DOLINA, PAMELA M.
JD-2C
REACTION PAPER ON R.A 6657 OR THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN
REFROM LAW (CARL)
Republic Act 6657 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law is a program of the national government which aims to uplift the
socio-economic status of farmers particularly, landless farmers. The plight of
these landless farmers has gotten the attention of the government as it was
observed that majority of them are still living in poverty despite toiling all their
lives and due to poverty most farmers resorted to uprising which occasionally
lead to violence, in the hopes that their grievances will be heard by the
government.
In response to the call of farmers, former President Ferdinand E. Marcos,
in 1972, issued an order entitled “The Emancipation of Tenants from the
Bondage of the Soil, Transferring to them the Ownership of the Land they Till
and providing the Instruments and Mechanism therefor” or the Presidential
Decree No. 27, said order aims to, at the very least, improve the economic
status of the farmers, but PD 27’s coverage was limited only to private
agricultural lands producing rice and corn under a system of sharecrop or
lease-tenancy. Thus, the enactment of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law (CARL) in June 1988, CARL is a law subsequent to P.D 27 and, as the title
suggests, it targets to cover all public and private agricultural lands which
include other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture. The objective
of CARL is similar to that of PD 27 that is, to uplift the economic status,
redress grievances and alleviate poverty of farmers although this time it has a
wider scope for it includes all agricultural lands regardless of crops or fruits
produced.
Sec. 2 of CARL states the principles and policies of the law in relation to
the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), it
delineates the bedrock of CARP and the reason why the government has come
up with the initiative to pursue CARP which are the following, among other
things:
a. To recognize the right of farmers, farmworkers and landowners,
cooperatives and other independent farmers’ organizations;
b. To promote social justice and to move the nation toward sound rural
development and industrialization, and the establishment of owner
cultivatorship of economic-size farms as the basis of Philippine
agriculture;
c. To provide farmers and farmworkers with the opportunity to enhance
their dignity and improve the quality of their lives through greater
productivity of agricultural land.
Said section, if taken at face value has, needless to say, the noblest of
intentions and is probably founded on the doctrine of parens patriae, in view of
the poor condition of the farmers at that time. Moreover, based on the
provisions of Section 2, the government is taking action by providing a program
that is responsive to the issues and demands of the farmers in which CARL is
envisioned to be the answer to this continuing problem.
Sec. 31 provides for the redistribution of lands belonging to Corporate
Landowners, this section is very interesting, specially the last paragraph which
states: “If within two (2) years from the approval of this Act, the land or stock
transfer envisioned above is not made or realized or the plan for such stock
distribution approved by the PARC within the same period, the agricultural
land of the corporate owners or corporation shall be subject to the compulsory
coverage of this Act.” What is interesting in this paragraph is the fact that
haciendas or agricultural lands spanning more than the allowed retention limit
of CARP are still existing today. This actuality tells us that there were loopholes
somewhere along the implementation of the program, otherwise, these
agricultural lands of vast extent belonging to a single corporation would not be
existing today had this provision been truly enforced.
Sec. 74 Penalties – the penalty, as provided in the Act, is imprisonment
of not less than one (1) month to not more than three (3) years or a fine of not
less than one thousand pesos (P1,000.00) and not more than fifteen thousand
pesos (P15,000.00), or both, at the discretion of the court. The authors of the
statute should have imposed a stiffer penalty, viz. longer period of
imprisonment and an amount high enough to deter persons contemplating on
circumventing the law.
Finally, a government who puts the public as its topmost priority create
programs that address the prevailing issues of the country and is cognizant of
the fact that the program/project created is only half of the story, it must be
coupled with complementary approaches such as strict
implementation/enforcement, monitoring and follow through and regular
conduct of assessment in order to achieve the objectives of the program. CARL
would have served its purpose if the program had been sincerely and genuinely
implemented by the government.
