2025 Agrarian Reform in Cagayan Valley

 2025 Milestones:

1. Mass Distribution of Land Titles and Support Services in Cagayan Valley

A major DAR-led activity took place in December 2025, where thousands of agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) across the region — including Cagayan province — received land titles and support inputs:

• Certificates of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs) and split electronic titles (e-titles) were handed out to secure individual land ownership.

• In the region, 900 ARBs received CLOAs and 1,872 received split e-titles.

• 1,344 farmers benefited from debt relief under the Certificate of Condonation with Release of Mortgage (COCROM) program.

Farm machinery and equipment worth about Php 45.2 million were distributed, including solar-powered irrigation pumps and tractors. In Cagayan specifically, 2,872 beneficiaries received support valued at over Php 12.4 million.  

The goal of these measures is to boost productivity, reduce production costs, and modernize agriculture to support food security and farmer incomes. This mass distribution reflects sustained efforts by DAR and local officials to accelerate land tenure security and rural development in 2025.

2. Ongoing Individual Titling (Project SPLIT) and Mechanization Support in Cagayan

Earlier in April 2025, DAR-Cagayan offices awarded additional:

• Electronic land titles under the Support to Parcelization of Lands for Individual Titling (Project SPLIT) covering more than 21 hectares, as well as Regular Land Acquisition and Distribution (LAD) titles.

• A four-wheel-drive tractor with a rotavator was turned over to a local ARB cooperative to improve farm operations, productivity, and competitiveness.

• Project SPLIT aims to convert collective agrarian titles into individual ownership, giving farmers legal clarity and stability for credit access and investment decisions. 

Project SPLIT is part of a national DAR goal to distribute up to 396,000 e-titles in 2025, which enhances land titles nationwide and directly impacts farmers in regions like Cagayan through enhanced tenure security and agricultural financing access. 

3. Legal Aid and Farmer Rights Protection Initiatives

In August 2025, DAR launched the “Abogado ti Mannalon” legal aid program in Cagayan Valley, including Cagayan province. The initiative:

• Provides free legal assistance to farmers for civil, criminal, and administrative cases related to agrarian reform, land disputes, tenancy issues, and other legal needs.

• It is executed through interagency cooperation with the Department of Justice, Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Public Attorney’s Office, and young lawyer groups to broaden legal support coverage for rural communities.

• Aims to promote justice and legal empowerment for farmers beyond production assistance. 

This program highlights 2025’s focus on strengthening agrarian rights as a complement to titling and support services.

4. Institutional Strengthening: ARBO Cooperative Registration

Government efforts in 2025 also emphasized institutional capacity building:

• The Cooperative Development Authority (CDA) and DAR partnership facilitated the registration of 84 Agrarian Reform Beneficiary Organizations (ARBOs) as cooperatives.

• This cooperative registration drive empowers ARBs to operate as formal farm enterprises with improved access to credit, markets, and capacity building, aligning with national agrarian reform goals. 

5. National Context: Broader Agrarian Reform Targets and Support

The 2025 agrarian reform landscape in the Philippines — including in Cagayan — occurred within a larger national framework:

• The DAR set an ambitious target to distribute between 300,000 and 400,000 land titles nationwide in 2025 to accelerate agrarian justice. 

• At the national level, approximately 11,000 farmers in Cagayan Valley and Bicol received land rights and support services, underscoring coordinated national efforts to expand land tenure security. 

• DAR continues interagency collaboration efforts to enhance rural support and governance frameworks. 

SUMMARY:
Key developments in Cagayan and the region reveal a multi-faceted agrarian reform agenda focused on:

• Expanding land ownership security through CLOAs and e-titles.

• Distributing farm machinery, equipment, and agricultural inputs to improve productivity.

• Implementing legal aid and complaint support to protect farmers’ rights.

• Strengthening farmer organizations and cooperatives for economic resilience.

• Contributing to national agrarian reform targets set by DAR with government support.

These actions in 2025 represent substantive progress toward longer-term agrarian justice, rural development, and improved agricultural competitiveness for farmers in Cagayan province.

Cagayan ARBO joins 18th National Organic Agriculture Congress (NOAC)

Bacolod City - San Mariano Agrarian Reform Cooperative, an Agrarian Beneficiaries Organization (ARBO) from Lallo, Cagayan, along with other researchers, academic institutions, organic practitioners, and advocates from Cagayan province, participated in the 18th National Organic Agriculture Congress (NOAC) in Bacolod City, strengthening their role in advancing sustainable and climate-resilient farming practices in the Philippines.

The annual congress, hosted by the National Organic Agriculture Board (NOAB) and supported by the Department of Agriculture and Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), brought together farmers, practitioners, advocates, and policymakers to highlight successful organic production models, new technologies, and market opportunities.

This year’s theme focused on “Organic Agriculture: Strengthening Communities for a Sustainable Future”—a direction strongly aligned with ARBOs’ ongoing efforts to improve farm productivity, reduce input costs, and promote healthier, chemical-free produce.

Primary Activities are: (1) Call for Papers: An invitation for researchers, institutions, organic practitioners, and advocates to submit papers and showcase their work; (2) Presentations: A venue for sharing research findings and innovations in organic agriculture; (3) Networking: An opportunity for participants to connect with industry leaders and other stakeholders in the organic agriculture sector; and (4) Related Events: The congress is part of a larger Organic Agriculture Month celebration that includes the 18th Negros Island Organic Farmers' Festival (November 19-23) and Terra Madre Asia and Pacific (November 19-23).

Many groups also participated in technical sessions on organic certification, regenerative agriculture, composting systems, and enterprise development.

According to DAR provincial representatives, the participation of ARBOs in the congress reflects the agency’s commitment to helping organized farmers compete in premium markets. “Organic agriculture is not only good for the soil—it is good for the farmers’ livelihood. ARBOs are at the forefront of transforming rural food systems,” one official said.

The ARBO delegates also joined business-matching sessions, where they explored partnerships with organic processors, community-supported agriculture (CSA) organizations, and local government units seeking sustainable suppliers.

With rising consumer demand for safe and sustainably grown food, ARBOs aim to strengthen their production systems and tap broader domestic and export markets in the coming year.

The 18th NOAC once again positioned Bacolod as a hub of Philippine organic agriculture—bringing together farmer-leaders, experts, and ARBOs working toward a greener, healthier, and more inclusive agricultural future.

Photos: Ricky Cabanero

Demolish and Rebuild: Climate-Proofing Our Houses

As the Philippines faces the growing impact of climate change, from stronger typhoons to rising temperatures and floods, one truth is becoming increasingly clear: our homes, many of which were built decades ago, are no longer built for the climate we live in today. The call to demolish and rebuild is not simply about modernization. It is about climate-proofing our houses—ensuring safety, sustainability, and resilience for the years ahead.

The Problem: Old Homes in a New Climate

Many Filipino homes, particularly in rural and coastal areas, were built using materials and designs suited to the past climate. Wooden walls, galvanized iron sheets, and light concrete may have been sufficient for the storms of the 1980s and 1990s, but not for the supertyphoons and heatwaves we face today. Typhoon Odette, Yolanda, and Ulysses revealed how vulnerable traditional structures are: thousands of homes were swept away, leaving communities to rebuild—again and again.

Climate-Proofing: Building with the Future in Mind

Climate-proof housing means constructing homes that can withstand stronger winds, heavier rainfall, longer droughts, and rising heat. It begins with three essential principles:

1. Stronger Foundations and Materials
   

   Use reinforced concrete, elevated flooring, and wind-resistant roofing systems. Materials like fiber cement boards, treated bamboo, or interlocking concrete blocks provide both strength and sustainability.

2. Smarter Design and Orientation
   

   A climate-resilient house is not just stronger—it’s smarter. Proper ventilation reduces indoor heat. Wide eaves and green roofs provide shade. Elevated living areas protect against floods. Locating homes away from known hazard zones, whenever possible, also saves lives.

3. Sustainable Energy and Water Systems
   

   Solar panels, rainwater catchments, and gray-water recycling systems are not luxuries—they are long-term investments. These reduce utility costs and ensure access to energy and water even when disasters strike.

The Role of Communities and Government

Rebuilding climate-proof communities requires more than individual effort. Local governments and housing authorities must set and enforce climate-resilient building codes. Programs like the Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development’s (DHSUD) Resilient Housing Program and other housing support projects can help rural communities transition to stronger, safer homes.

Community-driven rebuilding also ensures that designs reflect local culture and needs. In Cagayan, for example, post-flood recovery programs have started incorporating elevated stilt houses using local materials, merging tradition with innovation.

Demolish to Rebuild Better

“Demolish and rebuild” may sound drastic—but in many cases, patching and reinforcing old, unsafe homes is more expensive and less effective than starting anew. Rebuilding offers a chance to break the cycle of destruction and repair that drains families and local economies every time a storm hits.

This is not about erasing our old homes’ memories—it’s about protecting the generations that will live in them next.

The Future of Shelter

Climate-proofing our houses is both an environmental and a moral imperative. Every typhoon and flood that passes is a reminder that resilience begins at home. Demolishing unsafe structures and rebuilding with strength, sustainability, and foresight is the foundation of a safer, climate-ready Philippines.

When we rebuild today, let us build not just for ourselves—but for the climate of tomorrow.

Why Typhoon Uwan (Typhoon Fung-Wong) caused floods in Cagayan province

Photo: Philippine Information Agency (PIA)

Where did the floodwaters in Cagayan Province came from during Super Typhoon Uwan (international name Typhoon Fung‑Wong) — and why they surged so badly:

Key sources of flooding

1. Heavy rainfall from the typhoon

   • The typhoon brought “intense to torrential rains” across northern Luzon including Cagayan Valley. 

   • The rainfall overloaded many rivers and tributaries feeding into the main river systems in the region.

   • For example: “In Cagayan … a flash flood in neighbouring Apayao province had caused the Chico River to burst its banks, sending nearby residents scrambling for higher ground.” 

2. Overflowing major river system — the Cagayan River

   • Much of the water ended up flowing into the Cagayan River, which runs through Cagayan Province. That river and its many tributaries form a major drainage network for the region. 

   • The valley is structurally predisposed to flooding: for example, the river channel narrows in certain stretches (e.g., the “Magapit Narrows”), slowing outflow and causing water to back up. 

   • As reported: “More than 5,000 people were safely evacuated before the overflowing Cagayan River buried the small city of Tuguegarao about 30 kilometres away.” 

3. Tributary catchment from surrounding mountains & upstream basins

   • Heavy rainfall in the mountain ranges around the valley causes large volumes of water (and sediment) to rush downstream into the plain. One scientist said:

     “The province serves as a catch basin of water from surrounding mountain ranges… both water and sediments from the mountains cause the rivers to overflow.”

   • Thus, even if the rainfall in the immediate lowland area is not extreme, upstream rainfall can lead to big downstream floods.

4. Dam operations and reservoir releases (context from prior events)

   • Although I did not find definitive current public reports linking a large dam release to the flooding during Uwan in Cagayan Province, historical cases show this factor has mattered in this region. For example, during Typhoon Ulysses in 2020 the Magat Dam in Isabela Province was releasing water, which then contributed to downstream flooding in Cagayan Province. 

   • For the current typhoon Uwan, the report from Nov 10, 2025 says: “In Cagayan, … a flash flood in neighbouring Apayao province had caused the Chico River to burst its banks.” 

   • So, while dam release could be a factor, the major proximate cause appears to be heavy rainfall and river/tributary overflow.

---

Why the flooding was so severe in that area

• The Cagayan Valley is naturally flood-prone: large catchment area, many tributaries, gentle slope in the floodplain, bottlenecks in river channel, and sedimentation reducing capacity. 

• The heavy rainfall arrived when upstream and tributary systems were likely already saturated, so the added inflow had less ability to be absorbed or delayed.

• River channel constraints (narrow sections) slow down drainage, causing water to back up and flood adjacent lowlands.

• Low-lying areas around rivers like the Cagayan, Chico and others are at immediate risk when those rivers overflow.

---

In short

The floodwaters in Cagayan came primarily from intense rainfall over the region (including upstream mountain and tributary systems) plus overflow of rivers (especially the Cagayan River system) that drained all that water into the province’s lowland areas. Structural and geographic factors (narrow channels, sedimentation, many tributaries) made the flooding worse.

Cooperatives: Open Doors, but Only for Those Who Belong

Voluntary and Open Ownership in Cooperatives is one of the core principles that guide how cooperatives are formed and managed. It ensures that cooperatives remain inclusive, democratic, and community-oriented, subject to some exemptions expressed by law.

 Voluntary and Open Membership vs. Common Bond of Interest in Cooperatives

These two ideas both relate to cooperative membership, but they emphasize different aspects:

 1. Voluntary and Open Membership (Cooperative Principle)

This is one of the 7 Cooperative Principles from the International Cooperative Alliance (ICA).

Meaning:

*Voluntary – People choose to join or leave the cooperative freely, without force or pressure.

*Open – Membership is open to all persons who are able to use the cooperative’s services and are willing to accept membership responsibilities.

*No discrimination – Race, gender, religion, political belief, or economic status should not be a barrier to joining.

*Key Idea - Everyone qualified is welcome - no one is excluded unfairly.

2. Common Bond of Interest or “Associational Principle”

While cooperatives are open to all, they are not open to everyone in general. Why? Because members must share a common interest or purpose. 

Meaning:

*Members must have a shared bond or objective — like being farmers, employees of the same company, residents of a community, fishermen, vendors, etc.

*This bond helps build trust, unity, and mutual responsibility.

*The cooperative is formed by people with similar needs or economic activities.

*Key Idea- Membership is open - but only to those who share the cooperative’s purpose or field of activity.

Cooperatives are open, but not for just anybody. They are open to all individuals who share the cooperative’s common purpose and agree to its responsibilities.

Simple Example:

*A teachers' cooperative: Voluntary and Open; Any teacher can join; they cannot be excluded for personal reasons like religion or gender.

Common Bond: Only teachers (or employees in the education sector) can be members — not doctors or farmers.

Cooperatives practice voluntary and open membership to welcome all eligible individuals without discrimination — but they also require a common bond of interest to ensure members share the same goals and needs.

Why Not Everyone Can Be Part of a Cooperative

Many people believe that cooperatives are open to everyone — that anyone who wants to join should be allowed in. And while this sounds good, it isn’t entirely true. Cooperatives are built on the principle of voluntary and open membership, but this openness comes with an important condition: members must share a common bond of interest.

A cooperative is not just a business; it is a community of people who face the same challenges and work together for the same goals. Farmers form a cooperative because they understand the hardship of planting, harvesting, and selling crops. Teachers form a cooperative because they share the same salary schedules, loan needs, and workplace conditions. Fisherfolk, drivers, vendors — each group has its own cooperative because they have something in common that binds them together.

So yes, membership is open — but only to those who belong to that shared purpose.

Imagine a farmers’ cooperative suddenly accepting people who do not farm — a store owner, a government employee, or a business investor who has never planted rice or held a plow. These people may have good intentions, but they do not share the same struggles, risks, or needs. They do not understand the life of a farmer. If too many join, the cooperative might start serving interests that are no longer about farmers. Slowly, the cooperative loses its identity.

This is why the law, Republic Act No. 9520 (AN ACT AMENDING THE COOPERATIVE CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES TO BE KNOWN AS THE “PHILIPPINE COOPERATIVE CODE OF 2008”), clearly states that cooperatives must be formed by people with a common bond of interest. It could be based on where they live, what they do for a living, or where they work. This bond is not meant to exclude or discriminate. It is meant to protect the cooperative and make sure it remains relevant to the people it serves.

Because when people understand each other — when they have the same needs, the same dreams — trust is easier to build. Decisions are easier to make. Problems are easier to solve. And the cooperative becomes stronger.

So, when we say cooperatives are open to all, what we really mean is: they are open to all who are part of the group they were created to serve, and who are willing to carry the responsibilities that come with being a member.

The Ties That Bind: What Connects Members of a Cooperative

A cooperative is not just a group of people doing business together. It is a community of individuals who share something deeper — a common bond of interest. This bond is what holds the cooperative together. It creates unity, trust, and a shared sense of responsibility. Without it, a cooperative is just another organization.

In many cooperatives, this bond starts with place, as for example. People who live in the same barangay or town form a cooperative because they face the same community problems — high prices in local stores, lack of access to basic goods, or the need for clean water, credit, or livelihood support. They know each other. They see each other every day. Their lives are connected by their community. That is a residential bond.

In other cases, the bond is work or livelihood. Farmers come together because they all struggle with buying fertilizers, selling crops at fair prices, or accessing capital. Fishermen, drivers, vendors, and teachers do the same. They create cooperatives not because they are friends, but because they share the same daily challenges and opportunities. This is known as an occupational or associational bond.

There are also cooperatives formed within offices or institutions. Employees working for the same school, hospital, factory, or government agency often build a cooperative so they can save money, apply for loans, and support one another during emergencies. They trust each other because they work under the same employer, follow the same policies, and depend on the same salaries. This is called an institutional bond.

Some cooperatives are born from a shared identity or advocacy. These include cooperatives of women, youth, elderly citizens, or indigenous communities. Their bond is not just economic — it is social. They come together because they understand one another’s struggles and stand together for the same cause.

No matter what form it takes, this common bond is what makes a cooperative unique. It gives members a sense of belonging. It ensures that decisions are made not for personal gain, but for the good of all. The cooperative becomes a reflection of the members’ shared life — their work, their community, their dreams.

That is why cooperatives are strong: because they are built not on money alone, but on trust, shared experiences, and a common purpose.

Not everyone can or should join — and that’s not to keep people out, but to keep the cooperative true to its purpose. 

ARB households in ARCs associated with higher incomes, lower poverty incidence, and better welfare outcomes.

Studies on agrarian reform in the Philippines show the role of the Agrarian Reform Community 

(ARC) approach in the Philippines and how membership in an ARC is associated with better incomes and welfare outcomes among agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs):

Impact of Agrarian Reform on Poverty (Celia M. Reyes, 2002)

• Using panel data from ~1,500 farming households (1990 and 2000), the study finds that being an ARB and being in an agrarian reform community (ARC) increases the probability of being non-poor. 

• It also shows that ARB households in ARC areas had higher real per capita incomes and lower poverty incidence compared to non-ARBs.

• The study explicitly mentions: “being in an agrarian reform community also has the same effect” of increasing the chance of being non-poor. 

Agrarian Reform and Poverty Reduction in the Philippines (Arsenio M. Balisacan & others, 2007)

• The paper describes the ARC approach (launched in 1993), which “concentrates resources in selected areas to deliver support services” rather than dispersing them broadly. 

• It asserts that “the ARC approach … if properly implemented, improves the economic conditions, social capital, and democratic participation of the communities.” 

• While it does not always report precise income coefficients for ARCs in all cases, it identifies ARCs as a key channel for delivering complementary services that enhance the poverty-reduction impact of agrarian reform.

Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP): Time to Let Go (Raul V. Fabella, 2014)

• This review paper notes that a 2011 internal DAR study (the “ARC Level of Development Assessment (ALDA)”) found that among ARBs in ARCs:

  “the average yield (ton/hectare) among ARC beneficiaries in palay was 10 percent higher than the national average … in corn it was 50 percent higher” and that ARCs receive more credit and irrigation support. 

• Although not purely income data, the yield and support-service data support the link between ARC membership and improved productivity/investment, which ties to higher incomes.

Economic Evaluation of Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries in Agrarian Reform Communities in Nueva Ecija (Johnah Jefferson Mercado, Alma Dela Cruz & Ma. Pamela Roguel, 2021)

• This more recent case study investigates two ARCs in Nueva Ecija and evaluates support services, infrastructure and income/benefit outcomes. 

• While the full paper may need to be accessed for detailed income figures, it provides empirical evidence of ARCs being privileged in terms of infrastructure and support, which correlates with better outcomes.

Summary of Evidence

• There is empirical support that being part of an ARC (i.e., a cluster of ARB households with concentrated support services) is associated with higher incomes, lower poverty incidence, and better welfare outcomes.

• The mechanism is that ARCs allow for targeted delivery of infrastructure, credit, irrigation, extension services and community organization, which amplify the benefits of land-reform.

• The evidence is stronger in some cases (like the Reyes 2002 study) and somewhat weaker or mixed in others—but taken together, the weight of evidence supports the proposition that ARCs matter.

Link: What is an Agrarian Reform Community (ARC)

           DAR MC 14-99 Guidelines on ARC Launching

ARBs who were given lands under RA 6657 (CARL) may still be qualified as beneficiaries of 4Ps under RA 11310 (4Ps Act)

ARBs who are awarded agricultural lands under RA 6657 (CARL) are not automatically considered
poor or not poor under the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) of RA 11310.

Whether they are considered “poor” depends on whether they meet the poverty criteria defined under the 4Ps Law—not on whether they own land.

Does owning land as an ARB remove a household from being considered “poor”? No. Land ownership is not a basis for exclusion.                                                                                        

How does 4Ps define “poor”? Households classified as poor or near-poor by the National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction (Listahanan), based on income and living conditions.

Are farmers or ARBs excluded from 4Ps? No. In fact, farmers and farmworkers are priority sectors for inclusion in 4Ps under RA 11310.                                                                   

So, can an ARB household still be considered “poor” and qualify for 4Ps?  Yes—if they are still income-poor and meet 4Ps conditions.

Legal Bases

1.   RA 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law).  Provides that qualified farmers and farmworkers may be awarded land.  The law does not state that once awarded land, ARBs are no longer poor or disqualified from social welfare benefits.  Many ARBs remain economically poor despite land ownership due to lack of capital, irrigation, markets, or support services.

2.     RA 11310 (4Ps Act), Section 6.  A household is eligible for 4Ps if: (1) Classified as poor or near-poor by the National Household Targeting System (Listahanan); (2) Has children 0–18 years old or a pregnant member; (3) Agrees to comply with health and education conditions.  Section 6(c) further states that households of farmers, fisherfolk, and farmworkers are priority sectors for inclusion in the targeting system. This means ARBs are “priority for inclusion”—not excluded.

Conclusion

*ARBs who were awarded land may still be classified as poor under the 4Ps Law.

*Land ownership does not automatically mean they are no longer poor.

*What matters is income, access to services, and living standards—not land title alone.

* If the ARB household still lives below the poverty threshold and meets 4Ps conditions, they remain qualified.

DARPO-Cagayan Evaluates 90 Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Organizations under IT-eASy (ITEMA) Assessment

Tuguegarao City, Cagayan - The Department of Agrarian Reform Provincial Office (DARPO) Cagayan has successfully completed the Information Technology-enabled Maturity Assessment System (IT-eASy, formerly ITEMA) for 90 Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries’ Organizations (ARBOs) across the province, marking a milestone in assessing organizational maturity, sustainability, and capacity for enterprise growth.

The IT-eASy (ITEMA) is a digitalized monitoring and evaluation tool developed by DAR to determine the readiness and maturity level of ARBOs in managing agribusiness enterprises. It measures five key areas-Governance, Organizational Management, Resource Management, Enterprise Development, and Financial Performance - to classify cooperatives into five maturity levels, from Level 1 (Emerging) to Level 5 (Sustaining).

16 ARBOs Achieve Maturity Level 5

Out of the 90 ARBOs assessed in Cagayan, 16 organizations reached the highest Maturity Level 5, signifying strong institutional stability, operational excellence, and sustainable enterprise performance.

Leading the list is the Nararagan Valley Multi-Purpose Cooperative (Ballesteros), which topped the province with a score of 73 points. Other high-performing ARBOs include:

*Villarey ARB Cooperative (Piat) – 70.3

*Concepcion Agrarian Reform Cooperative (Amulung) – 70.1

*Payagan Farmers Cooperative (Ballesteros) – 70

*Sunrise Multi-Purpose Cooperative (Gattaran) – 67.5

*Maguing Farmers MPC (Gonzaga) – 66.3

*Calayan Samahang Nayon MPC (Gonzaga) – 66.2

*Cabayabasan Farmers Credit Cooperative (Lal-lo) – 65.5

  and several others that showed exceptional enterprise management.

22 ARBOs at Level 4, 34 at Level 3

Meanwhile, 22 ARBOs were classified under Maturity Level 4, demonstrating consistent growth but still requiring further development in governance and enterprise scaling. 34 ARBOs landed at Level 3, indicating progressing organizations that are in the consolidation phase of enterprise management.

 Emerging ARBOs: Levels 1 and 2

A total of 18 ARBOs fell under Levels 1 and 2, representing emerging and developing organizations that need strengthened capacity building, financial literacy, and market linkage interventions. DARPO-Cagayan will provide focused technical assistance and organizational strengthening programs to help these cooperatives improve their performance and sustainability.

Strengthening Agrarian Reform Enterprise Development

DARPO-Cagayan Provincial Agrarian Reform Program Officer II Val M. Cristobal emphasized that the ITEMA results are vital in planning future interventions for ARBOs under the Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Development and Sustainability Program (ARBDSP).

“The IT-eASy assessment allows us to identify where our ARBOs stand in terms of governance, operations, and business viability. It helps us design the right support packages—whether capacity building, market linkages, or enterprise financing,” PARPO II Cristobal said.

The DAR’s ITEMA initiative supports the national goal of empowering agrarian reform beneficiaries toward self-reliant, business-oriented, and resilient cooperatives capable of sustaining rural livelihoods and contributing to local economic development.

 

Cagayan Agrarian Reform Employees (CARE) Cooperative Supports ARBOs through Rice Buying Initiative

Many farmers in Cagayan are struggling as farmgate prices of palay continue to drop, leaving them with little profit (mostly loss) despite long months of hard work under the sun. After enduring floods, rising input costs, and unpredictable weather, the recent decline in rice prices has made it harder for them to recover their investments and sustain their families. For many agrarian reform beneficiaries, every sack of rice sold now earns only a fraction of what it once did. Amid this challenge, the DARPO-Cagayan employees cooperative’s effort to buy directly from ARBOs offers hope—ensuring that farmers are paid fair prices and that their harvests reach consumers who value their labor and dedication.

Hence, the DARPO-Cagayan employees cooperative is strengthening its partnership with agrarian reform beneficiaries’ organizations (ARBOs) by buying from ARBOs and selling rice to member-employees directly sourced from local ARBOs.

Through this initiative, the cooperative ensures a steady supply of affordable quality rice for its members (and DAR regional office 02 employees) while providing ARBOs with a reliable market for their produce. This mutually beneficial effort supports the Partnership Against Hunger and Poverty (PAHP) and the Sagip Saka Act (RA 11321), which encourages direct institutional procurement from farmers and cooperatives.

The initiative highlights how DAR’s own employees can actively contribute to rural development by supporting the livelihoods of agrarian reform beneficiaries and promoting inclusive local economic growth.

Stronger Than the Storm: Cagayan’s ARBOs Rebuild Through DAR’s Climate-Resilient Support

Super Typhoon Nando (Ragasa) is a tropical that attained super typhoon status on September 21, 2025, according to reports from the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical, and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA), the country’s meteorological agency. Ragasa was the world’s strongest tropical cyclone of 2025. The storm had maximum sustained winds of about 134 miles (215 km) per hour, had peak wind gusts of more than 180 miles (295 km) per hour, and reached a minimum central pressure of approximately 910 hectopascals on September 22, 2025.

The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), upon receipt of reports on the devastation resulting from the onslaught of Super Typhoon Nando (Ragasa) in Cagayan province, has promptly extended nearly ₱1.4 million worth of additional livelihood assistance to disaster-affected agrarian reform beneficiary organizations (ARBOs) in Cagayan under its Climate Resilient FarmProductivity Support (CRFPS) program, aimed at helping ARBs and ARBOs restore operations and strengthen their farm inputs enterprises for more sustainable and climate-resilient livelihoods.

The DAR’s Climate Resilient Farm Productivity Support (CRFPS) program, through its Sustainable Livelihood Support (SLS) component, aims to help agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) and their organizations recover and rebuild after disasters. By providing farm inputs, tools, and machinery, the program enables ARBOs to restore productivity, lower production costs, and strengthen resilience against the impacts of typhoons and floods. The SLS initiative reflects DAR’s commitment to empowering farmers and revitalizing agrarian communities through sustainable and climate-adaptive livelihood support.

After the onslaught of Super Typhoon Nando (Ragasa), thousands of farmers and agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) across Cagayan province suffered severe damage to their crops and livelihoods. The powerful typhoon brought strong winds and torrential rains, destroying rice, corn, and vegetable farms. According to the Department of Agriculture (DA), agricultural losses in the Cagayan Valley region totaled approximately ₱ 597 million. In Cagayan alone, over 11,000 hectares of rice lands were affected, alongside significant losses in corn and high-value crops.

In response, the government quickly mobilized relief and rehabilitation assistance for affected farmers and farming communities. The Department of Agriculture, through its regional field office, distributed rice and corn seeds, assorted vegetable seeds, and fertilizers to help farmers replant and recover. The DA also rolled out its loan programs, which offers zero-interest loans to help farmers rebuild their livelihoods. Insured farmers, including many ARBs, are also being compensated through the Philippine Crop Insurance Corporation (PCIC) for crop losses incurred during the typhoon.

President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. led the distribution of financial aid and farm inputs to affected farmers in the municipalities of Gonzaga and Sta. Ana (including Calayan, being the most affected), where thousands of families each received ₱10,000 in cash assistance from the Department of SocialWelfare and Development (DSWD). Family food packs, shelter materials, and relief goods were also delivered to sustain affected households while they recover from the disaster.

Meanwhile, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) continues to coordinate with the DA and local governments to ensure that ARBs are prioritized in rehabilitation efforts. Through loan programs like E-ARISE-ARBs and AFFORD ARB, DAR aims to restore farm productivity, provide access to credit, and rebuild damaged agrarian reform communities. The agency is also assisting insured ARBs in processing their PCIC indemnification claims and linking cooperatives to post-disaster livelihood support.

Despite the widespread destruction, the DAR and other government agencies' rapid relief operations and early recovery programs reflect a strong commitment to helping Cagayan’s farmers and agrarian reform beneficiaries recover their livelihoods and rebuild stronger, more resilient farming communities in the aftermath of Super Typhoon Nando.

Artificial intelligence in government

Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming how governments operate and deliver services. Around the world, AI technologies are being integrated into public administration to make governance smarter, more efficient, and more responsive to citizens’ needs.

One of the most visible applications is the use of AI-powered chatbots and virtual assistants in government websites and hotlines. These systems handle inquiries on permits, licenses, and benefits 24/7, helping citizens access services faster while easing the workload of frontline staff. AI is also streamlining document processing and digitization, using optical character recognition (OCR) and natural language processing to turn paper records into searchable digital files—an important step toward paperless government.

Another crucial area is fraud detection and compliance monitoring. Through machine learning, AI systems can spot anomalies in tax returns, procurement data, or social welfare claims, helping protect public funds and improve accountability. Governments also use predictive analytics to support policy decisions—forecasting disasters, disease outbreaks, or budget needs, and simulating the impact of policy changes before they are implemented.

In times of crisis, AI plays a life-saving role in disaster management and emergency response. By analyzing satellite images and real-time data, AI can predict the path of typhoons, assess flood risks, and guide rescue or relief operations. Similarly, AI supports smart infrastructure and transport systems, optimizing traffic flow, monitoring road conditions, and managing energy use in public facilities—cornerstones of the emerging “smart city” model.

Public health agencies also benefit from AI-driven disease surveillance and diagnostics, enabling faster detection of outbreaks and more efficient allocation of medical resources. In the digital realm, governments are increasingly turning to AI-powered cybersecurity tools to detect and respond to cyber threats, ensuring the safety of sensitive data and public systems.

Environmental protection is another growing application. Governments deploy AI to monitor air and water quality, track deforestation, and model climate change impacts, providing valuable insights for sustainable policy-making. Lastly, in the area of financial management and taxation, AI assists in automating audits, detecting irregularities, and forecasting revenues—making fiscal operations more transparent and data-driven.

Together, these applications illustrate how artificial intelligence is reshaping public service. When implemented responsibly, AI enables governments to act faster, make better decisions, and build more inclusive, efficient, and transparent institutions for citizens.

Links:

• HAWKS AI technology 
• Artificial Intelligence, innovation and agriculture
• AI seen to improve food security, boost agriculture employment
• DOST builds on “AI” national strategy

Sagip Saka Act: Empowering Farmers Through Direct Government Support

The Sagip Saka Act or Republic Act No. 11321, signed into law in April 2019, is a landmark legislation that strengthens the agriculture sector by promoting inclusive and sustainable agricultural and fisheries development. It aims to empower Filipino farmers and fisherfolk by linking them directly with government and institutional markets, thereby increasing their income and improving their quality of life.

Key Provisions of the Sagip Saka Act

The law institutionalizes the “Farmers and Fisherfolk Enterprise Development Program” (FFEDP)—a comprehensive approach to strengthen the capacity of farmers and fisherfolk enterprises through:

• Market access – Encouraging government agencies and local government units (LGUs) to directly purchase agricultural products from duly accredited farmers’ cooperatives and associations (FCAs) and agrarian reform beneficiaries’ organizations (ARBOs) without public bidding under certain conditions, as allowed by procurement rules.

• Capacity building – Providing training, mentoring, and technical support to enhance productivity, product quality, and enterprise management.

• Financial and credit assistance – Facilitating access to credit, crop insurance, and government grants for farm inputs and postharvest facilities.

• Infrastructure support – Improving farm-to-market roads, irrigation, and processing centers to reduce production costs and postharvest losses.

How It Benefits Farmers

The Sagip Saka Act addresses one of the biggest challenges faced by Filipino farmers—market instability and low farmgate prices. By promoting direct procurement and removing middlemen, the law ensures that farmers receive a fair price for their produce.

It also promotes value chain integration, encouraging farmers to become not just producers but also entrepreneurs. Through enterprise development, cooperatives can process and package their products, adding value and creating local jobs.

Benefits to Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs)

For agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) organized into ARBOs, the Sagip Saka Act is particularly transformative. It complements the Department of Agrarian Reform’s (DAR) programs by:

• Providing ready markets for ARBO-produced goods through partnerships with schools, hospitals, prisons, and other government institutions.

• Strengthening ARBOs’ business capacity, enabling them to participate in government procurement under the Partnership Against Hunger and Poverty (PAHP) and similar programs.

• Encouraging collaboration between DAR, DA, DTI, and LGUs to provide postharvest and marketing support.

• Enhancing livelihood sustainability, ensuring that ARBs who received land under CARP also have the means to make their farms profitable.

Impact on Rural Communities

The law fosters a farm-to-institution model that stimulates local economies and ensures food security. Government agencies now serve as reliable buyers of local produce, creating a steady income stream for farmers and ARBOs. This not only uplifts individual livelihoods but also revitalizes rural communities by generating employment and promoting self-reliance.

Conclusion

The Sagip Saka Act stands as a bridge between government support and grassroots empowerment. By connecting agrarian reform beneficiaries and small farmers directly to institutional markets, it transforms agriculture into a more profitable and dignified livelihood.

Ultimately, the law reinforces the vision of inclusive rural development, where no farmer is left behind and every harvest contributes to the nation’s food security and prosperity.

Social media content: “what’s safe to post” vs. “what can get you sued”

Is criticism against the government libelous?

The answer is not always. In the Philippines, criticism of the government is generally protected speech under the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of expression (Art. III, Sec. 4, 1987 Constitution). But there are limits, especially when such criticism crosses into defamation against specific persons.

Key Legal Points

1. Criticism vs. Defamation

Criticism of government policies, programs, or officials in their official capacity is part of democratic discourse. This is usually not libel, because public officials are expected to be open to scrutiny.

However, if criticism includes false, malicious statements attacking the personal character of a government official (not just their job performance), it may become libelous.

2. Public Officials Have Lesser Protection

The Supreme Court has repeatedly said public officials must endure more criticism than private individuals.

U.S. jurisprudence (which influences PH law) in New York Times v. Sullivan established the “actual malice” rule: statements against public officials are protected unless shown to be made with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.

The Philippine Supreme Court echoed this in Borjal v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 126466, 1999) — ruling that fair commentaries on matters of public interest are not libelous.

3. Cyberlibel Still Applies

Under RA 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act), libelous statements made online are punishable.

But courts distinguish between fair criticism (allowed) and malicious defamation (punishable).

Example Case

In Borjal v. CA (1999), a newspaper columnist was accused of libel for critical articles. The SC ruled not libelous, because the writings were fair comment on matters of public interest and not shown to be malicious.

On the other hand, in People v. Soliman (2023), a man was convicted of online libel for a Facebook post directly accusing an agriculture official of corruption without proof. The SC found the remarks malicious.

Bottom line:

Criticizing government policies and actions = generally protected.

Making baseless, malicious personal attacks = may be libelous.

Practical guide for social media users in the Philippines about what’s generally safe to post vs. what may get you sued for libel or cyberlibel:

What’s Safe to Post (Protected Speech)

Fair criticism of government policies or actions

> “The new transport policy is inefficient and causes traffic.”

Comments on matters of public concern (so long as not malicious or false).

Truthful statements backed by facts/documents (truth is a defense if made with good motive).

Opinion clearly stated as opinion

> “In my opinion, this project could have been managed better.”

Satire or parody (if not malicious and clearly exaggerated for humor). Constructive complaints about services or governance.

What Can Get You Sued (Libel / Cyberlibel Risks)

Direct, malicious personal attacks

> “Mayor X is corrupt and steals people’s money!” (without proof).

False statements presented as fact

> “Senator Y has an affair with…” (if untrue).

Name-calling or insults that damage reputation

> “That official is a thief and a fool.”

Spreading unverified allegations/rumors (even if just “sharing” someone else’s post).

Publishing private or defamatory information about someone’s family, health, or personal life. Sharing “scandal” photos/videos without consent (also punishable under special laws).

Important Reminders

Public officials must tolerate more criticism, but you can still be liable if your post is false + malicious.

Reposting or sharing libelous content can be treated as a new act of libel.

Intent matters: If you knowingly spread false or harmful claims, that’s where liability kicks in.

Truth + good motive = defense. If it’s true and posted in good faith for public interest, it’s not libel.

Rule of thumb:

Attack policies, not personalities.

Share facts, not rumors.

Frame as opinion, not accusation, unless you have solid evidence.