Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City, Metro Manila

SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
First Regular Session

House Bill No,__4375

Introduced by
Rep. Kaka J. Bag-ao and Rep. Maria Leonor Gerona-Robredo

EXPLANATORY NOTE

Social justice is the heart of our Constitution. And agrarian reform is about
social justice — to correct centuries of injustice, oppression and neglect of poor
landless farmers in accordance with the broader concept of social justice under
the new Constitution compared with the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions.’

The context of social justice is the mass poverty and gross inequalities of
wealth, income and political power that continue to persist in our country. We are
the only country in our part of the world that still has mass poverty, with the
highest inequalities.

To carry out social justice, the Constitution, among other provisions,
mandates the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject only to such
priorities and reasonable retention limits as Congress may prescribe and to the
payment of just compensation (Article XIII, Sec. 1). Land to the poor farmer is
both a social and economic asset.

Indeed, credible empirical studies? show that CARP has resulted in
significant improvements in the welfare of agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARB)
located in agricultural reform communities (ARC), with increased farmer
household income and expenditures and decreased likelihood of being poor. For
example, poverty incidence decreased in ARCs from 40% to 25% between 1990-
2000, greater than those in non-ARC barangays and there is a higher proportion
of better housing, and higher educational attainment of household members
aged 6-24 years old. Moreover, owning land improves the odds of being non-

+ Article XIII, Section 1 speaks of the right to human dignity, reduce social, economic and political equalities
and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth’ and political power for the common good and,
among others, Section 16 which speaks of the right to effective and reasonable participation at all levels of
social, politcal and economic decision-making. This compares with the limited socio-economic approach in
the 1973 and 1935 Constitutions.

® ‘Asia-Pacific Policy Center, 2007, World Bank, 2008, German Technical Cooperation Study, 2006,
Habito/PhilDHRRA, 2007, and others.


poor 1.76-2.6 times than of being poor and results in higher investments of ARBs
with firm titles.

Moreover, estimates of the Annual Poverty Indicators Survey (APIS)
series, which is able to identify households who acquired agricultural lands
through CARP, shows that between 1998 and 2011, there is a greater increase in
average per capita income among CARP households as compared with land-
owning non-CARP households and the general population (12.3% versus -4.6%
and .54% respectively). There is also a greater reduction in poverty incidence
among CARP households (21% versus 6.3% and 14.8%) respectively.

There are peace dividends as well “xxx the higher the proportion of land
redistributed under the agrarian reform program relative to the potential land
reform area, the lower the likelihood of conflict” (Philippine Human Development
Report, 2005).

Finally, two conclusions emerge from the Habito Report Card (2007) on
the four asset reform programs:* (a) asset reform results have been positive and
deserve to be intensified and implemented more efficiently. The best evidence is
that the bulk of beneficiaries positively indicated attaining better lives with asset
reform with 81% of farmer beneficiaries in agrarian reform, the highest among
the programs. But the Report emphasizes that over-all, the asset reform track
record remains poor and that effective asset reform ultimately hinges on good
governance and political will.

It is important to note that improvements in welfare might have been
greater had there had been more ARCs and more than 55% of the ARBs covered.
Moreover, the most productive lands have not yet been distributed and there is
evidence that suggest massive circumvention of the program.

Agrarian reform also makes good economic sense. Studies show that
sustained high economic growth is essential, albeit insufficient, condition for
poverty reduction and that inequality in assets, particularly land, is systematically
related to lower growth.

All the more reason why the government must go the last full mile in
implementing agrarian reform.

The Land Acquisition and Distribution phase of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP-1998) and the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program with Reforms (CARPER-2009) expires on June 30, 2014, except that
lands that have already been issued Notices of Coverage as of that date will
continue to be processed until distributed (Section 30, RA 9700).

9 See Table in Monsod, T and Piza, S “Conjecture vs. Evidence: a reiteration”, posted March 29, 2014
{http://waw.econ.upd.edu.ph/perse/?p=3728).

RA 6657 (CARP), RA 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992), RA 8374 (Indigenous People’s
Rights Act of 1997), RA 8550, Philippines Fisheries Code of 1998).


By that date, the Department of Agrarian Reform estimates that about
500,000 hectares out of the LAD balance of about 1,200,000 hectares as of June
2009 still have to be distributed. In addition to the June 2009 LAD balance, about
1,200,000 — 2,700,000° hectares of land claimed as having been distributed are
suspect to having circumvented or avoided the law and/or were not really
distributed nor transferred to the control of farmer beneficiaries. These lands if
left undistributed would constitute a mockery of the constitutional provision on
agrarian reform and would reward the very people who have violated and defied
the law.

It is, therefore, necessary for this purpose to create an independent
Commission with legal powers of subpoena and of contempt, and with the
cooperation of other relevant government agencies, to review the actual
accomplishments of CARP/CARPER and to investigate circumventions and
violations of the law and cause these lands to be compulsorily acquired and
distributed to qualified beneficiaries.

In view of all the foregoing, the purpose of this bill is to address or correct
the shortcomings in the program, complete the distribution of all agricultural
lands as mandated by the Constitution and provide the platform for a truly
successful agrarian reform that will help bring about the radical social change
that history tells us must happen if national solidarity, lasting peace and real
economic development are to be achieved.

The approval of this bill is urgently sought.

Rep. Marla Leonor Gerona-Robredo

meer!

5 The total VLT as of December 2013 amounts to 825,427 hectares against the original target of 288,492.
The additional 536,955 hectares are suspect as being circumventions of CARP (plus whatever of the original
figures were similarly flawed). The estimated hectarage under long-term leaseback agreements in 2003 was
about 650,000, representing land that is not under the control of farmers, most of them with very low lease
rates. Without counting the VOS some of which are also suspect,,, the VLT beyond the original target and
leased back lands of about 1,186,955 hectares represent land that are not effectively under the real
‘ownership and control of farmer beneficiaries. In addition, about 1,300,000 hectares out of the total of
about 2,300.00 hectares under collective CLOAS, categorized as “distributed” land are held in co-ownership
and not by registered cooperatives and are not controlled by the individual farmer beneficiaries. In fact, pilot
studies of Bukidnon and Isabela show that the implied average landholdings of beneficiaries with collective
CLOAs are 11-12 hectares each, or way above the 3-hectare maximum giving rise to the possibility that the
collective CLOAS merely disguise excessive retention and unqualified beneficiaries. Until these collective
CLOAS are actually changed to individual CLOAS with full ownership rights, a concept central to agrarian
reform, they cannot be considered as “distributed”. The excess VLTS of at least 536,955 hectares, the
leaseback land of about 650,000 hectares and about 1,300,000 hectares under collective CLOAs do not
really fulfill the social reform objective of agrarian reform. Deducting those lands from the claimed
“accomplishment” of 4.6 million hectares distributed by the DAR leaves only about 2,000,000 hectares that
‘are under the real ownership and control of the beneficiaries.


Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City, Metro Manila

SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
First Regular Session

House Bill No.__4 375

Introduced by
Rep. Kaka J. Bag-ao and Rep. Maria Leonor Gerona-Robredo

Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines
in Congress Assembled:

AN ACT CREATING THE AGRARIAN REFORM COMMISSION TO
INVESTIGATE CIRCUMVENTIONS AND VIOLATIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT
6657, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN
REFORM LAW OF 1988, AS AMENDED, REPUBLIC ACT 9700, AND
OTHER AGRARIAN LAWS, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR.

SECTION 1. Title. — This Act shall be known as the “Agrarian Reform
Commission.”

SECTION 2. Policy. — The agrarian reform program is founded on the right of
farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively
the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of
the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just
distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to the priorities and retention limits
set forth under Republic Act 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law, as amended, and Republic Act 9700, taking into account
ecological, developmental, and equity considerations, and subject to the payment
of just compensation. The State shall respect the right of small landowners, and
shall provide incentive for voluntary land-sharing.

The acquisition and distribution of all agricultural lands under Republic Act 6657,
as amended, shall be successfully completed to its finality in accordance with the
mandate under the 1987 Constitution.

It is therefore imperative to create an independent commission to review the
actual accomplishments of the agrarian reform program and to investigate


circumventions and violations of the law and cause these lands to be
compulsorily acquired and distributed to qualified beneficiaries.

SECTION 3. Agrarian Reform Commission. — There is hereby created the Agrarian
Reform Commission (ARC) composed of a Chairman and four (4) members of
impeccable integrity, probity and independence, with an established reputation
as being knowledgeable about the agrarian reform program, at least two of
whom, including the Chairman, must be members of the Philippine Bar and
engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years. The members of the
Commission shall have the rank and privileges equivalent to chairpersons of the
Constitutional Commissions.

The President of the Republic of the Philippines shall appoint the best qualified
from a short list of ten (10) chosen by a screening committee within thirty (30)
days from the deadline set by such committee for the submission of nominees by
individuals or stakeholder groups. The Screening Committee shall be composed
of the following:

(1). the Chair of the Civil Service Commission;
(2) the Secretary of Justice;

(3) the Ombudsman;

(4) the Chair of the Commission on Audit; and
(5) the Co-Chairs of the COCAR.

The Screening Committee shall be functus officio upon submission of the short
list to the President,

The Agrarian Reform Commission shall function as a collegial body and shall
formulate its own rules and regulations. Unless, otherwise extended by the
Congress, the term of the Commission shall be for a period of two (2) years from
the assumption to office of its Chair and Members.

An amount of Ten Million Pesos (Php 10,000,000.00) per year is hereby
appropriated in order to fund the operations of the Agrarian Reform Commission.

SECTION 4. Powers of the Agrarian Reform Commission. — The Commission
shall have the following powers and functions:

a. Investigate the circumstances and avoidance in the implementation of
Republic Act 6657 as amended by Republic Act 9700 otherwise known as
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Act particularly on the coverage and
distribution of lands under the program and other applicable laws for the
purpose of prosecuting public officials and private persons, and to put
such lands under the coverage of the program and/or to correct the
modalities that deprive the farmer beneficiaries of full ownership or
stewardship rights on, and control of, the land;


b. Recommend to the Department of Justice, the Ombudsman and other
prosecutorial authorities for possible filing of appropriate cases against
persons found by the Commission to have violated any agrarian reform
laws;

¢. Invite or subpoena persons, witnesses and take their testimonies, and for
that purpose, administer oaths or affirmations. This includes the power to
cite a person in contempt;

Require any agency, official or employee of the Executive Branch,
including government-owned or controlled corporations, to produce
documents, books, records and other papers;

e. Upon proper request, obtain from the courts, including the Sandiganbayan
and the Office of the Court Administrator, information or documents in
respect to agrarian cases filed;

f. Promulgate rules and regulations and rules of procedure; and,

g. Exercise such other acts incident to or appropriate and necessary in
connection with the Commission’s objectives.

a

SECTION 5. The Secretariat. - The Commission shall organize a secretariat which
shall serve as the technical and administrative support of the Commission. The
staffing, pattern and compensation schedule of the secretariat shall be
determined by the Commission in accordance with existing laws, rules and
regulations.

The term of the Secretariat shall be co-terminus with the Commission.

SECTION 6. Repealing Clause. — All other laws, decrees, executive orders,
issuances, rules and regulations, or part thereof inconsistent with this Act are
hereby likewise repealed or amended accordingly.

SECTION 7. Separability Clause. — If, for any reason, any section or provisions
of this Act is declared unconstitutional or invalid, the other sections or provisions
not affected thereby shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 8. &ffectivity Cause. — This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days
upon publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

Approved.