Big bold reform: Land tenure

As part of the “big bold reform” initiative by the administration, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) is contemplating issuing an administrative order (AO) purportedly removing the requirement of securing the agency’s clearance on land transactions on private agricultural lands and the transfers of awarded agricultural lands under Republic Act 6657, or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), as amended.

The agency believes that this will significantly alter the land market in the country.

First, it will enable farmer-entrepreneurs to own land beyond the 5 hectares limit for a couple tilling the land and 3 hectares for an individual cultivator. This will allow consolidation of farmlands, which have fragmented into miniscule sizes (average farm size now is 0.83 of a hectare) due to the protracted implementation of CARL. In turn, land consolidation will enable producers to enjoy economies of scale in production.

The other implication, which is no less significant, is that it will facilitate conversion of agricultural lands to nonagricultural uses such as real estate development and the construction of more industrial sites and tourism spots. The difficulty in converting agricultural lands into nonfarm purposes is seen as one of the causes of rising real estate and industrial development costs.

The proposed AO brings a sense of excitement because it has the potential to trigger massive investments from the private sector, both local and foreign, to the rural sector, in particular. However, the problem is that despite the AO’s issuance, pundits are claiming that its potential of contributing to development will not be realized due to legal infirmities.

A position paper, written by Erwin Tiamson, a recognized legal expert on land laws in the country and a member of the Foundation for Economic Freedom, elaborates on the reasons.

He argues that the proposed AO indeed “weakens the operational relevance of the 5-hectare retention limit without repealing it” since lands can now can be consolidated through ordinary transactions without fear that the ceiling will be enforced by DAR during the point of transfer. Take note that the AO lifts DAR’s clearance authority during the process. The result is that while there is a CARL land ownership retention ceiling provision, the removal of DAR’s clearance authority at this transaction point means the absence of an agency to enforce this provision.

Thus, the AO has the effect of making the retention ceiling “dormant” or temporarily inactive.

Tiamson clarifies that this is not a new legal ploy, as this was also applied to the share tenancy law, which declared that this tenurial arrangement is illegal (criminal) though hardly enforced now. By resorting to this legal maneuvering, the measure avoids the trap of raising the issue to Congress where such an amendment will expectedly trigger controversies and divisions. And the Marcos administration can ill-afford this given its declining political capital.

The downside of this “dormant” approach, Tiamson observes, is that since the proposed AO is a statutory amendment, its continued implementation will be at the whims of the Executive branch of government. A change in the administration with a pro-agrarian reform bias in the future will likely trigger a return to the low land ownership retention ceiling as stipulated in CARL.

However, Tiamson sees land conversion as the more problematic aspect of the DAR AO. Rigidities in the land conversion process have negative downstream consequences on the ability of local government units (LGUs), and the Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development (DHSUD) to reclassify lands for nonagricultural development purposes such as designation for residential areas and industrial sites. Similarly, investors will be discouraged by the lengthy and costly land conversion process.

The AO does not address this problem, Tiamson said. While LGUs, DHSUD and even the private sector can formulate zoning and development plans in their respective localities for the rational use of their scarce land resources, the matter becomes moot and academic if a land conversion authority is not issued by DAR.

“The reform improves land mobility and consolidation. It does not reconcile the institutional conflict between decentralized planning and centralized conversion control. Until conversion authority is harmonized with land use planning, development uncertainty persists,” Tiamson said.

What are the key takeaways from Tiamson’s assessment of DAR’s AO?

First, it obviously does not constitute a “big bold reform.” It is neither “big” nor “bold” because it does not structurally address the root cause of the problem in a more assertive manner.

Two, there will be a need to amend the specific provision in CARL regarding the land ownership retention ceiling to raise it at a level where our food producers can enjoy economies of scale. Only by introducing such an amendment by Congress that the uncertainties over the retention ceiling and the land market can be resolved.

Three, a big bold reform will require streamlining the land conversion process that might involve stripping partly the powers of DAR on land conversion. This will necessitate the formulation and passage of a national land use plan that identifies in detail areas designated for agricultural, real estate, industrial development, among others. This then becomes the basis of whether lands should be retained for further agricultural development or for nonagricultural uses, which facilitates the land conversion process.

Four, the ultimate measure to remove uncertainty over the land market is the declaration that CARL has been completed, with a promise that no further extension will be accommodated. Further implementation will just be confined to areas which have been issued with a notice of coverage (NOC) and no further NOC will be issued by DAR. Note that as per DAR data, almost 88 percent (or nearly 5 million hectares) of targeted lands for distribution have been placed under agrarian reform.

In the past, agrarian reform advocates theorized that land reform would increase agricultural productivity and result in countryside development. Ironically, scholarly studies have now revealed that in the Philippine case, agrarian reform actually led to a decline in farm productivity by around 17 percent due to fragmentation of lands into miniscule plots. In other words, the way we implemented agrarian reform consigned our small farmers to poverty. It is high time that we shift gears.

Let us not allow an economic dogma popular in the mid-20th century to continue to dominate our agriculture development policy landscape. We are now in the 21st century wherein adopting and adjusting to new technologies, particularly the advent of artificial intelligence, will determine whether our economy will further progress or stagnate.

Source: Manila Times

Why the Philippines Needs 282,000 New Homes a Year

If you have ever wondered why homes still feel “kulang” even with so many new projects rising, the answer is simple: the Philippines is not building enough houses every year to keep up with demand. Recent estimates show that the country needs to produce around 282,000 new housing units annually from 2025 to 2030 just to start closing the gap, with an even bigger jump needed after 2030.

The real size of the housing gap

Studies by housing experts estimate that average annual demand for new homes is in the hundreds of thousands, while actual private-sector production is barely a fraction of that, resulting in a large yearly shortfall. This shortfall piles up on top of an already big backlog, which government and international agencies have previously placed in the millions of units.

One analysis breaks it down like this: demand for new homes is roughly 478,000 units per year, while only about 128,000 units are being supplied by the private sector, leaving a shortfall of around 350,000 homes annually. To narrow this gap, experts say the country must ramp up production to at least 282,000 units a year from 2025 to 2030, and then massively scale to about 1.6 million units yearly from 2031 to 2040.

Why 282,000 homes a year?

The figure of 282,000 units is not random; it is a calculated target that factors in existing backlog plus future household formation over the next years. In simple terms, it is the “minimum aggressive level” that slows down the growth of the backlog instead of letting it balloon further.

Government projections in earlier years already showed that if the country stayed at about 200,000 units per year, the backlog could still hit around 6.5 million households by 2030. The new, higher targets—combined with the administration’s “Pambansang Pabahay Para sa Pilipino” program aiming for around 1 million homes per year—are attempts to break out of that low-production trap.

What this means for today’s buyers

For ordinary homebuyers, all these big numbers translate into daily realities you can feel:

• Competition for well-located, reasonably priced homes remains intense, especially in cities and growing provincial hubs.

• Lower- and middle-income families are pushed toward far-flung areas, informal settlements, or cramped rentals due to limited affordable supply.

• Prices for decent housing in safe, accessible locations tend to rise faster than incomes, which keeps “affordable” homes out of reach for many.philstar+1

If the country fails to consistently hit or exceed that 282,000-unit target, the backlog will continue to grow, which can keep pressure on prices and on rental markets. Conversely, if public and private sectors succeed in scaling up, buyers could see more choices in different price brackets and locations over the next decade.

Government programs and private sector role

The national government has put housing front and center, highlighting that hundreds of thousands of housing units have been financed and constructed since mid‑2022 under flagship programs. The “Pambansang Pabahay Para sa Pilipino” initiative aims to deliver millions of units within the current administration to address both the backlog and future needs.

However, experts emphasize that government cannot do it alone; the private sector currently accounts for a large share of formal housing production and must scale up as well. This means developers, banks, and housing finance institutions need to work together to cut red tape, speed up permitting, and make financing more accessible, especially for socialized and economic housing.

How buyers and investors can respond

For home seekers and small investors, the housing gap is both a challenge and an opportunity:

• For end-users, it underscores the importance of planning early, improving creditworthiness, and exploring government-backed financing options like Pag-IBIG to secure a decent home before prices move further up.

• For investors, the persistent shortage suggests continued long-term demand, particularly in affordable housing and in-city or near-city projects close to employment.

If the country succeeds in consistently building 282,000 or more homes a year through 2030, the market could gradually shift from “chronic shortage” to a more balanced environment where more Filipino families can realistically achieve homeownership. Until then, understanding the numbers behind the housing gap can help you make smarter decisions—whether you are buying your first home, upgrading, or investing for the long term.

Source: Ziggurat Real Estate

Filipino families and VAT

For nearly two decades, Filipinos have lived under the weight of the 12-percent value-added tax (VAT), once 10 percent, under Republic Act 9337, or the Expanded Value Added Tax Law. The increase was justified as a fiscal necessity as the government needed to stabilize revenues, reduce deficits and strengthen its financial performance.

In many aspects, the policy worked. VAT has become one of the government’s most reliable revenue streams, funding education, health care and infrastructure projects essential for national development. However, what was once fiscally sound for the government has not been socially sustainable for Filipino households.

The 2-percent hike may look small on paper but in reality it has drained billions from consumers over the years. VAT touches nearly every aspect of daily life, taxing Filipinos at every turn — from food, utilities, tuition fees, health care and even internet subscriptions.

Unlike direct taxes, it is unavoidable and embedded in every transaction. It is a burden that is shifted from the seller to the final consumer. For families already struggling with inflation, stagnant wages and rising costs of living, that extra 2 percent is not just a number, it’s a decision-maker. It can mean the difference between a meal on the table and an empty stomach, keeping the lights on or sitting in the dark, or paying for medicine or skipping treatment.

It is a silent deduction from every peso earned, making it a burden, and consumers have no choice but to endure higher costs on goods and services. In a country where private consumption accounts for more than 70 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP), the strain on households reverberates across the economy. When families spend less, businesses earn less and growth slows.

The debate over the country’s VAT has resurfaced as some lawmakers push to reduce the rate back to its original 10 percent under Senate Bill 1152, also known as the VAT Reduction Act. By comparison, the Philippines currently imposes one of the highest VAT rates in Southeast Asia — Thailand’s is 7 percent, Malaysia’s is 5 percent and Indonesia’s is 11 percent.

A higher VAT not only leaves consumers with less disposable income, it also affects the competitiveness and cost structures for businesses, making the country less attractive for investment. The VAT Reduction Act seeks to change that by boosting GDP while also easing the burden on Filipino households, particularly low- and middle-income families who see a substantial portion of their earnings consumed by VAT every time they spend.

Supporters of the proposal argue that lowering the VAT rate will immediately increase household disposable income and stimulate consumption. With more money left in the hands of consumers, families could spend beyond basic necessities, reshaping consumption patterns and fueling demand across industries. The added purchasing power will reinforce the households’ role as the primary driver of the Philippine economy.

In theory, the reduction in VAT could even offset part of the government’s revenue loss as higher sales may improve business performance and potentially increase collections from other tax types. Supporters also highlight the public trust issue, arguing that allowing households to retain more of their income may be more efficient than relying on government redistribution programs that are often viewed as vulnerable to inefficiency or leakages.

On the other hand, the Department of Finance (DOF) stresses that rolling back VAT could lead to annual revenue loss of roughly 1 percent of GDP, or about P330 billion from 2026 to 2030. VAT accounts for 26.5 percent of total tax collections and nearly 29.9 percent of government revenues. For fiscal managers, a reduction could widen the budget deficit and likely force the government to borrow more, potentially raising debt, increasing interest payments and affecting the country’s credit rating.

The DOF cautions that while lowering VAT will reduce prices and increase household purchasing power, it could slow down fiscal consolidation efforts that aim to stabilize the country’s finances over the long sterm.

Beyond economics, the debate is also shaped by public sentiment. Issues surrounding corruption, inefficiency and misuse of funds have damaged public trust and influenced how citizens perceive taxation. For many households, VAT has become more than a consumption tax — it is a symbol of governance challenges. When taxpayers see reports of waste, fraud or mismanagement, the willingness to accept a high tax burden declines. Conversely, when revenues are used effectively, taxation can be perceived as a necessary contribution to national development.

If passed, the VAT rollback could mark a turning point in economic policy, one that reconsiders how the government balances revenue generation with household welfare. It could provide a breathing room for families, stimulate consumption, influence business confidence and strengthen the economy from the ground up.

However, this also raises questions about fiscal sustainability and the government’s ability to fund critical services. Policymakers must evaluate whether the potential short-term boost to spending outweighs the long-term implications for public finances and whether complementary reforms, such as improved tax administration, reduced leakages, or a broadened tax base are necessary. Strengthening transparency, improving service delivery and ensuring accountability may be as important as tax reform itself in restoring public confidence.

Ultimately, the VAT debate highlights the need for a balanced, evidence-based approach. Policymakers must weigh immediate household needs against long-term fiscal stability, considering how each option aligns with the country’s broader goals of inclusive growth, resilience and competitiveness. The question is not simply whether VAT should be reduced or maintained, but how any decision fits into a coherent, responsible and forward-looking economic strategy.

Whether the government chooses to retain the 12-percent rate or revert to 10 percent, the path forward should be grounded in credible analysis, realistic planning and transparent communication. As the discussion continues, the challenge for policymakers is to craft a policy approach that secures long-term fiscal health and also acknowledges the everyday realities faced by Filipino families who are affected by every price increase.

Source: Manila Times