A SHARP CRITIQUE OF OUR LAND REFORM PROGRAM

A SHARP CRITIQUE OF OUR LAND REFORM PROGRAM

Recently, I came across a powerful essay written by Ms. Sharon Gick entitled "The Land Was Never Theirs to Give." Whether one agrees with all of her conclusions or not, her work deserves serious attention because it raises difficult questions about the real outcomes of agrarian reform in the Philippines.

According to Ms. Gick, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) did not fully liberate farmers from poverty. Instead, she argues that many beneficiaries received land titles accompanied by long-term debt obligations, while lacking access to credit, equipment, infrastructure, and support services needed to make their farms productive.

Her most provocative observation is that many agrarian reform beneficiaries were given ownership documents but could not easily use these titles as collateral for financing. As a result, farmers often found themselves trapped between the need for capital and the inability to obtain it.

Whether one agrees with this assessment or not, it highlights a reality that deserves examination: ownership alone does not automatically translate into prosperity.

Gick uses the long history of Hacienda Luisita as a case study. She traces the story from the Spanish colonial era to contemporary legal disputes, arguing that the benefits of agrarian reform have often been unevenly distributed. She points to the continuing concentration of economic and political power among influential families and suggests that many structural problems remain unresolved.

What struck me most about her essay is not merely the criticism itself, but the broader question it raises.

After decades of land reform, why are so many farmers still poor?

The Philippines has distributed millions of hectares of agricultural land under various agrarian reform programs. Yet agricultural productivity remains relatively low compared to many of our Asian neighbors. Rural poverty continues to affect millions of Filipinos, and many young people are leaving agriculture altogether.

Perhaps the problem is that land reform should never have been viewed as the final destination. It should have been only the first step.

Land ownership without irrigation, farm-to-market roads, post-harvest facilities, machinery, affordable financing, and reliable markets is like giving someone a vehicle without fuel. The asset is there, but the means to make it work are missing.

This is why I have long advocated for stronger farmer cooperatives, equipment-sharing programs, organic fertilizer production, rural processing facilities, and better access to agricultural credit. What farmers need is not only land ownership but also the economic power to make that land productive and profitable.

Gick's essay also reminds us of another important lesson. Poverty is not always the result of personal failure. Sometimes it reflects systemic problems that have accumulated over generations.

Whether one agrees entirely with her conclusions or not, Sharon Gick has performed an important public service by encouraging Filipinos to revisit the history of land reform and to ask difficult questions about its outcomes.

The real challenge now is not simply to debate the past. It is to build a future in which farmers own not only the land they till, but also the equipment, technology, financing, processing facilities, and market access needed to achieve genuine economic freedom.

Only then can agrarian reform become not just a transfer of land, but a true transformation of rural life.

RAMON IKE V. SENERES

www.facebook.com/ike.seneres  iseneres@yahoo.com  senseneres.blogspot.com  09088877282/07-08-2027