Instead of running again, Arroyo should step down over killings

News Release

November 28, 2009

Instead of running again, Arroyo should step down over killings

Saying that the ultimate responsibility for the climate of impunity rests with Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, the umbrella group Bagong Alyansang Makabayan today called on the president to step down and desist from pursuing public office in the 2010 elections.

“Being ultimately responsible for the hundreds of unsolved cases of extrajudicial killings during her watch, Mrs. Arroyo has no business seeking any public office in 2010. She has made herself morally unqualified to hold any public office or elective position. She should step down, the sooner the better,” said Bayan secretary general Renato M. Reyes, Jr.

“Her attempt to run again insults the entire Filipino people and belittles the long standing problem of impunity in the country. It is deplorable that she has given the congressional seat in Pampanga more thought than the plight of the many human rights victims,” he added.

Bayan said that talks were rife on the possibility that Arroyo will seek the congressional seat in the second district of Pampanga, a position currently held by her son Mikey.

“Perhaps she is just waiting for the Ampatuan massacre to die down. She’s probably hoping that this blows over so that come December 1, she can file her certificate of candidacy,” Reyes said.

“The fact that she wants to stay in power despite everything that has happened, that is something that also incomprehensible. It is like she has been intoxicated by power and that she can no longer give it up. Or perhaps she is afraid of losing immunity or political leverage once she is no longer president,” the Bayan leader added.

Various human rights groups, lawyers, journalists, religious formations and women’s groups are preparing protest actions on November 30 to call for an end to impunity and to demand justice for all the victims of human rights abuses under the Arroyo regime.

“Many have noticed that it appears presidential candidate Gibo Teodoro, though no longer in office, seems to be doing more than Mrs. Arroyo. Could it be because the president is too busy in pushing her congressional bid in Pampanga?” he asked.

“We’ve counted more than 1,000 victims of extrajudicial killings, nearly 200 cases of enforced disappearances, some 200 cases of torture and scores of other abuses. But we count very few conviction, if any. If that is not impunity, then what is? The trail of blood, leads right up the doorstep of Malacanang,” Reyes said. ###

What is impunity

Impunity is abducting and murdering more than 50 people in broad daylight.

Impunity is having 100 armed men, many in uniform, together with local government and police officials, abducting and murdering more than 50 people in broad daylight.

It is the use of heavy equipment equipment to dig mass graves ahead of the abduction and mass murder.

Impunity is burying the murdered persons together with their vehicles in the hopes that they will never be found anyway.

It is the seemingly carefree use of a government-owned back-hoe to cover up a heinous crime, notwithstanding the fact that the name of the provincial governor appears prominently on the said equipment.

Impunity is the declaration that no witnesses will be left alive, whether they are part of the convoy or just passing motorists minding their own business.

It is the utter disregard for the lives of women, lawyers and journalists. It is the thought that you can actually win elections by simply eliminating your rivals even before they can actually contest the position.

Impunity is being able to meet and have your picture taken with a senior government official a day after you and your family were implicated in a mass murder.

Impunity is not having to fear immediate arrest even if you’re considered by the police and military as the prime suspect in a massacre.

Impunity is the government saying we have a healthy democracy despite having more than 1,000 victims of extrajudicial killings, more than 200 abductions and the systematic murder of activists and the continuing killings of journalists.

Impunity is the denial of justice for hundreds of cases of extrajudicial killings in a span of just nine years despite domestic and international condemnation.

Impunity is what the Arroyo government has cultivated throughout its term, either by directly sanctioning the killings or by just being indifferent to the plight of the victims.

END IMPUNITY. ARREST AND PROSECUTE THE PERPETRATORS.

Statement on the Maguindanao massacre

Press Statement

November 23, 2009

The Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN) condemns in the strongest terms the recent election-related violence in Maguindanao province which claimed the lives of 36 people, including members of the Mangundadatu family, their supporters and staff, 2 lawyers and several journalists. The abduction and killings were so brazen that it has shocked everyone, even those in Malacanang. The massacre was indiscriminate and was carried out with utter disregard for the law by apparently powerful and influential forces. We condemn in particular the killing of women, lawyers and journalists.

A swift and impartial probe must now be conducted and the perpetrators of this heinous crime must be brought to justice.  The full force of the law must be made to bear on the killers.

President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo must not let her political association with the Ampatuan family stand in the way of a speedy and impartial investigation into the incident. The national government must step in and enforce the law since the local police is not likely capable of conducting an impartial probe or may be vulnerable to pressure by the powerful political families in the province.

We support the call for the disarmament and dismantling of private militias in the area which have long existed but have been seemingly tolerated by the government. The national government can no longer turn a blind eye to the long-standing problem of warlordism and violence in the province.

Those public officials being linked to the killings must now be relieved or must take a leave of absence in order to give way to an impartial probe. The Philippine National Police leadership in the province should also be relieved.

Armed Forces of the Philippines spokesman Lt. Col. Romeo Brawner was quoted as saying the  100 men who staged the abduction were allegedly led by Mayor Datu Unsay Ampatuan and one Police Senior Inspector Dicay of the Philippine National Police (PNP) in Shariff Aguak. This serious allegation involving local government and police officials should also be looked into.

If it is proven that the Ampatuans are involved in this incident, then Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s association and support for them will be placed in the spotlight once again. The Ampatuans have become a powerful political clan because of its quid pro quo with the Arroyo administration come the national elections. There have been countless accounts of how elections are rigged in the province to always favor the admnistration.

Warlordism and violence are now the norm in Maguindanao. It seems that the Arroyo regime has created a monster it can no longer control. ###

US think-tank’s report may reveal true goals of Clinton’s RP visit

By Renato M. Reyes, Jr.

November 12, 2009

Solidarity with typhoon victims? A humanitarian visit? The upcoming 2010 elections? These are just some of the avowed objectives of the visit of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to the Philippines from November 12-13.  Groups like Bayan however are unconvinced that these are the only reasons why Clinton will be visiting the Philippines.

Hillary is the third top official from Washington to visit the Philippines in a span of six months. The first was US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, then just a month later, Central Intelligence Agency director Leon Panetta.

A July report of the Washington-based think-tank CENTER FOR STRATEGIC & INTERNATIONAL STUDIES may give some insights on the true purpose of the visit of America’s top diplomat.

The CSIS, which describes itself as a “bipartisan, nonprofit organization” founded by David M. Abshire and Admiral Arleigh Burke at the height of the Cold War, is “dedicated to the simple but urgent goal of finding ways for America to survive as a nation”. The institution claims to be “one of the world’s preeminent public policy institutions.”

In its July 2009 report entitled US Alliances and Emerging Partnerships in Southeast Asia: Out of the Shadows, the CSIS gives proposals to the newly-elected Obama administration on how to achieve US interests in Southeast Asia.

The report describes Hillary Clinton’s visit to Indonesia, her first trip abroad as U.S. secretary of state,  as a signal that “the Obama administration intends to pay renewed attention to Southeast Asia”, a region with over  550 million people, the world’s largest Muslim nation, an economy of over $1 trillion, and some of the world’s most strategic waterways.

The think-tank believes that “Southeast Asia is a region likely to play a critical role in determining the future of Asia and whether the United States can sustain itself as an Asia-Pacific power.”

The CSIS recommended that the US “seek to reinvigorate its engagement of alliance partners Thailand and the Philippines to test the possibilities of greater strategic convergence and cooperation.”

It also sought to develop bilateral relations to complement US engagement in regional bodies like the ASEAN.

Recent events prove this to be true. During Arroyo’s latest  visit to the US, Obama designated the Philippines as country coordinator for US relations in the ASEAN. The bilateral relations with the Philippines were used to further US engagement in a regional platform like the ASEAN.

The report however laments the “legal and other constraints” in the “development” of US-RP defense relations, which includes the presence of US troops in the Philippines. There is a recognition of the controversies sparked by the Subic Rape case and the opposition to the Visiting Forces Agreement.

Following this report, the two-day Clinton visit is likely in line with “reinvigorating US-RP relations” in furtherance of US interests in the region. This encompasses military, diplomatic and economic interests. Reinvigorating relations may mean finding ways for increased US intervention in the Philippines and in the region as a whole.

Obama’s 45-minute meeting with Arroyo, and Clinton’s two-day visit to the Philippines may be intended to make the Philippines “feel important” again as far as US goals in the region are concerned.  But beneath the glam and photo-ops offered by such high profile meetings is the stark reality that relations remain unequal between the former colonial master and the former colony.

Still healthy but fraught with difficulty

The report believes that US-RP alliance is “in surprisingly good health” and that it is “in its best shape in 20 years.”  However, the report cited some recent problems which the CSIS thought put some strain on US-RP relations.

It criticized the “rampant corruption, lack of strategic thinking and overall degradation of political, economic and military capabilities” as the reasons why countless US diplomats have “thrown up their hands in frustration.”

In its report on the Philippines, the CSIS describes US-RP relations as “fraught with controversy and difficulty”.  It blamed a “minority of Leftist politicians”, “media and demonstrations outside the US embassy” for raising questions about US-RP relations and “constraining the development of ties. “

“The rape of a Philippine woman by a U.S. marine at Subic Bay in 2005, and his subsequent conviction in 2006, threatened to destabilize the bilateral relationship as it reminded Filipinos of the more sordid aspects of the U.S. Cold War–era presence. The transfer of Marine Lance Corporal Daniel Smith to the custody of the U.S. embassy upon conviction, pursuant to the Visiting Forces Agreement, also caused controversy and calls for revision or scrapping of the VFA,” it said.

The report also played up what it believes as the predominantly pro-American sentiments in the country. The report condescendingly describes Filipinos as not being able to live without the Americans.

“At a fundamental level, Philippine interlocutors affirmed that Philippine citizens almost universally consider the alliance with the United States to be not only welcome and successful, but also an essential element of Philippine life that they cannot imagine doing without.”

The report cited an unnamed 2007 poll finding that “Filipinos rank first in trusting the US to act responsibly in the world, first in disagreeing that the US is playing the role of world policeman too much, first in supporting long-term US military bases overseas, and third in feeling that the US should continue to be the preeminent world leader in solving international problems.”

Yet despite this alleged dominant pro-US sentiment that is seemingly favorable to the continued US intervention and basing, the report advised against making permanent military bases as the focus of US defense policy towards the Philippines.

Basing without bases

The report cited the US gains in the Balikatan and VFA, especially after the September 11 attacks in the US. “Beginning with the “Balikatan,” or “shoulder-to-shoulder,” joint exercise in February 2002, more than 1,000 U.S. military personnel reengaged on Philippine soil to provide logistical support, intelligence information, military equipment, operational planning assistance, and tactical advice to local Philippine forces fighting the guerrillas. The Philippines became the locus of the only U.S. ground combat forces deployed overseas in direct support of the “global war on terror” besides those engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The think-tank, while not opposed to the idea of permanent military basing noted that it would be politically untenable for the Philippines to allow the return of permanent bases, citing resistance to the idea for the “foreseeable future.”

The report did mention that with the increase in US exercises and activities even a former US ambassador described the US troops presence as being semi-continuous. The CSIS also praised the Philippines for being the “leading supplier” of new US Cooperative Security Locations (CSL) or facilities to which U.S. forces have “ready, regular, and predictable access but of which host nations retain ownership.” The report cited refurbished facilities in Clark and Subic as the potential cites of these CSL’s.

True enough, these former bases are reportedly already being accessed by American military contractors like Blackwater and Corporate Training Unit (CTU), both of which operate in Iraq.

The report actually reinforces earlier analysis that the Philippines continues to provide the US “virtual basing” opportunities. What’s new is that it concedes there will be controversies and difficulties if the US government pushes the issue of formal bases.

CSIS Recommendations

First among the recommendations of the CSIS deals with free-trade, a topic that is already on the agenda in the upcoming Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meet that will be attended by Clinton and Obama in Singapore.

“The United States needs to be prepared to react to potential Philippine protectionism, endemic corruption, and position within international economic forums such as APEC, the World Trade Organization, and ASEAN, with steady and patient engagement.”

While acknowledging that US-RP relations are crucial in protecting American interests against emerging powers like China, the report advises US policymakers not to suggest in word in or deed that US-RP relations are aimed at third party like China. “To be comfortable to Manila, strategic relations should be defined, oriented, and couched in constructive terms, rather than “against” any particular country.”

In short, the US does not want us to see the patently obvious.

In the area of defense, the report urges the US government to “continue to develop the quiet progress in U.S.-RP defense relations in recent years.”  What is meant here is the “quiet reintroduction of U.S. military forces onto RP territory” which, while under legal restrictions and other constraints, “represents slow but important progress in the relationship over the past decade.”

The report makes reference to “humanitarian assistance/disaster relief exercises” as a good starting point in broadening the scope of the defense partnership between the US and the Philippines. It exposes the so-called Civil Military Operations or “civic actions” by the US troops as being in support of US security goals in the country.

Lt. SG Nancy Gadian, a former Balikatan planner and corruption whistleblower,  said as much when she described the role of US troops conducting CMO’s during the Balikatan exercises. It was part of “winning the hearts and minds” of the people so that they would accept the continued presence of US troops engaged in various combat roles in the Philippines.

“The short-term goal should be to assist the Philippines to help itself internally. The long-term goal should be to help it eventually to assist the United States in collective defense, a task not anathema to Manila’s leaders or to the average Filipino in principle,” the report said.

Here we see how the interoperability training the AFP receives is not just for tactical domestic needs (local counter-insurgency), but also for the strategic goal of making the Philippines assist America in the “collective defense” of US interests in the region.  If, how and when this will happen is of course unclear.

The report did conceded that the US will not regain formal basing rights within the foreseeable future. It did call on the US government to encourage Manila to find more creative ways of justifying US troop presence in the country, while at the same time being careful as not to be too obvious in wanting to return the formal US bases.

“While the United States should continue to encourage Manila to think more creatively and strategically about the further contributions greater U.S. military presence and access in the Philippines can make to regional peace and stability—and to Manila’s own national security interests—Washington ought to be relatively careful about its basing ambitions to safeguard continued progress in this arena and generally be mindful of its conduct so as not to offend Philippine sensibilities.

While recognizing that formal US bases may not be acceptable at the moment, the report cited other means by which to advance US troop presence en route to more permanence.  The report said that the US already enjoys wide access to Philippine military facilities, saying that it has provided strategic benefits and that it can be used “as a productive base on which to develop US strategic presence in the country over time.”

Clearly, the US is here for the long haul. The announcement of US Defense Secretary Robert Gates that 600 US Special Forces, mostly based in various AFP camps in Mindanao, will remain indefinitely in the country is one clear example.

To pull-off the many impositions of the US on the Philippine government, the CSIS recommends an increase in aid funding as a “strategic element” in the relationship. This is perhaps the reason why, despite corruption and gross human rights abuses, the Philippine government is set to receive additional aid from Washington, figuring at a total of $667 million for next year. News reports have cited the Obama administration as removing the human rights requirements placed on $2 million in military aid. There also have been reports that the intended $15 million in military assistance was increased to $30 million by the US House of Representatives.

When the US describes its relations with the Philippines as “fraught with difficulties and controversies”, it does so not because it recognizes the legitimacy of the issues being raised. The “frustration” of some US policymakers stems from the increasing resistance to US impositions .

These controversies, when accumulated, also derail US plans for the Philippines. The 2007 Balikatan exercises was almost scrapped when the issue of Daniel Smith’s detention was not yet resolved in favor of the US.

What is clear from the report is that resistance to US impositions has not gone unnoticed and will be something that Washington will have to deal with in the future. ###

(UPDATED) Sen. Aquino must give a substantial response to the Luisita conflict

1. Q: Is the demand for justice in Hacienda Luisita that is being articulated by militant groups mere “leftist propaganda” and part of politicking during election season? Are militant groups merely sour-graping for not getting a senatorial seat in Noynoy Aquino’s Liberal Party?

A: The unrest in Luisita is real, as real as the 7 strikers who were killed on November 14, 2004. The demands of the farmers and workers for land and justice are legitimate and are not part of some election spin against Aquino’s presidential bid. The conflict has its roots in the failure of the Aquino land reform law way back in 1989. The land dispute and ensuing labor problem has its roots in the stock-distribution option which makes farmers nominal stockholders but who end up receiving nothing for their labor. Instead of direct land distribution, farmers got shares from the Luisita corporation controlled by the Cojuangcos. The SDO has failed to eradicate poverty in the hacienda. The strike in 2004 was the result of unfair and inhumane labor conditions in the hacienda and the management’s refusal to address the demands of the farmer workers which included an increase in wages, medical and other benefits. The management responded with the illegal dismissal of the workers and the union leaders, thus forcing the sugar mill and farm workers to go on strike.  The strike ended a year later, but the hacienda remained under the control of the Cojuangco-Aquino family.

While the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council has revoked the SDO of the Hacienda in 2005, a case remains pending before the Supreme Court because the Luisita management blocked the order of the PARC.

This only means that the issue in Luisita is yet unresolved. The question of land distribution remains hanging as the management refuses to give up the SDO. Senator Noynoy Aquino, in an interview with the Inquirer which appeared on November 10 invoked the “inviolability of contracts” with the farm workers as the basis of upholding the SDO. What he didn’t say though is that it was the hacienda management which violated the SDO provisions in the first place, as seen from the report of the PARC. The failure of the SDO, including the violations of its provisions, was the basis of the strike in 2004.

2. Q: Sen. Noynoy Aquino is only a minority stockholder in the hacienda, having only 4% of the shares. Why is he being asked to speak up on the issue when he is in no position to influence management decisions?

A: Sen. Aquino is being asked to make his stand clear on the issue of Luisita not just because he’s an individual shareholder in the corporation but because he is seeking the highest office in the land. People want to know how he will handle an agrarian reform conflict involving his close relatives. It is a legitimate test of his leadership and stand on issues. The position of president carries the legal and moral responsibility of ensuring that social justice is achieved, especially for the most oppressed. Will Sen. Aquino’s relations with the owners of HLI stand in the way of that mandate? If Sen. Aquino succeeds in becoming president, will he implement genuine agrarian reform (and not SDO) or will HLI be spared from land distribution for another six years?

To hide behind the mantle of “minority shareholder” is to totally miss the gravity of the land reform problem that has confronted all previous governments.

Even if Sen. Aquino does divest of all his holdings in HLI, that will not address the farmers’ demand for land. He would just be washing his hands of any involvement in the land conflict. Selling Luisita to another investor will also not address the demand for land. Ownership will merely change hands from one landlord to another.

We must add that other presidential bets must also make clear their stand on Luisita. This is not just a problem of Sen. Aquino, though he apparently carries the greater burden of explaining his position. We also want to know, are the other presidential aspirants willing to implement genuine land reform and bring to justice the perpetrators of the extrajudicial killings?

3. Q: Weren’t the farmers themselves who entered into the Stock Distribution Option in 1989? They wanted this arrangement in the first place. The management is merely trying to preserve this “contract”.

A: The passage of the SDO in 1989 was chockfull of deception and coercion. And if the farmers were indeed happy with the arrangement, there would not have been unrest leading up to the November 2004 strike. The strike was clear proof that the SDO did not uplift the situation of the farm workers.

Historical data will show, particularly the pay-slips of the farm workers, how oppressive the stock-distribution option has been the past two decades. Under this scheme, farmers are made to believe that they are stockholders in a corporation where management control still resides with the Cojuangco-Aquino family. To get their “share “of the profits, they are required to work a certain number of man-days a year. Over time, mechanization and other schemes gradually reduced the man-days allowed the farm workers. They will not only NOT GET their share in the profits but will also be reduced to abject indebtedness to the Cojuangco estate.

It is this oppressive situation which makes workers receive only P9.50/day because of all the deductions that are made to pay for the daily needs of the workers (which are supplied by management itself). The stock distribution option merely gave a new face to semi-feudal exploitation. The pay slips will bear this out.

While on the topic of the “contract”, it bears mentioning that the HLI management was the first to violate the SDO agreement. Atty. Jobert Pahilga of SENTRA writes “On October 14, 2003, the Supervisory Group of Hacienda Luisita, Inc. filed a petition before the DAR to revoke the SDO, saying the HLI was not giving them dividends, their one percent (1%) share in gross sales and thirty percent (33%) share in the proceeds from the conversion of 500 hectares of land. They likewise cited other violations by the HLI of the MOA and that their lives have not improved contrary to the promise and the rationale for the adoption of the SDO”.

These and other violations by management prompted the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council to revoke the SDO of Luisita. This should have paved the way for land distribution to the farmers. However, the HLI management filed for a TRO before the Supreme Court. The “status quo” prior to the PARC order is now being observed.

4. Q:  Isn’t it inappropriate for Sen. Aquino to comment on the land dispute at this point when a case is pending before the Supreme Court? He is leaving the issue to management which is directly involved in the case.

A: It is not inappropriate for Sen. Aquino to speak out. In fact now is the best time for him to speak out on the issue because he has the whole nation’s attention, being the front-runner in the presidential derby.

So far Sen. Aquino has defended the SDO, saying that all was well before the 2004 strike. “From 1958 to 2004, residents and workers had jobs. From 2004 to 2009, they had no jobs. My focus is how to get them back to their jobs, how to get them jobs,” he said.

“I really would not want to engage in a never-ending debate as far as the details and issues [are concerned]. It’s the companies and beneficiaries who are in a better position to answer questions.”

Surely, all was not well before 2004 which is why there was a strike. The “never-ending debate” exists because of the never-ending efforts of the management to block genuine land distribution to the farmers. If Sen. Aquino wants to give the farmers and residents jobs, the best way to do this is through genuine agrarian reform, that of giving land to the tillers. Continuing with the SDO means depriving the farmers and residents jobs, land and dignity. As long as the Cojuangco-Aquinos have a monopoly control of land, there will never be social justice in Luisita.

Instead of evading the issue, Sen. Aquino must engage it head on. Will he stand for the farmers and workers? Will he support the junking of the Stock Distribution Option? Will he support land distribution? Will he help bring to justice those involved in the massacre and other cases of extrajudicial killings?

The response should be sooner than later . November 16 is the 5^th anniversary of the Luisita Massacre. Incidentally, on the same day, the Liberal Party will hold its convention to formally endorse Aquino’s presidential bid.  ###

Conrado de Quiros on Noynoy and the Luisita Massacre

The following is a piece written by Inquirer columnist Conrado de Quiros, which appeared on November 22, 2004 in the Inquirer, six days after the Luisita Massacre. (de Quiros is now a staunch supporter of Aquino’s presidential bid)

There’s The Rub: Broke
By Conrado de Quiros
Inquirer News Service

Note: Published on page A14 of the November 22, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer

“HERE is a land in which a few are spectacularly rich while the masses remain abjectly poor. Gleaming suburbia clashes with the squalor of the slums. Here is a land consecrated to democracy but run by an entrenched plutocracy. Here, too, are a people whose ambitions run high, but whose fulfillment is low and mainly restricted to the self-perpetuating elite. Here is a land of privilege and rank-a republic dedicated to equality but mired in an archaic system of caste.”

The one who said this was not Ka Paeng or Ka Pepe, it was Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino. He said this in an article in 1968 in the US journal Foreign Affairs. This was typical of what politicians and radicals alike were saying before martial law, particularly to warn that the country was a “social volcano” all set to explode. Aquino himself suggested the way by which the explosion might be averted: “The wealth that the oligarchy rapaciously covets and hoards must get down to the masses in the form of roads, bridges and schools; these are what the tao understands as good or bad government.”

I remarked in the book “Dead Aim”: “Caught in the rapture of his eloquence, Aquino forgot that his in-laws owned a hacienda that stretched as far as the eye could see. And one that would remain untouched by land reform two decades later.”

The past comes back to haunt. As indeed do Cory’s own words, when she promised during the “snap elections” that the first thing she would do was subject Hacienda Luisita to land reform. What a difference a month makes, which was all the time it took from the “snap elections” to Cory replacing Marcos, which turned out to be a sea change not just in the political landscape of the nation but in the moral outlook of the new governors. That was all the time it took for Cory to forget her vow.

Hacienda Luisita will always be a festering sore. It will always be the symbol of the failure of Edsa to move the country from tyranny to democracy, if by democracy is also meant-as Ninoy argued-the pushing back of oligarchic rule. You can’t have a more oligarchic rule than feudal rule, which takes place in Hacienda Luisita notwithstanding its seemingly capitalist conversion into an industrial enclave. All the conversion shows is that, as in the days of the feudal manor, serfs are owned by their landlords body and soul. They can be told to do anything, including to agree to “stock option.” Their well-being is a matter of manorial beneficence. They have no more power to determine the future of Hacienda Luisita, or their share of its profits, than beggars have the power to determine the amount of alms they can get from prospective donors.

Noynoy Aquino says leftists goaded the workers in Hacienda Luisita, who have been complaining about their lot, to strike. Well, so what? At the very least, try goading workers who have no deep-seated grievance to strike and see how far you’ll get-these days, particularly, when work is harder to come by than honesty in GMA’s government. May be leftists goaded the workers in Hacienda Luisita to strike-I can believe it-but they could not have succeeded if the workers were not ripe for the goading.

At the very most, workers have a right to strike. One would imagine congressmen would know that. A strike is neither illegal nor immoral, it is sanctioned by the Constitution and enshrined in the tradition of the workers’ movement. Only Lucio Tan and now Ninoy’s namesake think it is not.

While at this, if leftists had not goaded workers, farmers, students and other sectors to mount national strikes, or “welgang bayan,” during martial law, the Aquinos would not be there. It was the efforts of the leftists to goad Filipinos to fight sleep in the early years of martial law that assured they would be awake to react to the murder of Ninoy much later.

Cory cannot understand why the workers refuse to accept her offer of sympathy and prayers for the dead? Well, if I recall right, Cesar Virata had to scurry away from Sto. Domingo Church after conveying to her the sympathy and prayers of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos for the death of her husband. He feared being torn limb from limb. The sympathy and prayers of the one who caused you grief are never welcome. The life of Ninoy is not more important than the lives of the 14 workers who died in the blaze of gunfire from goons in the uniforms of cops and soldiers last Tuesday. Other than in oligarchic reckoning, which deems the lives of serfs as nothing compared to that of the lord of the manor.

“If it ain’t broke,” says Department of Agrarian Reform chief Rene Villa, “why fix it?” That is his reaction to calls for a review of the “stock option” plan.

What, the corpses of 14 workers strewn over a dusty road in Hacienda Luisita are not a sign something is broke? Again, maybe it’s true leftists goaded the workers to strike. But as I wrote a long time ago, when Isidro Cariño, then the education secretary, said the same thing about the 3,000 public school teachers who went on strike against him, and vowed to hunt the goaders down, the words of leftists are nothing compared to the flailing of hunger. And hunger has no address.

But the 14 corpses lying on the ground point to something broke that’s even bigger than that Hacienda Luisita hasn’t been land-reformed. That is, that the foundations of democracy in this country are crumbling. No, more than that, that is, that the moral foundations of this country are crashing. Power has made people forget what it means to lose a loved one to tyranny.

Ninoy Aquino might have been talking of today when he said: “Here is a land consecrated to democracy but run by an entrenched plutocracy. Here is a land of privilege and rank-a republic dedicated to equality but mired in an archaic system of caste.”

If that ain’t broke, what is?

Ang katumbas ng P9.50 (At iba pang katotohanang inungkat ng masaker sa Hacienda Luisita) Enero 2005

Draft Primer hinggil sa Luisita massacre na sinulat ni Lisa Ito apat na taon na ang nakaraan
(di ko na mahanap yung Final PDF file nito eh)

Para sa mga manggagawang bukid ng Hacienda Luisita, take-home pay na P9.50* kada linggo ang kapalit ng daantaong pagbubungkal nila at ng kanilang mga ninuno sa lupaing inangkin ng mga Cojuangco. Para naman sa amo nilang ganid sa tubo, tila P9.50 lang rin ang halaga ng buhay na nilagas ng bala noong ika-16 ng Nobyembre 2004 — halagang ‘di sasapat upang makabili ng isang lata ng sardinas, o kaha ng sigarilyong Fortune.

Ano nga ba ang tunay na halaga ng paggawa, lupa at karapatang-pantao? Timbangin natin kung bakit makatarungan ang pag-aaklas ang masang anakpawis sa halip na magtiis sa buhay-barya.

KAKAPUSAN NG KARAMIHAN = KASAGANAAN NG IILAN

Nobyembre 6, 2004 nang simulan ang welga sa Central Azucarera de Tarlac (CAT), ang pinakamalaking pagawaan ng asukal sa buong Luzon. Bunsod ito ng umiiral na kalagayan sa asyenda kung saan matutunghayan ang karangyaan ng iilan samantalang kasalatan naman sa kabuhayan ng nakararami.

Ang mga sumusunod ay napapaloob sa 6,453 ektaryang asyenda na pag-aari ng angkan ng Cojuangco-Aquino, isa sa pinakamakapangyarihang pamilya sa ekonomiya at pulitika sa Pilipinas:
• 4,915.75 ektaryang lupaing agrikultural
• Ang CAT, kung saan pinoproseso ang tubo upang gawing asukal matapos ang kabyawan (anihan)
• Mga istruktura tulad ng Mall, 70-ektaryang Golf Course,at 500-ektaryang Industrial Park
• ‘Di bababa sa limang malalaking kompanya na humahawak sa iba’t ibang negosyo sa asyenda

Sa mga ito kumakamal ng sagad-sagarang tubo ang mga Cojuangco. Ngunit nananatiling maralita ang masang tagalikha ng yamang kanilang tinatamasa: mga manggagawa at manggagawang-bukid na walang lupa.

• Ang mga manggagawang-bukid na bumubuo sa kalakhan ng lakas-paggawa ng asyenda ay sumasahod ng P194 lamang kada araw, at pinahihintulutang magtrabaho nang isa hanggang dalawang araw lamang kada linggo. Dahil sa pagkakabaon sa utang, madalas ay P9.50 na lamang ang aktwal na naiuuwing sahod.

MAKATARUNGANG WELGA = PANDARAHAS NG ESTADO

‘Di-makataong pasahod, kawalan ng benepisyo, at pagsupil ng awtoridad ang tumatahi sa pinagsanib na laban ng dalawang unyon sa asyenda. Magkasunod na nag-welga ang ULWU o United Luisita Workers Union (unyon ng mga manggagawang-bukid) at ang CATLU o Central Azucarera de Tarlac Labor Union (unyon ng mga manggagawa ng azucarera) dahil sa union-busting at pagmamatigas ng management ng Hacienda Luisita Incorporated (HLI) sa negosasyon para sa isang makabuluhang Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).

Ang mga makatarungang HILING ng mga unyon mula sa management:

CATLU
• P100 across-the-board wage increase
• Signing Bonus
• Gratuity Pay

ULWU
• Pagtaas sa sahod
• Libreng serbisyo mula sa St. Martin de Porres Hospital ng CAT
• Mga benepisyong tulad ng Christmas at Service bonus

Ang TUGON ng pamilya Cojuangco at ng mga kasabwat nila:

• Tuso at sapilitang pagtanggal ng management sa 327 manggagawang-bukid, kasama ang mga lider ng ULWU at pakikipagsabwatan sa iilang bayarang indibidwal sa CAT.

• “Assumption of Jurisdiction” order na nagpapatunay na kasangkot ang Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), sa pangunguna ni Sec. Patricia Sto. Tomas na buwagin ang welga at dahasin ang mga manggagawa.

• Panghihimasok ng Northern Luzon Command ng AFP sa usaping sibilyan

• Masaker ng mga manggagawang-bukid – Ang nabigong limang beses na tangkang pagbuwag ng mga pulis at militar sa piketlayn gamit ang water cannon, tear gas, truncheon, at baril. Humantong ito sa pagkakapaslang ng pitong welgista noong hapon ng Nobyembre 16, 2004. Nagpapatuloy ang pandarahas at pamamaslang sa pangunguna ng mga militar at mga bayarang goons. Disyembre 8, pinaslang ang Tagapangulo ng Alyansa ng Magbubukid sa Tarlac, si Ka Marcing na susing testigo sa naganap na masaker.

ANO ANG MGA UMIIRAL NA KALAGAYAN NA NAGBUNSOD NG PAG-AAKLAS SA HACIENDA LUISITA? KAWALAN NG LUPAAng mga magbubukid na daantaong nagbungkal ng lupain ng Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas (TABACALERA) — ang mga ninuno ng mga manggagawang-bukid ng Hacienda Luisita — ang tunay na may-ari ng lupa sa asyenda.

 

Ngunit ang lupain ng asyenda ay patuloy na inaangkin ng mga Cojuangco sa pamamagitan ng mga sumusunod:

1. ISTORIKAL AT ILIGAL NA PANGANGAMKAM SA LUPA

Noong 1957, binili ni Jose Cojuangco, Sr. ang CAT at ang Hacienda Luisita mula sa TABACALERA gamit ang pera ng mamamayan bilang puhunan: utang mula sa Government Service Insurance System at Manufacturers’ Trust Company sa New York. Ang huli ay ginarantiya ng international reserve ng bansa na inaprubahan ng Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas sa kondisyong ipapamahagi ito sa maliliit na magsasaka. Lumipas ang ilang dekada ngunit hindi tinupad ang napagkasunduang pamamahagi ng lupa sa mga magbubukid.Nang maging Pangulo si Corazon Cojuangco Aquino noong 1986, nakaiwas ang kanyang pamilya na ipatupad ang repormang agraryo alinsunod sa desisyon ng Manila-Regional Trial Court noong 1985. Isa sa mga inkorporador ng Tarlac Development Corporation (TADECO), ipinagtibay ni Aquino ang pag-angkin ng kanyang angkan sa asyenda sa pamamagitan ng Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) noong 1988. 2. STOCK DISTRIBUTION OPTION (SDO)

 

• Ano ang SDO?

Niligalisa ng CARL ang iba’t ibang anyo ng huwad na repormang agraryo katulad ng “stock transfer scheme”, kung saan sapi (shares) ang ibinibigay ng panginoong-maylupa sa halip na aktwal na pamamahagi ng lupa. Ipinatupad ang “stock transfer scheme” sa Hacienda Luisita sa ngalang SDO.

• Paano ito ipinatupad?

Itinatag ang HLI bilang spin-off corporation ng TADECO na magpapamahagi ng capital stock sa mga benepisyaryong manggagawang-bukid (“co-owners”) ayon sa stock distribution plan. Sa SDO, inalisan ang mga manggagawang-bukid ng kanilang istorikal na karapatang ariin ang lupaing binubungkal. Napilitan ang mga magbubukid na sumang-ayon sa SDO dahil sa pinagsamang panlilinlang, pananakot at pandarahas ng mga Cojuangco.

• Ano ang epekto nito?

Walang naganap na makabuluhang pagbabago sa salat na kabuhayan ng mamamayan sa 14 taong pag-iral ng SDO. Lalo silang naghirap dahil binawasan ang mandays (takdang araw ng paggawa) mula 4-5 araw hanggang 1-2 araw kada linggo mula 1990. Ito ay dulot ng patakarang land conversion at mekanisasyon. Kasabay na lumiit ang sapi nila dahil nakabatay ‘shares of stock’ sa dami ng mandays. 3. LAND CONVERSION Unti-unti ring nagpapalit-gamit ng lupain ang asyenda upang gawing golf course, industrial park, at iba pa. Simula 1995, nireklasipika para sa kumbersyon ang 3,290 ektarya ng kabuuang 4,915 ektaryang lupaing agrikultural. Naibenta na ang 500 ektarya sa mga korporasyong Hapon. May lupaing nakalaan para sa Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway Project na nakatakdang gawin mula 2003-2005.

 

Itinutulak ng mga Cojuangco ang land conversion dahil malaki ang kikitain nila mula rito. Mahigpit naman itong tinututulan ng mamamayan dahil katumbas nito ang malawakan at permanenteng pagpapatalsik ng mga magbubukid at manggagawang-bukid sa kanilang sariling lupa.

Ang kasaysayan ng Hacienda Luisita ay patunay sa PAG-IRAL NG MONOPOLYONG KONTROL SA LUPA.

PAGGAWA

Kinikilala sa Konstitusyon ang karapatang magwelga ng mga manggagawa. Ngunit ito’y nilalapastangan
ng mga malaking namumuhunan sa tulong ng kanilang mga abugado at ng DOLE sa paggamit ng “Assumption of Jurisdiction” (AJ) na nakasaad sa Artikulo 263 (g) ng Labor Code at mga kontra-welgang batas-paggawa. Ginamit ang AJ mula pa noong panahon ng diktaduryang Marcos hanggang ngayon upang supilin ang mga makatarungang welga ng mga manggagawa, gaya ng nangyari sa welga ng manggagawa sa Nestle, Jac Liner at SM.

Hatol na kamatayan ang katumbas ng pagbaba ni DOLE Secretary Patricia Sto. Tomas ng AJ order sa mga welgista noong Nobyembre 10, 2004. Sa pamamagitan nito at ng walang-basehang deklarasyon na ”iligal” ang welga, mistulang ipinagtanggol ni Sto. Tomas ang mga pumaslang sa mga manggagawang-bukid.

Sinasalamin ng kaso ng Hacienda Luisita ang PAG-IRAL NG MAPANUPIL NA PATAKARAN AT BATAS-PAGGAWA SA BANSA.

KARAPATANG-PANTAO

Matagal nang militarisado ang malawak na lupain ng asyenda. Ang Yellow Army na nagmula pa noong panahon ni Aquino at ang 69th Infantry Battalion ay ginamit upang maghasik ng takot sa lahat ng tumututol sa umiiral na kaayusan dito.

Kasuklam-suklam na krimen ang mga naganap na pamamaslang ng tropang militar. Pito ang namatay, mahigit 40 ang nasugatan, 114 ang iligal na inaresto, at marami pa ang nawawala hanggang ngayon. Ang di-makatwirang paggamit ng tropang militar sa pagbuwag ng welga ay nagpapakita ng sabwatan sa pagitan ng pamilya Cojuangco at ng mga opisyal ng estado. Ang Pangulo ng bansa – si Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo bilang Commander in Chief ng AFP –ang may kapangyarihang magpahintulot sa militar upang manghimasok sa asyenda.

Hindi natapos sa masaker noong Nobyembre 16 ang karahasan. Noong Disyembre 8, pinatay ng mga sundalo si Marcelino Beltran, Jr., Pangulo ng Alyansa ng Magbubukid ng Tarlac, provincial vice-chairperson ng Anakpawis, at susing testigo sa masaker. Marami pa ang naitalang kaso ng pandarahas at pananakot sa mga welgista hanggang ngayon.

Sinasalamin ng masaker sa Hacienda Luisita ang PAG-IRAL NG PASISMO AT MILITARISASYON SA KANAYUNAN.

PAG-IRAL NG NAKAKABUSABOS NA KAAYUSAN = PAGLABAN NG MAMAMAYAN

SINO ANG DAPAT MANAGOT?

• Ang AFP at PNP
• Ang pamilya Cojuangco-Aquino
• DOLE Secretary Patricia Sto. Tomas
• Pang. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo

ANO ANG TUNGUHIN NG ATING LABAN?

• Katarungan para sa mga biktima ng masaker sa Hacienda Luisita! Papanagutin ang mga pumaslang kina Jhaivie Basilio, Adriano Caballero, Jhune David, Jesus Laza, Jaime Pastidio, Juancho Sanchez, Jessie Valdez at Ka Marcelino Beltran!

• Singilin ang pahirap na rehimeng Arroyo, ang angkang Cojuangco-Aquino, si DOLE Secretary Patricia Sto. Tomas at ang mga kasangkot nila sa PNP at AFP!

• Ipagtagumpay ang welga sa Hacienda Luisita! Suportahan ang pakikibaka ng mga manggagawa at manggagawang-bukid para sa lupa, sahod, trabaho, at karapatan. Ibalik sa trabaho ang 327 na tinanggal na manggagawang-bukid at opisyales ng ULWU! Ipaglaban at kamtin ang makatarungang CBA!

• Ibasura ang mga mapanupil na batas-paggawa at mga patakaran ng huwad na reporma sa lupa! Ipasawalang-bisa ang “Assumption of Jurisdiction” sa Labor Code at Stock Distribution Option. Itigil ang militarisasyon sa welga at kriminalisasyon sa mga pakikibakang unyon! Itigil ang pagpapalit-gamit sa lupa!

• Ipatupad ang tunay na repormang agraryo at pambansang industriyalisasyon!