CPBRD Policy Brief

No. 2021-06

Legislating National Land Use Policy:

An Overarching Response to
Sustainable Development

Congressional Policy and Budget Research Department

House of Representatives
 Abstract

This CPBRD Policy Brief delves into the current land use policies in the Philippines against the
backdrop of interconnecting areas of concern and how the proposed National Land Use
Act (NLUA) will address policy gaps, issues and challenges of the present structures and
framework governing land use management.

The current land use policies in the country are administered by various agencies with
different mandates specific to use and purpose such as housing and urban development,
economic and commercial uses, agrarian reform, agriculture and fisheries, natural resources,
and ancestral domains. Each agency is guided by its own requirements and standards
of operation in carrying out respective mandates, policies and programs. Consequently
however, these result in policies that are multifaceted, fragmented and conflicting. With
the fast-changing development in the way people move and live given the competing
needs for food, housing, business and environmental conservation with associated health-
risk concerns, legislating a comprehensive and responsive national land use policy has
never been more urgent and relevant than it is today. The impact of deforestation and
urbanization on food security, disaster mitigation, economic growth and community health,
among others, all point to the crucial need to effectively regulate land use management.

 
The views, opinions, and interpretations in this report do not reflect the perspectives of the House of
Representatives as an institution or its individual Members.
 1
Legislating National Land Use Policy:
An Overarching Response to Sustainable Development
by Ma. Leni P. Lebrilla and Cynthia R. Lorenzo *

Introduction

The Philippines has a land area of 30 million hectares which are currently classified into three
categories: (1) protected areas, (2) alienable and disposable lands, and (3) privately owned
lands. Of the total land area, 14.9 million hectares are alienable and disposable lands which
are mostly titled and privately owned while the remaining 15.1 million hectares are public
lands. These figures, however, do not reflect actual land use due to unclear delineation of
forestlands.

Land use plans and management affect all aspects of human development. It plays major role
in ensuring food security and overall sustainable prosperity. Efficient land use management
can foster virtuous cycles in the environment, public health, and social and economic outcomes
while inefficient land use practices can pose major adverse consequences to climate change
mitigation and consequently contribute to the impact of natural disasters that are occurring
more frequently all over the world.

The country’s current land use management policies are beset with a number of issues and
challenges which cause a continuing struggle to optimize the utilization and benefits of land
resources. One major issue pertains to various conflicting land laws that interface with other
sectoral laws such as environment and natural resources, housing and settlement, industrial
development, and laws related to indigenous peoples’ rights. On the other hand, laws on
climate change mitigation and disaster risk management barely address related issues on
land use. Harmonization of these laws will certainly address the need for a cohesive land use
policy that is responsive to ensuring sustainable development.

Given these interrelated factors, the importance of prioritizing the legislation of an integrated and
harmonized national land use policy that would ensure sustainable land use and development
cannot be overemphasized.

This paper delves into the current land use policies in the Philippines against the backdrop of
interconnecting areas of concern and how the proposed National Land Use Act (NLUA) will
address policy gaps, issues and challenges of the present structures and framework governing
land use management.

* The study benefitted from discussions with Director (OIC) Rosemarie R. Sawali and Executive Director Manuel P. Aquino
with the overall guidance of Director General Romulo E.M. Miral, Jr., Ph.D.
 2

I. Significance of a National Land Use Policy

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 2030 laid down 17 goals related to all aspects
of human needs. Of these 17 goals, eight require an efficient land use policy: Goal 1 (No
poverty); Goal 2 (Zero hunger); Goal 3 (Good health and well being); Goal 6 (Clean water and
sanitation); Goal 7 (Affordable and clean energy); Goal 12 (Responsible consumption and
production); Goal 13 (Climate action); and Goal 15 (Life on land). These interrelated goals
point to the importance of efficient land use management.

 Food Security and Health. The use and management of land have major effects
on other natural resources such as water, soil nutrients, plants and animals. These
resources provide for the most basic human need – food and water. Estimates show
that in 2019, nearly one in ten people in the world were exposed to severe levels of
food insecurity (FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO, 2020). The 2020 Global Hunger
Index (GHI) for the Philippines was at 19.0 considered moderate level of hunger
(GHI, 2020), although just one point shy of the range to be categorized as “serious”
or seriously experiencing hunger (score of 20-34.9). In terms of food security, the
Philippines scored 61 in the Global Food Security Index 2019 (score of 100 as the
most favorable). Compared with other ASEAN Member States (AMS), Singapore
continues to be the most food-secure economy, with a score of 87.4. Malaysia,
Thailand and Indonesia also fared better than the Philippines (EIU and Corteva
Agriscience, 2019). Often, hunger and declining levels of food security are considered
as direct consequences of land degradation, declining soil fertility, unsustainable water
use, drought and loss of biodiversity. Sustainable land management and restoration
of terrestrial resources are vital to enhancing agricultural productivity especially for
small-scale food producers. These ensure sustainable food production and resilient
agricultural practices, as well as the efficient use of natural resources, thus contributing
to human well-being (UNCCD, n.d.).

 At the optimum level, food and nutrition security exists when all people, at all times,
have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food
that meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy lifestyle
(World Food Summit, 1996). Land use planning, particularly the physical structures
and systems of a community, can have significant impact on the health of its citizens.
For instance, zoning regulations which determine the location of food markets or farms
determine the ease or difficulty of accessing healthy and affordable food, or in the case
of zoning for industrial plants, chemical and related hazards that may affect the health
of the community are of prime consideration.

 Land use decisions are human health decisions (Xu et al 2008b). Earlier studies show
that land use changes such as deforestation and urbanization have direct effect on
the emergence of human diseases or the spread of diseases from animals to humans.
According to Mammal Review, around 75% of emerging human pathogens, such as
viruses, are transmitted from animals to humans. These include emerging infectious
diseases (EIDs) - newly recognized or reappearing diseases detected in a population
for the first time and which spread rapidly - such as COVID-19. Scientists posit the
 3

zoonotic origin of COVID-19 and relate it to the effect of land use changes on the
behavior of animals. The massive impact of COVID-19 pandemic to human activities
prompted calls for more research to help predict how diseases emerge and spread in
response to land use changes (Psych, 2020). Another example is the human malaria
disease wherein habitat alteration can affect the prevalence and incidence of the
disease (Yasuoka J, Levins R, 2007).

 Climate Change, Disaster Risk and Human Settlement. The decision on land use
should have foremost consideration on safety and on its impact on the environment.
The location of industrial facilities, for instance, should not be in areas prone to natural
disasters and other risks which are likely to be exacerbated by the expected increase
in extreme weather events due to climate change. The same applies to housing
development and human settlement-related land use activities where people are
expected to pursue long-term family and livelihood goals. The greater integration of
industrial and residential safety, land use planning and environmental assessment is
most desirable to ensure greater benefit of land use.

 In the context of general disaster risk management, land use planning should be
considered as part of disaster prevention, mitigation, and preparedness for possible
disasters, organization of emergency measures, coordination of recovery operations,
displacement of populations and reconstruction. The aim should be to reduce, during
all phases of intervention, the risks associated with populations exposed to disaster.
Land use planning in this context is expected to result in identification of risk areas
where tenure rights are prohibited.

 On top of disaster risks, climate change exacerbates risk impact to land use through
its effect on different economic sectors such as agriculture, housing, nature and
ecosystems, and by changing the water resources system. Climate change directly
affects local agricultural and hydrological conditions and consequently influences the
economic development potential. Climate change thus modifies the demand for land
and its supply, as well as the suitability of space for certain uses (Koomen E., 2012).

 Socioeconomic Impact. Land use is necessary and essential for economic

development and social progress. There is a strong link between changing patterns
of land use and economic and social conditions. Along with labor and capital,
land is a major factor of productivity and an essential input for housing and food
production. However, land use does not come without costs. Conversion of farmland
and forests to urban development reduces the amount or size of lands available for
food and timber production. Soil erosion, salinization, desertification, and other soil
degradations associated with intensive agriculture and deforestation reduce the quality
of land resources and future agricultural productivity (Lubowski, 2006). Conversions
of farmland and forests to urban development reduce the amount of open space and
environmental amenities for local residents. Urban development further reduces the
“critical mass” of farmland necessary for the economic survival of local agricultural
economies. To a certain extent, urban development does not only affect the lives of
individuals, but also the ways in which society is organized such as when development
encroached upon some rural communities.
 4

 In sum, land use change provides many economic and social benefits, but comes
at a substantial economic cost to society. Land conservation is a critical element in
achieving long–term economic growth and sustainable development. Land use policy
must strike a balance between private property rights and the public interest (Wu,
2008).

II. Current Land Use Plan and Management in the Philippines

 International Framework and Commitment. The Philippines has made commitments

at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)
where the international context for land use law reform was provided. One-hundred
seventy-two nations endorsed the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development
and adopted Agenda 21. The core of the declaration and its twenty-seven principles
is a commitment to economic efficiency, environmental protection, and equity the
three pillars of sustainability. It is in the Agenda 21 that the relevance of land use
law in achieving sustainable development was set and where land use goals were
established. Agenda 21 encourages sustainable human settlements and integrates
environmental consideration in development decisions. Thus, urban and regional
planning and regulation are at the core of land use laws and are the means to encourage
the private sector to create human settlements.

 National Policies. Current land use laws and policies in the country are multifaceted,
outdated, outmoded, conflicting and fragmented. Different agencies govern land
use in various dimensions such as housing and urban development, economic and
commercial uses, agrarian reform, agriculture and fisheries, natural resources, and
ancestral domains. Each agency, therefore, is guided by its own requirements and
standards of operation in carrying out its respective mandate.

 Illustrated in Table 1 are Philippine laws governing land use and management that cut
across different sectors, particularly those pertaining to the control and management
of natural resources and food security measures. At present, the country’s main
land use policy is Commonwealth Act 141 of 1936 or the Public Land Act. There are
approximately 21 other land use management related policies which are sectoral in
nature.

 The Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). Pursuant to Republic Act No. 7160
or the Local Government Code of 1991 and other existing laws, Executive Order
No. 72 was issued in 1993 which provides for the preparation, implementation, and
updating of the CLUPs of Local Government Units (LGUs). It also provides for the
delineation of the powers and responsibilities of the LGUs and the Housing and Land
Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) in the preparation and implementation of CLUPs
under a decentralized framework of local governance. In particular, LGUs gained
responsibilities, such as (a) the permission to process and approve subdivision plans
from the HLURB, (b) the enforcement of National Building Code from the Department
 5

Table 1
Philippine Laws on Land Use and Management

Natural Resources & Food Security Culture & Human Industry Others
Heritage Settlement

Agriculture Fisheries Forestry Water Mineral Indigenous Housing/ Industrial/ Public Roads/
Reserves Peoples Settlement Commercial ROW/Open
Spaces/
Reclamation

Pasture Land EO 263 – Philippine Mining Act of 1995 Urban Special PD 1084 –
Act of 1939 Adoption of for mining industry Development Economic Creation of the
Community and Housing Zone Act Public Estates
Based Forest Act (UDHA) of Authority
Management 1992 for (PEA) of 1977
(CBFM) as settlement
country’s
sustainable
forest policy
Indigenous Peoples’ Right Act HLURB An Act Presidential
(IPRA) of 1997 for indigenous guidelines for Creating the Decree (PD)
people the Bases 1216 –
formulation of Conversion defining open
Comprehensiv Development spaces
e Land Use Authority
Plans
National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009 RA 10023 –
Residential
Free Patent
PD 1067 – Water Code of the People’s Small Scale Mining
Philippines (1976) Act of 1991
Philippine Fisheries Code of 1997 for Fisheries
sector
Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA) of 1997
PD 705 – RA 9275 –
Forestry Clean Water
Reform Code Act of 2009
Comprehensive RA 7161 – Banning of
Agrarian Reform cutting of mangroves/forest
Law for agrarian charges
reform
AO 20 – Interim RA 10690
Guidelines on – An
Agricultural Land Amendm
Use Plans ent to RA
6239 –
The
Forestry
Professio
n Law
RA 11232 -
Agricultural Free
Patent Act
Commonwealth Act 496 – The Land Property Act
Commonwealth Act 141 of 1936– The Public Land Act – main (public) land use management policy
Commonwealth Act 2259 – The Cadastral Act
PD No. 1529 – Land Registration
The 1987 Philippine Constitution
National Integrated Protected Area System (NIPAS) of 1992 and other environmental laws for natural resources conservation
RA 7160 -The Local Government Code of 1991 for local land use planning
PD 1566 – disaster control
RA 10121 – Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010
PD 1152 – Philippine Environment Code
RA 9729 – Climate Change Act of 2009
The National Framework for Physical Planning 2001-2030
Source: Compiled by the Authors

1
6

of Public Works and Highways including granting or declining of building permits, and
(c) the reclassification of agricultural land from the Department of Agrarian Reform
(with exception of those lands distributed to agrarian reform beneficiaries pursuant to
Republic Act No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988).

 As the main land use planning instrument of LGUs, the CLUP aims to provide a sound
foundation for managing current and projected land use and for the allocation of land
resource use of the whole territory of a municipality.

 In 2015, the HLURB in a joint Philippine-German cooperation, has developed a new

and enhanced comprehensive land use planning or the eCLUP to address the following
identified shortcomings of older CLUP guidelines:

1. The complexity of developing CLUPs, their updating, and their subsequent

enforcement pose challenges for municipal planning administrations. Training
municipal staff is a prerequisite for successful planning and implementation;

2. Plan development and implementation should be based on objective criteria and

aligned with peoples’ needs. Decoupling land use planning from the interests
of executive officers and powerful landowners is essential and contributes to
the common good;

3. Land use planning (physical planning) and development planning require

alignment. The existing mismatch is a consequence of different and overlapping
mandates between governmental authorities;

4. Incomplete and outdated cadastral information and shortcomings in sectoral

information exchange inhibit the steps necessary to solve the pressing issue of
insecure tenure rights; and

5. Cooperation of agencies is currently partial and not yet systematic, which

hampers consistent alignment of plans and integration of efforts in the country.

 The guidelines serve as an improved planning tool for comprehensive and information-
driven planning as well as the integration of the whole municipal territory. It aims for
a stronger integration between spatial and development planning, more coherence
in aligning socio-economic development and land use as well as the linking of
development planning and budget allocation.

 The National Framework for Physical Planning (NFPP) 2001-2030. The NFPP
evolved from the National Physical Framework Plan (NPFP) which was prepared
by the National Land Use Committee (NLUC) in 1992 and adopted as a planning
document through Presidential Proclamation No. 65, entitled “Approving the National
Physical Framework Plan for 1993 to 2022”. It was a response to the presidential
directive to formulate an integrated national land use policy agenda that would guide
the allocation, utilization, development, and management of the country’s physical
 7

resources. However, with the emergence of new laws, sectoral plans and policies,
the NLUC recognized the urgency of refining and updating the NPFP in order to make
it more responsive in guiding decisions on the use, allocation, management and
development of land resources. Consequently in 1997, the NFPP was crafted as a
more appropriate and relevant planning document. The NFPP provides the analytical
parameters for the planned allocation, use and management of the country’s land
and other physical resources. It is intended to serve as a framework through which
the planning and management of these resources are guided at the national and
subnational levels.

 The NFPP consists of three major parts: Part I (Vision and Principles) provides a broad
long-term development vision and philosophy based on characteristics of the physical
resources peculiar to the country; Part II (The Planning Environment, Challenges and
Strategies) contains general strategies with which to provide directions to the overall
development of the country based on natural resource endowments and market
requirements; and Part III (Land Use Policy Guidelines) offers major policy guidelines
and policy options for each of four major land use policy areas, namely, Protection Land
Use, Production Land Use, Settlements Development and Infrastructure Development.

 The vision of national development is anchored on sustainable development and

growth with social equity. It is development that will be sustainable for all generations
of Filipinos, such that the use of the country’s land and other physical resources yields
the greatest economic benefit to both the present and future generations. To achieve
the national vision, land use, physical, and related planning activities shall proceed
within the context of the principles that support the allocation and use of land and water
resources with due regard to their sustainability.

 The overall physical planning challenge as far as the NFPP is concerned is to provide
policy guidelines towards the envisioned growth of the country in a manner that is
efficient, equitable, and sustainable. It is a challenge that has to address the fundamental
condition that the country faces - that of limited physical and economic resources and
increasing demands from a population that continues to grow to unprecedented levels.

 In particular, the policy guidelines need to address the following specific challenges:
increasing urban population, density, and demand for urban services; unplanned
expansion of settlement areas; declining agricultural productivity; land degradation;
limited access to land; outdated land use plans and the increasing role of LGUs in
planning; and lack of institutional linkages. These challenges require a set of strategies
that would provide direction to the overall development of the country where: the
geographically-fragmented islands are economically integrated; social, cultural,
political and economic interaction takes place beyond local, regional and even national
boundaries; comparative advantages and regional resource endowments are fully
harnessed without destroying their assimilative and regenerative capacities; and
access to productive opportunities and minimum desirable levels of social welfare is
guaranteed.
8

 The challenges and desired development directions suggest several strategies including,
among others, the promotion of national dispersion through regional concentration,
strengthening of urban-rural linkages, resource area-based development, and
installation of mechanisms for effective regional development.

 The Land Use Policy Guidelines that form the core of the NFPP covers four major land
use components. As presented, each component includes discussions on the current
situation, physical planning issues and concerns, and policy options/guidelines.

1. Settlements Development. Settlements are areas where concentrations of

population engage in economic, political, cultural, and other social activities.
They vary from small, agriculture-based villages to metropolitan urban centers
that accommodate millions of people and serve as industrial, market, and
administrative centers. For the most part, the type and scale of activities as well as
the conditions of the physical environment where these take place directly reflect
the quality of life of a settlement’s population. Settlements Development focuses
on the spatial distribution of shelter, infrastructure and networks, and services. It
is also concerned with the interrelationships of settlements as they develop and
establish functional linkages based on their respective resource endowments and
comparative advantages. The primary concerns of Settlements Development are
to help ensure, for the present and future generations of Filipinos: (a) an effective
integration of activities within and among settlements, allowing efficient production
and movement of people and commodities through the provision of appropriate
land, infrastructure, and facilities; and (b) the access of the population to housing,
education, health care, recreation, transportation and communication, sanitation,
and basic utilities such as water, power, waste disposal and other services.

2. Production Land Use. This refers to the direct and indirect utilization of land
resources for crop production, fishery, livestock and poultry production, timber
production, agroforestry, mining, industry, and tourism. Lands under this category
include agricultural areas, coastal and marine zones, production forests, mineral
lands, industrial and tourism development areas where productive activities could
be undertaken to meet the country’s requirements for economic growth. The
primary objective of planning for Production Land Use is to determine the most
efficient and equitable manner of utilizing and managing land resources such that
there is adequate and accessible space for sustainable food production, forest and
mineral resource extraction, industry, and tourism, with the end in view of meeting
the material and other requirements of the population.

3. Protection Land Use. This refers to the rehabilitation, conservation, and

management of sensitive/critical ecosystems to preserve their integrity, to allow
degraded resources to regenerate, and to protect the human population from
environmental hazards. Protection Land Use policy guidelines seek to achieve
environmental stability and ecological integrity, ensure balance between resource
use and the preservation of some educational, cultural and historical significance
 9

and protect people and man-made structures from the ill effects of natural hazards.
They cover the following protected areas: National Integrated Protected Areas
System (NIPAS), non-NIPAS and hazard-prone areas.

4. Infrastructure Development. The role of infrastructure in national development is to

provide the built-up environment that allows production, consumption, and service
activities to take place. Infrastructure is the physical entity that enables economic
processes, supports and guides urban and rural development, integrates the various
communities of the archipelago into the Philippine nation, and links the country to
the global community. In this manner, the state of infrastructure, including the way it
enhances and complements the natural environment, provides a physical measure
of national and local development and, ultimately, of the quality of life. Infrastructure
is the common physical link among the production, protection, and settlements
components of the NFPP. Infrastructure development in the NFPP covers five
subsectors: transportation, communications, energy, water resources, and social
infrastructure. Its basic concerns are the provision of basic services, fostering
economic and other forms of integration necessary for producing or obtaining the
material requirements of Filipinos, and the development of an efficient, responsive,
safe, and ecologically friendly built environment.

 Monitoring, Penalties and Sanctions. Several monitoring, penalties and sanction

provisions related to land use can be found in different policies. For example, the
Department of Human Settlement and Urban Development (DHSUD) mandates include
land use planning and monitoring functions that cover the imposition of noncompliance
penalties to ensure LGUs’ adherence to planning guidelines and implementation of their
CLUPs and Zoning Ordinances in urban areas. Further, Executive Order 72 provides for
the preparation and implementation of CLUPs of LGUs pursuant to the Local Government
Code of 1991 (Section 533) and other pertinent laws. Specifically, EO 72 directs cities
and municipalities to formulate or update respective CLUPs in conformity with land use
planning guidelines prescribed by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (now part
of DHSUD).

III. Policy Gaps and Challenges

 The CLUP and the NFPP provide guidelines and parameters for effective land use planning
and management. However, national policies and laws are sectoral and fragmented in
approach. In fact, a multiplicity of laws governs the various aspects of land development,
and their enforcement is vested in a number of national government agencies and offices
as provided in their respective charters. Hence, the country is confronted by issues that cut
across sectors such as the following:

1. Lack of coherent policy framework. While the Philippines has multiple laws that
govern the management, implementation, and administration of land, there is a
lack of coherent policy framework to guide the comprehensive allocation and use of
10

land resources. Existing and key land use and resource management policies are
outdated and outmoded, disjointed and disconnected, and sometimes overlapping
and conflicting. Moreover, there are land use planning practices in the LGUs but are
not comprehensive (as political territories do not coincide with natural geographic
and topographic features). Similarly, zoning ordinances are hardly implemented.

There are numerous policies governing land use, such as land registration,
local governance, taxation, agrarian reform, protected areas, ancestral domain,
fisheries, agricultural modernization, mining, and urban development and housing,
among others that have conflicting or overlapping provisions. Examples of these
provisions are:

1.1 On land use planning, various sections in the LGC provide for the land use
planning functions of different levels of LGUs. Sector-specific laws like UDHA
and AFMA reinforce the role of the LGUs. However, NIPAS and IPRA support
the role of national government in the conservation and/or development
of protected areas and ancestral domain, respectively. Although LGUs are
empowered to co-manage their territory, in practice their authority only applies
to a limited portion of their territory. The planning and management of NIPAS
protected areas is performed by the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, which is done apart from the LGU that has territorial jurisdiction
over the site. Once the territory is identified as a NIPAS protected area, that
portion of territory is withdrawn from the jurisdiction or effective control of the
LGU (Senate Economic Policy Office, 2015); and

1.2 On land acquisition and development, DAR acquired agricultural lands and
imposed land use retention for at least five years upon land distribution under
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). DA also develops irrigation
systems that incidentally protect agricultural lands from land use conversion
under AFMA On the other hand, housing development under NHA (now
DHSUD) implements urban development and housing program under UDHA
provides for the urban or urbanizable land, including agricultural lands that
may be converted for commercial or housing settlement use (Senate Economic
Policy Office, 2015).

However, all these policies are not enough to address the increasing housing
needs of a growing population, urbanization, industrial zones, etc. which
continue to compete over the use and exploitation of limited land resources.

While land is categorized, it does not reflect actual land use due to unclear
delineation of forestlands. Forestlands have been defined as lands with slope
higher than 18 degrees and can be reclassified into agricultural uses if such
lands are deemed more valuable for agriculture use. For example, existing
maps indicate certain areas of forestlands but these have not taken into account
the actual patterns of land use.
 11

2. Conflict over property rights. To mention some of the conflicting claims over property
rights:

2.1 Republic Act 7381 or IPRA is modeled on the provisions of United Nations
(UN) Draft Declaration on Indigenous Peoples, recognizing the free prior and
informed consent (FPIC) of Indigenous Peoples, and asserting that in the
absence of such a clear level of consent, a project cannot proceed. In practice
however, this is regularly undermined by other legislation such as the Philippine
Mining Act of 1995, which in many cases mining competes with indigenous
communities over the use of the same land covered by IPRA. In other words,
the indigenous people’s interpretation of property rights over identified areas
are often not consistent with the concession rights given by the government
through the market economy’s land registration and titling system (Senate
Economic Planning Office, 2010). As a result, indigenous peoples are faced
with eviction or displacement to give way to economic and commercial land
utilization such as mining or mineral exploration, dam constructions, etc.

2.2 In regard to mineral lands, the Philippine Constitution under the principle
of Jura Regalia provides that all natural resources particularly minerals are
owned by the State (Article II, Section 3). On the other hand, IPRA ancestral
domains include mineral lands and, thus, the indigenous peoples or cultural
communities have claims of ownership over those lands. Some sectors have
interpreted indigenous people’s property rights as superior over other rights,
e.g., concession rights, which the government grants through the market
economy’s land registration and titling system (Llanto & Ballesteros, 2003).
Relatedly, Supreme Court upholds the rights of IPs as provided under Sec 2,
Article II of the 1987 Constitution (G.R. 135385 dated December 6, 2000).

2.3 The controversy of converting agricultural lands to urban use to pursue

industrialization thrusts remains an issue for debate. For example, the Ramos
administration’s policies and programs were to fast-track industrialization
of the country. This thrust called for urban-based growth that resulted
in competing interests on land between agriculture and urban use such
as industrial, commercial, residential, tourism, etc. As such, government
demarcated industrial zones (e.g. Regional Agri-Industrial Centers, Economic
Zones, People’s Industrial Enterprises, etc.) in different regions which served
as the base for industrial growth in a particular area. This industrialization
policy conflicted with the CARP that aims to prevent the conversion of prime
agricultural lands and protect agrarian reform beneficiaries. The guidelines are
not too clear on which government policy should prevail.
 12

3. Complementations and overlaps in conversion and reclassification of prime

agricultural lands.

3.1 The powers to reclassify and to convert have been muddled by the loose and
interchangeable use of the terms “re-classification” and “conversion”. While
technically, these two terms may be synonymous in that they intend to achieve
the same result, such as that of changing the nature, status and use of land,
certain fundamental distinctions may be gleaned from the provisions of the
Constitution and legal issuances. These show that jurisdiction over these
activities belongs to two different branches of the government. Reclassification
of land requires a legislative act where only Congress (or the local Sanggunian
as a delegated function) as the highest policy-making body may reclassify
or zone agricultural lands for non-agricultural purposes. On the other hand,
conversion entails an executive or administrative act where the President or
the DAR, subject to policies laid down by Congress or the local Sanggunian
(Philippines-Australia Land Administration and Management Project, 2004).

3.2 The functions of national government agencies and LGUs as far as land
classification, reclassification and conversion are found in Table 2. DAR has
the exclusive authority to approve or disapprove the conversion of agricultural
lands to other uses. However, there are six agencies involved in land use
reclassification and conversion.

Table 2
Functions of Various Agencies on Land Use Reclassification and Conversion

Agency Functions and Certifications

Department of Agriculture (DA)
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR)
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
(HLURB)
Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP)
Local Government Units (LGUs)
Source: Limbo, Roel C, Land Use Reclassification and Land Use Conversion in the Philippines: Inter-agency complementations
and overlaps, 2017.
Status of classification of subject land under the Network of Protected Areas for Agricultural and
Agro-Industrial Development (NPAAAD) and Strategic Agricultural and Fisheries Development
Zones (SAFDZ)
Status of irrigation coverage
Whether or not the land has ceased to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural
production
Eligibility/non-eligibility for reclassification of agricultural land
Status of coverage under CARP and presence of farmers, tillers or occupants
Recommends the grant or request for reclassification
Issuance of Conversion Order
Inclusion/non-inclusion of subject land in the Network of Protected Area System (NIPAS)
Environmentally Critical Area (ECA) or will involve an Environmentally Critical Project (ECP)
Allocation of lands for development of agro-industrial centers
Actual zoning and classification of subject land based on Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP)
Payment of obligations by the applicant landowner of CARP-awarded lands
Reclassification of lands
 13

3.3The DA’s processes on land reclassification complement the DAR procedures on

land use conversion. Specifically, provisions of DA’s AO 1, Series of 2017 and
DAR’s AO 2, Series of 2002 are mutually consistent. Note that reclassification is a
pre-requisite for land conversion (Limbo, 2017).

The legal bases of DA AO 1, series of 2017,

“The process of reclassifying private agricultural lands to non-agricultural

lands is governed by Section 21, Article II and Section 1, Article XII of
the Philippine Constitution, Section 2 of E.O. 45, Series of 2001, Title
IV, Chapter I, Section 2 of E.O. 292, Series of 1987 and other pertinent
provisions of R.A 6657 of 1988, R.A. 8435 0f 1997 and the DA’s Charter
of Agricultural Lands.” 1

3.4 Per RA 6657, the DAR has the exclusive authority to approve or disapprove the
conversion of agricultural lands to other uses. However, LGUs are authorized to
classify lands under Section 20 of the Local Government Code, and are mandated
to exercise such authority in accordance with the Office of the President (MC 54
dated June 8, 1993).

3.5 While land conversion provisions are clear in protecting prime agricultural lands,
only about 30%-35% of the total land covered by the network of protected areas for
agriculture (under AFMA) is under highly restricted category (National Economic
Development Authority, 1993). This implies that 65%-70% of agricultural lands are
open to conversion. On the other hand, guidelines for moderately and conditionally
restricted lands, including lands for agrarian reform beneficiaries are not so clear.
For example, CARP restricts the sale of agrarian reform land patents but there
have been cases when conversion has been allowed in land covered by these
patents.2

4. Agricultural encroachment in protected forestlands. The provisions of RA 8435 or

AFMA which identify a network of protected areas for agriculture and agro-industrial
development known as Strategic Agricultural and Fisheries Development Zones
(SAFDZs) effectively impinge on existing laws on protected areas (NIPAS) under the
DENR. Likewise, a provision in the Philippine Fisheries Code runs counter to earlier
mandates defining the utilization and disposal of mangroves as it gives preferential use
of municipal waters to municipal fishers.

1
EO 45 - Prescribing Time Periods for Issuance of Housing Related Certifications, Clearances and Permits, and Imposing
Sanctions for Failure to Observe the Same;EO 292 – Administrative Code of 1987;
RA 6657 – Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988;
RA 8435 – Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act of 1997.
2
The CARP Law provides that lands handed over to farmer beneficiaries under the agrarian reform program of the government
cannot be converted into non-agricultural uses unless five years have elapsed after the award and the beneficiary has fully
paid his/her obligation. Also, the land should have ceased to be sound for agricultural purposes. In Laguna province, a
study by DAR showed that 100% of agrarian reform beneficiaries have sold their lands in less than two years (Department
of Agrarian Reform, Study of the Extent, Nature and Causes of Illegal Transactions and Violations of EP/CLOA Recipients in
Selected Sites, Policy and Strategic Research Service, March 1994).
14

Sec. 4 ( 58) of the Fisheries Code defines municipal waters that “include
not only streams, lakes, inland bodies of water and tidal waters within the
municipality which are not included within the protected areas as defined
under Republic Act No. 7586 (The NIPAS Law), public forest, timber
lands, forest reserves or fishery reserves, but also marine waters included
between two (2) lines drawn perpendicular to the general coastline from
points where the boundary lines of the municipality touch the sea at low
tide and a third line parallel with the general coastline including offshore
islands and fifteen (15) kilometers from such coastline. Where two (2)
municipalities are so situated on opposite shores that there is less than
thirty (30) kilometers of marine waters between them, the third line shall
be equally distant from opposite shore of the respective municipalities.”

5. Location of industries and settlements within ecologically critical area or prime and
irrigated agricultural lands. Table 3 shows that even then (1985-1997) irrigated
and prime agricultural lands have been converted into other uses despite the
prohibitions under the agrarian reform law.

Table 3
Some Corporate Land Subdivision Projects in Agriculturally Productive Lands
(1985 -1997)
Name of Subdivision Location Area Developer Land Use before
(has) Conversion
Sunshine Village Residential
Gen. Trias, Cavite 12 State Land Investment Corp Tenant-cultivated upland
Subdivision
Tierra Grande Residential
Gen. Trias, Cavite 36 State Land Investment Corp Tenant-cultivated upland
Subdivision
Tenant-cultivated
Green Breeze Village 6 Gen. Trias, Cavite 80 Cityland Devt. Corp
upland
Tenant-cultivated; rain fed
Kingsland farm Gen. Trias, Cavite 50 AMA Devt.Corp
and upland
Tenant-cultivated; rain fed
Arcontica Village Dasmariñas, Cavite 5.9 Arcontica investment Corp
and upland
Tenant-cultivated; rain fed
Don Gregorio Heights II Dasmariñas, Cavite 4.4 F & C Realty Corp
and upland
Vine Village Dasmariñas, Cavite 20 Vine Devt Corp Tenant-cultivated upland
Tenant-cultivated; rain fed
Saint Anthony Village Dasmariñas, Cavite 19.9 Hone Devt. Inc.
and upland
Tenant-cultivated; rain fed
Green Breeze 4 Dasmariñas, Cavite 14 Cityland Devt. Corp
and upland
Dasmariñas Industrial
Dasmariñas, Cavite 150 Dasmariñas Estates & Devt Corp. Tenant-cultivated upland
Residential Subdivision
Tenant-cultivated, irrigated,
NDC – Marubeni Industrial Dasmariñas, Cavite 230 Construction & Development Corp.
prime agri land
Tenant-cultivated, irrigated,
Meridien Homes Dasmariñas, Cavite 52 Meridien Properties Devt Corp
prime agri land
Tierra Linda Subdivision Dasmariñas, Cavite 6 E.B. Verzosa Enterprise Tenant-cultivated upland
Tenant-cultivated, irrigated
St. Agnes Village Dasmariñas, Cavite St. Agnes Realty and Devt. Corp.
rice land
BF Homes Landbank Prop Dasmariñas, Cavite 500 B.F. Homes, Inc. Tenant-cultivated upland
DARA Subdivision Dasmariñas, Cavite 2.7 DARA Realty Corp Tenant-cultivated, irrigated
Laguna International Industrial Tenant-cultivated, irrigated
Biñan, Laguna 114 LIIP, Inc.
Park (LIIP) CARP beneficiaries
Capitol Golf and Country Club
Rodriguez, Rizal 53.11 Capitol Golf and Country Clun, Inc. Tenant-cultivated, rainfed
landbank
Republic Asahi Glass Tenant-cultivated, rainfed
Bauan, Batangas 34.4 Republic Asahi Glass Corp
Industrial Plant communal irrigation.
Source: J.P McAndrew Urban Usurpation: From Friar Estates to Industrial Estates in a Philippines Hinterland,
Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1994. Tables * and 14. Case Brief of Land Conversion Reversals
of the Office of the President, Office of Secretary Aguirre, 1997 and Philippine-Australia Land Administration and
Management Project, The Land Development Process Study, Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
2004.
 15

Further, this situation is aggravated by the conduct of ‘spot’3 zonings instead of comprehensive
zonings and the lack of systematic information on land uses and hazardous areas.

According to the Department of Agrarian Reform, a total of 39,589 hectares were approved for
conversion to other uses from 1992 to 2019 with the biggest share coming from Region IV-A
(Table 4 and 4.1).
Table 4
Summary of Approved Applications for Land Use Conversion
by Region, in Hectares, (1992-2019)
Total Area Applied Total Area Approved Total Area Denied
Region
I 1,383.22 1,248.32 134.90
II 289.83 266.60 23.22
III 10,449.55 8,936.77 1,512.77
IV-A 15,424.91 13,329.61 2,095.30
IV-B 487.27 240.01 247.26
V 2,767.65 1,907.58 860.07
VI 5,585.42 4,936.06 649.35
VII 1,251.80 1,086.96 164.84
VIII 936.36 524.91 411.45
IX 118.63 111.63 7.00
X 1,952.78 1,660.18 292.60
XI 7,680.44 4,177.00 3,503.44
XII 1,003.04 792.36 210.67
NCR - - -
CAR 227.95 169.29 58.65
CARAGA 212.44 201.78 10.67
BARMM - - -
TOTAL 49,771.26 39,589.06 10,182.20
Source: DAR, 2020

Looking at the approved conversions, Region IV-A accounted for approximately 1/3 of the
national total. This reflects the mega-urbanization of Manila and surrounding agricultural
provinces particularly Cavite and Laguna to the south and the development of large industrial
estates. By purpose, approved conversion to residential uses recorded the largest chunk at
12,071 hectares over the same period.
Table 4.1
Summary of Approved Applications for Land Use Conversion
by Purpose, in Hectares, (1992-2019)
Proposed Used for Total Area Approved for
Total Area Applied Total Denied
Conversion Conversion
Residential 14,753.01 12,071.83 2,681.18
Industrial 7,458.51 6,134.03 1,324.48
Agro-Industrial 1,357.65 876.75 480.91
Recreational 568.37 568.37 -
Institutional 604.71 516.76 87.95
Commercial 2,395.10 2,360.91 34.19
Memorial Park 103.23 103.23 -
Church 15.92 8.92 7.00
Other Use/Mixed 22,514.76 16,948.26 5,566.50
Total Area 49,771.26 39,589.06 10,182.20
Source: DAR, 2020

3
Spot zoning is when a rezoning decision results in a single parcel or small island of property, with restrictions on its use
different from those imposed on the surrounding property (www.extension.iastate.edu/communities/spot-zoning).
 16

IV. Land Use Policy Framework in Other Countries4

 The Philippines is not unique compared with other ASEAN Member States (AMS) with
regard to land use laws and the number of related agencies involved in their implementation.
(Please see Tables 5 and 6). In addition to line agencies, there are numerous commissions,
committees, and boards dealing with land natural resources issues like in the case of
Thailand.

Table 5
Comparative Land Use Related Laws of Selected Asian Countries
Country Legal Framework/Policy Statements
Cambodia • The Law on Commune Administration (2001)
• The Land Law (2001)
• Statement on Land Policy (2001)
• Forestry Law (2003)
• Sub-decree on Community Forestry
• Draft Law on Fisheries
• Draft Sub-decree on Community Fishery
• Law on Environmental Protection and Natural Resources Management
• Sub-decree on the Management of Protected Areas and National Parks
Lao PDR • The Land Law (1997)
• The Decree No. 236 on the Implementation of the Land Law (1999)
• The Forest Law (1996)
• The Decree No.169/PM on Management and Use of Forests (1993)
• The Decree No. 186/PM on Forest Land Allocation (1994)
• Directive Np.882/MAF on Land and Forest Allocation Management and Use
(1996)
• The Decree No. 150/PM on Land Taxation
Thailand • Land Code (1954)
• Land Allocation Act (1978)
• Land Development Act (1983)
• Land Reform Act (1992)
• Forest Act (1941), amended 1948,1982 and 1989
• National Forest Reserve Act (1982)
• First National Forestry Policy (1985)
• Act on Tambon Administration (1994, reviewed 1999)
• Thai Constitution (1997)
Vietnam • The Land Law
• Decree No.01/CP (1995)
• Decree No. 64/CP (1993)
• Decree Np.163/CP (1999)
• Decision No. 245/1998
• Decision No. 178/2001

Source: Rock, 2004

4
This section is mostly based on the study of Rock, 2004.

Table 6
Institutions Involved in Land Use Planning and Implementation
Country Institution
Cambodia Ministry of Land Management
Urban Planning and Construction
National Council on Land Policy
Ministry of Agriculture, Fishery
and Forestry (MAFF)
Forestry Administration
Ministry of Environment
Ministry of Rural Development
Ministry of Interior and the
national Council for Support
Communes
LAO PDR Ministry of Agriculture and
Forestry (MAF)
Province: PAFO
District: DAFO
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Lands
Province: Office of Lands under
Finance
District: Office of Lands
Department of National Land Use
Planning and development under
the Prime Minister’s Office
Thailand Land Development Department/
Ministry of Agriculture and
Cooperatives
Department of National Park,
Wildlife and Plant
Conservation/Ministry of NR and
Environment
Department of National Park,
Wildlife and Plant
Conservation/Ministry of NR and
Environment
Royal Forestry Department/
Ministry of NR and Environment
Agricultural Land Reform Office
(ALRO)
Department of Public Welfare
(DPW)/ Ministry of Interior
17
Mandate/Responsibilities
Responsible for land use, planning,
land adjudication (land allocation),
land management
Overlooks all land policy issues
Responsible for agricultural
development and all fishery activities
in the fishery domain
Responsible for all forestry activities
in the forest domain
Responsible for all protected areas
and sanctuaries, wildlife,
environmental protection
Responsible for community
development and rural infrastructure
In charge of decentralization and
supervising the Commune Councils
Responsible for land use planning
and land allocation in rural areas
Prepares TLUC (temporary land-use
certificate) for signing by the District
Authorities
Issues permanent Land Titles
Collects land and property tax
Review of land policy and legal
framework
Review of land Law; e.g. land sales
that could be allowed in the future
Responsible for macro and local land
use planning (outside the forest
reserved and protected areas) and in
zones with less than 35% slope.
Soil surveys, land suitability
classification
Soil conservation and improvement
Land Use Planning in Protected
Areas in zones with more than 35%
slope or upland areas
Soil surveys, Land suitability
classification
Soil conservation and improvement
Land Use Planning in Protected
Areas
In zones with more than 35% slope or
upland areas
Land Use Planning in the gazette
forest reserves (lowland areas)
Land allocation for settlers in the
national forest reserve area
Responsible for land reform activities
in LR areas (113 districts):
distribution of land purchased from
absentee landowners or state land to
tenants, smallholders and landless
families
Allocates public land to farmers and
poor families under self-help land
1
 18

Table 6
Institutions Involved in Land Use Planning and Implementation (Continued)
Country Institution Mandate/Responsibilities
Department of Public Welfare Allocates public land to farmers and
(DPW)/ Ministry of Interior poor families under self-help land
settlement projects (as part of the
social welfare programme)
Department of Lands (DoL) Registers land holdings, issues land
titles and land use certificates,
conducts cadastral surveys
Department of Cooperative Land allocation of state land to
Promotion (DCP) landless people and tenants
organized in cooperatives.
Office of Natural Resources and Policy development on natural
Environmental Policy and resources and environmental
Planning (OREPP) management.
Viet Nam Provincial People’s Committees Preparation of land use plans,
planning of 3 forest types (special
use forest, protection forest and
production forest), implementation
arrangements for land allocation, land
leasing, issuance of land use right
certificates; LUP results need to be
approved by the next higher level.
Ministry of Natural Resources and Allocation and registration of
Environment (MoNRE) agricultural and forestry land, issuing
of Red Book.
Province: Department of NRE
(former Dept of Land Coordinates and supervises land use
Administration) planning activities at all levels.
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Forestry and agriculture land
Development (MARD). classification

Department of Forestry (DoF) Forest management

Department of Forestry Protection Agriculture and forest extension

(DFP)

Province:

DARD Sub-department of Forest

Development (S-DFD)

Sub-Department of Forest
Protection (S-DFD)
Source: Rock, 2004

 Land Use Planning Implementation in Other AMS

Cambodia. No public funds are yet invested in land use planning activities. Although
participatory land use planning (PLUP) is not yet recognized as a national program, a
PLUP focal point has been created under the Ministry of Land Management, Urban
Planning and Construction (MLMUPC) to coordinate and monitor PLUP activities in the
country which started in 1989.

1
 19

The application of PLUP as a tool in land and natural resources management is a recent
development in Cambodia. Thus, experiences are limited. However, PLUP makes use of
lessons learned from other countries. PLUP in this country is well-defined and documented.
Standardized training approach has been set up and implemented. Several donor-funded
programs and projects are coordinating their support to provinces.

In the application of PLUP, several challenges and difficulties persist. For example, general
coordination and management of a multi-disciplinary and multi-institutional approach and
supervision of multi-disciplinary field teams create major challenges. It take substantial
amount of training for the PLUP team to turn into facilitators capable of negotiating with
villagers and Commune Council members. Moreover, provincial and district staff capacities
are generally limited.

Despite the recent efforts of the government, many legal aspects on land and natural
resources remain unclear. Moreover, the specific role and responsibilities of the elected
Commune Council in regard to their area of jurisdiction have not been fully clarified. There
are many cases of illegal land appropriation and misuse of land and natural resources by
foreign and national companies, local businessmen, and powerful individuals in general.
The land conflict between “outsiders” and the local population is a challenge to PLUP
teams in the country.

Lao PDR. Land use planning at the village level serves as a tool to protect and manage
natural resources and define boundaries between and among villages. It also differentiates
agricultural production and forest use areas from those protected and conservation areas.
It is seen as a precondition and a step leading to land allocation of residential areas and
agricultural plots that would help the government alleviate poverty.

The Lao-Swedish Forestry Programme (LSFP) with its Sub-Component on “Participatory

Village Development and Sustainable Land Use” assisted the government in developing
and institutionalizing the LUP/Land Allocation (LA) approach. Various donor-funded
projects also supported the LUP/LA program financially and technically. For example,
Lao PDR receives technical and financial assistance from Vietnam in the development of
macro land use plans for a number of provinces and districts.

LUP/LA was conducted in 17 provinces and one municipality, districts and around 10,500
villages. National funds were made available to the provincial authorities in support of
LUP/LA program. In most districts LUP/LA activities were systematically conducted in
every village from 1993 to 2005.

The program was used by the government as to a tool to enforce eradication or stabilization
on shifting cultivation, elimination of poppy cultivation, and the relocation of settlements
or in village consolidation. Other objectives are the promotion of decentralized and
community-based management of natural resources, the increase of investment in land
and the general improvement of living conditions.
 20

The LUP/LA exercises were more on increasing forest protection than on securing
livelihood in the rural population. In most cases, mapping is inadequate as LUP/LA was
conducted only in one single village with no monitoring and evaluation.

Thailand. Thailand has no official regulation or law in support of LUP, thus implementation
of LUP is neither systematic nor standardized. The focus of LUP application has been
in protected areas to stabilize or reduce forest encroachment in national parks, wildlife
sanctuaries, and watersheds. Zonal activities differentiate core protected areas from
community land and land used for agriculture. Finally, LUP intends to allocate residential
and agricultural land areas to families living in the protected areas.

In some cases, LUP follows watershed boundaries and, sometimes, administrative

boundaries. Moreover, there is no direct link between LUP activities and land allocation
to households. Overall, the implementation of LUP at the local level is handicapped by
institutional rivalry and lack of coordination. For example, land titling and registration
is the responsibility of several line institutions and there is limited cooperation among
them. Furthermore, even if land allocation is practiced, coherent land management is still
missing.

In recent years, LUP was revived to improve management of protected areas and the
integration of the local population inhabiting these areas. It was also effective in Royal
Projects to improve livelihood of ethnic minority groups and delineating private from state
lands.

Vietnam. The national LUP of Vietnam follows a top-down approach. Of the four selected
countries, only Vietnam has its Land Law. In line with the law, all provinces have provincial
land use master plans, districts have LUPs, and in some cases the top-down plans have
been broken down to the commune level. However, despite numerous laws, decrees
and instructions from the central level, the actual implementation of LUP and Forest
Land Allocation (FLA) varies substantially across provinces. Based on this national legal
framework, the provinces have the freedom to adapt LUP/LA procedures according to their
needs. Note that PLUP has been developed in a number of area-based projects that focus
on the commune level, but starts from the village or sometimes household levels.

To improve the management and protection of land and natural resources through a sense
of ownership and responsibility, the Vietnamese government follows the principle that
for all land areas, a clear ownership structure and responsibility is defined and legally
acknowledged.

The approach of establishing land use master plans has proven to be of limited effectiveness
in relation to change from a centralized to a market economy. The database is obsolete,
cooperation between sector agencies is complicated, and the demanding procedures are
time-consuming. Thus, implementation of the plan is limited. Land classification during
LUP is not based on present land use but on the purpose for which it should be used
according to the government’s opinion.
 21

 General Conclusion from the Experience of Select AMS

 In the four countries cited, land use planning involves natural resources management
sector and land management sector, but with varying responsibilities and commitments.
Cooperation and coordination across institutional lines is the crucial factor of LUP/LA
to overcome implementation problems.

 Oftentimes, conflict between the long-term government objectives of sustainable

resources management and protection and the short-term objectives of sustainable
livelihood for populations cannot be avoided.

 LUP/LA is treated as a one-time effort. There should be sufficient monitoring and

evaluation of changes or impacts after its implementation.

 In cases where LUP is successfully implemented, numerous positive effects with

regard to boundary demarcation, zonation of forest and agricultural land use areas,
increased tenure security and reduction of conflicts have been observed.

 PLUP is mainly restricted to donor-funded projects with limited scaling up of activities.

In four countries cited where the model was developed and conducted, PLUP helped
to promote adoption of more participatory approaches with the government.

 In remote areas with ethnic minority populations and a prevalence of customary land
use rights, traditional land tenure security is sufficient. In this case, land zoning is more
important than land allocation to households. If LA is conducted, communal titles are
the best option.

 One of the main difficulties in the process is to clearly delineate state from private
land, due to massive and on-going encroachment of forest areas and to differentiate
agricultural land use from forest areas with shifting cultivation.

 Mapping is crucial for the implementation of LUP/LA activities.

V. The Proposed National Land Use Policy

 The fundamental constitutional rule follows the regalian doctrine that all natural resources,
including lands are owned by the State. Since the State owns all natural resources, it has
full control and supervision over the exploration, development, and utilization of natural
resources — acts emanating from the right of ownership. The use of natural resources is
subject to the social function and social justice clauses and therefore takes into account
the constitutional mandates on the common good, distributive justice, enhancement of
the right of all the people to human dignity, reduction of social, economic, and political
inequalities, and diffusion of wealth (Santos, 1994).
 22

It is stipulated in Section 3, Article XII of the Constitution that,

“Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest or timber,
mineral lands, and national parks. Agricultural lands of the public domain may
be further classified by law according to the uses which they may be devoted.”

Moreover,

“The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that
protect and enhance the right of all the 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.”

“To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and
disposition of property and its increments…” (Article XIII, Section 1, Philippine
Constitution of 1987).”

However, to date no comprehensive land use policy has been enacted so far in spite its
inclusion as one of the priority measures even up to the ongoing 18th Congress. The
current administration has consistently declared the proposed National Land Use Act
(NLUA) as a legislative priority—as loudly expressed in the President’s three consecutive
State of the Nation Addresses (SONAs) with an appeal to Congress to immediately pass
the NLUA to ensure the rational and sustainable use of land and physical resources.

 Sustainable management of land resources requires land use policies and planning based
on a good knowledge of the extent and nature of these land resources, how the land has
been allocated for use, and how the land will respond to these uses ( INTOSAI Working
Group on Environmental Auditing (WGEA), 2013).

Given the finite and irreversible character of land as well as its economic contribution, it
is imperative to provide a consistent policy, legal, and institutional framework that would
motivate efficient allocation, use and management of the land (Llanto & Ballesteros,
2003). Moreover, the NEDA (2019) emphasized that “land use policies must be clear
on where and how much space to allocate to agricultural production to ensure we have
enough food; where and how much space for settlements development to meet housing
demand; where to encourage growth of industries to boost the economy and create jobs;
and which areas should be protected for environmental sustainability.”

For several Congresses a National Land Use Policy (NLUP) was proposed and passed
by the House of Representatives (HRep) but remained pending in the Senate. There are
currently 18 separate national land use bills filed in the HRep and four in the Senate. All
bills of both Houses are pending in the committee level.
 23

Some of the features of the proposed land use act (HB 52555) that will address issues and
concerns:

 On the lack of coherent policy framework: In response to the serious need not only
for a comprehensive and integrated set of land use and development policies but of a
central authority to direct, oversee and coordinate the implementation of these policies,
integrated land use policies will help reconcile conflicts in existing laws and IRRs, and
guide the sectoral agencies in the performance of their respective functions in relation
to the entire land development system. In relation, Chapter IV of the proposed land
use act provides for the creation of the National Land Use Committee under the NEDA
Board that will serve as the highest policy-making body on land use and will resolve
land use policy conflicts between and among agencies or levels of government. Further,
Chapter II formulates a National Physical Framework Plan (NPFP) that will define the
national strategy and objective of the country’s urban, rural, and regional development
according to the following functional land use groupings, namely: Protection Land Use,
Production Land Use, Settlements Development and Infrastructure Development.

To avoid confusion and to reflect the actual land use, Section 70 of the proposed bill
prescribed the final determination and ground delineation of the country’s permanent
forest line that should be completed within a year from the effectivity of this Act. Further,
a review and assessment of the current land use classification system and definitions
used in the country will ensure and reflect the actual use of land (Sec. 9).

 On conflict over property right. The proposed measure respects the existing customary
rights and traditional land uses of indigenous communities/peoples (Chapter II. Section
5g). To address some of the conflicts over property rights, the proposed measure also
specified the conditions in the use of land resources in the following provisions:

a) Priority areas for agricultural development within the ancestral domain will be
developed according to the Ancestral Domain Sustainable and Protection Plans6
(ADSDPP) (Article 4, Sec 14);

b) While mineral land use policy is geared towards the rationalization and sustainable
use of mineral resources that would promote economic growth, it must uphold the
rights of IPs and local communities in the affected areas (Sec 31). Specifically,
ancestral domains declared as protected by ADSDPP, as well as watershed areas,
will be closed to mining (Article 7, Sec 32d);

c) The identification and establishment of industrial areas needs to conform to the

provisions of the of the Special Economic Zone Act (SEZA), CARL, IPRA, UDHA,
Fisheries Code, AFMA and Local Government Code (LGC) (Article 10, Sec. 45).
Industrial development areas should be located only in the production land use

5
HB 5255, known as the National Land Use Management Act of the Philippines, authored by Congresswoman Stella Luz A.
Quimbo is used as reference. This bill was filed by Congressman Romero S. Quimbo and approved on third reading in the
17th Congress.
6
A plan formulated and pursued according to the rights of ICCs/IPs to manage and develop the land as well as natural and
human resources within their ancestral domains based on their indigenous knowledge systems and practices on the principle
of self-determination.
24

areas and become an integral part of the land use plan and zoning ordinances of
the city of municipality where these are located;

d) The laws of CARP Extension with Reforms (CARPER), IPRA, UDHA, The Fisheries
Code, AFMA, LGC and the National Ecotourism Strategy will likewise apply to all
tourism and tourist development areas (Article 11, Sec 45); and

e) Article 12, Sec 48 stressed that land whether, public or private, will be allocated
and utilized for priority infrastructure projects for national or local development
objectives subject to the provisions of existing laws like AFMA, IPRA and UDHA.

 On complementations and overlaps in conversion and reclassification of prime

agricultural lands. Section 13 of the proposed measure prohibits any form of conversion
and reclassification of prime agricultural lands. However, other non-prime agricultural
land can be converted to non-agricultural uses under the DAR conversion policy. In
addition, land covered by compulsory acquisition or voluntary offer to sell is reserved
for the distribution to agrarian reform beneficiaries and for the completion of CARP.
Further, pending the completion of mapping activities of specific areas under Network
of Protected Areas for Agriculture and Agro-Industrial Development (NPAAAD) and the
Strategic Agricultural and Fisheries Development Zones (SAFDZs) under AFMA and
their incorporation in the NPFP, the application for conversion will be considered.

On the other hand, adoption of a multiple use of land is also allowed by the proposed bill
(Sec 8). The primary and alternative uses of a specific land resource will be dependent
upon the evaluation and determination of the local land use boards. Areas feasible
for sustainable land resources use will be considered multiple-use zones where
settlements, tourism, agriculture, agro-forestry and extraction (i.e mining) activities and
other income generating livelihood activities are allowed.

 On agricultural encroachment in protected forest lands. One of the basic land use
considerations stipulated in the HB 5255 is that protection land use category will prevail
over existing production land use category such as preservation, rehabilitation and
protection of permanent forestlands, critical watersheds, key biodiversity areas (KBA),
environmentally-critical and ecologically-fragile areas from any other land use aside
from their determined use and limits (Chapter II, Sec.5b).

Specifically, Article 5, Section 17 mandates that titles, settlements, permits, leases

and/or agreements within the critical habitats, critical watershed areas, protected areas
and KBAs will be reviewed and their legibility will be affirmed. Any erroneous claims or
rights of use with the permanent forestlands will be cancelled or revoked.

In addition, land needed for environmental protection and forestry purposes will include
(Sec 18): isolated patches of forest, mangroves and swamps, ridge tops and plateaus,
20-meter wide strips of land from the edge of normal high waterline of rivers and
streams, among others.
 25

 On location of industries and settlements within ecologically critical area or prime

and irrigated agricultural lands. Basic land use considerations put premium on
the identification of settlement areas based on the demand for land and location
of employment-generating industries and basic services (Sec. 5). Both industrial
development and settlement areas should not be within the areas categorized under
Protection Land Use or those covered by NIPAS Act of 1992.

Section 24 provides for the guidelines for the identification of settlement sites:

a. Within alienable and disposable lands but not in environmentally-critical, geo-

hazard or other protection areas;

b. Along established urban growth directions;

c. With provisions for or can be provided with basic services and utilities;

d. Within 0-8% slope range; and

e. Accessible from existing built-up areas and other employment centers through
existing or proposed roads and other transportation facilities.

Section 46 sets the criteria for designating industrial development area. The identification
and establishment of industrial development areas shall conform to the provisions of the
SEZA, CARL, the IPRA, the UDHA, the Fisheries Code and the AFMA. In the case of
special economic zones and freeports, the same laws, including the CARPER and the
LGC will apply.

 Aside from the proposed provisions of NLUP, most crucial is the need to rationalize,
update and codify the existing land use laws. The codification will collect and restate the
law on land use to form a code that would provide certainty and flexibility to conform to the
changing needs of time. In addition, this would provide clear lines of accountability, areas
of coordination and collaboration among line agencies.

 As emphasized by the experiences of AMS, national mapping with a clear forest limit and
public land delineation from that of the privately owned lands make PLUP implementation
manageable. It guarantees that PLUP would ensure zoning that gives due regard for
customary land use rights and traditional land tenure security.

VI. Conclusion

The significance of enacting a comprehensive national land use policy affirms the goals
of the country to provide for an environment that would support food security, protect and
advance the rights of every Filipino to a safe, balanced, productive and healthy ecology
and to foster attainment of improved quality of life through rational, proper and sustainable
allocation, utilization, development and management of land resources. The proposed
measure is expected to harmonize sector-specific land-use policies and institutionalize land
use planning with standardized mechanism in the future allocation of land and resources.
 26

Legislating a national land use policy is becoming more urgent and relevant due to fast
changing trends and development in the way people move and live given the competing
needs for food, housing, business, and environmental conservation including the
challenges of managing health-related issues as direct consequence of land use changes
such as deforestation and urbanization.

Attaining the full benefits of the immediate passage of the measure may take years. However,
central to the call for its immediate passage and, corollary, its effective implementation, the
national land use policy shall serve as insurance for the future needs of the forthcoming
generations of Filipinos to sustainable, just, and healthy living.
 27

References

Asian Development Bank. (2016). REDUCING DISASTER RISK BY MANAGING URBAN LAND USE: Guidance Notes
for Planners. Retrieved from https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/185415/disaster-risk-urban-land.pdf

Casson, A. (2001). Decentralization of Policies affecting Forests and Estate Crops in Kutawaring Timur district, Central
Kalimantan. Retrieved from http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/Books/Decentralisation-Case5.pdf

Corpuz, A. (2013). Land Use Policy Impacts on Human Developmentt in the Philippines. PHDR Issue 2012/2013 No 1.

Corpuz, A. G. (2020, December 4). A Closer Look at the Proposed National Land Use Act. Retrieved from Ayala-UPSE
Webinar.

EIU and Corteva Agriscience. (2019). Retrieved from Global Food Secuirty Index 2019: https://foodsecurityindex.eiu.com/
index

FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO. (2020). Retrieved from The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2020.
Transforming food systems for affordable healthy diets: http://www.fao.org/3/ca9692en/online/ca9692en.html

GHI. (2020). Retrieved from 2020 Global Hunger Index: https://www.globalhungerindex.org/philippines.html

INTOSAI Working Group on Environmental Auditing (WGEA). (2013, June). Land Use and Land Managment Practices in
Environmental Perspetive. Retrieved from http://www.environmentalauditing.org

Kelly, P. F. (1998). The Politics of Urbanrural Relations: Land Use Conversion in the Philippines.

Koomen E., e. a. (2012, January). Land Use and Climate Change, Researchgate Publication. Retrieved from https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/264811847_Land_use_and_climate_change

Limbo, R. C. (2017, Oct 30). Land Use Reclassification and Land Use Conversion in the Philippines: Inter-agency
Complements and Overlaps. Retrieved from Food and Agriculture Technology Center for Asian and Pacific Region:
ap.fftc.agnet.org

Llanto, G. M., & Ballesteros, M. M. (2003, March). Land Issues in Poverty Reduction Strategies and Development Agenda:
Philippines. Retrieved from https://dirp3.pids.gov.ph/ris/pdf/pidsdps0303.pdf

Lubowski, R. V. (2006). Major uses of land in the United States, 2002. Economic Information Bulletin No. (EIB–14).

Macrotrends. (2021). Retrieved from https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/WLD/world/population-

density#:~:text=The%20current%20population%20density%20of%20World%20in%202021,per%20square%20
kilometer%2C%20a%201.08%25%20increase%20from%202018.

Morse, S. (1995). “Factors in the Emergence of Infectious Diseases.” Emerging Infectious Diseases 1 (1): 7–15. . [PMC
free article] [PubMed].

National Economic Development Authority. (1993). National Physical Framework Plan.

Nolon, J. R. (2006, September). Comparative Land Use Law: Patterns of Sustainability. Retrieved from Pace Environmental
Law Review: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pelr/vol23/iss3/9

Office, S. E. (2015, October). Retrieved from Land Use: Policy, Planning, and Administration - Comparison matrix of land
use polisies/provisions from various existing national laws and issuance.

Philippines-Australia Land Administration and Management Project. (2004). Land Development Process Study.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

Plannerspace. (2019, October 20). Comptemporary Issues and Concerns in Land Use Planning. Retrieved from https://
plannerspace.blogspot.com/2019/10/contemporary-issues-and concerns-in.html

PSA . (2015). POPCEN 2015. Retrieved from https://psa.gov.ph/tags/popcen-2015#:~:text=As%20of%201%20

August%202015,CPH)%20count%20of%2092%2C337%2C852%20persons.

PSA. (2021, July ). Philippine Statatistics Authority. Retrieved from psa.gov.ph: https://psa.gov.ph/population-and-housing/
node/164811
 28

Psych, J. I. (2020, June 3). The effect of Anthropogenic Land Use Change on the spread of Mammalian Zoonotic Diseases:
A Systematic Review ; Mammal Review. Retrieved from https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200603/Changes-in-
land-use-may-influence-the-spread-of-diseases.aspx

Quimbo, S. L. (2019, October 29). Retrieved from House Bill 5255.

Rock, F. (2004, May). Comparative Study on Practices and Lessons in Land Use Planning and Land Allocation in Cambodia,
Lao PDR, Thailand and Viet Nam. Retrieved from MRC-GTZ Cooperation Programme: Agriculture, Irrigation and
Forestry Program, Watershed Management Component: http://www.mekonginfo.org/assets/midocs/0003033-inland-
waters-comparative-study-on-practices-and-lessons-in-land-use-planning-and-land-allocation-in-cambodia-lao-pdr-
thailand-and-viet-nam.pdf

Roy, F. et al,. (2015, June). Land Use Planning for Disaster Risk Management, Researchgate Publication.
Retrieved from researchgate.net/publication/281407216_Land-use_planning_for_disaster_risk_management/
link/55e5cc2c08aec74dbe74da1f/download

Santos, E. T. (1994). The Constitution of the Philippines: Notes and Comments.

Senate Economic Planning Office. (2010). Polict Insights of a Land Use Policy.

Senate Economic Policy Office. (2015, October). Retrieved from Land Use: Policy, Planning, and Adminsitration
(Comparison matric of land use policies/provisions from various existing national laws and issuances).

Shibata, B. (2002, January). Land-Use Law in the United States and Japan: A Fundamental Overview and Comparative
Analysis. Retrieved from Washington University Journal of Law & Policy: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1426&context=law_journal_law_policy

SWS. (2020, July 21). SWS July 3-6, 2020 National Mobile Phone Survey – Report No. 5: Hunger among families climbs
to 20.9%. Retrieved from https://www.sws.org.ph/swsmain/artcldisppage/?artcsyscode=ART-20200721164746&fbcl
id=IwAR1DIEoRlnbl8pnTRdmyslYO-IUxm7L8TzRp3TefTEgk_DoqKGS978pThxk

The Phillippine Green Print. (2020, August). The National Land Use Act. Retrieved from https://www.greenprint.ph/
national-land-use-act

The World in Data. (2019, September). Land Use. Retrieved from https://ourworldindata.org/land-use

UN Department of Economics and Social Affairs. (2012, May). Sustainable land use for the 21th century. Retrieved from
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/sustainable_land_use_posting.pdf

UNCCD. (n.d.). Land and Sustainabe Development Goals. Retrieved from United Nations Convention to Combat
Desertification: https://www.unccd.int/issues/land-and-sustainable-development-goals

World Population Review. (2021). Retrieved from https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-by-

density

Worldometers. (2021 ). Worldometer, retrieved on 30 July 2021. Retrieved from http://srv1.worldometers.info/world-

population/philippines-population/

Worldometers. (2020). World Population by Year. Retrieved from https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-

population-by-year/

Wu, J. (2008). Land Use Changes: Economic, Social and Environmental Impact, Agriculural and Applied Economic
Association. Retrieved from https://www.choicesmagazine.org/magazine/article.php?article=49#:~:text=Socioecono
mic%20Impacts,substantial%20economic%20and%20social%20benefits

Yasuoka J, Levins R. (2007). Impact of Deforestation and Agricultural Development on Anopheline Ecology and Malaria
Epidemiology. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 76:450– 460. The American Journal of
Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 76:450–460.
29
30

Congressional Policy and Budget Research Department

3/F Main Building, House of Representatives
Batasan Hills, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines
Tel. No. (DL) 8-931-60-32 (Fax) 8-931-65-19
Website: cpbrd.congress.gov.ph