Why CARP Failed: The Broken Promise of Agrarian Reform
In 1988, President Corazon Aquino signed into law one of the most ambitious social justice measures in Philippine history—the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Heralded as a pillar of her administration’s democratic legacy after the Marcos dictatorship, CARP aimed to correct decades of rural inequality by redistributing land to landless farmers. More than three decades later, it is widely seen as a failure.
So what went wrong?
### A Reform Compromised from the Start
The roots of CARP's failure can be traced to the way it was designed. Although the program intended to break up the centuries-old concentration of land in the hands of a few, it was riddled with loopholes and exemptions that undermined this mission. Chief among them was the Stock Distribution Option (SDO)—a provision that allowed landowners to offer shares of stock to farmworkers instead of transferring land.
This loophole was famously used by none other than the Cojuangco-Aquino family at Hacienda Luisita, where instead of redistributing over 6,000 hectares of land to workers, the family retained control by issuing stock. The Hacienda Luisita case became a powerful symbol of the reform’s contradictions: a program led by a president from a landowning clan that managed to keep its estate intact.
### Elite Capture and Weak Political Will
CARP’s downfall also lies in the political context in which it was born. Post-EDSA, the Aquino administration faced enormous pressure to maintain political stability, and this often meant avoiding direct confrontation with powerful landlords, many of whom sat in Congress and controlled local politics. The very people tasked with implementing the reform were often its biggest beneficiaries—or protectors of those who were.
Even Aquino herself, while sincere in her rhetoric, was reluctant to challenge the entrenched interests of her class. This lack of political will ensured that resistance to land redistribution was met with negotiation or delay rather than decisive action.
### Bureaucratic Delays and Corruption
Even when CARP had the legal means to acquire land, the implementation was painfully slow and inefficient. Land acquisition, valuation, and redistribution dragged on for years. Legal challenges clogged the courts, and underfunded government agencies struggled to enforce mandates. In many cases, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) lacked the resources or resolve to enforce land transfers—especially against influential landowners.
Moreover, corruption further eroded the program’s credibility. Fake beneficiaries, rigged valuations, and backdoor deals were all too common. In the end, CARP’s bureaucracy became more adept at delay than delivery.
### Land Without Support Is Not Reform
Another reason CARP faltered was the lack of support for farmer-beneficiaries. In many instances, land was distributed without adequate access to credit, farm inputs, training, or infrastructure. Without this support, productivity declined. Some farmers, unable to sustain their livelihood, ended up selling or leasing the land back to landlords—often informally, and in violation of the law.
This tragic cycle not only perpetuated poverty but also re-legitimized elite control over land, undoing the program’s gains.
### The Legacy of CARP
Despite its lofty goals, CARP did not transform the Philippine countryside. It failed to break the hold of landlordism, failed to empower small farmers, and failed to address the root causes of rural poverty. While it did lead to the redistribution of some land, the most politically connected estates were largely untouched. To this day, land inequality remains a defining feature of Philippine society.
The Hacienda Luisita massacre in 2004, where striking workers were killed in a violent dispersal, is a chilling reminder of the broken promises of CARP. It exposed not only the unresolved tensions around land but also the enduring power of elite interests in shaping national policy.
### Another Missed Opportunity
Corazon Aquino is rightly remembered for restoring democracy, but the failure of agrarian reform remains a dark spot on her legacy. CARP was a rare moment when the state had the moral and political mandate to bring about structural change in the countryside. But without the courage to confront the landed elite—including those within its own ranks—that opportunity was lost.
Land reform was supposed to be the cornerstone of social justice in the post-Marcos era. Instead, CARP became a cautionary tale: that true reform is impossible when the reformers are unwilling to confront their own privilege.