In the early periods, land ownership was primarily held by the elite, creating a significant

disparity. This inequality was especially pronounced under Spanish colonial rule, where land
grants concentrated land into the hands of few powerful families.
As the country transitioned through various political phases – from Spanish to American rule,
and eventually to independence – the need for reform became increasingly evident. Land-
related issues often sparked rural unrest and uprisings, making reform essential.
Let's delve deeper into how agrarian reform came to be, tracing its roots and evolution across
different historical periods in the Philippines. Each era—from pre-colonial village life to
contemporary reforms—brought unique developments in land ownership and rural policy.
These changes were shaped by shifts in governance, from Spanish and American colonial
influence to independent administrations. Across time, agrarian reform has remained central to
addressing the disparities in land access and ownership, sparking policies aimed at fostering
equitable growth and sustainable rural development.
Starting with the Pre-Colonial Period and moving through Spanish Colonial Rule, the First
Philippine Republic, the American Period, the Commonwealth Era, the Japanese Occupation,
the Post-Independence Period, the Marcos Era, and into Recent Developments, we uncover a
complex history of land ownership transformation. Each period reveals the evolving challenges
and reforms that have shaped the landscape of agrarian justice in the Philippines

Pre-Colonial Period: Village Life and Communal Access to Land

Before Spanish colonization, Filipinos lived in village communities, or barangays, led by chiefs
known as datus. The social structure included the maharlika (freemen), aliping mamamahay
(serfs), and aliping saguiguilid (slaves). Despite these social classes, most individuals had access
to the land’s resources, and rice was commonly used as a medium of exchange rather than
money. This period saw more communal land usage, where access was not restricted by wealth
or status.

Spanish Colonial Period: Concentration of Land and Encomienda System

With the arrival of the Spaniards, the concept of encomedia(royal land grants)introduced a
system where Spanish officials were granted control over vast areas of land. They collected
tributes from local farmers, which gradually transformed into exploitative land rents,
concentrating land ownership among a few elite landlords. The native Filipinos who once freely
cultivated the land become share tenants, sparking discontent that would later fuel the push
for agrarian reform.
The First Philippine Republic: Initial Plans for Reform
In 1899, during the First Philippine Republic, General Emilio Aguinaldo proposed a plan to
confiscate large estates, especially those owned by Spanish friars, as a way to address the
persistent land inequalities burdening Filipino tenant farmers. This land reform initiative was
included in the **Malolos Constitution the Philippines' first constitution, which aimed to
establish a democratic framework for the new Republic and promote social justice.

However, the First Philippine Republic's ambitious plans for land reform were cut short.
Established on January 23, 1899 the Republic lasted only until March 23, 1901—just over two
years Its fall came with the capture of President Emilio Aguinaldo by American forces, marking
the end of organized Filipino resistance against American colonization. This event effectively
halted the Republic's early initiatives for agrarian reform, postponing its goals of equitable land
distribution and social reform.

American Period: Land Laws and Limited Progress

Under American rule, new laws were introduced to address land issues, including the Philippine
Bill of 1902, which limited the amount of land individuals and corporations could own. Other
legislation, such as the Tenancy Act of 1933, sought to regulate landowner-tenant relationships.
The Americans introduced the Torrens title system for land registration, but its high costs
hindered access for many Filipinos, limiting the impact of these reforms.

Commonwealth Period: Foundation for Social Justice

President Manuel L. Quezon prioritized social justice to address the increasing unrest among
tenant farmers. The 1935 Constitution declared social justice a responsibility of the state.
Quezon enacted the Rice Tenancy Act and created agencies like the National Rice and Corn
Corporation (NARIC) and the Rural Program Administration to address tenancy issues, support
price stability, and manage land resettlements. The Rice Tenancy Act (Act No. 4054)
The Rice Tenancy Act, enacted in 1933, aimed to regulate the relationships between
landowners and tenant farmers, especially those working rice fields. This law intended to
improve tenant rights by establishing guidelines for tenancy contracts and protecting farmers
from arbitrary eviction and exploitation. Key provisions included:

 Setting the rent ceiling at a maximum of 50% of the tenant's yield, preventing landlords
from taking excessive shares.
 Requiring written contracts between tenants and landlords, which was intended to
formalize agreements and reduce exploitation.
 Offering security of tenure for tenants to minimize frequent evictions by landlords.

National Rice and Corn Corporation (NARIC)

Established in 1936, NARIC was an agency created by Quezon to regulate the rice and corn
industries and support price stability. The main objectives of NARIC were:

 Stabilizing prices for rice and corn, protecting both farmers and consumers from price
volatility.
 Buying and storing rice to prevent market shortages and maintain consistent supply.
 Ensuring fair prices for farmers' produce to increase their income and reduce rural
poverty.

Japanese Occupation: Rise of the Hukbalahap Movement

During the Japanese occupation in World War II, local farmers, especially in Central Luzon, were
mobilized by the Hukbalahap (Hukbo ng Bayan Laban sa Hapon) movement. Landlords who
collaborated with the Japanese lost their lands, while those who supported the Huks enabled
their tenants to gain more secure land access. The end of the occupation marked the rollback of
these informal gains, but the spirit of peasant resistance persisted.
Peasant resistance arises from a combination of social, economic, and political factors that
drive rural communities to organize and confront oppression. Key reasons include land
inequality, where a small number of landlords control vast areas, leaving many farmers landless
or in insecure tenancy arrangements, fostering resentment and a desire for equitable
distribution. Economic exploitation, characterized by high rents and unfair labor practices,
undermines livelihoods and prompts demands for better conditions. Additionally, social
injustices, such as marginalization and lack of political representation, fuel frustrations, while
crises like economic downturns and natural disasters can trigger urgent responses. The
solidarity developed through community organization empowers peasants to advocate for their
rights, dignity, and social justice, culminating in movements aimed at creating systemic change.

Post-Independence Era: Initial Reforms and Establishment of Land Administration Agencies

Following independence in 1946, land tenure issues persisted. President Manuel Roxas
implemented laws like the 70-30 sharing arrangement for rice tenants. Presidents Elpidio
Quirino and Ramon Magsaysay built upon these efforts with agencies like the Land Settlement
Development Corporation (LASEDECO) and the National Resettlement and Rehabilitation
Administration (NARRA) to assist landless farmers, many of whom were resettled in Mindanao.
The resettlement of landless farmers to Mindanao during the post-independence era was
driven by the island's vast underdeveloped land, which presented opportunities for agricultural
expansion and increased food production. With high population density in other regions,
particularly in Luzon and the Visayas, resettling farmers to Mindanao aimed to alleviate
pressure on limited agricultural land while promoting economic development in the region.
The government sought to stimulate local economies and create new agricultural communities,
viewing the initiative as a means to improve livelihoods for landless individuals and foster
stability in Mindanao's diverse population. LASEDECO (Land Settlement Development
Corporation) and NARRA (National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration) were two
key agencies established in the Philippines during the post-independence era to address land
reform and resettlement issues.
Land Settlement Development Corporation (LASEDECO)

Founded in 1954, LASEDECO aimed to facilitate land development and settlement in

underutilized areas, particularly in Mindanao. Its primary objectives included:

 Acquisition and Development of Land: LASEDECO was responsible for acquiring suitable
lands for settlement and overseeing their development into productive agricultural
areas.
 Resettlement of Landless Farmers: The agency focused on resettling landless farmers
and providing them with access to land, tools, and resources necessary for agricultural
production.
 Support Services: LASEDECO also aimed to provide technical assistance and support
services to resettled farmers to help them establish viable farming operations and
improve their living conditions.
Despite its intentions, LASEDECO faced challenges, including limited funding and difficulties in
implementing effective support systems for resettled farmers.
National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration (NARRA)
Established in 1970, NARRA was tasked with managing the resettlement of families and
individuals displaced by various factors, including natural disasters and land reform initiatives.
Its key functions included:

 Resettlement Programs: NARRA focused on developing and implementing resettlement

programs for landless farmers, especially those relocated to Mindanao and other less
populated regions.
 Community Development: The agency aimed to create sustainable communities by
providing infrastructure, education, and health services in resettlement areas, ensuring
that relocated individuals could integrate successfully into their new environments.
 Land Distribution: NARRA played a significant role in the distribution of public lands to
landless farmers, supporting the government's broader agrarian reform goals.
Both LASEDECO and NARRA were integral to the Philippine government's efforts to address
land tenure issues and improve the livelihoods of marginalized farmers, although they
encountered various operational challenges and limitations throughout their existence.

Marcos Era: Declaring Martial Law and the Agrarian Reform Program

President Ferdinand Marcos, under Martial Law in 1972, declared the country a land reform
area. Key legislation, such as Presidential Decree No. 27, limited land ownership to seven
hectares, focusing on rice and corn lands. This program’s implementation, however, was often
limited by government corruption and resistance from the landed elite.
During the Marcos Era, particularly following the declaration of Martial Law in 1972, President
Ferdinand Marcos initiated a series of agrarian reforms aimed at addressing longstanding issues
of land inequality in the Philippines. The key legislation, Presidential Decree No. 27, aimed to
distribute agricultural lands to tenant farmers by limiting land ownership to seven hectares for
rice and corn production. This was a significant move, as it sought to curtail the vast estates
held by the landed elite and promote equitable land distribution among farmers.
Improvements during the agrarian reform efforts in the Philippines, particularly during the
Marcos Era, included increased awareness of the struggles faced by farmers and the
importance of land reform, leading to a heightened public discourse on social justice and
agricultural policies. Some land was successfully redistributed to tenant farmers, granting them
formal ownership and security over the land they tilled. Additionally, the policies established
during this period laid the groundwork for future agrarian reforms, highlighting the ongoing
need for comprehensive approaches to land tenure and rural development. Despite significant
challenges, these improvements contributed to the long-term dialogue surrounding land rights
and reform in the Philippines.

Recent Developments: Enhancing Implementation and Expanding Services

In recent years, the Philippine government has continued to expand agrarian reform efforts.
Under President Rodrigo Duterte, a second phase of agrarian reform aimed at redistributing
public lands and accelerating land acquisition for distribution was initiated. DAR’s focus also
includes support services like credit, infrastructure, and agrarian justice to address the backlog
of unresolved land cases and ensure beneficiaries’ rights are upheld.
Key Initiatives and Focus Areas
1. Redistribution of Public Lands: The government prioritized the redistribution of
public lands to landless farmers, targeting unutilized or underutilized
government-owned lands to facilitate agricultural development. This move
aimed to provide immediate access to land for those who lacked ownership.
2. Accelerated Land Acquisition: The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)
implemented measures to expedite the acquisition and distribution of lands,
addressing delays that had plagued previous reform efforts. This included
streamlining processes and enhancing collaboration with local government units
to ensure a more efficient allocation of land.
3. Support Services: Recognizing that access to land alone is insufficient for
improving farmers’ livelihoods, the government expanded support services.
These included:
 Credit Access: Initiatives were launched to provide farmers with easier access to credit
and financing options, enabling them to invest in agricultural inputs, technology, and
equipment.
 Infrastructure Development: The government sought to improve rural infrastructure,
such as roads, irrigation systems, and market facilities, which are crucial for enhancing
productivity and connecting farmers to markets.
 Agrarian Justice: Efforts were made to address the backlog of unresolved land cases and
ensure that the rights of agrarian reform beneficiaries were upheld, providing legal
support and protection against land disputes.