Frithjof Kuhnen (1996):
Synthesis of Current State of and Trends in Land Tenure and Land Policy in Asia

1.3.2 Philippines

Traditionally, land was controlled by the village community under the datu's responsibility. He could assign usufruct rights to free villagers, while unfree people could lease land.

The Spaniards, who took over the country from 1568 to 1898, gave the datu the rank of an administrative official responsible for collecting taxes and recruiting labour. Under the encomienda system, large plots of land and the people living there were entrusted to the conquistadores who had to administer their region, pay taxes and use the labour for agricultural production. These first large landlords lived on the dues of the small cultivators, more and more of whom becoming sharecroppers.

The future brought a strong differentiation in the rural society: the commercialization of agriculture producing for the world market brought wealth and power to the landlords, while the actual cultivators became indebted and were soon tenants on their former land. This process has been termed the first land grabbing.

From 1898 - 1940, the USA took over the country and applied a policy of free trade and commercialization. The registration policy benefitted mostly the landlords who could register land rights, while the illiterate peasants did not understand the law. The introduction of 'Torrens' titles stipulated that a land user was considered to be the proprietor as long as nobody could prove the opposite. Again, the landlords had greater possibilities than smallholders to successfully claim land before the court. During the same time, the tenants' situation deteriorated despite special measures.

Soon after independence, the new government started to take measures to counter the peasants' growing dissatisfaction. However, neither the Magsaysay nor the Macapagal land reform had much impact. President Marcos' attempts, in 1972, were more successful, especially the operation leasehold which was to raise share tenants to the position of cash tenants in Luzon. However, many loopholes left the task of a real land reform to the next governments, those of Mrs. Aquino and of Ramos.

The CARP land reform law of 1986 limits land ownership to 5 ha plus an extra amount for children. However, the conditions of implementation were such that they reduced the actual impact of the law: it gave the landlords much time for preparation. Instead of allowing the land to be confiscated, they could choose to transfer it to an income or product-sharing institution. Especially in the rice and maize area, the income to be expected was too small for the beneficiaries to pay the purchase price rates. The land allotted to landless families and families having little land was usually government land.

Slopes of 18 % or more belonged to the government. They were meant to be afforested or reserved to hill tribes in customary tenure. But whenever a person was willing to pay taxes for a plot of land, he could be registered as owner of permanent usufruct rights. Thus, many city dwellers had land registered and changed squatters to tenants.

In general, the law which was passed by a parliament in which the landlords were in majority and especially its implementation caused more disappointment than enthusiasm. In this situation, a wide range of opposition members drafted an alternative land reform law which has become known as PARCODE. It is much more radical and intends to remove inequalities and create justice. While it is not very likely that this proposal will be enforced, it hints, at least, at the desires of the broad population.

In the meantime, the poverty and degradation of smallholders and tenants have increased, and agricultural production is stagnating in the food crop sector. The relatively widespread and powerful NGOs try to fight for the small peasant's right. Besides, large areas are under 'militarization' which is a mixture of army robbery, peasants' exploitation and shelter from theft and crime by other parties. Vast rural areas are in a state of anarchy.

Under such conditions, especially that of insurgency, there have hardly been linkages with industries in the rural areas. The existing industries are located around large cities, mainly Manila. The wealthier sectors, including the corporations, have been the beneficiaries of agricultural development. More and more poor peasants, especially those from the dry highlands, migrate in search of work and livelihood and even go abroad. Minimum wage laws exist, but they are not applied, not even in government institutions. The agricultural society is capitalistic in its structure and feudal in its relations. The extremely unequal situation creates much tension.

Pattern Southeast Asia

Land reforms had a very limited impact, due mostly to the landlords' political opposition to such measures. Poverty continues to prevail, especially in the dry upland areas. Even in the irrigated areas, many farms have shrunk so much that they cannot support a family. Many peasants had to look for means of earning a non-farm income to make ends meet, but they were not always successful. This is an indication of poverty and not of economic progress. Agricultural production has been increased by the new technology energetically promoted by the government, but this hardly affected the income level of households owning very small holdings. Many farmers remain in the rural areas only because alternatives are lacking. The development of rural industries has been hindered by the lack of purchasing power, and existing industries are based mostly in urban areas and are capital intensive. The gap between rich and poor as well as between cities and villages keeps widening and the young people, especially, are looking forward to a non-agricultural life.