99 Years of Land, But for Whom?

The Philippines, known for its strong national identity, faces a policy shift as House Bill (HB) No. 10755, introduced by House Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez, proposes extending the maximum land lease for foreign investors from 75 to 99 years. This proposal raises discussions on its economic implications and impact on national sovereignty and local communities–specifically, who truly benefits from this policy.

HB No. 10755, and Senate Bill No. 2898, authored by Senate President Francis Escudero, which amends the Investors’ Lease Act or Republic Act No. 7652, aim to attract long-term foreign investments by offering extended lease terms. 

While proponents argue that extending the land lease period to 99 years will boost economic growth and competitiveness, critics warn that it poses risks to national sovereignty, potentially undermines constitutional protections restricting land ownership to Filipinos, and could displace local communities. Representative Edcel Lagman expressed concerns that the bill might "subvert constitutional safeguards" on foreign land ownership and "create loopholes for foreign control of Philippine land.”

Professor Judy Taguiwalo, a former Department of Social Welfare and Development Secretary, warned that the bill could lead to "economic dependence on foreign entities" and exacerbate the displacement of local farmers and indigenous peoples, potentially putting their ancestral lands at risk.

Proponents argue this change aligns with regional practices in Southeast Asia and provides the long-term stability needed for foreign investors to commit to substantial projects. These practices often include strategies like creating special economic zones, offering tax incentives, and participating in regional trade agreements such as those under ASEAN. Singapore, Malaysia, and Vietnam have embraced these approaches.

When it comes to long-term stability, this is especially important for investors planning large-scale projects, as they are believed to need more assurance that the political and regulatory environment will remain favorable over time. In Singapore, they have started to become more transparent and efficient to multinational corporations and, hence, foreign investors.

The bill reflects the government’s push to enhance economic competitiveness and improve the investment climate in the country further. The Bill was passed by the House of Representatives on December 17, 2024, with 175 votes in favor, 3 against, and 2 abstentions. The House of Representatives approved the bill on its third reading, and its Senate counterpart, Senate Bill No. 2898, has been passed.

HB No. 10755 introduces several changes to the existing Investors’ Lease Act, rolling out new opportunities for foreign investors. First, its duration as it proposes a lease term of 99 years, replacing the current 50-year lease with a 25-year extension, aiming to provide more stability for foreign investors, encouraging them to invest in long-term projects.

Foreign investors eligible for the 99-year lease must also have approved or registered investments under Republic Act No. 11534, also known as the Corporate Recovery and Tax Incentives for Enterprises Act, which grants incentives to businesses investing in the Philippines. 

To register under RA No. 11534, foreign nationals must submit Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Form 1904, a photocopy of their passport, and, if applicable, an Alien Employment Permit or Provisional Work Permit. Additionally, they must provide an employment contract or an equivalent document specifying the duration of their employment.

Under the bill, leased lands can also be used for various purposes, including business, industrial, agricultural, and commercial purposes as per the lease agreement. This broad scope is designed to attract different investments that are believed to boost the Philippine economy. 

Despite the extended lease, foreign investors cannot own the land outright as the Philippine Constitution limits land ownership to Filipino citizens or corporations with at least 60% Filipino ownership.

To ensure compliance and legitimacy, foreign investors must meet specific requirements before they can avail themselves of the lease. A formal lease contract must be signed with the landowner, whether private or government. This contract will outline the key terms and conditions, including the 99-year lease duration. 

Additionally, the lease agreement must be registered with the Registry of Deeds or the relevant local government unit to be legally binding. Furthermore, foreign investors are required to conduct thorough due diligence to ensure that the land and lease arrangements comply with Philippine laws, including zoning regulations, environmental standards, and other local requirements.

Supporters of the proposed 99-year land lease argue that it positions the Philippines as a more attractive destination for foreign investors. By offering longer lease terms, the country gives these investors the assurance they need to commit to long-term projects, like building infrastructure, establishing manufacturing hubs, and developing other large-scale industries.

This sense of security can make a big difference, encouraging companies to take the plunge and invest in the Philippines rather than looking elsewhere.

For Filipinos, this could mean more than just new businesses popping up–it could mean new opportunities to thrive. Foreign investments often bring with them the promise of job creation, providing stable employment for workers in industries ranging from construction to tech to agriculture. 

There is also a bigger picture to consider. Southeast Asia is a highly competitive region, with countries like Vietnam and Thailand already offering long-term leases to foreign investors. By matching these practices, the Philippines can stand shoulder with its neighbors. 

Critics of the proposed 99-year land lease highlight risks to sovereignty, food security, and indigenous rights. Atty. Ryan Roset of the Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center warned that the bill could "effectively circumvent constitutional restrictions on foreign land ownership." Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP) stated that it "jeopardizes national sovereignty and farmers’ rights." 

Meanwhile, Rep. Arlene Brosas of Gabriela Women’s Party cautioned that the bill’s "vague definition of private lands" could lead to the inclusion of public lands and ancestral domains, threatening Indigenous communities. Critics urge caution to prevent long-term harm to Filipino communities and resources.

Although foreigners can’t own land outright, such a long lease might create a loophole that undermines national sovereignty. There’s a fear that, over time, this could lead to foreign entities gaining too much control over the country’s land and resources.

Another pressing concern revolves around the potential impact on indigenous communities. For many of these communities, their land is not just a place to live—it is their heritage, their identity, and their legacy. 

There is a real fear that long-term leases could pave the way for outside interests to acquire land that has been passed down for generations, leading to displacement and the erosion of ancestral lands. For these communities, the land isn’t just property; it’s a vital part of who they are, and losing it could mean losing a piece of their soul.

Another is the bill’s connection to the skyrocketing property prices. With an influx of foreign investments and the demand for land driven by these long-term leases, there is a legitimate concern that prices could become unaffordable for many Filipinos. 

As foreign investors build businesses and infrastructure, land prices in the surrounding areas could rise, pushing locals out and making it harder for them to buy homes or land of their own. What is meant to bring economic development could, for some, make it even more difficult to secure a place in the country they call home.