*Why the Philippines Is Left Behind: The ASEAN Land Question We Can No Longer Ignore*
In the heart of Southeast Asia, the Philippines stands out—not for its wealth, but for the wealth it fails to share. As other ASEAN nations surge forward with strategic land reforms and coordinated urban planning, the Philippines remains shackled by a colonial legacy of land concentration and speculation. The way we treat land—our most basic resource—has everything to do with why we lag behind.
Take a closer look at our neighbors, and you’ll see that land policy is not just about who owns what. It's about who gets to prosper.
In Vietnam, land is owned by the state, but citizens enjoy long-term, tradable land use rights. After the 1986 *Đổi Mới* reforms, these rights sparked a revolution in agricultural productivity. Rice farmers gained security, profits soared, and the country became one of the world’s top exporters. This state-managed but market-aware system has lifted millions from poverty while keeping land from being hoarded by elites.
Thailand moved decisively in the late 20th century to give people formal title to the land they lived and worked on. These titles gave farmers access to credit and the confidence to invest. Though land inequality remains a challenge, the government’s active role in planning has helped balance rural livelihoods and urban development.
Indonesia walks a more complicated path, balancing state ownership with customary land rights. Its rapid growth has often been driven by resource extraction—palm oil, mining, timber. But the price has been steep: land conflicts, displacements, and environmental degradation. Still, Indonesia recognizes the problem and is trying to map and rationalize its land regime with the ambitious *One Map Policy*.
Then there’s Singapore, the clearest counterpoint to our situation. Nearly all land in Singapore is owned by the state, which leases it out with strict planning controls. This has enabled the city-state to build world-class public housing, infrastructure, and parks—all without relying on land speculation. When the land increases in value, that gain is captured by the public, not pocketed by private landlords. Singapore turned land into a tool for collective prosperity.
Now, look back at the Philippines.
Here, land is dominantly in private hands. It is inherited, fenced, flipped, and hoarded—less for farming or housing, more for speculation. Vast estates lie idle while millions of Filipinos live in informal settlements or toil on leased farmland. Agrarian reform, long promised, has been piecemeal and sabotaged. Urban land values skyrocket, not because of effort or innovation, but simply because of location. This is unearned wealth—economic rent—siphoned off by a privileged few.
And what have we gained from this system? A housing crisis. Rural poverty. Disempowered farmers. Congested cities. And perhaps worst of all, a political class whose fortunes are literally rooted in landownership.
Land reform isn’t just a moral issue. It’s an economic one. It determines whether growth is inclusive or exclusionary, whether opportunity is concentrated or shared. As we’ve seen across ASEAN, countries that break the monopoly on land use and treat it as a public trust—not a private treasure—are those that manage to industrialize, modernize, and reduce inequality.
So what’s stopping us?
The Philippine land regime is not accidental—it is preserved by dynasties, codified by outdated laws, and fueled by the silence of those who benefit from the status quo. But this can change. We can adopt a land value tax that discourages speculation and rewards productive use. We can finally deliver on the promise of land reform, not just on paper but in people’s lives. We can learn from our neighbors, who have shown that progress begins with land.
It’s time we asked: Who owns the Philippines? And more importantly—who should benefit from it?