Carper vs Carp
These gifts are all from the same tree. And that tree can never be useful if it is not planted in the soil. Again, the importance of land is absolute. Now, that the significance of land is evident to all, what is the government’s action to preserve and maximize the use of its territorial asset? The Philippines’ Department of Agrarian Reform is the executive department of the Philippine Government responsible for all land reform programs in the country, with the purposed aim of promoting social justice and industrialization through massive taxation of rich and poor Filipinos alike.
Their latest moves are the CARP or Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program and CARPER or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Extension with Reform. They are both made with the tendency to support the people who are involved in all land related usage or the Filipino citizen. However, there is a certain question hanging in the balance between these two government programs.
Only $13.90 / page
That is: which is better? If the object at stake is the Philippine lands, of course, Filipinos will only want the best measure in any given option.
The researchers aim to help clarify which is the better program between CARP and CARPER while considering all sides: advantages and disadvantages. By this comparative study the researchers hope that the agricultural committee would consider the pros and cons of each program and cooperate with each other to choose the better program for our country or simply just make a better program than the present ones. ? CONTENT A. Definition: CARP or Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program was laid down in the year 1988, to protect the agricultural workers in Philippines. It was signed by President Corazon C. Aquino on 10th June, 1988.
It is aimed at helping the small and marginal farmers of Philippines by providing them easy access to land and other necessary inputs ( ). For a long period of time, the agrarian system of Philippines was being controlled by the large landlords. The small farmers in Philippines were struggling for their rights to land and other natural resources. It was observed that about two-point-nine (2. 9) million small farms occupied about half of the total arable land of Philippines, whereas the medium and large farms occupied about eleven percent (11. %) of the total farmland. The agrarian system in Philippines followed a feudalistic approach. The implementation of Agrarian reforms proceeded at a very slow pace. This was due to the lack of political will. The redistribution of land was also very slow. As a consequence, a large amount of agrarian land in Philippines was converted to industrial land (http://www. economywatch. com/agrarian/law/comprehensive. html). Even though CARP is designed to enhance the agrarian industry, there are some reactions from farmers, organizations, and even students who noticed the drawbacks of the mentioned program.
According to Pambansang Kilusan ng Mga Samahang Magsasaka (PAKISAMA), Inc. , “exemptions were made to large commercial farms, lands that were converted to other uses, and worse of all, provisions were made for non-redistributive methods such as leaseback arrangements and stock distribution options. It was a testament to the longevity of the same traditional interests that were able to e-assert not just a presence but an influence that was so palpable after the EDSA revolution. Still CARP was a departure from previous agrarian reform programs in that 1.
All agricultural lands are covered, 2. it includes a program of support for program beneficiaries, 3. Retention limits for landowners were reduced to five hectares, 4. Provides provisions for landowner compensation and, 5. Beneficiaries are to pay back the land through amortization to the government/Land Bank of the Philippines. Under CARP, all landless farm workers were eligible to be considered as beneficiaries, provided they were landless and willing to farm the lands. The goal for CARP was to cover 8. 06 million ha under its land acquisition and distribution program.
The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), which was set up by the Marcos regime under a separate piece of legislation as the lead agency for land reform, was deemed as the agency to implement CARP. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) was placed in charge of the land acquisition and distribution for public alienable and disposable lands, as well as forested lands. Delays occurred because of the considerable resistance by landowners, lack of coordination among concerned agencies (including DENR, DAR, LGUs, and courts), and the legal challenges and hurdles posed by landlords.
With the implementation of the program still incomplete in 1998, CARP was extended by 10 years to June 2008. ” These are just some of the problems and/or issues regarding CARP. For these reasons, people demanded to have a new solution which will remove the problems of the recent program: CARPER. CARPER or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Extension with Reforms Law is the newest piece of legislation mandating the implementation of agrarian reform in the Philippines. Signed on 7 August 2009, the CARPER law (Republic Act.
No 9700) provides for new funding to support land distribution for five years, for continued provision of support services, and introduces other reform clauses such as improved support for women beneficiaries. This briefing paper concentrates on the campaign that helped to bring the new law into force. It presents the challenges of forging a coalition and the different methods by which pressure was brought on the legislature by the Reform CARP movement (Carmina Flores-Obanil). ? B. Comparison The biggest difference of CARP and CARPER is stressed on the idea that CARPER pertains to more funding.
Its description allows CARP to continue and only added a few notes on the side of beneficiaries. There are some considerations about both sides being better than the other. a. CARPER is better than CARP There is a side that favors CARPER over CARP. This fact should be considered and discussed on detail. First, it is one of the sharpened policies of CARPER that it is the relationship of conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses and food security (http://landwatch. i. ph/blogs/landwatch/2009/08/10/pakisama-carper-is-better-carp/). Under the CARPER law, any conversion to avoid CARP coverage is a prohibited act.
The word “any” makes the defense of good faith or ignorance of the law untenable. To avoid abuse and discrimination among those who are socially and financially unfortunate, the VLT or Voluntary Land Transfer is not allowed after the CARPER law takes effect which was July 1, 2009. The government shows its support on the agricultural industry by adding funds and making the farmers and tenants are the first priority beneficiaries which means that it will encourage more farmers and give them support in the technicalities of the law pertaining to land reforms.
Another good thing is that it appeals to the female population with specified right to “receive a just share of the fruits thereof, and to be represented in advisory or appropriate decision-making bodies. These rights shall be independent of their male relatives and of their civil status”, as stated from the law. Deception is also avoided due to the part of the CARPER law that the land distribution should be actual and physical. Therefore, anyone can refuse if the offer entails that the transaction would be a non-distributed scheme.
It may be a little different than the previous administration; however, it can still be used by landowners to secure their personal intentions and not for the improvement of the agricultural industry. If what Mr. Rafael Mariano said is true, then, we should be aware of the possible outcome it may cost us. Firstly, there will be less land to be used for agriculture. Meaning, there will be less farmers and less crops for our food supply and income. If the private lands will be used for commercial and industrial purposes, then it will be the start of the fall of our agrarian ndustry. Secondly, there is an issue on the budget management of the funds. We all know the reputation we have of our government and it is a little disturbing that they added funding to a program designed to fail as Mr. Mariano had said. Yes, the CARPER program has the capability to make our agrarian industry better but it will require ideals which are unexpected in our reality. Maybe it will be a little different now that we have a somewhat honest leader but the effect of his loyalty to the people is just gradually influencing the country. It cannot be a sudden phenomenon.
The program also requires some revisions to clarify the betterment of the land management and development of the project to secure the welfare of the farmers and tenants. ? CONCLUSION ? RECOMMENDATION The researchers would like to suggest the idea of another program which comprises the objectives of further developing the agrarian industry of the country. It may take a long time to compose a new program but if it is for the welfare of our food supply, why not take the time to consider all possibilities for a long term effect in the future.
If ever it is decided to continue with the present program, then revisions are required to reach an agreeable result for the future. Every land reform program should be balanced with the interests of the landowners and farmers. It should also be based from the intention of maximizing the use of all available lands to enhance the status of one of the greatest blessings this country has: rich lands. Imagine if the Philippines is crowded with commercial businesses, and industrial plants and companies.
The former crops covered with cement since the former farmers decided that they cannot make any decent income with what they’re doing so they switched to the working class where people wear suits, instead of long sleeves and sombreros, and work in air conditioned offices, instead of the dirt fields they used to have. And instead of relying to our own food supply, the government has to hold a diplomatic relationship between other neighboring Asian countries to maintain a contract for importing rice and other agricultural products just because our own country lack enough supply to feed its people. ?