Thirty-seven years ago, in 1987, former president Corazon Aquino signed the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program into law, promising to redistribute agricultural land to poor and landless farmers and workers and ensure equitable land ownership in the country.

Since then, the Department of Agrarian Reform reported that over 4.8 million hectares of land have been awarded to about 2.8 million agrarian reform beneficiaries, nearly 91 percent of the 5.37 million hectares of land targetted for redistribution.

However, CARP has been questioned for failing to address poverty in the agrarian setting despite the common belief that land reform would benefit the beneficiaries economically.

An article written by our chief reporter, Raffy Ayeng, outlined how certificates of land ownership awards, or CLOAs, have become worthless scraps of paper based on recent events that have filled all document holders with trepidation.

A CLOA is the primary title given to farmers who benefit from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. Still, developers keen on obtaining emancipated lands exploit the many conditions allowing for its cancellation.

Among the grounds that can lead to the cancellation of a CLOA are the property being a retention area of the landowner, the landholding being excluded or exempted from coverage of CARP (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program) under Presidential Decree 27, or other agricultural reform laws; defective or irregular notices of coverage or NOCs; the landholding falls under the exclusive authority of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources or the National Commission on Indigenous People.

Ayeng cited the violent dispersal of CLOA holders in Sitio Balubad, Barangay Anunas, Angeles City, Pampanga, who were evicted by a demolition team backed by police officers.

Sitio Balubad has emerged as the site of a fierce showdown between developers and alleged farmers, uncovering an unfortunate tale of opportunism and exploitation.

Last month, a demolition team composed of workers and police officers was met with violent resistance from the area’s residents, resulting in several reported injuries.

The conflict traces its roots back to 1998 when the government issued CLOA to purported farmers in Sitio Balubad as part of a nationwide push for agrarian reform. Three years later, however, it was determined that the intended beneficiaries had covertly sold their allotted land to affluent buyers, who converted it into a lucrative residential hub, complete with upscale dwellings, commercial establishments, and even a lavish hotel.

Prompted by these revelations, the Supreme Court intervened, nullifying the CLOAs due to the blatant breach by the beneficiaries of the land use agreement. Accordingly, the site was reclassified as a residential area.

In 2020, developer Clarkhills legally acquired land ownership, triggering fierce resistance from the entrenched homeowners. However, upon bringing the matter of the land’s reclassification before the Department of Agrarian Reform, the agency declared with finality that the area was now unsuitable for its intended initial agricultural use, given that homes and establishments now populated most of the terrain.

“Alam naman po namin na binigay sa amin ang CLOA para magtanim at magsaka, pero matatanggian ba naming ang malaking pera kapag inalok kami? Diba binigay na sa amin yung CLOA kaya kami na ang may ari ng lupa? Kung gusto naming ibenta yon, sana payagan na lang kami (We know that the CLOA was awarded to us because we were meant to farm the land, but how can we turn down a huge amount of money if it is offered to us? Since they gave us the CLOA, doesn’t it mean we own the land? If we want to sell it, I hope they can just allow us to do so),” said a beneficiary, who requested anonymity.

 The situation remains at a standstill, with the demolition team on standby despite having all the legal requirements.

At the Senate, legislators have sounded the alarm over agrarian reform reversals and land reconsolidation patterns that challenge CLOA holders.

The CARP law has deficiencies on several levels that negatively impact its success. The Marcos administration should address these challenges by taking a serious look at critical issues, including beneficiaries’ mindset and orientation, budgetary requirements, modality of land transfer, and the manner of the law’s implementation.