"No" vote to House Bill No. 4077

Rep. Teddy Casiño's Explanation of "No" vote
to the CARP Extension Bill (House Bill No. 4077)

June 03, 2009

Twenty years ago, our distinguished colleague in the 8th Congress, the late Rep. Bonifacio Gillego, the main author and staunchest proponent of agrarian reform at that time, declared the comprehensive agrarian reform program (CARP) a corpse.

"My task," he said in explaining his negative vote on Hose Bill No. 400, which eventually became Republic Act No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, "is to deliver a funeral oration on CARP." His point being that the 8th Congress had watered down and mangled agrarian reform beyond recognition and removed it of its heart and soul.

Mr. Speaker, my dear colleagues, by extending the life of the zombie of an agrarian reform program that is RA6657, even with token amendments which we did tonight, we are repeating the very same sin of the 8th Congress of crafting a defective and anti-farmer agrarian reform law.

How can I support such a program when the Honorable sponsor Edcel Lagman admitted during interpellation that HB 4077 will not correct what he called the "congenital defects" of RA 6657? These include the following major flaws: (1) the exclusion of vast tracts of CARP-able land due to technical classifications, land use conversions and retention limits; (2) the provisions for alternative modes of compliance which denies the farmer beneficiaries full ownership and control of the land; (3) a payment scheme that keeps farmers in a continued life of debt and servitude to the landlord or the Land Bank. In fact I learned from the Land Bank in a hearing this morning that 62% of the CARP beneficiaries can not pay the annual amortization; (4) a valuation and compensation scheme that provides vast opportunities for graft and corruption and the connivance of DAR officials and landlords in milking billions of taxpayers' money; and (5) voluntary land sale and transfer schemes that is corruption-prone and gives landlords the upper hand over their erstwhile tenants.

Ang mga kahinaang ito na nasa batas mismo ang pangunahing dahilan kung bakit umabot na nang 20 taon ang CARP pero walang makabuluhang resulta. Ang hindi nagawa ng 20 taon hindi matatapos sa loob ng limang taon na extension ng CARP.

Kung kasumpa-sumpa ang ginawa ng 8th Congress sa pagpasa ng isang walang puso at walang kaluluwang agrarian reform law, mas kasumpa-sumpa ang ang ginagawa nating pagpapahaba ng programa na alam na nating palpak at hindi nagsilbi sa pagpapalaya at pagpapaunlad ng ating mga magsasaka sa loob ng 20 taon. Hindi matatanggap ng aking konsensya na sumuporta sa isang batas na magpapatuloy sa ganitong panlilinlang, pagsasamantala at pagpapahirap sa ating mga magsasaka.

Ang sabi ng iba, well meaning friends have told me: "Pagbigyan na natin ito. Ito lang ang maibibigay ng Kongreso, tanggapin na natin." I'm sorry, my dear colleagues, but as far as agrarian reform is concerned, I don't subscribe to the idea that something is better than nothing. Or that beggars can't be choosers. Our farmers are not beggars. They deserve more than the crumbs CARP and HB 4077 offers.

There are times when we have to draw the line. When we should reject compromise when it is already a sellout. I believe this is the time. I am here in Congress to protect the rights and interests of the farmers, and I will do so without compromise, especially if there is a sellout.

In any case, may pagkakataon pa tayong gumawa ng isang mas matino at maka-magsasakang batas para sa repormang agraryo. Isang batas na tunay na sasalamin sa interes ng karamihan ng ating mga kababayan - ang mga magsasakang nagpapakain sa ating bansa.

I am for a new and better agrarian reform law. Therefore I vote no to House Bill No. 4077.

Maraming salamat po.###