Sa Manlulupig, ‘Di Ka Pasisiil: Emancipating Filipinos From the Threat of Land Grabbing
- deskvalor
- Mar 25
- 9 min read
by Therenz Estanislao, Michael Mayo, Andreia Basi, Lian Diez, Jennica Mogan
"Sa malulupig, 'di ka pasisiil". The lyrics of the Philippine national anthem, Lupang Hinirang, remain profoundly relevant as the country strives to uphold the rights of farmers and Indigenous People against the threat of land monopolization. A just and sustainable approach to land governance is essential, a way to address the pressing concern deeply rooted in historical injustices and perpetuated by economic and political interests.
For centuries, land has been a source of power, survival, and identity. However, for many farmers and Indigenous People (IPs) in the Philippines, it has also been a source of struggle. Land grabbing, fueled by historical injustices and modern economic interests, continues to displace marginalized communities, deprive them of their livelihoods, and deepen social inequalities. While agrarian reform policies exist, weak enforcement and legal ambiguities have allowed corporations, elites, and foreign investors to seize tracts of land at the expense of those who depend on it. According to Roa (2014), IPs were driven out or had their land taken away from them, and massive quantities of land were concentrated in the hands of local elites and foreign invaders during the Spanish and American occupations. Land grabbing continues to negatively impact marginalized sectors, making it imperative to implement stronger land reform policies to protect local communities and their human rights.
The government often sided with big businesses and wealthy landowners, enabling the monopolization of agricultural land (Davies, 2016). Under Ferdinand Marcos' administration from 1965 to 1986, specific businesses were granted favorable treatment, including financial aid, exclusive support, tax exemptions, and control over entire industries, resulting in their establishment as monopolies. A system that facilitates displacements and makes it difficult for farmers to obtain land titles is in effect, where the state and wealthy landlords hold the property and provide farmers rights to land plots (Vargas, 2003).
The legacy of unequal land ownership persisted even after the fall of Marcos and continues to affect the Philippines. Rapid urbanization and infrastructure developments have often been prioritized over the preservation of agricultural land. The expansion of metropolitan areas and the growth of villages necessitating more land per person have further reduced the availability of agricultural land. The nation's ability to maintain agricultural output and meet the demands of its growing population in terms of food production is significantly challenged by these developments (Van Vliet et al., 2017).
Land grabbing is motivated by various factors that negatively impact farmers and IPs. One key factor frequently documented in the Philippines is the pursuit of economic opportunities in agribusiness, real estate, mining, tourism, and investment, often leading large groups such as corporations and governments to encroach on local land. Land prices rise, impeding domestic farmers to obtain access to land. Through increasingly monopolistic land practices, large agribusinesses compromise the incomes of farmers and contribute to their growing debt (ARC2020, 2024).
For instance, the Hacienda Yulo, a 7,100-hectare plot of land in Laguna, was supposed to be redistributed to farmers under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) but is currently privatized by the Yulo family for sugar cane production and residential use. According to Bulatlat (2021), the long history of land disputes between farmers and the Yulo family began in 1948, when the land was sold to Jose Yulo, a former Chief Justice of the Philippines during the Japanese occupation. Farmers were coerced to work for him and in the 1960s, petitions for land reform were disregarded due to Yulo’s connections to the Marcos dictatorship. His connections exempted him from Presidential Decree 27, which commands land ownership to tenant farmers. The land later developed into an industrial zone for land-use conversion and urban development. Currently, struggling farmers amidst the commercialization of farmland in Hacienda Yulo face harassment by having their homes burned down.
Altering land laws in favor of investors further aggravates the situation of small farmers and influences the country’s food safety and security (Constantin et al., 2017). Prioritizing land-use conversion at the expense of agricultural lands and food farms has detrimental effects on the local rice industry and food production. During the past 30 years, there has been an increase in the country’s dependency on imported food. Based on the reports of the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), the import dependency rate jumped from 22.5% in 2016 to 29.2% in 2018. Additionally, the PSA’s food balance sheets (FBS) have revealed how the country’s self-sufficiency ratio (SSR) for aggregated food commodities declined from 86.8% in 2017 to 79.4% in 2018. Support for domestic food production is needed, as Chavez (2018) emphasizes, “The country cannot rely on importation for food needs.” Global supply chains are vulnerable to disruptions including conflicts, pandemics, or natural disasters, which can lead to fluctuating food prices and shortages in supply. To achieve a stable food supply and sustain the needs of the 117 million Filipinos, investing in the modernization and industrialization of Philippine agriculture is a necessity. The sourcing of food commodities from other countries should only be considered as a secondary option (Dar, 2020).
Meanwhile, mining projects in search of important minerals in the Philippines lead to a clash between local communities and the government over territory. After President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. lifted a nine-year moratorium on open pit mining, Indigenous communities struggled against mining projects vying over their domain. According to an investigation by Global Witness and Kalikasan People’s Network for the Environment (Kalikasan PNE), IPs have lost a substantial area of land over the past 30 years, equivalent to a fifth of their territory.
Another case is the Aurora Pacific Economic Zone and Freeport’s (APECO) plans to make an economic zone in the municipality of Casiguran by developing a deep water shipping port and promoting tourism. To make way for their plan, APECO bought large areas of local land, effectively displacing families and depriving them of their livelihood (Oxfam International, 2014). 113,000 IPs have been internally displaced from their ancestral territories in 2023, devaluing their rights over the ownership of their domains (Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre [IMDC], 2024).
According to the 2022 State of the Indigenous Peoples Address Report by the Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center (LRC), 21% of registered ancestral domains were threatened with ecological risks. In 2023, 1.33 million hectares of projects posed massive disturbance and pollution to Indigenous lands. LRC attributed the surge of environmental risks to mining expansion amid the escalating demand for energy transition metals. In Palawan, the Tagbanua group raised concerns about the loss of land and livelihood, reduced water supply for irrigation, and damage to the unique and biodiverse ecosystem in the Victoria-Anepahan Mountains (Fabro, 2024). Forest fragmentation is also a major concern. Since Palawan is home to wildlife and different flora, many animals in this area targeted for mining would need to find new homes (Padilla, 2024). Resource competition would ultimately diminish wildlife populations in the area.
Domestic and foreign investors further perpetuate these economic land grabs as land laws favor their interests, that is the Republic Act No. 7652 or the Investors’ Lease Act which intentionally attracts foreign investment. Under this law, foreign investors can lease private lands for industrial and commercial purposes for at least 50 years. Consequently, foreign investors can protect their landholdings against legitimate land claims of smallholders and Indigenous people (Cotula, 2016). In addition, the process of setting up facilities is made easier for them due to the fact that labor costs are cheaper and natural resources are abundant in the Philippines. Through this mechanism, 3.1 million hectares of land have been bought by multinational corporations, driving out farmers and Indigenous people from their ancestral territories (Focus on the Global South, 2015).
Attempts to reform laws on land resource usage and land rights protection have been implemented since 1987. However, marginalized groups continue to be victims of land grabbing. For decades, the Lumad communities have experienced violence and displacement at the hands of various armed groups: the Philippine military, corporate armies, civilian militias, and rebel groups (Yambao et al., 2022). As a result, they are regularly forced to abandon their homes and livelihoods in search of safety (IMDC, 2013). Their possession, fields, and ancestral domains have been left behind as they are unable to return for weeks. Additionally, their fields often become neglected, leading to crop losses and failures. The cycle of violence and displacement undermines the resources of the IPs and drives them deeper into poverty.
Addressing the pervasive issue of land grabbing in the Philippines necessitates a collaborative approach centered on strengthening existing agrarian reform programs such as the Republic Act No. 6657 or The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), under the leadership of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). Specifically, Chapter II outlines the scope of CARP, emphasizing the need for equitable land redistribution, prioritizing small farmers and marginalized sectors, and promoting social justice through inclusive land ownership (Republic Act No. 6657, 1988). The strict implementation of this law is necessary to achieve equitable earnings and tax distribution between the farmers and landowners. According to Sirait (2017), agrarian reform contributes to economic improvement; demonstrated by a decline in poverty rates among agrarian reform beneficiaries. Furthermore, the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS, 2002) emphasizes its role in poverty reduction and in rural development. Without these measures, disparities between farmers and landowners may persist, compromising the intended objectives of equitable land distribution.
Additionally, granting farmers secure property rights is essential for encouraging long-term investments in land, thereby enhancing rural development and food security, which collectively benefit the Philippine economy. Formalizing individual land titles led to increased agricultural investment and output, highlighting the positive impact of tenure security on farmer productivity (IPA, 2020).
The issue of land grabbing in the Philippines remains a pressing concern, deeply rooted in historical injustices and perpetuated by economic and political interests. From colonial-era land monopolization to modern-day large-scale land acquisitions, the interminable displacement of farmers and IPs highlights the enduring struggle for land rights. The prioritization of agricultural businesses and mining projects continues to exclude local communities, further widening the social gap between the privileged and the impoverished sectors of society. Despite existing land reform efforts, weak enforcement and policies that favor investors over smallholders have allowed land grabbing to continue. The failure to protect agricultural lands and ancestral domains threatens food security, rural livelihoods, and the country’s natural resources. Land is not solely a resource for the Philippines' economic gain; it is the foundation of our culture, identity, and survival for many. The continuous loss of land to powerful entities widens social inequality and undermines national stability. Therefore, a just and sustainable approach to land governance is necessary. One that ensures equitable land distribution, protects excluded communities, and upholds the right to land ownership.
REFERENCE LIST
Agricultural and Rural Convention. (2024). Land grabbing is back – this time the risks are even greater.
Asian Non-Government Organization Coalition. (2021, September 21). When big businesses and farmers’ interests collide: Rampant land conversion is shrinking
farmers’ lands threatening food security in the Philippines. Fair Finance Asia. https://philippines.fairfinanceasia.org/2021/09/21/when-big-businesses-and-
Cabico, G. K. (2022). Half of ancestral lands threatened by destructive projects — report. Philstar.com.
Chavez, C. (2018). Farmers’ group say land grabbing, conversion to blame for undeveloped agriculture, food insecurity.
Cipollina, M., Cuffaro, N., & D’Agostino, G. (2018). Land inequality and economic growth: A meta-analysis. Sustainability, 10(12), 4655.
Climate Diplomacy. (n.d). Land grabbing in the Philippines. https://climate-diplomacy.org/case-studies/land-grabbing-philippines
Coalition Against Land Grabbing. (n.d.). CALG - Coalition against land grabbing. https://www.coalitionagainstlandgrabbing.org/
Constantin C., Lumințan C., & Vasile A. J. (2017). Land grabbing: A review of extent and possible consequences in Romania. Land Use Policy, 62, 143-150.
Cotula, L. (2016). Foreign investment, law and sustainable development: A handbook on agriculture and extractive industries. International Institute for Environment
and Development. https://www.iied.org/12587iied
Davis, K. F., D'Odorico, P., & Rulli, M. C. (2014, July 8). Land grabbing: A preliminary quantification of economic impacts on rural livelihoods. Population and
Environment, 36(2), 180–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-014-0215-2
Department of Agriculture Press Office. (2020, October 9). “Increasing local food prod’n is our priority, importation is a last resort” - DA Chief.
Fabro, K. A. (2024, March 28). Indigenous Filipinos fight to protect biodiverse mountains from mining. Mongabay.
Focus on the Global South. (2015). Understanding land grabbing, land rights in the 21st century, Policy Review, 1(6).
Global Witness. (2024, December 3). How the militarisation of mining threatens Indigenous defenders in the Philippines.
Gratton, P. (2024). Foreign investment: Definition, how it works, and types.
Gunnsteinsson, S., Johnson, H., Perova, E., Castro-Zarzur, R., Srouji, P., & Jarvis, F. (2020, June 29). The impact of strengthening individual property rights on agricultural
investment and intra-household bargaining in the Philippines. Innovations for Poverty Action. https://poverty-action.org/study/impact-strengthening-
Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre. (2013, August 9). “Ripped from their homes and ancestral lands” – addressing the plight of the Philippines’ largest ethnic
Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre. (2024, August 26). Philippines. https://www.internal-displacement.org/countries/philippines/
Marks D., Sirithet A., Rakyuttith A., Wulandari S., & Chomchan S. (n.d.) Land grabbing and impacts to small scale farmers in southeast Asia sub-region. Local
Oxfam International. (n.d.). Land grabs in the Philippines: “It’s like they have killed us already”.
Ramos, M. (2024). In data: indigenous Filipinos lack the rights to stop land grabs.
Reyes, C. (2002). Impact of agrarian reform on poverty. Philippine Journal of Development, 29(2).
Umali, J. (2021, January 31). One hundred years of struggle in Hacienda Yulo. Bulatlat.
Yang, B., & He, J. (2021). Global land grabbing: A critical review of case studies across the world. Land, 10(3), 324. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10030324
Comments