2

UNIT

Social, Political, Economic and Cultural Issues in

Philippine History

Lesson 2 BRIEF HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF AGRARIAN REFORM

Learning Outcomes
At the end of this lesson, you are expected to:
1. Recall the history of agrarian conflicts and reform in the Philippines;
2. Determine the root issues related to agrarian reform policies and initiatives
of every administration;
3. Introduce possible solutions to the present issue of agrarian crisis; and
4. Analyze the significance of the issues on agrarian reform to in order to
understand the grand narrative of Philippine history.

This chapter introduces the brief history of land and agrarian reform
programs in the Philippines. Discussions that were going to be tackled from the
Spanish period up to present will let us understand the present Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
It is important to know the history of agrarian reforms in order to be aware of
the problem of land redistribution. This historical context will introduce us the root
of the problem – Why there are still landless farmers and why do they remain
tenants of the big landlords?
Well-known Filipino historians shared their voice in the usefulness of tracing
and recognizing the historical aspects of agrarian protest, reforms, policies and
laws.

1
PRETEST
Directions: Name five influential clans in the Philippines who own large areas of
lands and indicate the place (Province or region) where their vast tracks of lands
are located. Use another sheet of paper if necessary.

Clan Location

Pre –Spanish Period

Land was not distributed during the pre-Spanish period in the Philippines.
Land is a communal – meaning it was owned by the community or the barangay.
Private property was only recognized by the advanced provinces like Pampanga.

Historical records during this period continue to be unavailable. Although,

there are historical accounts that shows some land patterns in the Philippines:

1. The tribal hunters and gatherers existed in their resource ranges with no
system of land ownership;
2. Engaging in shifting cultivation regarded all land as their public domain,
although they did not choose to cultivate all of the available land;
3. A rudimentary form of ownership was followed by those who practiced a
type of sedentary culture. Aside from that, there were no formalized
procedures for recognizing private ownership, such as deed of sale, deed
of donations, titles and tax documents.
4. Social classes who lived in barangays determined the landownership
system. The datu (headman) was the one who ruled the barangay and
lead the other social classes - Maharlika (nobles), timawa (freemen), and
alipin (dependents).

2
The social classes determined a land ownership system during the pre-Spanish era.
1. The nobles were free from paying tributes, could own land and pay less
contributions to the chief but they were responsible to fight for the datu in
times of inter-barangay warfare.
2. The freemen were entitled to manage a certain lands, but were required to
pay an annual fee of one-half of the yield of their crops to the datu. They
remained in that land as a result of their regular payment.
3. The dependents simply served the datu and nobles who owned them. They
can also be sold or traded anytime and had no rights to enter the
landholding class.

It is said that during the Spanish period, Filipino natives were scattered into
small groups ruled by a powerful chieftain who along with relatively few nobles,
claimed the best agricultural lands.

Spanish Period (1521-1898)

Under the sponsorship of the Spanish King Charles I, Ferdinand Magellan
started to navigate East Asia that led to the discovery of the Philippines on March
17, 1521. Before the exploration, the Spanish monarch briefed Ferdinand Magellan
to “treat the natives with justice, utmost good faith and great respect in order that
they will be influenced to become Christians, and that, in good will, natives will
served us and be under our government subjection and friendship.” Magellan’s
voyage did not create much in terms of political, cultural, and economic rewards
as compared to Legazpi’s expedition in 1565.
With Miguel Lopez de Legazpi’s victory in colonizing the country, gradual
hispanization in politics, economy, culture, education, and religion started in 1565.
One of Legazpi’s major programs was to make all lands as part of public domain,
regardless of local customs. Because of that, Spanish king free to parcel out big
tracts of Philippine lands including the resources and people living, as a rewards
to loyal civilian and military servants. Therefore, communal ownership of lands
gradually dissolved. Private property was address as a result of re-establishing the
Philippines under the Spanish political structure.

Encomienda System
Encomiendas were introduced in the Philippines in conformity with the
decree issued by King Philip II in 1558. The encomienda was not a land grant but a
privilege from the King for being loyal subjects under the Spaniard called the
encomendero. The encomendero has given the right to collect taxes from the
people living in the area entrusted to him. The encomenderos are required to
execute the duties such as protection of the people, convert them into Christians
and promote education. Unluckily, most encomenderos committed abuses which
affects the peace and order. And this situation creates conflict between the friars
and encomenderos.

3
Rise of the Cacique Class
Later in the encomiendas, the Spanish authorities merged several
barangays into administrative units and called it pueblos or municipios. The datu
was still the head of the barangay who then called as “cabeza de barangay” or
barrio tenientes”. The pueblos or municipios were governed by a so-called
gobernadorcillos (town chief) who came from a class known as caciques.
As time went by, this Filipino cacique class intermarried Spaniards giving
birth of a mestizos which exists until today. Because of this agreeable position, the
gobernadorcillos extended more influence with the Spanish authorities and power
over the common people. During this time, the caciques were given the authority
to collect taxes which gave them a great power. Caciquism shortly became an
institution that caused of many agrarian problems and commotion.

Early Rebellions
As the cacique system raised, it also became more oppressive. This turnout
into several rebellions during the 18th century from the regions which has a greater
agricultural areas such as Central Luzon. The tremendous sources of conflict was
the heavy Spanish levies such as tributo (tribute), polo (forced labor) and
encomienda (land grant).

Conflicts over Land Ownership

In the 19th century, numerous developments were sighted in order to harden
the land tenure system and conclude its injustices and inequalities. Since the
Spaniards did not levy a land tax or cedula (head tax), and only few of the
landownership were recorded, the Spanish government issued two decreto
realenga (royal decrees). These decrees urging landowners, either caciques or
peasants, to secure a legal land title. The first decree was issued in 1880 and the
second one issued in 1894. The 1894 decree known as Maura Law gave
landowners one year to comply a legal title of their land or else they will suffer
forfeiture.
The Filipino peasants, aside from being ignorant of the law, they had also
difficulty in understanding and analyzing the Spanish-written instructions and was
not able to respond immediately. On the other hand, the caciques processed
quickly their land title, not only their own land but took advantage on the
ignorance of the peasants registering peasants land adjacent to their own lands.
Therefore, most Filipino peasants ended up as tenants in their own lands.

Friar Lands
Another land related conflict in the 19th century was the friar lands. Religious
Orders like Dominicans, Augustinians and Recollects were given large portion of

4
lands located in a populous provinces of Cavite, Laguna, Rizal and Bulacan. And
many Filipino farmers questioned the huge amount of land grant given to them.
The inquilinos (tenants) paid a tax called canon to the friars and one of these
inquilino was Don Francisco Mercado, the father of Dr. Jose Rizal, who rented 500
hectares of land at a favourable lease from the Dominican fathers in Calamba.

Philippine Revolutionary Government

Later after the establishment of the First Philippine Republic, General
Emilio Aguinaldo confiscated the large Church estates and landless peasants
were permitted to settle on church lands. When the revolutionary government
was cut short by the armed forces of the United States in 1898, the end of the
Spanish period affirmed that majority of the agricultural lands were still in the
hands of the caciques and the friars and a small minority of the land is in the legal
possession of the peasants.

American Period (1898-1935)

Americans were the new colonizers by virtue of the Treaty of Paris signed
on December 10, 1898. Beginning of this period, the Spanish land ownership
records were destroyed or lost and leaving the situation very complicated. Most
caciques able to maintained and strengthened their position even under the
Americans.

Purchase of Friar Lands

Analyzing that friar lands occupied the best lands in the country, the United
States negotiated the purchase of 23 Friar Estates during the beginning years of
the century. The estates were sub-divided and offered for sale to the Filipinos
cultivating on it at a rate of 8% interest for 25 years. Through this program, the
people questioned why they have to buy the land where their parents and
forefathers had worked and developed. Yet, purchasing of friar lands did not still
solve the tenancy problems in the Philippines. It is believed that the American
regime became friendlier to a few rich landowners. The Americans strengthened
the Filipino elite because they will provide to the American economy. Americans
motivated the hacienderos to acquire more lands, intensify products for the
demand of export crops and exploit the peasants. And so, tenancy problem
worsened and persisted.

Homesteading
On July 1, 1902, the Public Land Act was promulgated and became
effective on July 26, 1904 offering homestead plots not in excess of 16 hectares to
5
families who had occupied and cultivated the land they were residing in since
August 1, 1898. To those who are willing to relocate, same size of land were
promised are given to them. This law favoured only to the small landholders since
the largest land obtainable by the corporation was 1,024 hectares.

Present rebellions and oppositions

As the tenancy problem raised in the 1930’s, multiple rebellions broke out
in the high tenancy areas in the Philippines. The “Tayug Incident” occurred in 1931
of which armed peasants destroyed land records in the Tayug City Hall.
Another one is the Sakdalista movement which was initiated in 1930 by
Benigno Ramos, a former official who opposed Quezon and the forthcoming
Commonwealth, since he felt that the cacique system still has a strength in this
period. Over one hundred Sakdalistas were killed when the Commonwealth
police muted the rebellion.

Commonwealth Period (1935-1946)

Rice Share Tenancy Act (Act No. 4050)

The purpose of this program was to control the share-tenancy contracts by
establishing minimum standards. Primarily, the Act provided for a better tenant-
landlord relationship, a 50-50 sharing of the crop, regulation of an interest to 10%
per agricultural year, and safeguard against arbitrary dismissal by the landlord.
Nevertheless, this Act can only be implemented if majority of municipal councils in
a province submit a petition for it. However, landowners usually controlled the
municipal councils and such there were no petitioned presented for the
application of Rice Share Tenancy Act.
Therefore, Manual Quezon ordered the act to be mandatory in all Central Luzon
provinces. But contracts were good only for one year. And so, by refusing to renew their
contract, landowners were able to dismiss the tents.

In 1936, the Act was amended to get rid of its loophole, but again landowners
were successful by making its application relative and not absolute. Landowners
threatened to dismiss tenants who alleged on the observance of the Act. As a result, the
Act was never carried out in spite of its good intentions. Dictated by the social justice
program of the government, expropriation of landed estates and other
landholdings began. Likewise, the National Land Settlement Administration (NLSA)
commenced and orderly settlement of unspoiled public agricultural lands. At the
outbreak of the Second World War, major settlement areas containing more than
65,000 hectares were already established.

6
Second Philippine Republic: Japanese Occupation (1941-1945)
The Japanese occupation of the Philippines had a huge impact on the
agrarian reform issue. From the peasants and labor organizations, and the merger
of the Communist Party of the Philippines and the Socialist Party, the Hukbo ng
Bayan Laban sa Hapon (HUKBALAHAP) was born led by a charismatic peasant
leader, Luis Taruc. The Huks fought the Japanese for the peasants against the
landowners, who often collaborated with the Japanese to maintain their
dominant position.

Rise of the HUKBALAHAP

After the World War II, continuing peasant struggle for agrarian reform
were observed, thus, the Huks were able to take advantage of the social unrest
driving the country. Huks were able to establish a “shadow” government in
Central Luzon. Accordingly, they carried on elections, expropriated lands of
collaborators, and took crops for division among peasants. The tumbled
economic situation and the use of the military by the landowners further
dishonoured the government in the eyes of the people. This made the Huks
stronger and closer to the people.

Third to Fifth Republic

Post-War Attempts at Agrarian Reform
In 1946, President Manuel Roxas declared the Rice Share Tenancy Act of
1933 effective throughout the country, but problems of land tenure still existed.
Among the reformative measures enacted was Republic Act No. 34 of 1946
known as Tenant Act, providing a 70-30 sharing arrangement and regulated
share-tenancy contracts and Republic Act No. 1160 of 1954 establishing the
National Resettlement and Rehabilitation administration to the settle landless
dissidents and other landless farmers.

Agricultural Tenancy Act of 1954 (R.A. No. 1199)

During the term of President Ramon Magsaysay, the Agricultural Tenancy Act
(R.A. No. 1199 as amended by R.A. No. 2263) was passed and allowed for the
division of crops on the following basis:
Item Equivalent % of the Crop:
1. Land 30%
2. Labor 30%
3. Animals 5%
4. Implements 5%
7
 5. Final Harrowing 5%
6. Transplanting 25%

Under this program, if the tenants provided items 2-6, he could receive a
maximum of 70% of the crop, and this is a genuine favour to the tenants.
However, this law attacks only the symptoms of the tenancy problem but the root
of the issues which is tenurial system was neglected.

Land Reform Act of 1955 (R.A. No. 1400)

This Act provides for the expropriation of private agricultural land over 300
hectares of contiguous areas, if owned by individuals. However, it allowed
expropriation regardless of hectares in places where there was justified agrarian
unrest. This Act also has loopholes because it prohibited the expropriation of those
lands less than the stated limits. Aside from that, the law favoured many
landowners who had a large parcelled landholdings. Besides, the Act allowed
expropriation only when majority of tenants petitioned for land purchase but
landowners usually controlled over those debt-ridden tenants and the local
governments that’s why all peasants cannot organized such petition.

Land Resettlement as a Solution

The purpose of land resettlement has always been point out by the so-
called experts. Resettlement viewed as a solution on the obstacle to the
continued progress of land reform and the regulation of tenancy. It has always
been used by landlord politicians to draw attention away from the failure of the
government to enact direct reasonable and valuable form of agrarian reform.

The Agricultural Land Reform Code of 1963 (R.A. No. 3844)

Under the leadership of President Diosdado Macapagal, R.A. No. 3844
otherwise known as Agricultural Land Reform Code was passed in Congress. This
law lowered the retention limit to 75 hectares, whether owned by individuals or
corporations and the share-tenancy system was restricted. It formulated a bill of
rights that assured agricultural workers the right to self-organization and receive a
minimum wage. Financing institution was created for acquired and distributed
farmlands but the major loopholes of this law was that it still has many exemptions,
such as land producing for export (big capital plantations established during
Spanish and American periods), saltbeds, fishponds and lands primarily planted
with citrus, coconuts, cacao, coffee, durian and other permanent trees. Aside
from that, those lands converted to residential, industrial, commercial and other
non-agricultural purposes.

8
Amendments to the Agricultural Land Reform Code (R.A. No. 6389)

By September 10, 1971, peasant organization demonstrators rallied for 84

days in front of the Legislative Building, as such, Congress passed another
amendments to the Agricultural Land Reform Code. The main features of the new
amendments were:
1. Abolition of personal cultivation and conversion to residential subdivision as
grounds for the ejectments of tenants;
2. Automatic conversion of all share-tenants in the Philippines to leasehold
tenants with some exceptions and qualifications;
3. Creation of the Department of Agrarian Reform;
4. Right of the tenant on land converted to residential subdivisions to demand
a disturbance compensation equivalent to five times the average gross
harvest for the past three agricultural years;
5. Increase financing for the land reform program; and
6. Crediting of rentals in favour of the tenant against the just compensation
that he would have to pay in case the land was expropriated by the
government for resale to the tenant.

Under Martial Law and the 1973 Constitution

On September 21, 1972, President Ferdinand Marcos declared Martial Law.
Five days later, he issued Presidential Decree No. 02 declaring the entire
Philippines as land reform area. By October 21, 1972, one month after the
declaration of martial law, Marcos then issued Presidential Decree No. 27 known
as Tenant Emancipation Act launching the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) of which
tenant-farmers will owned the land they tilled and provided with instruments and
mechanisms needed for such transfer. And it was made possible due to the
exceptional powers exercised by the president.
During also this time, that the Land Bank of the Philippines was established
as a financing arm and penalized the ejectment of tenant-tillers from
landholdings. In P.D. 27, those landlords who owned more than seven hectares of
land will sell the excess to the DAR, and in return, these lands will be sold to the
landless farmers tilling the land. And yet, this decree had also its own flaws since
all landholdings planted with export crops are exempted in the provisions.

Corazon Aquino Administration (1986-1992)

The recent Philippine Constitution was ratified by the people and took
effect on February 2, 1987, and thus, it repealed the Provisional Constitution
promulgated under the Proclamation No. 3 of President Corazon Aquino in the
installation of the revolutionary government.

9
 Upon her assumption to office, she defined agrarian reform as “the most
fundamental and far-reaching program of the government for it adheres to the
economic well-being and dignity of many Filipinos.” Accordingly, she made this
program as the centrepiece of her government. On July 22, 1987, Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) was passed by signing the Proclamation No. 131
and Executive Order No. 229. These policies incorporated the general principles of
the program and the detailed mechanics of its implementation.
The principal law on agrarian reform during the time of Corazon Aquino
was the Republic Act No. 6657 known as Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
(CARL) of 1988 signed on June 10, 1988 and took effect on June 15, 1988. This
program covers any type of agricultural land with any type of crops planted in it.
Unfortunately, the CARP was examined as failure after a 10-year implementation
timeframe and this led another 10-year extension of the program until June 10,
2008 as approved by President Fidel Ramos.
Some aspects for its failure are the following:
1. Use of non-land transfer schemes;
2. Lack of strong willingness on the part of the national leadership to seriously
implement the program;
3. Lack of sufficient funds to fully finance the program;
4. The landowner’s unwillingness to distribute their land;
5. Avoidance of the law, greed, and lack of justice.

Fidel Ramos Administration (1992-1998)

In 1992, the Ramos administration acquired and distributed 382 hectares of
land to almost quarter of a million farmer beneficiaries. This accomplished 41% of
all the land titles distributed by the DAR during the last thirty years. In 1996, DAR
distributed only 58.25% of the total area it was supposed to cover and for 1998,
DAR distributed 206,612 hectares of land. From 1987 to 1997, DAR distributed lands
for a total of 2.66 million hectares to almost 1.8 million tenant-farmers.
Lack of funds is one of the primary problem encountered by Ramos
administration in order to support the program. To answer this problem, Ramos
signed Republic Act No. 8532 dated February 23, 1998, few months before the
end of his term. The purpose of this law was to amend the CARL and strengthen
the CARP by extending the program for another ten years.

Joseph Estrada Administration (1998-2001)

During the time of Estrada administration, he launched the so-called
Magkabalikat para sa Kaunlarang Agraryo (MAGSASAKA) that focused on
introducing foreign investors to agricultural sectors in order that farmers learned
the advanced technology in crop productions. However, the implementation of
agrarian reform remained unsettled.

10
Gloria Arroyo Administration (2001-2010)
By the end of 2008, if was found out that DAR distributed 6 million out of 8.1
million hectares of public lands. On 1.5 million hectares of private lands, only 17%
of that were transferred to tenants. President Gloria Arroyo’s administration was
not aggressive in the implementation of agrarian reform until nine months before
the end of her term.
By August 7, 2009, Arroyo signed the Republic Act No. 9700 known as
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Extension and Reforms (CARPER) for
amending certain provisions of 1988 CARL and extended the CARL to five years
and allocated more funds for the implementation of the CARP.

Benigno Aquino III Administration (2010-2016)

Aquino administration only achieved 5% of its target for the distribution of
lands, much lower than the accomplishment of the short-lived Estrada
administration posted at 5.4%. Even that 5% distributed lands still encountered
questions on appropriate services. Problems still present during this administration
such as:
1. Poverty and landlessness remained;
2. Interruption on the identification and distribution of a huge number of
landholdings;
3. Pending titles at the Registry of Deeds;
4. Inclusions and exclusions of beneficiaries;
5. Inability of farmers to pay the monthly amortizations and foreclosures;
6. Existence of exemptions in lands use conversions

People criticized this administration for lacking of political will to fully implement
the extended CARP and to enhance the distribution of land under CARPER.

Rodrigo Duterte Administration (2016 – Present)

Under this leadership, President Rodrigo Duterte aggressively continued
the agrarian reform program that helps lighten the life of the farmers’ through
prioritizing the preparation of support services in the land distribution. The President
ordered the DAR to implement the 2nd phase of the program where landless
farmers will be awarded with the undistributed lands under the CARP, including
the military reserves.

Under this administration, the DAR created an Anti-corruption Task Force to

inspect and examine reports on alleged anomalous activities of officials and
employees in the department. Also, DAR pursue the “Oplan Zero Backlog”
program in relation to the delivery of services of the agrarian reform and to fast
track the implementation of the CARP.

11
 On August 3, 2019, President Rodrigo Duterte led the distribution of
58,387 Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) to 60,233 farmer-
beneficiaries of the CARP. The distribution covers 102,727 hectares of land from
the five regions, namely: Zamboanga Peninsula, Northern Mindanao, Caraga,
Davao Region and Soccsksargen.

Learning Activities
Activity 1: Investigating the Agrarian Reform Issue
Name: _______________________________ Date: _____________
Course/Section: _______________
Directions: Interview six people (those people around/ closer to you
father/grandfather/uncle/neighbor) (three for tenants and other three
for landlord) about what they see as problems or hindrances to the full
implementation of agrarian reform and what solutions they can
recommend for these. List down your significant observations and
synthesize the interviewee’s remarkable responses. (Observe physical
distancing, it would also be okay if it is through online or cellphone the
interview)

Side 1: A tenant who cultivates another person’s agricultural land.

Side 2: An owner of an agricultural land that is tilled by a tenant.

Tenant Landlord
Background Information
on the Interviewee’s
(name, place, age, no.
of years being a
tenant/landlord)

Major Problems

Possible Remedies

Activity 2: Analysis
Directions: What do you think is the problem or issue with land ownership in the
Philippines? Is it plausible to have a genuine and successful agrarian

12
 reform program in the Philippines? What do you think should be done?
Explain your answer. Use separate sheet of necessary.
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________

Mastery Test
The Way Forward: Agrarian vs Industrialization
Name: ____________________________ Date: ___/____/ _____
Course/Section: ___________________________
Directions: Consider yourself as a landowner of a ten-hectare agricultural land.
Would it be fair for you if parts of your land were to be distributed to
farmers in the implementation of the agrarian reform law? Using 300 to
500 words, justify your stand about this hypothetical scenario.

13
14