Identified Problem Areas in the Implementation of Agrarian Reform Program

A. Problems in the Identification of Lands Awarded to Beneficiaries

When Barangay Sto. Tomas was placed under the coverage of Agrarian Reform,
the hacienda formerly owned by the Santibaňez clan was given to the actual tillers and
farmers through the Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) scheme. The records of the DARMO
showed that a total of 1200 hectares was covered which contradicted the records of
Land Bank of the Philippines signifying that only 857 hectares was put under the
operation of Agrarian Reform. Nonetheless, the area was initially touted to be an
agrarian reform model community due to the number of beneficiaries and minimal
disputes from both landowner and beneficiaries.
One of the key interviewees and also a beneficiary, Barangay Councilor Zaldy
Bantigui, narrated that it was in 1986 when the initial steps of land distribution was
done. A series of meetings from DAR representatives were held and land surveys were
conducted. Delineation of lands for each beneficiary was done. The theory was that a
person should be awarded the land he was actually tilling. This did not happen in
practice. There were some who were awarded portions of the land different from what
they were actually tilling. On the contrary, the land they were tilling were given to other
beneficiaries. One interviewee, Mr. Armando Gardose expressed his disappointment
that in spite of being one of the oldest residents of Sto. Tomas, he was given a portion
which already traversed parts of the river and unfeasible for farming. In the contrary,
some non-residents were given better portions.
One interesting story shared by Mr Gardose was demonstrative of the obvious
irregularity in determining the portions to be awarded to each beneficiary. A MARO by
the name of “Ponsoy” was in charge of determining the lands to be awarded to each
beneficiary. The residents would jokingly associate him with the lines “hapit anay sa
kanding” or ‘stop by the goat’. When the identification of portions to be awarded were
conducted some cunning beneficiaries would ask him to stop by and take their goats.
They, in return would be awarded better and bigger portions of land.

B. Problems in the Issuance of Collective CLOAS

Collective CLOAS were awarded to beneficiaries sometime in 2001. One CLOA
would at least have 15 names of beneficiaries. One of the interviewees has her
husband’s name included in the collective title but no land was awarded to them. Upon
inquiry, the MARO officer simply asked them to wait. Until now, there was no answer
from the local DAR office.
 Collective CLOAS were issued to the beneficiaries of Sto. Tomas which to their
observation was meant to fast track the distribution of land. With the haste in doing the
distribution, there were arguments in the boundaries of each beneficiary. Further, the
law mandates that if it be determined that there is a necessity for the collective title to be
subdivided to individual titles, this should be done within a period of three years. This,
too, has not materialized.
1. Boundary Disputes
The beneficiaries recounted that when the pressing issues on boundary disputes
were finally given attention, a surveyor was called to do a resurvey. However, the
surveyor was not able to finish his work as it led to arguments between the
beneficiaries because of the boundary delineation.
2. Non-acceptance of Amortization
Land Bank refused to accept the beneficiaries’ amortization payments given the
questionable land boundary designation and the consequent lack of equivalent
amount of amortization. There is now confusion among beneficiaries on the
process by which they can cover backlog amortization payments amounting to 10
years, boundary disputes in some instances, and the eventual final resolution of
the title / boundary issues.

C. Problems in the Identification of Beneficiaries

In general, almost each household in Sto. Tomas is a beneficiary of CARP.
Nonetheless, some problems arose when the CLOAS were issued. The interviewees
alleged that some of the beneficiaries whose names were reflected in the CLOA were
not actual residents of the barangay at the time of distribution. Some were merely
invited by family members or friends to settle in the area with the intent of benefiting
from the program. There were also some beneficiaries who were actually tilling the land
but were not included in the CLOA. Most of them refused to vacate the land they are
tilling while those who were included in the CLOA was not able to occupy their own
land.
On the other hand, some interviewees alleged that there were some beneficiaries
whose children were granted lands even if they are still in their elementary years. The
veracity of such information was not verified during the field interviews.

D. Lack of Transparency and Accountability on the part of the Beneficiaries

A Farmers’ Cooperative was formed in Sto. Tomas with the assistance of DAR
personnel. This was to effectively channel the support services under RA6657 such as
seeds and seedlings, loan assistance and provision of transportation vehicle for the
easy marketing of farm products among others. The interviewees themselves have
narrated that the cooperative was heavily indebted to Land Bank of the Philippines
(LBP) and were to settle their debts through the proceeds of their crops. The members
themselves were dishonest and purposely sold their crops to other buyers to avoid the
payment of their debts. This resulted to the collapse of the cooperative. They refer to it
as “Kuot” instead of Co-op.
According to Mr. Bantigui, he along with other farmers tried to form another
association in order to avail of the government programs however, he noticed that the
beneficiaries themselves have problems in terms of understanding responsibility and
accountability. When asked to elaborate why it was difficult for them to settle their debts,
they all agreed that it takes determination on their part to keep their promises. They
explained further that, such would require them to refrain from playing cards and mah-
jong, a popular past time among farm folks.

E. Inability to Access Support Services of the Government

Due to the failure of the cooperative, the farmers now are trying to form an
organization. They mentioned that it was very difficult to obtain support services in the
absence of an organization.
With the area being predominantly rain-fed, the beneficiaries lament the lack of
government-support in terms of irrigation facilities. Transportation of agricultural
material and produce, too, continues to be a challenge that hampers the beneficiaries’
capacity to maximize the value of the land. They explain that to transport one sack
would cost P30 when done through a motorcycle. This translates to both an absurd
cost-benefit ratio as well as a significant cost in terms of valuable time.
Expectedly, another area in terms of support services called out is on credit
availability. The beneficiaries lament having to shoulder 10% interest monthly on private
loan agencies just to be able to sustain farm operations. However, due to their unsettled
accounts in LBP, they were not able to apply for more loan assistance from the said
institution.

F. Conveyance of Awarded Lands to Private Individuals

While treading the dusty roads of Sto. Tomas, one couldn’t help but notice a
development near one hilly area. A portion of the hill was flattened to make it accessible
to vehicles and an infrastructure project is at the verge of being undertaken. This is an
open secret among the beneficiaries of Sto. Tomas. One rural folk narrated that some
beneficiaries had already sold their lands to a ‘Muslim’ developer. The developer is now
executing his plans of converting the land to an inland resort. While this is in
contravention to the provisions of the law, the conversion is done openly. Some
beneficiaries also sold their lands to some relatives when their children were
hospitalized.

F. Lack of Sufficient Understanding of the Purpose of Agrarian Reform

When the interviewees were asked to explain their own understanding of
agrarian reform, they were taken aback. When probed deeper, it is evident that they do
not understand the noble purpose of the law which is to deliver social justice by uplifting
their economic status. Their idea of an improved life is leaning towards having the
money to buy anything you want.
The interviewees would bring up from time to time the need for extra cash and
loan assistance. This is the reason why most give in to loan sharks despite the hefty
interest. This results to a cycle of debt. However, it should be noted that they also
agreed that they struggle with idleness which could be partly blamed why some of them
still wrestled with poverty.
A personal observation is that most of the beneficiaries can now don themselves
with jewelry, android phones and decent clothing. Nonetheless, their sole reliance on
loan assistance as a main gateway to having better farm production is misplaced. They
lack the understanding that there is also a need to prioritize their real needs and to have
savings in order to properly manage their households and farms.