A Primer
This primer is issued by AR Now!, PESANTech and PhilDHRRA to present and explain the “extension with reforms” position with regards to the impending “expiration of CARP” in June 2008. This primer will also attempt to clarify certain misconceptions about the event that will transpire in June 2008 and about the “extension with reforms” position.
Q: Exactly what will transpire in June 2008?
A: A common misconception is that it is CARP, the program, that will expire in June 2008. However, a Department of Justice Opinion (DOJ Opinion No. 9, series of 1997) already long established that CARP is a “continuing program” and does not end until its “original scope and mandate” has been completed. Part of that “scope and mandate” is its LAD target which, by far, still has a backlog of 1.3 million hectares (ICS, as of December 2006).
Actually, what will expire next year is Republic Act 8532, which amended Republic Act 6657, or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), to extend and replenish (with another P50 billion) the Agrarian Reform Fund (ARF).
So, technically (and legally), what will expire in June 2008 is not CARP per se but funding for the program.
Q: What will be the implications if there is no law passed on CARP funding by June 2008?
A: The Department of Budget and Management (DBM), in several public round table discussions and fora, have expressed the opinion that without a new law extending and, again, replenishing the ARF (according to the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council [PARC], the PhP 100 billion that RA 6657 and RA 8532 appropriated for CARP has already been used up as of 2005) would mean that there will be no legal basis for government to allocate and release funds for the program.
In effect, CARP as program will continue but will have no budget, at least, until a new law appropriating funds to the ARF is passed.
Operationally, this would be tantamount to no program as there would be no funds for land acquisition and distribution, for salaries of DAR officials and employees, operational costs, etc..
A major concern is that once the implementation of the program is stopped, even temporarily, it would be very difficult to get the program re-started.
Q: What then happens to the lands not yet acquired under CARP?
A: The opinion is that uncompleted land claims under CARP will be done through “judicial expropriation”. Which will be highly problematic and disadvantageous for agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) as most farmers will not have the financial capacity to initiate and sustain legal cases before the courts. There have also been decisions by the Supreme Court wherein ARBs were not recognized as “parties of interest” to agrarian cases.
Q: How will this affect farmers and potential beneficiaries of CARP?
The non-implementation of CARP resulting from the expiration of the program’s budget will affect an estimated 700,000 potential ARBs (the estimate is based on the DAR’s projection that there will still be some 1,077,538 hectares of CARPable lands after 2008 and the current ratio of 1.5 hectares per ARB) and potentially another 1 million ARBs under the leasehold arrangement. That is, said ARBs would be deprived of the opportunity to be awarded lands under the program or the opportunity for ARBs in retention areas to enter into leasehold arrangements (an arrangement generally considered more favorable for farmers than the traditional “share-tenancy” arrangement) with landowners.
Discontinuance of the program will also result in lesser support services delivery to farmers and ARBs.
Q: What are the proposals to address the impending expiration of CARP funding in June 2008?
A: Basically, the solution to the issue at hand is the immediate passage by Congress of a law providing funds for the CARP. Although, this is not as simple as it seems. Considering the composition of Congress and the diverse positions of peasant and AR groups on CARP.
However, there are mainly four positions/proposals on the “expiration” of CARP funding in 2008:
1. Scrap CARP/Allow CARP to expire and pass a new law – Some peasant and AR groups have reached the conclusion that CARP has “failed” and should be scrapped altogether or just be allowed to “expire” and then campaign for the passage of a totally “new law” (usually in reference to a “genuine” agrarian reform law which is based on the principles “zero retention” and “zero compensation/free land distribution”). Ironically, anti-AR/landlord groups also share the “scrap CARP” position with some militant peasant groups.
2. Review before extension – This is also a position shared by anti-AR/landlord groups and certain militant peasant groups. This is mostly a “delaying tactics” position as the review will obviously take time and will lead to a possible scenario wherein RA 8532 expires by June 2008 with the review still unfinished and, subsequently, the “extension” law still not passed. In effect, scrapping CARP by virtue of a default.
3. Short bill – Considering the short period left for the passage of a new CARP budget law, a group has also taken the position that the law the law that should be passed is a “short bill”, which would be very similar to RA 8532, simply containing an extension period for the ARF and the replenishment of the ARF with a specific amount. The group has proposed a 5-year extension and the appropriation of another P50 billion for the ARF. The said proposal, however, provides very little opportunity to introduce much needed policy reforms to address major CARP implementation issues. The proposal also serves as a strategy for “buying time” for the passage of a “new law.” The only problem will this is that will Congress pass two legislations on CARP in succession and in such a short time.
The idea is to just get CARP implementation extended (let’s say for 5 years) and within the extension period launch a campaign for the passage of a totally “new law”/”genuine” agrarian reform law.
4. “Extension” with reforms bill – The authors of this primer and several other peasant and AR groups have taken this approach in addressing the “extension” issue. The said position basically calls for the enactment of a law that would allow the continuation of CARP through the provision of adequate funds but also introduces major amendments (reforms) to RA 6657 to address several operational issues of said program. (For details on said position please refer to the next section)
Q: What is the CARP “Extension with Reforms” bill (main features and the common misconceptions about it)?
A: The so-called proposed “extension with reforms” bill is actually not an “extension” bill as it does not propose that the implementation of CARP be extended for a certain period (i.e. 5, 7 or 10 years are the current proposals) after which CARP ends.
Rather, what the “extension with reforms” bill is proposing is that funding for CARP be provided through automatic appropriations by Congress. The proposed annual budget for CARP under the bill is set at 3.8 per cent of the annual budget of government or around PhP 38 billion per year.
And instead of an extension period, what is proposed is that the DAR should be given a deadline to finish the LAD component of CARP. The bill is proposing a 7-year deadline for the completion of DAR LAD targets.
The bill also proposes several amendments to CARP to address various implementation and policy issues. Among them are the proposed provisions on the indefeasibility of CLOAs, setting the time limit for landowners to choose their retention areas, and the repeal of non-distributive schemes under CARP (i..e. Stock Distribution Options (SDOs), leaseback arrangements, etc.).
Q: Why should CARP implementation continue?
A: CARP implementation should continue because there remains a substantial amount of “unfinished business” for CARP.
According to DAR estimates, there will still be some 1,077,538 hectares of private agricultural lands and 581,813 hectares of public alienable and disposable lands that will still have to be distributed after 2008. These do not include the areas also still to be covered under leasehold and the differential between the DAR targets from 10.3M hectares in 1988 to 8.1M hectares in 1996.
The DAR also estimates that there will still be some 132,620 agrarian cases pending after 2008.
Various comprehensive and “academic” studies have established empirical data that CARP, where it was successfully implemented (i.e. where there has been successful land distribution and effective/sufficient support service delivery), have contributed to poverty alleviation, establishment of peace in the countryside, and improved the welfare of agrarian reform beneficiaries.
Q: Why we should opt for the CARP “Extension with Reforms” option?
A: Primarily, because it is the ONLY legal option.
The 1987 Constitution (under Article 13, Section 4), with its provisions stating that there should be “reasonable retention limits” and that “just compensation” should be paid for lands acquired, have, in effect, declared that the agrarian reform to be pursued by the State will NOT be a confiscatory one.
In effect, peasant groups who have been advocating for a confiscatory agrarian reform program/law(which is basically the call for zero retention limit and zero compensation) will have to first amend the constitution and, hopefully, have the political power and influence to remove the said provisions barring the realization of a confiscatory agrarian reform law/program or insert more radical agrarian provisions (i.e. zero retention and zero compensation).
Comments are closed