Between July 2022 and December 2024, at least 119 extrajudicial killings and 14 enforced disappearances were recorded under the Marcos Jr. administration’s counterinsurgency programs. These figures, documented by human rights organization Karapatan, are not abstract statistics. They represent the most extreme end of a pattern where land grabbing in the Philippines is enforced not just through legal maneuvers, but through violence, militarization, and the criminalization of those who resist.
The term “development” is the banner under which much of this dispossession occurs. As Almirah Lidasan of the Moro-Christian Peoples Alliance put it during a forum marking the International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples in August 2025, “They call it development, but it means displacement.” This isn’t a fringe view. A report submitted to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, compiled by groups including Indigenous Peoples Rights International and Panaghiusa, documents 43 cases of systematic violations across the archipelago. The question isn’t whether land grabbing happens, but how it is systematically enabled, who is doing the enabling, and what the actual mechanisms of dispossession look like on the ground.
Who Is Taking the Land and How
The pattern is consistent. A corporation or government agency identifies land for a project—a mine, a dam, a plantation. The land is almost always within an ancestral domain or a peasant farming area. The community is then subjected to a process that is supposed to protect them: Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC). In practice, the report documents that FPIC is often manipulated. Communities are excluded from consultations, given misinformation about project impacts, or pressured to fast-track approvals. When they resist, the response shifts from procedural to coercive.
The Criminalization of Land Defenders
Resistance to land grabbing is met not with negotiation, but with the full weight of the state’s legal and security apparatus. The term “red-tagging” has become a familiar part of the Philippine political vocabulary, but its consequences are concrete. Indigenous leaders and rights defenders are labeled as communist rebels under Executive Order No. 70 and the Anti-Terrorism Law. This label justifies military surveillance, raids, and the filing of criminal charges.
A stark example is the case of the “Talaingod 18,” convicted in July 2024. In Bataan, farmers organized under the movement SANAMBASU have been fighting land grabbing by Litton & Co. and Riverforest Development Corporation since 2009. The companies did not just file civil eviction cases. They pursued criminal charges of syndicated estafa against the farmers—a crime under Presidential Decree No. 1689 punishable by life imprisonment. The charge was that the farmers, by organizing and claiming rights to the land, were part of a syndicate defrauding the public. In January 2025, following national and international pressure, the imprisoned farmers were released, and the government later stated the cases were dismissed due to insufficient evidence. But the farmers continued attending court hearings even after the supposed dismissal, illustrating the legal limbo they remain in.
The violence is not limited to legal harassment. In San Jose, Mindoro, a 50-year-old farmer named Juan Sumilhig was killed by the 4th Infantry Battalion, followed by intensified military operations in the area. In Capiz, nine Tumandok leaders were massacred in 2020. A Hanunuo-Mangyan youth in Mindoro was killed, with the military falsely reporting it as an armed encounter. A 16-year-old Dulangan Manobo was branded a rebel and killed in Sultan Kudarat. These are not isolated incidents; they are the enforcement mechanism of a system that prioritizes corporate and state projects over the lives and rights of Indigenous peoples and peasants.
The Legal and Policy Framework: A System of Overlaps and Gaps
The legal landscape itself creates the conditions for conflict. The Philippines has laws designed to protect both ancestral domains and the rights of farmers. The Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) recognizes ancestral domain claims. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) is meant to redistribute land to landless farmers. Yet these systems often work against each other, or are simply ignored.
A critical finding from the report submitted to the UN Special Rapporteur is that ancestral domain claims overlap with designated protected areas covering an estimated 14 million hectares, or around 47% of the Philippines’ total land area. This overlap creates a jurisdictional mess. Is the land governed by the DENR (which manages protected areas), the NCIP (which handles ancestral domains), or the DAR (which handles agrarian reform)? All three agencies were named in the report as key actors in FPIC violations and land grabbing. When a corporation wants to build a dam, it can play these agencies against each other, or simply proceed with the one that offers the least resistance.
Furthermore, only 33% of ancestral domains have been formally titled, and even fewer are registered with the Land Registration Authority. This lack of formal titling makes communities extremely vulnerable to overlapping claims from corporations, the government, or even other groups. Without a clear, legally registered title, a community’s claim to its land is perpetually contestable.
What Can Be Done: Actions and Pathways
The situation is grave, but the response is not passive. Communities, civil society organizations, and international bodies are pursuing multiple strategies. Understanding these pathways is crucial for anyone who wants to move beyond despair and into action.
Supporting Community-Led Resistance and Legal Defense
Organizations like SANAMBASU, Katribu, and Innabuyog-Cordillera are on the front lines. They are not waiting for external saviors. They are organizing, documenting violations, and filing cases. The most effective support comes in the form of funding for legal defense, amplifying their stories through media, and applying political pressure. The release of the imprisoned Bataan farmers in January 2025 was a direct result of sustained national and international pressure, including a joint communication from multiple UN Special Rapporteurs. Supporting groups like the Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center or the Moro-Christian Peoples Alliance provides direct material support to those fighting these battles.
Engaging with International Human Rights Mechanisms
The UN system is a powerful, if slow, tool. The joint statement by UN Special Rapporteurs to the Philippine government and corporations in September 2024 created a paper trail and a public record of the violations. The visit of UN Special Rapporteur José Francisco Calà Tzay in July 2024 helped compile the data on rising abuses. Filing complaints, submitting shadow reports, and engaging with these mechanisms forces the government to respond and creates a record that can be used in future legal or diplomatic actions. The recommendations from the recent report include a call for a full UN Special Rapporteur country visit, which would significantly increase scrutiny.
Demanding Repeal of Repressive Laws
The report and the joint declarations are explicit: the Anti-Terrorism Law and the existence of the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC) are the legal frameworks that enable red-tagging and criminalization. These laws are not being used against actual insurgents; they are being used against land defenders, Indigenous leaders, and peasant organizers. The closure of at least 215 community-built Lumad schools, labeled as “NPA training grounds,” is a direct consequence of this policy. Advocacy for the repeal of these laws is a prerequisite for any meaningful protection of land rights.
Holding Corporations Accountable
The UN communication to Litton & Co. and Riverforest Development Corporation sets a precedent. Corporations can no longer claim ignorance of human rights abuses occurring on their projects. Investors and consumers can apply pressure. The demand for “due diligence” is not just a buzzword; it is a legal and financial risk for companies that are complicit in land grabbing. The CETIM and its partners are actively pursuing this avenue, linking the struggle of Philippine peasants to the global fight for food sovereignty and the rights enshrined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants (UNDROP).
Follow us on LinkedIn!
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between ancestral domain and ancestral land? â–ľ
Can a corporation legally acquire ancestral land? â–ľ
What is “red-tagging”? â–ľ
What is syndicated estafa and why is it used against farmers? â–ľ
What is the role of the UN in these cases? â–ľ
How does the “green energy” transition contribute to land grabbing? â–ľ
What is the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)? â–ľ
What can an ordinary Filipino do to help? â–ľ
Beyond Displacement
The evidence is clear: land grabbing in the Philippines is not a series of isolated disputes. It is a systematic process driven by corporate profit and state policy, enforced through legal manipulation, militarization, and violence. The victims are not just statistics; they are farmers like Juan Sumilhig, Indigenous leaders like Marcylyn Pilala, and entire communities like the Teduray and Lambangian in the Bangsamoro region. The question “who’s really protecting whose rights?” has a grim answer. The rights of corporations and the state’s development agenda are being protected, often at the barrel of a gun. The rights of Indigenous peoples and peasants are being crushed. The only meaningful protection comes from the communities themselves, supported by a network of civil society and international allies who refuse to accept that development must come at the cost of lives and land.
If this was useful, you might also want to read stories of displacement and resilience from rural Philippines.
Sources
How ancestral lands are disappearing in the Philippines — A deeper look at the specific mechanisms of land loss in provincial areas.
The human cost of urban renewal — Explores the parallel issue of displacement in urban settings, connecting rural and urban land struggles.
Indigenous peoples condemn land-grabbing violence in the name of development. Bulatlat, 2025.
Land struggle in the Philippines. CETIM, 2025.
Indigenous peoples raise alarm over rising rights violations. Bulatlat, 2025.
Philippines: Progress and new challenges in land struggles. CETIM, 2025.
