THE 38th anniversary of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 passed relatively unnoticed. Has the law been able to promote meaningful social justice and move the nation toward sound rural development and industrialization as stated in the law’s declaration of principles and policies?
Hundreds of thousands of hectares of agricultural lands may have been redistributed to landless farmers and laborers. Huge sums of public funds — both national and international — have been spent on conferences and seminars, farm implements, farm-to-market roads, irrigation, post-harvest facilities and more. Yet, official poverty incidence among the rural population remains high. As of 2023, poverty incidence among individuals residing in rural areas was 22.1 percent compared to 10.3 percent among urban residents. Indigenous people, fisherfolk and farmers have the highest poverty incidences among the country’s basic sectors at 32.4 percent, 27.4 percent and 27 percent, respectively.
Agrarian reform advocates lament the failure of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and its extensions to genuinely empower agrarian reform beneficiaries to break the cycle of socioeconomic and political marginalization. “Many rural working people have yet to benefit from land redistribution, even as the lack of State support has compelled many beneficiaries to sell their lands,” agrarian reform advocates Karlo Mongaya and Sheila Mae Pagurayan wrote in a commentary (PDI, June 5, 2026) as they joined farmers in front of the Department of Agrarian Reform office in Quezon City demanding action. Mongaya and Pagurayan identified major interconnected threats to the livelihood of farmers, including reform reversals and land concentration, disputes caused by conflicting laws and overlapping claims, escalation of capitalist or corporate land grabbing and resulting violence, and a deepening gap between the cost of production and farm gate prices.
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, too, is critical of the state of the Philippine agricultural sector. The BSP’s perspective, however, is in the context of the country’s current account. Using government data to illustrate the low productivity of Philippine agriculture, the BSP explains how this situation has led to the sector’s inability to contribute significantly to export earnings and to meet local demand (“Current Account Dynamics and the Philippine Economy: Developments and Prospects,” BSP, 2025).
The authors of “Current Account Dynamics” further conclude that “Despite receiving a substantial portion of the annual budget, public spending programs and infrastructure development have been ineffective in supporting agricultural workers to enhance their productivity.” The agriculture, fishery and forestry sector’s “lagging performance can be attributed to several factors, including limited access to technology, inadequate capital investment, and policy interventions such as the [CARP] that have inadvertently undermined productivity.”
No, the BSP is not blaming CARP per se for the low productivity. But “fragmentation of agricultural lands into smaller plots can undermine opportunities to achieve economies of scale.”
Of course, this is an argument we’ve heard before. The book quotes a study that found that “land reform in the Philippines resulted in a 35 percent reduction in farm size and a corresponding 17 percent decline in agricultural productivity.” According to the BSP publication, while collective land ownership awards are allowed, “the resulting assets are not accepted as collateral for loans.” Without adequate financing, the farmers can’t invest in new technologies “essential for enhancing agricultural productivity.”
How can farmer-beneficiaries indeed be productive if they have grown old and frail waiting for their certificates of land ownership? Implementation has been delayed, derailed and sabotaged due to a lack of political will and the shrewdness of wealthy landlords who wield significant political power. In the 1990s and early 2000s, rural development NGOs with funding from foreign governments played an important role in helping farmers counter institutional inertia and landlord hostility. Eventually, however, international donor interest shifted to other causes. Most rural development NGOs faded into the night.
The BSP also criticizes the government for focusing too much on rice production, while neglecting crops that could generate more income for farmers, spur more economic activities in rural communities, and help diversify Philippine agricultural exports and meet local market demands.
Programs need to be more strategic, following a longer-term vision: research and development, for instance, rather than the endless band-aid solutions like doling out fertilizers, water drums, etc. While typhoons, heavy rainfall and droughts are integral parts of the Philippine climate, they are increasing in frequency and intensity due to climate change. The losses to agriculture — to crops, livestock, infrastructure, land — are staggering. Agricultural lands are already suffering from degradation due to both natural factors and unsustainable farming methods.
To the agrarian reform movement, the matter of social justice looms large. The promise of land to the tillers must be fulfilled. Their right to the land must be vigorously defended by the government. Rural communities must receive their fair share of government resources, including access to quality health care and education. But for social justice to materialize, for the nation to — at the very minimum — be food-secure, productivity is a must. We need to utilize our resources more efficiently and sustainably if we are to survive and prosper.
