Context
Name of
mechanism
Objective / mandate
Lead
Agency
for poverty alleviation

and sustainable rural
development.

on objectives /
accomplishments)
6.
Ms. Myrna Caoagas - Director,

Ancestral Domain Office
7. Atty. Frederick William Crespillo FPIC Focal Person, ADO
8. Ms. Grace Pascua - Director,
OPPR
During dialogues and consultations,
the IPs/ICCs and NGOs/POs working
in the ancestral lands/domains will be
involved to raise their problems, issues
and concerns.
C. UDHA
UDHA implementation
and completion of its
provisions by LGUs
19. Local Housing

Boards
Devolution of national
government functions to
LGUs as brought about
by the Local Government
Code
International campaign of 20. Philippine Urban
Forum
the UNCHS (Habitat) for
Good Urban Governance
and Security of Tenure
Campaign in 2002 to
2003
D. Land administration reform
Recognizing the need for
immediate reforms that
guarantee efficiency,
effectiveness, equity,
user-focus, transparency,
accountability and
21. Land
Administration
Management
Project (LAMP)
The Land
Administration and
LGUs at
city or
municipal
level
Mayor as Chair, Vice Mayor as Vice

Chair, representatives from Planning
and Development, etc. and CSOs
Issue of land conversion not

addressed
UNCHS initiated
Housing
and Urban
Devt.
Coordinating Council
(HUDCC)
Government sector, the point for urban

governance, is spearheaded by the
League of Cities. CSOs on the other
hand are represented by POST NET.
PUF has been institutionalized and is
now based at HUDCC.
Donor-driven; Many high profile

activities but not much tangible results
especially in terms of addressing
housing concerns.
With a Memorandum of Cooperation, the

seven NAPC Basic Sectors and LAMP
on June 17, 2003, agreed to perform the
following roles;
Advocate for the participation of the
Basic Sectors in the reform of land
DENRLAMP
1.
2.
LAMP participants have realized the

importance of understanding the land
administration processes and systems
so that their participation in the
decision-making and implementation
will be fully maximized. They also
UDHA, LGC
To draw up plans, policies, inventory of
sites at the local level for socialized
housing sites
The LAMP representatives

7 NAPC Basic Sectors composed
of:
farmers
fisherfolk
indigenous peoples
56
Context
Name of
mechanism
gender-responsiveness
of land administration
and public land
management services
Management
Program (LAMP) was
designed to identify
and test possible
implements to land
reform administration
in the Philippines and
develop new
directions in laws and
policies to reform
land administration
services.
Objective / mandate
TF LARA formed to push

for:
1. The reform of land
administration and public
land management; and
2. The passage of the
Land Administration
Reform Act (LARA),2003
through House Bill No
6070, Senate Bill No.
2592 and Senate Bill No.
2593
22. Task Force

LARA
(formed July 5, 2003
by 28 NAPC
representatives from
seven basic sectors)
Lead
Agency
administration and public land

management
Lobby for the passage of the Land
Administration Reform Act of 2003
Conduct nationwide Information,
Education and Communication (IEC)
and Advocacy campaigns for the
passage of the Land Administration
reform Act of 2003
Facilitate continuing dialogue to
define future initiatives for the reform
of land administration and public
land management; and
Identify and mobilize resources to
support the implementation of this
Memorandum of Cooperation
TF LARA will assume the following roles

and responsibilities:
1. Assistance in the lobbying for the
passage of the LARA Bill by writing
resolutions endorsing the LARA Bill,
signature campaign, pushing for
President Arroyos certification of
the LARA Bill as urgent and priority
bill and talking to their Congress
representatives to support the bill;
2. Massive information dissemination
on land administration reform and
the LARA Bill through training and
for a;
3. Ensuring that the reform process will
be for the benefit of the poor by
ensuring participation and
representation of the basic sectors
in the LARA;
4. Monitoring and evaluation of LAMP
NAPC
Basic
Sectors
urban poor
workers in the informal
sectors,
women and
NGOs
Task Force LARA is composed of 8

people - 1 representative from each of
the 7 basic sectors and a coordinator.

on objectives /
accomplishments)
grasped that the existing legal
framework does not provide for a rapid
and low-cost issuance of original titles.
The Free Patent is a faster and more
flexible means of titling than the
judicial but has limitations in the area
of mass registration. To support
accelerated titling in the Philippines,
LAMP in coordination with other
government agencies and civil society
groups need to work for the
amendment of the Public Land Act and
a review of mapping and survey
regulations.
The momentum of the advocacy group

for the passage of the LARA Bill in the
Senate was affected by the recent
national elections.
There are new plans and activities to
support the lobbying of the LARA Bill
to the Senate.
57
Context
Name of
mechanism
Objective / mandate
5.
E.
Lead
Agency
DENR
Protected Area Management Board

(PAMB) is composed of not more than
8-members:
1. Regional Executive Director
under whose jurisdiction the
potential area is found
2. 1 representative from the
autonomous regional government
(if applicable)
3. Provincial Development Officer
4. 1 representative from Municipal
government
5. 1 representative from each
barangay covering the protected
area
6. 1 representative from the tribal
community (if applicable)
7. at least 3 representatives from
NGOs / local community
organizations
8. if necessary, 1 representative
from other departments or
national government agencies
involved in protected area
management
NGO-led Provincial consultative
groups between TriPARRD NGOs/POs
and government line agencies, i.e.,
DAR, NIA, DA, LBP, Local
Government, etc.

on objectives /
accomplishments)
and the LAA activities; and

As fiscalizer of the reform process
Environment and Natural Resources (ENR)
Pursuant to R.A. 7586 or

the NIPAS Act, Sec. 11,
a Protected Area
Management Board
(PAMB) can be created
for each of the
established protected
area
F. NGO-led Initiatives
23. Protected Area

Management Board
(PAMB)
24. TriPARRD, an
NGO-led initiative in
4 provinces focused
on organizing of
ARBs, capability
building, support
services, research &
devt., and advocacy.
PAMB has the following functions to be

decided by a majority vote on:
Matters related to planning,
peripheral protection and general
administration of the area in
accordance with general
management strategy
Allocations for budget
Approve proposals for funding
TriPARRD
program
led by the
national/pro
vincial
secretariat
based with
PhilDHRRA
NGOs and farmers organizations have

played a vital role in AR
implementation both within and even
outside established GO/NGO/PO
mechanisms.
58
Annex E. Draft Memorandum Order to Revive and Strengthen Task Force 63
59

Quizon Paper

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Quizon Paper

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Bridging Issues on Access to Land through

By Antonio Quizon, Meynardo Mendoza, Gregorio

Quezon City, Philippines

GLOSSARY OF SELECTED TERMS

ancestral domain sustainable development plans

Department of Agrarian Reform

Land Administration and Management Project

Protected Area Management Board

Free and Prior Informed Consent

Purpose of the Study

B. The policy context of access to land

Non-ownership by aliens/foreigners (Art. 12, Sec. 117) of public utilities, which

Alienable lands of public domain can only be leased by private corporations or

Protection of the rights of subsistence fishermen to the preferential use of both

Protection of Indigenous Peoples Rights (Art.12, Sec.5) to their ancestral lands

Conservation Areas may be acquired, developed, held, or leased based on the

Subsequent legislations on land-related reforms

Working with People section, www.haribon.org.ph

Cumbersome and slow land valuation;

Conflicts and disputes in land policy issues

II. JOINT GO-CSO MECHANISMS ON LAND-RELATED POLICY

Antonio Quizon, Study of NGOs in the Philippines, ADB, 1997, p.27.

Philippine Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD)

Observations/Trends from existing joint institutional mechanisms

Assessment/ Main Comments

Assessment/ Main Comments

NGO/PO-led (or demand-side initiatives).

III. OPTIONS FOR ESTABLISHING LAND PARTNERSHIPS

Table 2. Possible themes for establishing/ strengthening land partnerships

Key issues to address

What existing institutional GO-CSO

Addressing policy bottlenecks in CARP

Problematic land cases (land

PARC, PARCCOM, BARC

UPAL refers to untitled, private agricultural lands.

General thematic areas

Key issues to address

2.2 IPRA implementation

2.3 Housing & finance

Delivery of support services to AR

What existing institutional GO-CSO

Land & housing issues are always

Addressing overlaps in land use

3.2 CARP vs IPRA

Addressing overlapping areas covered

Land conversions using LGU

Overlapping land claims between

DAR/DENR-NCIP policy discussions

General thematic areas

Key issues to address

What existing institutional GO-CSO

private domain including alienable

Addressing the need for affordable

3.4 IPRA vs ENR Laws

Addressing policy conflicts and land

Need to convert raw agricultural

Several consultative mechanisms

Overlapping land claims between

DENR-NCIP Joint Committee established

Need to ensure continuing asset

Congressional hearings have been

4. Pro-active policy discussions towards new land legislations

Addressing overlapping claims among

General thematic areas