Ferdinand Marcos Sr.'s land reform in the Philippines failed for several key reasons, despite appearing ambitious on paper. His Presidential Decree No. 27 in 1972, which aimed to redistribute land to tenant farmers, especially in rice and corn lands, encountered significant structural, political, and implementation barriers:

1. Limited Scope of Coverage

* Only rice and corn lands were included under PD 27. * Large estates producing sugar, coconut, bananas, and other export crops were excluded. * This left millions of tenant farmers in other sectors unaffected by the reform.

2. Landowner Resistance and Legal Loopholes

* Wealthy landlords—many of them political allies of Marcos—resisted implementation using legal tactics and political influence. * Land reclassification and corporate landholding were used to evade coverage. * Marcos himself and his allies were large landowners, creating a conflict of interest.

3. Inadequate Support Services

* Beneficiaries received land but lacked access to credit, infrastructure, irrigation, seeds, and markets. * Without this support, many farmer-beneficiaries remained poor or fell into debt, and some even sold or abandoned the land.

4. Authoritarian Control and Patronage

* Marcos used land reform as a political tool to gain legitimacy after declaring Martial Law in 1972. * Redistribution was often selective, favoring loyal supporters rather than prioritizing equitable development. * The Bureau of Agrarian Reform was weak and politically compromised.

5. Weak Institutional Implementation

* The Land Bank of the Philippines, tasked with financing land acquisition, lacked sufficient funding and bureaucratic capacity. * Land surveys, titling, and redistribution were slow and inefficient.

6. Concentration of Power and Corruption

* Marcos centralized power and weakened democratic institutions, reducing transparency and accountability. * Widespread corruption within the regime diverted resources and undermined reforms.

Conclusion

Ferdinand Marcos Sr.'s land reform failed because it was more about consolidating political power than genuinely restructuring agrarian inequality. A successful land reform requires broad coverage, political will, strong institutions, and robust support systems—conditions not present under his authoritarian regime.

If land reform were truly enshrined and enforced in the Philippine Constitution, it could potentially overcome some of these challenges by making the policy less susceptible to executive manipulation and more accountable to public oversight and the rule of law.