Paano at bakit ako naging aktibista

Talumpati sa Forum on Democratization

UP Diliman Sociology Department ,

Setyembre 23, 2012

Magandang umaga po. Ako si Renato Reyes, Jr, isang aktibista na ngayon ay secretry general ng Bagong Alyansang Makabayan. Ngayong 2012 ang ika-20 taon ko bilang aktibista. Maikling panahon pa rin ito kung tutuusin, kumpara sa maraming namulat nung dekada ’60,  ‘70 at ’80 na hanggang ngayon ay kumikilos pa rin.

Nagsimula ang aking involvement sa UP Diliman noong taong 1992, nung freshman ako sa College of Business Administration. Sumapi ako sa League of Filpino Students sa aking ika-3 araw sa kolehiyo.

Lumahok ako matapos kong makita ang isang lightning rally sa University Theater pagkatapos ng freshman orientation. Ang protesta ay laban sa Tuition Fee Increase o TFI. Kami ang unang batch na nakaranas ng P300 per unit, na sa panahong  iyon ay medyo mabigat lalo’t sa mga naunang taon ay P200/unit lang, at bago pa yun ay P40 per unit lang.

Noong una akong sumali sa LFS, aaminin kong medyo na-culture shock ako sa mga aktibista. Galing ako sa isang Catholic school para sa mga lalaki. Kakaiba para sa akin yung mga tibak, at marahil yung UP sa kabuuan.

Sa unang tingin, parang  merong fashion sub-culture yung mga tibak. Gulo-gulo ang mga buhok, punit-punit ang mga pantalon, naka-tsinelas o minsan Our Tribe sandals, o Chuck Taylor sneakers, may tubao, may batik shirt. Pero kung tutuusin, di naman nalalayo ang itsura nila sa mga kilalang personalidad noon sa campus tulad ng Erasersheads, Yano at si Romeo Lee (na mas wild ang itusra noong una kong nakasabay sa jeep).

Yun unang nakausap kong mga tibak, kakaiba din. Yung isa may bandage ang buong braso. Yung isa naman may mahabang scar sa kanyang mukha. Naisip ko, susmaryosep, ang tindi siguro ng mga rally dispersal na dinanas nila. Kinalaunan, malalaman ko na wala palang kinalaman sa rally ang kanilang mga injury. Vehicular accident at rumble ng frat pala ang sanhi.

Unti-unti, nakasalamuha ko ang mas maraming mga aktibista mula sa iba’t ibang kolehiyo. Napagtanto ko na yung problema pala ng UP sa tuition fee increase at mga bulok na facilities ay may kaugnayan din sa mga pambansang patakaran. Sa patakaran sa pambansang budget, sa pagbabayad ng utang at iba pang  panlipunang usapin. Nakita rin namin yung iba pang realidad sa loob at labas ng campus. Medyo nabawasan yung mga stereotype sa mga aktibista ko nung mas malapitan ko na silang makilala.

Nakita ko na may komunidad pala sa loob ng UP campus na dine-demolish din. May mga unionized workers na kinakailangang mag-welga dahil sa di makatarungang mga patakaran sa trabaho. Unang piketline na napuntahan ko ay yung sa mga nagwelgang pampublikong guro habang nasa Philippine Independent Church sila sa Taft Avenue. Nakalahok din kami sa welga sa SM, sa San Miguel dyan sa Aurora Blvd at sa PasVIl  sa may Novaliches. Nakasalamuha din namin ang mga magbubukid mula Gitnang at Timog Luzon.

Nakasama ako sa welga ng mga workers ng SM noong 1994, at dalawang beses na nakaranas ng dispersal sa loob ng SM North (at dahil sa trauma at inis ay ilang buwan din kaming di nanood ng sine dun). Nakaranas na rin ako ng dispersal sa mismong kahabaan ng riles ng LRT sa Maynila.Dun naman sa welga sa Manila Hotel natutuo kaming tumakbo hanggang may lupa dahil hinahabol kami ng mga malulupit na pulis. Nakaranas na rin kaming ma-water cannon, sa loob ng UP campus (Pres. Javier oathtaking).  At syempre, naranasan ko na ding maaresto habang nag-rarally.

Sa mga panahong ito, nakilala ko ang iba’t ibang sektor, mga ordinaryong manggagawa, magsasaka, mga urban poor, mga teachers, health workers at iba pa. Naunawaan ko yung motibasyon nila sa pagpo-protesta. Laging may malalim na batayan kung bakit sila nagpo-protesta, kung bakit kailangang mag-welga, hunger strike, barikada at iba pang porma ng collective action. Kadalasa’y hindi nakasasapat ang mga umiiral na mekanismo ng gobyerno, lalo pa’t hindi pumapabor halimbawa ang sistema ng hustisya para sa mga mahihirap. O di naman kaya masyadong malakas ang pwersa ng employer, o ng landlord kung kaya’t tanging sa sama-samang pagkilos lang pwedeng maisulong yung interes ng mga sektor.

Ah oo nga pala, yung usapin ng interes. Nakita namin yung pag—iral ng mga magkatunggaling interes. Yung interest ng mga makapangyarihan sa ekonomiya at pulitika ay taliwas o kontra dun sa nakararaming inaapi; tulad ng panginoong maylupa at magsasaka sa Hacienda Luisita, yung mga malalaking kapitalista tulad nina Danding Cojuango at Henry Sy at ang kanilang mga manggagawa.

At nakita ko rin na yung pag-protesta ay isang bahagi lamang ng mas malawak na gawain. Malaking bahagi ng oras namin ay inilalaan sa pag-oorganisa, sa edukasyon, sa pagkausap sa mga tao, sa pagbubuo ng mga samahan.

Nabawasan din yung angas naming mga estudyante lalo’t sa maraming pagkakataon, mas malalim ang pagkaka-alam ng mga inoorganisa namin kesa sa aming mga estudyanteng peti-burgis. Mas natutuo kami sa karansan ng mga manggagawa, magsasaka at iba pang maralita.

Isa sa mga inilatag na tanong ng porum na ito ay ang pangangailangang magprotesta at magbuo ng kapangyarihan laban sa mga umiiral na institusyon ng gobyerno. Sa iba’t ibang pagkakataon, kailangan ng mga protest actions para:

1. maipanalo ang mga immediate demands ng mga sektor sa pamamagitan ng sama-samang pagkilos na magbibigay ng pressure sa mga kinauukulan
2. maipahayag sa mas makararami ang mga layunin ng kilusan
3. ma-organisa at ma-konsolida ang mga lalahok tungo sa mas pangmatagalang paglaban

Sa pamamagitan ng sama-samang pagkilos ay nape-pressure ang mga kinauukulan, ang gobyerno, ang administration, ang landlord, para ibigay ang collective demand ng mga nagpo-protesta. Esensyal ito lalo’t kung aasa lang sila sa legal struggle sa mga korte at ahensya ng gobyerno, malamang hindi papabor sa kanila ang resulta.

Sa proseso ng mga actions na ito, naitatambol sa iba pang sektor ang pangangailangan ng pagkilos. Halimbawa yung pakikibaka at tagumpay ng mga magbubukid sa Hacienda Luisita ay nagsisilbing inspirasyon sa iba pang magbubukid na kumilos din.

Ang mga protesta ay hindi lamang para sa kagyat na mga kahilingan. Paraan din ito para ma-organisa ang mga kalahok. Dito nakikita ng mga tao na may kapangyarihan sa kanilang sama-samang pagkilos, na taglay nila ang tunay na kapangyarihan labas sa mga instrumento ng gobyerno.  Ito yung gusto nating i-develop na empowerment, yung sa pamamagitan ng mga organizations, unions at asosasyon. Kinalaunan, magiging mas malakas ito sa kapangyarihan ng mga naghaharing iilan sa lipunan.

Sa history natin, nagkaroon tayo ng mahabang period ng mass protests laban sa Martial Law at Marcos dictatorship, na humantong sa Edsa 1. May nangyari ding Edsa 2. May naganap ding protest movement laban kay GMA, na tumagal bilang pangulo mahigit 9 na taon. Nagkaroon din ng malakas na protest movement para mapatalsik ang base militar ng US sa ating bansa.

Lumalahok din ba kami sa eleksyon? Oo naman, dahil isang larangan din iyon para maisulong ang interests ng iba’t ibang sektor. May mga local elective posts na nilalahukan, at meron din yung tinatawag na partylist system kung saan may maliit na puwang ang mga marginalized sectors para makapsok ng Kongreso. Pero sa pangkalahatang iskema ng mga bagay-bagay, hindi yung elections ang pangunahing pokus ng gawain namin. Yung pagkakaroon ng elective positions, halimbawa sa partylist system, nakakatulong yun, pero marami ding limitasyon ang larangang iyon. Yung mga traditional parties and personalities, yung mga ruling class pa rin ang dominante sa larangang iyan. At kahit yung maliit na espasyo para sa mga marginalized at underrepresented, winawasak na rin ngayon lalo’t marami nang partlylist reps ang di naman talaga marginalized dahil mga impluwensyal at mega-rich sila. Idagdag pa natin na ang AFP ay nangangampanya laban sa mga progresibong grupo.

Sa dakong huli, ang usapin talaga ay tanging ang mamamayan ang makakapagpalaya sa kanyang sarili, at magagawa lamang ito sa sama-samang pagkilos.

Nung naging aktibista kami 20 taon na ang nakaraan, hindi naman namin hangad na mahalal sa gobyerno o maging bahagi ng gobyerno tulad ng ibang grupo dyan. Ang hangad namin ay makaambag sa pagpapalakas ng kilusan nang mamamayan nang sa gayon ay mapalitan nito ang bulok na umiiral na sistemang panig lamang sa iilan.

Tulad nyo, marami din akong agam-agam noon, marami din akong stereotypes. Hindi ko naman kayo masisisi. Pero bukod sa impresyon na ang mga aktibista ay pampatrapik lang sa kalsada, mahalagang ang papel ng kilusang ito sa pagsisiwalat ng mga isyu, pakikipaglaban para sa kagalingan ng iba’t ibang sektor, at sa pagtutulak ng tunay at makabuluhang pagbabago. At sana po ay maging bahagi din kayo ng kilusang ito.

Maraming salamat po.

Comparing Akbayan and Aquino’s campaign donors

DONORS	AKBAYAN	AQUINO
Kris Aquino	10,000,000	15,000,000
Ma. Elena  Aquino-Cruz	2,000,000	3,000,000
Victoria Aquino-Dee	2,000,000
Richard Dee	3,000,000
Rafa Lopa	250,000	500,000
Christina Lopa	250,000	500,000
Jaime Lopa	250,000	500,000
Anna L. Lopez	250,000	500,000
Michael Lopa	250,000	500,000
Philip Juico		5,000,000
Margarita Juico	1,000,000
Gregorio Yu	5,000,000	5,000,000
Daniel Lichauco	1,000,000	1,000,000

There are some similarities between the campaign donors of Akbayan and President Benigno Aquino III. The commonality of course is Aquino and his relatives and close associates.

Akbayan had around 115 cash donors and had a total of P110 million in donations as reported to Comelec. Aquino meanwhile had 96 donors for a combined P440 million.

Common donors of Akbayan and the President are the Aquino sisters, cousins, the Juicos, businessman Gregorio Yu and Daniel Lichauco of the Ninoy and Cory Foundation.

Yu became a trustee of the GSIS board after the 2010 elections and was sworn in on January 11, 2012. Margie Juico meanwhile went on to become the chair of the PCSO. Like the Cojuangco-Aquinos, the Lopas are are also known shareholders of Hacienda Luisita.

Here’s one interesting point. Noynoy’s sister and brother-in-law Victoria Dee and Richard Dee contributed a combined P5,000,000 to Akbayan’s campaign but did not contribute to Noynoy’s presidential bid, at least as far as submissions made by Aquino’s camp to Comelec will show.

Could it be that there’s more to these campaign reports that the parties and candidates are telling us?  How much of these reported contributions are real and how much are just for the sake of compliance with Comelec rules? How much of the donations were really intended for Aquino but were being made to appear as donations for Akbayan to circumvent the law.

Malacanang claims there is nothing wrong with private citizens giving donations. Maybe. But these particular donations do undermine the claims of Akbayan that it is a marginalized group. Its donors include the rich and powerful who have close ties with the President and his family. With these huge donations, Akbayan is definitely beholden to the Aquinos.

Now if Akbayan will say that the donations were intended to pay for shared TV ads with Aquino, then this is also unacceptable since this is already a circumvention of the law as stated by Comelec. Aquino wanted to exceed his allowed airtime for TV ads so he charged some airtime to Akbayan through the use of joint TV ads that featured mainly Aquino.

With common donors between them, the ties between Aquino and Akbayan are indeed deeper that previously known. These ties, along with Akbayan’s position in government, make a strong argument that it is no longer marginalized, already being a party in power with much influence and access to resources.

Meanwhile, Aquino’s defense of Akbayan shows that, despite all his claims of a ‘daang matuwid’,  this President will tolerate the violations of the partylist law. We know this through Akbayan, the Black and White Movement and other Palace-backed groups.

Akbayan received funds from Hacienda Luisita owners. Download report here

DOWNLOAD REPORT HERE:

The links between Aquino and Akbayan, even from the time of 2010 elections, show that Akbayan is really Aquino’s favored partylist. And now that Noynoy Aquino is President, questions continue to arise on how Akbayan will be using its position in the Aquino government to gain unfair advantage over the truly marginalized and underrepresented groups.

With this kind of campaign contribution, Akbayan is utterly beholden to Aquino and they will continue to be, even if Aquino’s policies run counter to the interests of the marginalized.It’s possible that part of the contribution from the Aquino siblings went to the television ads of Akbayan which were actually TV ads of Aquino. It is Aquino’s way to circumvent the law on campaign airtime, and make it appear that it is Akbayan’s airtime being used.In any case, Akbayan’s huge election spending undermines the Party’s claim of being marginalized.

We suspect that the Aquino sisters appear to be mere donors on paper, meaning, the real Akbayan campaign contributor was none other that Noynoy Aquino. We were not born yesterday. Lacierda’s claim that Aquino’s sisters were “private citizens” contributing to a campaign is baloney.

Contributors include:

Kris Aquino- P10 million

Maria Elena Cruz- P2 million

Viel Dee: P2 million

Richard Dee: P3 million

Here’s more. According to Akbayan’s statement submitted to Comelec, Rafael Cojuangco Lopa et al , Noynoy’s cousins and major stockholders of Hacienda Luisita, were also contributors to Akbayan’s campaign kitty. You draw the connection, between Hacienda Luisita and Akbayan’s campaign funds. Simply disgusting. What does that say of a party that receives campaign donations that are tainted with the blood of Luisita martyrs?

And still they claim to represent the marginalized. ###

Who are these consultants from the Akbayan-led National Anti-Poverty Commission?

Recently, the Commission on Audit raised questions on the hiring of consultants by the Akbayan-led National Anti-Poverty Commission. NAPC is chaired by Akbayan’s Joel Rocamora. We have previously alleged that Akbayan is no longer marginalized and underrepresented due to its many positions in government. NAPC seems to validate this. We have also raised questions as to the use of government funds and resources to promote Akbayan as a party. The  summary of the COA report can be found here.

Here are the NAPC Consultants as of 2012. Find any familiar names?

		NAME / UNIT		POSITION TITLE
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY JOEL ROCAMORA
1		Callueng, Eva Aurora D.		LGBT Advocacy Consultant
2		Dela Cruz, Atty. Rosselyn Jaye		Consultant for Coco Levy and Asset Reform
3		Dugenia, Vanessa Theresa P.		Communications Consultant
4		Evangelista, Jet S.		LGBT Organizer
5		Guanio, Melchor		Consultant for Peace and Development
6		Lara, Eduviges		Consultant for Labor Relations
7		Tarrobago, Arnold		Consultant for Community Participation (Peace and Development)
8		Zabala, Earnest M.		Communications Consultant
OFFICE OF USEC OYEN DOROTAN
9		Carizo, Jay		Consultant
10		Cabilles, Minerva		Technical Editor (GREAT Women Project
11		Ferreras, Maria Rebecca		Technical Coordinator
12		Ubalde, Francis		Consultant
13		Narito, Zonia		Research Consultant
14		Almario, Emelina S.		Research Consultant
15		Navarro, Anna Isabel		Technical Coordinator
16		Padilla, Angelita A.		Consultant
17		Herrera, Rosemarie J.		Consultant
OFFICE OF USEC JUDE ESGUERRA
18		Bebedor, Richeve		Consultant
19		Canlas, Corinne		Consultant
20		Cruz, Edgar Allan		Consultant
21		Garnace, Lani		Consultant
22		Sabdao, Jake		Consultant
(OUSEC) POLICY MONITORING AND TECHNOLOGY SERVICE
23		Beronilla, Nikkin		National Household Training System
24		Coballes, Richard Bio		MIS Consultant
25		Coballes, Giovanni Kris		Technical Consultant
26		Marciano, Divinia		MIS Consultant
		Mercado, German		Community Affairs Organizer
27		Quinones, Erwin		Consultant
OUSEC – WATER
28		Gendrano, Carmelo		Technical Consultant-Water
PMO – EMPOWERMENT
		Abella, Geraldine		Consultant
29		Adanza, Marcelo		Consultant for Provincial and Sub-Provincial Development Planning and Budgeting
30		Fernandez, Francisco		Consultant for Local Government Budgeting and Planning
31		Garcia, Amadis		Technical Consultant
32		Gervacio, Benedicta		Full Time Consultant
33		Gueco, Reynaldo		Consultant for Research
34		Labajo, Marie		Senior Technical Advisor
35		Padilla, Alvic		Consultant
35		Lopez, Allyn		Technical Coordinator
36		Ramirez, Atty. Doris		Consultant for Localization
37		Rojas, Paul		Consultant for Local Sectoral Anti-Poverty Project Development
OFFICE OF THE VICE CHAIR
38		Yang, Elizabeth		Technical Consultant
		Sabdao, Jake		Consultant
		Villanueva, Enrique		Consultant
OFFICE ASEC GINA DELA CRUZ
		Bazar, Cesar		Consultant
39		Andres, John Palu-ay		Technical Consultant
40		Landrito, Edmund		Informal Settlers
41		Soriano, Rowena		Technical Consultant
42		Ranches, Francisco		Technical Consultant
AFHRMS
43		Galang, Maripaz Bernice		Management and HR Consultant
44		Mendoza Jr., Atty. Magistrado A.		Senior Policy Consultant
BASIC SECTOR COORDINATING & ADVOCACY SERVICE
45		Garcia, Arsenio		Technical Consultant
46		Macli-ing, Shalom		Technical Consultant (NGP)
47		Magaway, Liwayway		Technical Consultant (Coco)
48		Pancho, Edwin		Technical Consultant
49		Faustino, Jose Marie T.		Technical Consultant (Coco)
50		Palomo, Leo Marco Gregorio		Technical Consultant (Coco)
LOCAL AFFAIRS COORDINATING AND MONITORING SERVICE
51		Gaerlan, Crisostomo		Project Consultant-ARMM
52		Navarro, Rogel		Project Consultant-Regions V,VI,VII and VIII

Akbayan’s imagined marginalization and continuing deception

“I and the members of Akbayan think alike,”

 President Benigno Aquino III 

Remarks during the Akbayan Congress, May 25, 2012

Responding to public clamor and protests, the Comelec has embarked on a process of cleansing the party-list system of groups that do not qualify under the law. Several incumbent groups have already had their accreditations cancelled. However, no party-list has incited such intense public discussion as Akbayan, President Aquino’s favored party-list group. The call to disqualify Akbayan should be seen as part of a bigger process of addressing long-standing issues in the party-list system. The abuses by some groups have been going on for so long and now Akbayan thinks it can get away with the same. Voters have a stake in cleaning up a system that has become, according to the Comelec Chair, a “big joke” .

We have three questions related to Akbayan. Is Akbayan marginalized and underrepresented? Are Akbayan’s nominees marginalized and underrepresented based on what is required under the law? Can a group claiming to represent the marginalized be an integral member of the reactionary ruling clique?

It would be helpful to analyze the basic documents of Akbayan to answer these questions. But first let us lay down the basis for eligibility of a party-list group based on our understanding of the Party-list Law and the relevant decisions of the Supreme Court.

A party-list group, to be able to participate in the party-list elections, must represent the marginalized and underrepresented sectors of society.  Not only that, its nominees must belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors that the group seeks to represent. These sectors as enumerated by the law include “labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals”.

The party-list system is not exclusive to sectoral groups but may also include political parties. However, the political parties themselves must represent actual marginalized and underrepresented sectors, meaning that they have to be organized along sectoral lines. Moreover, their nominees must also belong to these marginalized and underrepresented sectors. Failure to fulfil this means that the party-list group has no bona fide intention of truly representing the marginalized and underrepresented. This requirement,  that of representing and belonging to the marginalized and underrepresented, should be strictly observed especially for political parties to avoid a past situation wherein major political parties like LAKAS and LP also sought posts in the party-list elections.

Much of the current discussion has centered on Akbayan’s status as a party-list group whose leaders and representatives now occupy influential positions in government. With so many Palace appointees coming from the party, questions have arisen over whether Akbayan can still claim marginalization and underrepresentation.

 

Is Akbayan marginalized and underrepresented?

The answer is NO. Akbayan and its constituents, its members, are now overrepresented in government. 

Akbayan’s Constitution explains why so many of its officials are occupying posts in the Aquino regime. Its goals appear no different from the stated goals of the major political parties who also claim to represent the people and who strive to get as many elective and appointive posts in government.

In Article 2, Section 4 of its Constitution, Akbayan aims to “gain political mandate within the institutions of governance both in elective and appointive positions at the national and local levels; and work for the expansion and accumulation of such footholds of power towards catapulting the party into a position of meaningful influence in national governance.”  (We shall discuss the merits of this strategy in another post. For now, let us just look at this provision in relation to the party-list system.)

Apparently “successful” in achieving this goal, Akbayan’s expanded and accumulated “footholds of power” now include the Office of  Presidential Adviser on Political Affairs, National Anti-Poverty Commission, Commission on Human Rights, National Youth Commission, Presidential Commission on the Urban Poor, a seat in the GSIS board among others.

The problem with Akbayan is that it wants to have its cake and eat it too. It is accumulating and expanding “footholds of power” in government while at the same time claiming that as a party, it is still marginalized and underrepresented.

Akbayan claims that its government appointees are there to represent the marginalized. It says that  there is no such thing as the overrepresentation of the marginalized, and that the marginalized deserve full, not just “token representation”. Perhaps in another context this may be true. However, Akbayan is giving “full representation” only to a particular constituency or segment of the marginalized– its membership. And that constituency, as we have pointed out earlier, is already overrepresented in the Aquino government (unless Akbayan claims that its constituents also include the farmers of KMP and the workers of KMU).

Akbayan has the right to exist as a political party, nay a major political party if it so wishes to be called. It can even be said that it has the right to strive to accumulate posts just like any traditional reactionary party, if that is what it believes to be the right strategy for their group. It can even have its name splashed alongside major parties like the ruling LP, with such prominent billing that’s even ahead of other traditional parties like LDP, NP and NPC. But Akbayan is insulting the collective intelligence of the people when, despite so many positions in government coming from the same constituency,  it still claims it is marginalized and underrepresented. The party-list system is reserved for the marginalized and underrepresented.  Akbayan is neither. It is a party in power, wielding considerable clout and resources.

Akbayan’s position in government also raises questions about government funding. Unlike other marginalized groups, Akbayan has unique access to government resources, giving them an unfair advantage over other groups. For example, Comelec should look into COA’s report that the National Anti-Poverty Commission, chaired by Akbayan’s Joel Rocamorra, hired  81 contractual personnel and 19 consultants in 2011, who were paid P27.97 million out of the agency’s “maintenance and other operating expenses.” Comelec should ask if these “consultants” are Akbayan members too. And if proven so, wouldn’t that be a clear violation of the party-list law against government funding of groups?

Do we honestly think that the Akbayan officials in government, in the performance of their official functions, while using government resources, do not at the same time promote their party? That is precisely the reason why they wanted to get appointed in government, to advance their party’s interests using government  means, resources and influence.  Di naman siguro tayo pinanganak kahapon. And it’s in their constitution.

And even granting for the sake of argument that Akbayan was previously (prior to 2010) marginalized and underrepresented, such doesn’t change Akbayan’s present status. Comelec will still have to base its decision on what Akbayan is now, an integral part of the ruling coalition of President Benigno Aquino III.

This brings us to our next point.

Does Akbayan’s alliance/coalition with the reactionary Aquino ruling clique still make the former a party of the marginalized and underrepresented?

How can a group claiming to represent the marginalized be in an alliance with the ruling clique whose interests are in direct contradiction to the marginalized and underrepresented? Akbayan can scream all it wants regarding its so-called track record and history, but its alliance with and unqualified support for a regime that has churned out one anti-people policy after another disproves any claims of being a party of the marginalized and underrepresented.

Representatives of the marginalized and underrepresented should be, as a rule, oppositional to the centers of power. Those who already wield power will always find their interests diametrically opposed to those who do not have power. It is also for this reason those who already wield economic and political power cannot become part of the party-list system, because their interests are different from the marginalized. There will be times when cooperation on issues can take place, but to embrace the ruling clique without qualification, despite its overt actions to undermine the interests of the marginalized, that is simply a betrayal of the marginalized.

To take the side of the Aquino ruling clique– the concrete expression of the rule of the big landlords and big business and foreign interests— is to abandon any pretense at representing the marginalized.

Akbayan is a supporter of the reactionary, anti-people, and anti-national Aquino regime. It has a track record of subservience to this regime. It feigns “disagreement” with Aquino, only when the need arises, such as when their subservience is exposed in public. Has Akbayan at anytime, protested against Aquino? Can their track record boast of anything that would resemble a strong opposition to the anti-people policies of this regime?

When Aquino defended the inclusion of online libel in the Cybercrime Law, all Akbayan could muster was a frown and a sense of extreme “disappointment”, perhaps the same kind that you feel when your team loses a basketball game. Did they protest against Aquino? Nope. They railed against Tito Sotto though, and some of them did a photo ops at the Mabuhay Rotonda. Were they present at the SC rally on Oct 2 and 9? Nope. Did they file a petition vs the Cybercrime Law? Nope.  Have they filed amendments to the law? None that we know of.

The truth is, Akbayan has not protested against the Aquino regime on any issue. It contents itself with issuing press statements that “take exception”, “express disappointment” and whatever other cliché they can come up with. Ever seen an Akbayan rally against Oil Deregulation? Ever watched an Akbayan barricade against demolition teams? Ever heard of an Akbayan rally against US military intervention unde Aquino? Or extrajudicial killings of activists and journalists under Aquino? Or a rally against Palparan?

As far as track record goes, Akbayan can pride itself with its record of subservience to the Aquino regime. It has partnered with the Aquino regime in further marginalizing the marginalized and underrepresented. Remember Akbayan’s spirited defense of Aquino’s CCT program? As Aquino himself said during Akbayan’s Congress, “I and Akbayan think alike”.

Ironic. In its constitution, Akbayan says it will endeavor “to position AKBAYAN! in direct opposition to traditional elite rule challenging the socio-political and economic order that traditional politics seek to entrench and  perpetuate”. Either Akbayan has violated its own constitution or this constitutional provision is just not meant to be taken seriously.

Do Akbayan’s nominees belong to marginalized sectors the party claims to represent?

In Section 2 of its Constitution, Akbayan describes itself as a “mass-based, democratic and pluralist party”. In its objectives, Akbayan  says it aims to “maintain the closest possible cooperation and launch joint undertakings with the working class, peasants’ and other toilers’ mass, and other social movements including those of overseas Filipinos (OF).

Its organizational structures mentions representatives coming from, “but not limited to, the following mass movement formation: labor, peasant, women, and youth. All designated representatives shall be considered as officers of the party unit concerned.”

Akbayan’s National Council also includes representatives consisting of “two (2) each from labor and peasants, and one (1) each from the youth; women; lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders (LGBT); fisher folk; urban poor; and overseas Filipinos (OFs)”.

The Supreme Court and the Comelec have been very definite in stating that nominees must not only be advocates of the marginalized and underrepresented because advocacy is easy to feign. Nominees must belong to the marginalized and underrepresented.

Now, do any of the nominees of Akbayan- Walden Bello, and Palace appointees Undersecretary Barry Gutierrez, and Commissioner Angelina Ludovice-Katoh presently belong to any of the marginalized sectors Akbayan claims to represent in its constitution? Do they satisfy the requirements of “belonging” to these marginalized sectors?

It appears that Mr. Bello does not belong to any of the sectors Akbayan claims to represent (labor, peasant, youth, women etc), unless of course he will say that he represents “overseas Filipinos”. However, the term overseas Filipinos may not be in accord with the law as it may include any Filipino living overseas, even those who are not marginalized. It is precisely why under the party-list law, the term used is “migrant workers”.

Mr. Gutierrez, a lawyer and Palace appointee working for the Presidential Adviser on Political Affairs, also does not belong to any of the marginalized sectors Akbayan claims to represent. He is neither a laborer, peasant, youth, woman, LGBT, fisherfolk, urban poor nor “overseas Filipino”. He cannot invoke “professionals” as the sector he represents because this is not expressly stated in Akbayan’s constitution.

While it can be argued that Ms. Katoh is a women’s rights activist who worked for a development NGO in Mindanao, her current position as a Palace appointee does not makes marginalized and underrepresented. In fact in her Certificate of Acceptance (nomination), she wrote as her occupation, “Commissioner PCUP”.  At the time of her being a nominee, her current work as a presidential appointee mandates her to promote government programs such as the Conditional Cash Transfer, which in our view, is not consistent with the interests of the marginalized sectors she claims to represent. Ms. Katoh can argue that she is a woman, and therefore marginalized (same argument used by Leah Navarro of Black and White). But if that were the case, ANY woman, even Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, can claim marginalization and run in the party-list system. Comelec must draw the line somewhere, and in this case, it has to draw a line on the basis of Ms. Katoh’s position in government.

A party-list group whose nominees do not belong to the marginalized sectors they claim to represent, has no bona fide intention of representing those sectors. The Supreme Court in Ang Bagong Bayani vs Comelec has sufficiently elaborated this point.

To recap:

1. Akbayan cannot claim marginalization and underrepresentation based on its current status within the Aquino regime:  due to its numerous Palace appointees, access to government resources, and so-called “meaningful influence” within government. Its particular constituency, its members, are now quite overrepresented in government. Akbayan can still exist as a political party, in fact as a major political party, but it is no longer eligible to participate in a party-list system reserved for the marginalized and underrepresented.
2. Akbayan’s nominees apparently do not belong to the marginalized sectors that the group claims to represent. This is clearly evident from Bello who does not belong to any of the enumerated sectors of Akbayan, and that even his tenuous claim of belonging to “overseas Filipinos” may not be in accordance with the law.  Gutierrez also does not belong to any of the sectors Akbayan claims to represent, on top of the fact that his being a Palace appointee makes him anything but marginalized and underrepresented. Similarly, while Katoh may claim “belonging” to the marginalized sectors, her current position in government, in our opinion, would also make her ineligible.
3. Akbayan’s all-out, unqualified alliance with the reactionary ruling clique is in itself a betrayal of the interests of the marginalized and underrepresented.

Whatever happens to the Comelec’s decision on its accreditation, Akbayan has already exposed itself as a party in power no longer eligible for the partylist system and in direct contempt of the interest of the marginalized. Its continuing insistence on participating in the party-list system shows that it’s desire for political power far outweighs its adherence to laws, jurisprudence and plain delicadeza. Voters are now adequately forewarned. ###

Akbayan and the Cybercrime Law

We have three questions for Akbayan in relation to its position on the Cybercrime Prevention Act:

What do you really find objectionable in the law? Who do you think is accountable for this? What do you now propose to do?

Recent public statements reveal confusing positions articulated by some of Akbayan’s leaders. These pronouncement lead us to believe that Akbayan is not really serious in fighting this law, and is more interested in preserving its alliance with President Benigno Aquino III who signed the law on September 12, 2012

Let us examine Akbayan’s statement dated September 20, on the event of the commemoration of the 40^th anniversary of Martial Law.

“(W)hile the days of military rule are long gone, vestiges of its legacy have found its way to the present times. A case in point is the recently passed Cybercrime Prevention Law.”

“While we laud the intent of President Benigno Simeon Aquino III to combat child pornography, identity theft, computer related forgery and other offenses using the said law; we are alarmed that some its provisions such as its anti-libel clause are alarmingly repressive in nature.  We believe the law’s provision on libel is ill-conceived and will only serve to limit the public’s use of the internet as a venue for airing their opinions, views, and even dissent.”

The group seems to recognize the repressive nature of the online libel provisions. It talks of the vagueness of the provisions and how these are subject to abuse by authorities. However, the group’s gratuitous statements regarding Aquino’s intent at combating child pornography, identify theft and computer-related forgery are attempts to find some saving grace in the assailed law, as well as an attempt to shield their political ally in Malacanang form any more public criticisms.

 

Galit na galit kay Sotto, pero sobrang tahimik naman kay Aquino.

The group blames the internet libel provision on “cut-and-paste master, Senator Vicente Sotto III”.  While it is true Sotto inserted the provision, and that the Congressional Bicameral Committee approved the insertion,  there is absolutely no effort on the part of Akbyan to hold Aquino accountable for signing the law with Sotto’s insertions. This is just like blaming the AFP Generals for the abuses of martial law, and but leaving out Marcos who signed Proclamation 1081. It is simply absurd.

This is even more absurd when taken in the context that Palace spokespersons have consistently defended the President’s move to sign the law, saying the measure was reviewed by Palace lawyers. It means that Aquino read the insertions and saw that they were good enough to be signed into law.

And that is where the problem lies. By not seeing Aquino’s accountability in the Cybercrime Law fiasco, and by limiting their criticism of the law to the online libel provisions, Akbayan recommends measures that do not solve the problem.

From their Sept. 20 statement, we get the following proposal:

“As such, Akbayan calls on President Aquino to address the infirmities of the law by inviting media people and organizations, social movements and civil society groups to participate in the crafting of the law’s implementing rules and regulations (IRR) to negate the law’s repressive provisions and safeguard the rights and welfare of internet users. The Aquino government must swiftly act to salvage this law or otherwise the people will have no option left but to bring this to court.”

Akbayan thinks that by involving the people in the crafting of the IRR, the patently unconstitutional provisions of this law can be cured or “negated”. Good grief, any student of the law would say otherwise. The IRR cannot accomplish more than what the law sets out to do. If the law intends to criminalize online libel, the IRR cannot reverse or negate this. If the law allows the take-down of websites by the DOJ sans a court order, the IRR cannot reverse or negate this. What Akbayan is doing here is fostering the illusion that engaging the Aquino regime in crafting the IRR would somehow be able to “salvage” the law and address the public’s just concerns. This is not just reformism. It’s plain dishonesty or just sheer ignorance.

However, Akbayan does believe in the possibility of going to court, but it seems only as a last resort, when the people “have no option left”.

There seems to be changes though in their next statement on the Cybercrime law, which came 11 days after, on October 1, the same date when the LP-Akbayan-NP-NUP senatorial slate was launched in Club Filipino.

“A day before the scheduled en banc session of the Supreme Court, Akbayan Party-list today called on the high tribunal to recognize the petitions filed by several groups and concerned citizens questioning the controversial Cybercrime Prevention Law with the end view of ruling in favor of internet freedom.”

“We ask the Supreme Court to give due course to the petitions filed questioning the constitutionality of the cybercrime law by recognizing that the petitioners have legal standing as taxpayers and as citizens who use the internet and are in danger of being prosecuted under the said law,” Akbayan Vice-Chairperson Marie Chris Cabreros said.

Akbayan said it is worried that the Supreme Court might not recognize the legal standing of the petitioners as the high tribunal can argue that the petitioners cannot show that they have been injured with the passage of the cybercrime law.

It is not clear if at this point, Akbayan had already abandoned its position of participating in drafting the IRR now that the people have already taken up the “last option” of going to court. Or if Akbayan just realized the futility of their proposal on the IRR. Or if Akbayan realized there was already overwhelming support for a legal challenge before the SC and zero support for the IRR proposal. As of October 1, there were already 7 petitions filed before the Supreme Court questioning the constitutionality of various provisions of the new law.

In their October 1 statement, Akbayan’s main concern was that the court might not recognize the locus standi of the petitioners which would lead to the dismissal of the petitions. Akbayan was urging the court to recognize the standing of the petitioners and give due course to the petitions.  I find that strange since the issue of standing should primarily be the concern of the petitioners themselves, and since Akbayan is not a petitioner, well… sige na nga.

Oh yes, still no mention of Aquino’s accountability for signing the law in their October 1 statement. Which is to be expected since, as we said, that was the launch date of the LP-Akbayan-NP-NUP-NPC-LDP ultra-electro-magnetic powerhouse senatorial slate in Club Filipino. Why ruin an important occasion over a small matter such as our constitutional rights? Why issue a strongly-worded statement against Aquino when he’s about to raise your hand and endorse your senatorial bid?

However, in the October 1 statement we find some “refinements” in Akbayan’s position.

“Akbayan said it opposes parts of the law including a clause on e-libel and provisions that allow law enforcers to monitor data of people and companies on the Internet even without a court warrant. It also opposes the takedown or blocking of websites even without a court ruling.”

So it appears that their opposition to the Cybercrime Law is now based not just on online libel, but also on other unconstitutional provisions, right?

Wrong.

A tweet from Akbayan’s Risa Hontiveros also dated October 1 says that Akbayan accepts Cybercrime Law EXCEPT libel provisions (all caps hers).

And to further add confusion to the issue, Ms. Hontiveros proposes three ways to address her singular concern regarding online libel. First, for Congress presumably to repeal the provision. Second, for the Supreme Court to “side with the complainants”, and in the meantime, for someone to “neutralize” libel through IRR (again?).  All these are supposed to be happening somewhat simultaneously.

In  her October 2 ‘tweets’, Ms. Hontiveros also incited the public to “commit an act of ‘libel’” against Sotto (hanep), calling him a threat to freedom (naks), but still no word on the guy who actually signed the law, same guy who would be implementing the law. It’s like the anti-Sotto rants are deliberately being done to deflect attention away from Aquino.

Photo from this link https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=370904956321564&set=a.368422766569783.86867.368103329935060&type=1&relevant_count=1

Going back to Akbayan’s proposals, as our counsel explained, the IRR cannot reverse the provisions of a law. That track is a dead end, and Akbayan should know better than to foster the illusion that this is the way to “neutralize” this oppressive law and its unconstitutional provisions.

So that now leaves us with two options, the Supreme Court and Congress. Akbayan did not file any case before the Supreme Court. They merely urged the High Court to give the petitions due course, worried that the petitioner’s locus standi would not be recognized (sige na nga).  As of this writing Akbayan also has not filed any house bill seeking to amend the law.

So that  leaves us with?

There you have it. Because of Akbayan’s alliance with the Aquino regime, they cannot seem to truly see this fight through to the end. They will not criticize Aquino for his responsibility in signing the law (si Sotto lang may kasalanan). They will try to “salvage” the law, believing in the law’s “good intentions”, despite so many provisions that assault our freedoms. They will even convince us that the law is OK, “except” for the libel provision. They treat our efforts with the SC as a “last option”, showing “support” only after seeing overwhelming public opinion favoring the SC action (may tawag dyan eh). They will also try to lure the people into a meaningless process such as the drafting of the IRR (and tell you it’s part of their dual-tactics engagement within and outside the Executive).

For the record, I have no personal quarrel with anyone from Akbayan. And I know only a few of them personally. But I raise these issues so that the public may know. And I urge Akbayan members to raise the same to their leaders.

PS.

Kung sasagutin man ito ng Akbayan, sana umusad na tayo sa diskursong ‘RA-RJ’, ‘communist front’, ‘sumuporta kayo kay Villar’, ‘laos na ang armed struggle’ blah blah blah. Susmaryosep, sagutin nyo na lang yung tatlong tanong sa umpisa.

UPDATE: Today October 5, Pres. Aquino, Akbayan’s political benefactor, announced that he wants to keep the libel provision in the Cybercrime Law. So paano kaya ito, Akbayan? Still hoping the IRR would change things? Still not able to criticize Aquino? Still saying that the Cybercrime Law is not all that bad? Btw, the ruling clique seems to be singing the same chorus. “Let’s wait for the IRR”. Even Speaker Belmonte is not keen on amending the Cybercrime Law at this time and tells critics to “wait for the IRR”. And Malacanang has scheduled a dialogue between  Cybercrime Law critics and the DOJ, also on the issue of the IRR (on the same date as the SC en banc).

We’re being drawn to a path that leads to a cliff. Huwag magpaloko.

TOP 10 AQUINO ACHIEVEMENTS/NON-ACHIEVEMENTS FOR SONA 2012

(Mga bagay na asahan nating ibibida ng mahal na Pangulo)

 

The annual State of the Nation Address is just around the corner. Will Aquino’s speech this year be any different from his previous speeches? What are the likely accomplishments he hopes to announce on this important occasion.

Here are my guesses.

10. The 6.4% first quarter GDP growth – Aquino will say that this is proof that the country is poised for takeoff, that we’re reaping the benefits of the ‘daang matuwid’ etc. But he also did promise to bring about “inclusive growth” which sadly, the GDP growth rate does not reflect. During this period, it was the rich that got richer. Growth was focused mainly on business process outsourcing and manufacturing for exports but not so much agriculture. Only big business benefited from this so-called growth. Hunger and unemployment were still high during this period.

9. Stock market index at an all time high- He said this before in his previous SONA. Very obvious that the poor have nothing to gain from this.

8. Credit upgrade from Standard & Poor. – Like #9, the poor have nothing to gain from this since the credit upgrade only shows the country can borrow more because it can pay more (no thanks to revenue measures such as the VAT on oil and power).

7. Increased number of CCT beneficiaries – Having more CCT beneficiaries now doesn’t doesn’t exactly indicate a healthy economy. It just means that there are more poor people relying on government dole-outs because government and the domestic economy can’t create new jobs.
6. $1 billion loan to IMF – Aquino will probably praise the fact that the country is now a lender, no longer just a borrower. Imagine the Philippines doing its share to bail out Europe. While this may look good for the foreign business community, this has no impact on the poor and does not change our status as a country deep in debt.

5. Gross international reserves at an all time high- While true, this is largely because of the remittances/ forex coming from OFW’s. Noynoy can’t claim credit for that.

4. New Mining EO – It’s clear that only the mining firms were happy with this (no matter how hard PDI tries to make it look like anti-mining groups “cheered” this EO). Unlike previous items on this list, this one will surely have an impact on the poor. The measure will make lives more miserable for affected communities.

3. Plunder raps filed, finally, vs. GMA- After two years in office, the first plunder case vs. GMA has finally been filed in court. It would be good to see other cases filed soon, and not just during the period before the SONA. Still missing however are the cases involving gross human rights violations of GMA and her cohorts.

2. The Corona impeachment – Expect Aquino to thank Congress for he’s now on the verge of controlling all three branches of government.

1. The people now trust government – With so few accomplishments during the past two years, expect the President to fall back on the intangibles; “Pwede na uli mangarap”, “trust in government restored”, among other motherhood statements which again, have no impact on the poor.

 

 

See you in the streets on July 23.

Private defense contractor helps US regain foothold in former PH base

A private defense contractor has posted the first US Navy-related job opening in 20 years in Subic, Zambales, Philippines. From the job description, it appears that US warships will be frequenting the former US naval base. The position of project manager is open only to US citizens and requires a Secret-level security clearance and about 15 years experience in the US Navy.

Umbrella group Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN), who campaigned for the rejection of the US bases in 1991, says the private contractors are being used to circumvent the Philippine constitutional ban on US bases by making it appear that military operations are mere commercial transactions. US warships, including an advanced nuclear attack submarine, have had frequent port calls in the Philippines this year.

The job opening was issued by AMSEC, a subsidiary of private military contractor Huntington Ingalls Industries which is the biggest builder of nuclear and non-nuclear ships for the US Navy and Coast Guard. AMSEC is in partnership with Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction Philippines to provide maintenance, repair and logistics services to the U.S. Navy and other customers in the western Pacific region.

“For more than a century, HII has built more ships in more ship classes than any other U.S. naval shipbuilder,” HII’s website says.

“This is a part-time position with a focus on growing U.S. Navy and Military Sealift Command maintenance work at a commercial ship construction ship yard. Work hours are expected to grow as maintenance work increases, and occasional travel to the U.S. or Singapore may be required,” the AMSEC job placement says.

From this ad, it appears that the US is serious in using Subic for its warships. In a subtle way, the US is transforming a civilian facility back into a military hub through the use of private defense contractors. The use of these contractors to provide logistics and other support services for US warships may also be intended to circumvent the Constitutional ban on US bases absent a treaty ratified by the Senate. US bases were kicked out from the Philippines in 1991 and both the US and PH governments are careful not to indicate that they intend to bring back the bases now.

Instead of the US Navy itself that operates maintenance and logistics support services, they get a private contractor to do it so it won’t be so obvious that the US bases are back.

The US would make it appear that these are mere commercial transactions between the US Navy and private firms, but there is no mistaking the military character of the operations that will be conducted in Subic. The high-level security clearance and lengthy US navy experience required for the position of AMSEC project manager shows the sensitive nature of the job. The private contractor HII is the biggest producer of US nuclear and non-nuclear warships.

It won’t be long before full-blown logistics and servicing operations for US navy warships are conducted in Subic.

According to the job advertisement a successful candidate will have “a thorough knowledge of U.S. Navy readiness organizations, budgets, and leaders; a familiarity with surface ship maintenance industry competitors; and an in-depth knowledge of U.S. Navy contracts and programs. The candidate will participate in assessing shipyard repair capability, development of the strategy to grow this capability, and then drive the execution of the strategy”.

This is not the first time private military contractors have operated in the Philippines. DynCorp, a logistics provider for the US military has done work in the past for US military facilities in the Philippines, including the building of US forward bases in Mindanao. A DynCorp subsidiary recruited Filipino translator Gregan Cardeno, who later died under mysterious circumstances a day after he started work with US troops in Marawi province in Mindanao. The notorious Blackwater private military contractor was also reported by media to be operating out of Subic in the past. Private contractor Corporate Training Unit, an affiliate of Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR)-Haliburton meanwhile operated in the former Clark Airbase.

Privatize military contractors make the US government a bit removed from any direct accountability to the Philippine government. They however remain part of the US military machinery and we may be seeing their increasing involvement in the Philippines as the US shifts most of its warships to Asia in the next ten years. ###

See links below

http://bamboobugle.blogspot.com/2012/06/first-us-navy-job-to-return-to-subic.html

http://bamboobugle.blogspot.com/2012/04/hanjin-subic-queued-up-to-be-us-navy.html

“Glowing legacy” ba kamo?

Photo by PDI

First thing I read today was the Philippine Daily Inquirer’s shocking banner story “Cory Aquino’s ‘glowing legacy’: Aquino kin back immediate distribution of land”.

The headline somehow makes it appear that land distribution was the intention all along of former president Cory Aquino when she embarked on the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program some 25 years ago. That all this time, the Luisita landlords had the best intentions for the farm workers. And that, by implication, if the first Aquino regime wanted this, then surely the second Aquino regime shared the same vision.

The statements of the counsel for the Hacienda Luisita made me sick to my stomach, as I’m sure it did other farmer advocates.

“The Cojuangco family expresses its full confidence that the Supreme Court decision regarding the fate of Hacienda Luisita is a just resolution for all parties concerned,” said Antonio Ligon, hacienda counsel and spokesperson.

“Now that the high court maintains that land distribution is the only resolution, the Cojuangco family guarantees its full cooperation in the expeditious completion of this process and put all other issues to rest,” he said.

While the family had sought a reconsideration of the high tribunal’s Nov. 22, 2011, ruling, Ligon said the court’s final decision on the decades-old dispute was “a verdict the Cojuangco family embraces.”

“(This) should be a glowing legacy for the late former President Corazon Cojuangco Aquino,” he said.

“It cannot be argued that Mrs. Aquino made decisive moves to place Hacienda Luisita in the 1980s under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program although the preference of farmer-beneficiaries for stock distribution option (SDO) prevailed in at least three referendums over land distribution.”

Now that the farmers are on the verge of claiming the land that is rightfully theirs, the Luisita management wants to rewrite history, give itself a pat on the back, and perhaps make the current president look good in the process. (Why PDI editors dignify and give so much space to HLI’s gratuitous and self-serving statements, I really don’t know.)

“Glowing legacy” ba kamo? How about a legacy of deception and failure? Because that’s what the last 25 years of Mrs. Aquino’s CARP has amounted to for the farmers of Luisita. The way the Luisita management speaks, it’s as if they had the best intentions for the farmers at the onset; that the management, like Cory, really wanted land reform.

Cripes, if this were true, then the farmers were wrong to rise up against the Cojuangco-Aquinos. The strike in 2004 was totally unncecessary. The massacre of strikers and the assassination of farmers’ supporters, all those were for naught because, as Ligon says, Mrs. Aquino had wanted to place the sugar estate under her government’s land reform program from the start.

Wow, that’s even worse than Joel Rocamora claiming that this is a victory for Benigno Aquino’s land reform program. (Isa pa itong mga nakikisakay na tagumpay daw ng CARPER itong Luisita ruling).

Anyone familiar with Cory Aquino’s CARP knows that a provision in the law allowed landlords to retain control of their estates by subjecting these to a “Stock Distribution Option”. Under this scheme, farmers will be given shares of stocks instead of actual land. The scheme ensured that effective control of the land remained with the big landlords. Such was the case in Luisita where the shares of the farmers amounted to only 33% while the Cojuangco-Aquino management was able to bloat its shares to 66%. From that time on, farmers worked in miserable and oppressive conditions.

The failure of the SDO to improve the lives of farmers became the subject of a strike by farmworkers, a decision by the DAR, the PARC and eventually, the Supreme Court. The final ruling of the SC effectively junked the SDO and paved the way for actual land distribution. The SC ruling is a partial rebuke of the SDO of Cory Aquino’s CARP.

Now that farmers are getting their due, the Luisita management wishes us to believe in its benevolence.  HLI tries to assure us of its full cooperation with the decision. It is after all, a decision that the Cojuangco family “embraces”.

Really?

The statement that HLI will cooperate is also calibrated to take the heat off President Benigno Aquino III who up to now has not released a statement on the matter. Ligon wants to end public speculation on whether Aquino will press his family to comply with the decision.

For the record, the HLI management has never stopped scheming and maneuvering to retain their vast estate. They are notorious for not showing good faith. One time, it drafted a sham “compromise agreement” and gave token amounts of money to the farmers for them to sign the pact, in order to preempt the decision the High Court. We have not forgotten that. Up to the end, the HLI management even makes mention of three sham referendums that allegedly affirmed the farmers’ support for the SDO.

If there appears to be a change of tone in the statements of HLI, it’s because they know that there a very little legal options left for them at the moment. They know that they have been soundly defeated in the main legal arena. They know that there is overwhelming public support for the farmers of Luisita.

I end this piece by paraphrasing a message from a journalist friend who has watched the legal developments closely. He says that the victory of the Luisita struggle “is a glowing legacy of the national democratic peasant movement” in forwarding the cause of genuine land reform.

This victory belongs to the farmers and the people, and not to any landlord/president, past or present. To those like Ligon and the HLI management who are claiming otherwise, di na kayo nahiya. Ang kupal lang.

The road ahead for Luisita

Today farmers of Hacienda Luisita were overcome with tears of joy as they waited for the announcement of the Supreme Court’s final ruling on the Luisita dispute. The SC voted 14-0 in favor of land distribution, upholding an earlier ruling. The court also voted 8-6 in its decision to peg the value of the Luisita land at 1989 levels, instead of the 2006 valuation that management was pushing for. Obviously management wanted a bigger “just compensation” before they lose control of the land. Their motion however was denied.

Many have sacrificed their lives in the course of the struggle. A memorial marker stands at the Gate 1 of the Luisita Central Azucarera de Tarlac, where the names of the Luisita martyrs are inscribed.

The battle for land that has raged on for decades now reaches another turning point. The Luisita management said they will comply with the SC ruling, though they have yet to get a copy of the decision. Luisita lawyer Atty.  Antonio Ligon said that the valuation of the land, even if done based on the 1989 period of reckoning, will have to undergo a process. He hinted that even in 1989, the land had undergone “improvements”. So it is possible that HLI will still attempt to get more than what they should.  They may use these arguments to further delay land distribution until they get more for the land. “The actual value of the land will still be determined by the Special Agrarian Court because that is what is in the law. It is not automatic,” Ligon said. He cited “other factors that will be considered” and that this is “subject to study and investigation”.

When asked if HLI can still challenge the valuation done by the Special Agrarian Court, the Luisita lawyer answered in the affirmative.

This whole concept of “just compensation”, which has been echoed by President Aquino himself whose family owns Luisita, will likely remain a thorny issue.

In an attempt to downplay the importance of and distribution, Ligon said that once land is distributed to the farmers, “they’re on their own”.

The fight of the farmers is not yet over. Collective vigilance is now necessary in ensuring that the HLI management and the Aquino government comply with the SC ruling.Maneuvers of the management and the government to delay land distribution should be exposed and opposed.

We do intend to prove Ligon wrong. The farmers are not “on their own” since many continue to support them and their just struggle for land. The farmers will be fine even if they are divorced from HLI. And along with land distribution, government should provide support services to the farmers.

The road ahead for Luisita remains full of challenges, but on this day, the Luisita farmers have earned every right to celebrate their victory.