Post-Settlement Obstacles Faced by Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries: An In-Depth Qualitative Analysis of Governance and Policy Implementation in Bondoc Peninsula, Quezon Province

Authors

  • Leonila Tanyag-Conrado College of Political Science and Public Administration, Polytechnic University of the Philippines, Sta. Mesa, Manila, Philippines Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22125786

Keywords:

agrarian reform beneficiaries, post-settlement obstacles, Sustainable Livelihood Approach, governance, policy implementation, Bondoc Peninsula

Abstract

This qualitative two-case study examined post-settlement obstacles faced by Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs) in Barangay Cambuga, Mulanay, and Barangay Busokbusokan, San Narciso, Quezon Province, with emphasis on governance, policy implementation, livelihood sustainability, and socioeconomic outcomes. Guided primarily by the Sustainable Livelihood Approach, the study used an interpretivist and emic orientation. The participant structure reported in the dissertation included 20 ARBs (10 from each barangay), eight Department of Agrarian Reform employees, two officials from the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office, two Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee chairpersons, and two barangay chairpersons. Data were generated through semi-structured key informant interviews, Ginabayang Talakayan sessions, field observation, and document analysis, then examined through thematic analysis, cross-case comparison, triangulation, member checking, and an audit trail. Findings showed five major economic constraints: limited access to capital, inadequate infrastructure, fluctuating market prices, land-tenure insecurity, and limited market access. Land distribution was generally recognized as an important achievement, but post-settlement support was only partially effective because financial assistance was difficult to access, technical training was irregular, infrastructure remained insufficient, and coordination among implementing institutions was weak. These obstacles contributed to financial instability, social tension, health and well-being concerns, and limited community development. Cross-case analysis indicated that San Narciso experienced stronger structural and administrative constraints, whereas Mulanay showed more situational, land-boundary, ownership, and environmental concerns. The study concludes that land ownership alone is insufficient to produce sustainable rural livelihoods and recommends an integrated post-settlement support system combining accessible agricultural finance, rural infrastructure, market linkages, secure land tenure, continuous extension and training, stronger institutional coordination, and community-development support.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Adriano, F. (2008). CARP institutional assessment in a post-2008 transition scenario: Toward a new rural development architecture (PIDS Discussion Paper Series No. 2008-06). Philippine Institute for Development Studies. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/127968/1/pids-dps2008-06.pdf

Aquino, A. P., Ani, P. A. B., & Festejo-Abeleda, M. A. (2013, August 16). Comprehensive agrarian reform law: The road to agrarian reform in the Philippines. Food and Fertilizer Technology Center for the Asian and Pacific Region. https://ap.fftc.org.tw/article/513

Balisacan, A. M. (2003). Poverty and inequality. In A. M. Balisacan & H. Hill (Eds.), The Philippine economy: Development, policies, and challenges. Ateneo de Manila University Press; Oxford University Press.

Balisacan, A. M. (2007). Agrarian reform and poverty reduction in the Philippines. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development, 4(1), 1–16.

Ballesteros, M., Ancheta, J., & Ramos, T. (2018). The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program after 30 years: Accomplishments and forward options (Research Paper Series No. 2018-03). Philippine Institute for Development Studies.

Borras, S. M. (2007). Pro-poor land reform: A critique. University of Ottawa Press.

Bradstock, A. (2005). Changing livelihoods and land reform: Evidence from South Africa. World Development, 33(11), 1979–1992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.04.009

Chambers, R., & Conway, G. R. (1992). Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st century (IDS Discussion Paper 296). Institute of Development Studies.

Deininger, K. (2003). Land policies for growth and poverty reduction. World Bank.

Drbohlav, P., Svítálek, J., & Hejkrlik, J. (2017). Socio-economic assessment of the Philippine agrarian reform. Agris On-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, 8(2), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.7160/aol.2017.090203

Fabella, R. V. (2014). Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP): Time to let go. The Philippine Review of Economics, 51(1), 1–18. https://econ.upd.edu.ph/pre/index.php/pre/article/view/900/800

Galang, I. M. (2020). Boosting agricultural productivity through parcelization of the collective certificate of land ownership awards. Philippine Institute for Development Studies. https://pidswebs.pids.gov.ph/CDN/PUBLICATIONS/pidsdps2026.pdf

Gordoncillo, P. (2012). The economic effects of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program in the Philippines. Journal of the International Society for Southeast Asian Agricultural Sciences, 18, 76–86.

Granovetter, M. S. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.

Limbo, R. (2018). Agrarian reform communities (ARCs) and ARC clusters: Strategies and policies for strengthening connectivity and mobilizing resources for agrarian reform in the Philippines. Food and Fertilizer Technology Center for the Asian and Pacific Region. https://ap.fftc.org.tw/article/1315

Lorayna, K. J. A., & Caelian, M. V. (2020). Civil society organization participation in Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program implementation. Philippine Social Science Journal, 3(1). https://philssj.org/index.php/main/article/view/121

Luna, C. (2015). Institutional challenges and the role of government agencies in supporting agrarian reform beneficiaries. Journal of Agrarian Policy, 19(3), 78–92.

Monsod, T., & Piza, S. (2014). Time to let go of CARP? Not so fast. The Philippine Review of Economics, 51(1), 19–27. https://econ.upd.edu.ph/pre/index.php/pre/article/view/901/801

Putzel, J. (1992). A captive land: The politics of agrarian reform in the Philippines. Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Quisumbing, A. R. (1987). The role of agrarian reform in rural development. World Development, 15(9), 1125–1133.

Ramos, K. C. (2019). Implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program in a municipality in Negros Occidental. Philippine Social Science Journal, 2(2), 190. https://philssj.org/index.php/main/article/view/107

Scoones, I. (2009). Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(1), 171–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150902820503

Valente, C. (2009). Land reform and household food security: Evidence from rural economies. Food Policy, 34(2), 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2008.10.005

Yap, D., & Tang, L. (2019). Challenges and successes in land reform programs: A case study of agrarian reform beneficiaries in the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Rural Development, 24(3), 45–60.

Downloads

Published

2026-08-27

How to Cite

Tanyag-Conrado, L. (2026). Post-Settlement Obstacles Faced by Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries: An In-Depth Qualitative Analysis of Governance and Policy Implementation in Bondoc Peninsula, Quezon Province. International Journal of Education, Research, and Innovation Perspectives, 2(8), 1523-1534. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22125786

Similar Articles

1-10 of 514

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.