Rise up my demented soul, get to your feet
Lift those lazy browse, cast away your apathy.
Slumber not this time, you need to act swiftly
Lest your time be cut short, your institution cast to oblivion.
Brace up yourself, my blood, my brood; enough is enough
Your drunken stupor I need not, your indolence hurting like gout.
Leading a lifestyle beyond your means, talking nonsense though much needs to be addressed
Restrain yourself, have a goal and discipline. Might I ask too for your love and caring?
Rise up my spirit, my pride; give me stability, pride and strength
I am way too famished and tired of being led on, laughed at and dictated upon.
How I wish to hide my face whenever I hear you and of you
Claiming to be somebody you are not, acting to be whiter than the whites.
Must you forget the teachings and the valor of the fathers?
Must you go for the Uncles as if the essence of 1896 is a bygone?
Arise, the entirety of me, arise! How long must I suffer till you come to your senses?
Let me not wait for eternity, I beg. Let me out of this cage, allow me to be free.
Do you wish that I go on existing without truly living?
Rise up… Rise up… Rise up!
- Halog, Nayon, Lamut, Ifugao
03262006
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
CARP is not CRAP
Talking about whether or not to extend CARP without scrutinizing the history and objectives of Philippine agrarian reform experiences is comparable to a proverbial house that has been built on the sand. So allow me to tackle first the general goal in implementing agrarian reform, then I shall take on a brief history of the Philippine agrarian reform experiences.
Agrarian reforms are conceptualized and implemented by various governments all over the world with the aim of increasing the number of middle class (out of the poor population) by means of land distribution, and conversely forcing the wealthy and former landed gentry to enter into enterprises and other industries. This arrangement has been viewed as a pre-requisite for a country’s development and industrialization. Apparently, the ultimate goal of an agrarian reform is toward the industrialization and well-distribution of wealth in a certain country…a country where there exists no strong cacique system or exclusive economic circle in the society…a country where majority of the population own and cultivate a land they can call their own…a country where the people are empowered and are not very much dependent on government subsidies and dole-outs for their general well-being.
The Philippines, for its part, has seen a number of attempts toward agrarian reform. During the first few years of American administration in our country, the Americans recognized the need for an agrarian reform due to the chronic poverty level of almost every Filipino, which was but the natural result of the inhumane and archaic 333-year Spanish colonial rule in the archipelago. Unfortunately, their (Americans) efforts via the Philippine Organic Act of 1902, Land Registration Act of 1902, and Public Land Act of 1903 failed to deliver the sought after purposes of these statutes. Ironically, these laws perpetuated and emphasized the already existing gap between the rich and the poor, because the rich were the ones who astronomically gained out of these three laws passed by the Philippine Commision. The rich were able to expand their lands in a legal way and even included in their coverage the traditional lands owned and cultivated by the poor; whereas the poor and uneducated Filipinos lost the lands they cultivated since they had no money to pay for the surveying and titling of their respective plots.
The oppressive poverty of the people led to the so-called Sakdalista Rebellion in 1935. To appease the rebels, President Quezon attempted on another arrangement between the small farmers and rich landholders by means of the 50-50 profit sharing scheme. Obviously, the scheme did not work because the pages of history during the terms of Presidents Roxas and Quirino spoke of these two former presidents yet again trying their hands on agrarian reform.
Then came the administration of President Magsaysay and his Tenancy Acts of 1954 and 1955. Yes, he was able to appease and make the Hukbalahaps return to the civil society. Yes, he was able to make people from Luzon and the Visayas migrate to Mindanao so as to cultivate the vast and very fertile soil of the region. However, there was a negative externality. With the ingress/intrusion of these local migrants, the original and native inhabitants of Mindanao were driven out of the lands they used to cultivate. They (aborigines) were forced to leave the plains or coastal areas and retreat to the hinterlands of Mindanao because they alleged that those Christian migrants treated and dealt with the natives in inhumane manners, such as forced evacuation at gunpoint. The direct result: The birth of the MIM renamed as MNLF (then later on, MILF and Abu Sayyaf Group) and the decades-long (and still persisting) secessionist movement down south. So still, I say that Magsaysay’s agrarian reform program failed and did not address the problem of chronic landlessness in the Philippine society. As a matter of fact, his policy inadvertedly bore another big problem in the current Philippine society, and that is the secessionist movement, as i mentioned a while back.
It was only during the term of President Diosdado Macapagal that the Philippines saw the first move toward a progressive land redistribution via his Agricultural Land Reform Code. Unfortunately, the caciques of his time, threatened by this progressive program of Macapagal, managed to drive him out of office and instituted Ferdinand Marcos in the elections of 1965.
Fortunately, Marcos upheld the spirit of Macapagal’s aborted land reform by implementing Presidential Decree 27, a drive toward land redistribution to small farmers and the creation of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) as a consequence thereof. Unfortunately, his land reform program affected only corn and palay lands and failed to deliver the much needed support services (access to credit/capital, subsidized fertilizers and seedlings, technical know-how, post-harvest facilities, etc.) needed by farmers. Then on June 10, 1988, President Aquino signed into law her legacy--the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law that instituted that which we now know as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
Together with other government agencies and the Land Bank of the Philippines, DAR was mandated to implement within ten-year’s time the CARP in all agricultural lands, public or private, and provide the support services needed by the farmers in order to make the utopian dreams and aspirations of a genuine land reform come true in our country. Together with DENR, DAR was mandated to redistribute unto farmers 7.2 million hectares of agricultural lands.
After the originally mandated 10 years and another ten-year extension granted by the Philippine congress in 1998, the issue on a genuine agrarian reform persists in the current Philippine society because of its perceived failure to deliver. I wish not to voice out my opinion as to the success or failure of the CARP, but let me just point out that there is indeed a need to extend the life and financial requirements of DAR and CARP as a whole in order to attain farmers empowerment.
Yes, CARP is not a complete failure neither a success because it has somehow redistributed (in paper) agricultural lands to poor farm workers and peasants. Out of the original 7.2million hectares of land for redistribution, there remains 1.2million hectares classified as doable cases, whereas another contested 600,000 hectares are classified as “problematic”. (The owners of these contested lands happen to be caciques and powerful political and business families, who refuse to submit their lands for agrarian reform. Examples: Haciendas Yulo, Luisita, and those owned by the Arroyos, Alcantaras, Danding Cojuanco, the Aranetas, and the Ayalas.)
Yes, CARP has somehow alleviated the economic status of a lot of agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) by providing subsidies, post-harvest facilities, and access to capital. Unfortunately, these support services are available only to ARBs who live in government-established agrarian reform communities (ARCs). All over the Philippines, there are only about 1,800 ARCs, with each ARC consisting of 3,000 ARBs or 5.4million farmers out of the total 30+million farmers in our country. In interviews I conducted among leaders of farmers’ union and organizations, I was informed that the support services are open only to farmers living in ARCs. As a matter of fact, LandBank refuses to extend credit to non-ARC cooperatives, so with subsidized fertilizers and seedlings and solar dryers that remain only to be dreams to the immense majority of the Philippine farmers/peasantry, who happen to be living in and tilling lands outside of the ARC coverage. The question now is, what is to be done with these 24million non-ARC farmers?
There are more issues and problems sorrounding the proposed CARPER Bill (HB 4077). Some groups refuse another CARP extension because they perceived CARP as a failure. Others prefer to scrap the CARPER Bill in favor of Crispin Beltran’s Genuine Agrarian Refrom Program (HB 3059). And still others, including the CBCP, favor another CARP extension because they believe that the goals of CARP are not yet fully achieved.
For my part as a student of public administration and as a concerned citizen of our beloved country, I believe that the CARPER Bill must be passed into law, PROVIDED that the insertions to the bill during the House of Representatives’ session last December 16, 2008 be scrapped out. The inserted provision I am speaking of is that of the exemption from CARP of all agricultural lands dedicated to export crops such as bananas, pineapple, copra, etc. More to this, I also approve of the CARPER Bill if our congressmen will repeal the lenient provision for land conversion of lands classified for agrarian reform. And I will gladly and actively campaign for it if the bill will include the non-ARCs as beneficiaries and accessible to the support services of CARP being provided by various non-farmer stakeholders of CARP.
It must be understood that the first-two provisions I mentioned above kill the spirit and real purpose of the agrarian reform program of the government. We must bear in mind that much of the remaining 1.8million hectares of CARP-able lands are owned by rich families and haciendero congressmen (111 out of the total 238 ++ congressmen are big landowners), with these lands in question devoted either to cash crops or to land conversions, such as that into golf courses, industrial and residential lands. It is my opinion that these big landowners treat and view their lands in terms of the profits the lands can give them, and not in light of food sustainability, sustainable use of land resources, poverty alleviation, and other macroeconomic long-term benefits that the Philippines can obtain out of a genuine and efficient land reform program.
As to where I presently stand, I support CARP extension because i believe that a genuine agrarian reform has not yet been [completely] implemented in our country. I support CARP extension because I know that we, as a nation, can gain much from it if it were to be faithfully implemented regardless of the political and economic clout of the landed gentry. And as in the case of Korea and Taiwan (which, by the way, are share a very similar history with the Philippines because they were subjected to Japanese colonialism, just as the Philippines was subjected to Spanish and American colonialism), I believe that a reformed and empowered agrarian reform can lead our country into industrialization and a deeper consciousness of our race, our needs, our economy, our environment, and our strengths and limitations as a nation.
The GARB (HB3059) espouses a very utopian society. It espouses very progressive ideas and land reform concepts. Indeed, it is very good…but only in theory. Because in practice and given the culture and weak (cacique or elite-controlled) state that the Philippines has, the mandatory land transfer or land sale provision of this bill is already a reason on why almost half (if not a great majority) of our congressmen take it as if it were never proposed in Congress. A person cannot go against his class, as a cliche goes.
Ipaglaban ang karapatan ng mga maliliit na magsasaka, mangingisda, manggagawa, kababaihan, at ng mga batang walang tahanan!
With these, I rest my case.
Ipaglaban ang karapatan ng mga maliliit na magsasaka, mangingisda, manggagawa, kababaihan, at ng mga batang walang tahanan!
Agrarian reforms are conceptualized and implemented by various governments all over the world with the aim of increasing the number of middle class (out of the poor population) by means of land distribution, and conversely forcing the wealthy and former landed gentry to enter into enterprises and other industries. This arrangement has been viewed as a pre-requisite for a country’s development and industrialization. Apparently, the ultimate goal of an agrarian reform is toward the industrialization and well-distribution of wealth in a certain country…a country where there exists no strong cacique system or exclusive economic circle in the society…a country where majority of the population own and cultivate a land they can call their own…a country where the people are empowered and are not very much dependent on government subsidies and dole-outs for their general well-being.
The Philippines, for its part, has seen a number of attempts toward agrarian reform. During the first few years of American administration in our country, the Americans recognized the need for an agrarian reform due to the chronic poverty level of almost every Filipino, which was but the natural result of the inhumane and archaic 333-year Spanish colonial rule in the archipelago. Unfortunately, their (Americans) efforts via the Philippine Organic Act of 1902, Land Registration Act of 1902, and Public Land Act of 1903 failed to deliver the sought after purposes of these statutes. Ironically, these laws perpetuated and emphasized the already existing gap between the rich and the poor, because the rich were the ones who astronomically gained out of these three laws passed by the Philippine Commision. The rich were able to expand their lands in a legal way and even included in their coverage the traditional lands owned and cultivated by the poor; whereas the poor and uneducated Filipinos lost the lands they cultivated since they had no money to pay for the surveying and titling of their respective plots.
The oppressive poverty of the people led to the so-called Sakdalista Rebellion in 1935. To appease the rebels, President Quezon attempted on another arrangement between the small farmers and rich landholders by means of the 50-50 profit sharing scheme. Obviously, the scheme did not work because the pages of history during the terms of Presidents Roxas and Quirino spoke of these two former presidents yet again trying their hands on agrarian reform.
Then came the administration of President Magsaysay and his Tenancy Acts of 1954 and 1955. Yes, he was able to appease and make the Hukbalahaps return to the civil society. Yes, he was able to make people from Luzon and the Visayas migrate to Mindanao so as to cultivate the vast and very fertile soil of the region. However, there was a negative externality. With the ingress/intrusion of these local migrants, the original and native inhabitants of Mindanao were driven out of the lands they used to cultivate. They (aborigines) were forced to leave the plains or coastal areas and retreat to the hinterlands of Mindanao because they alleged that those Christian migrants treated and dealt with the natives in inhumane manners, such as forced evacuation at gunpoint. The direct result: The birth of the MIM renamed as MNLF (then later on, MILF and Abu Sayyaf Group) and the decades-long (and still persisting) secessionist movement down south. So still, I say that Magsaysay’s agrarian reform program failed and did not address the problem of chronic landlessness in the Philippine society. As a matter of fact, his policy inadvertedly bore another big problem in the current Philippine society, and that is the secessionist movement, as i mentioned a while back.
It was only during the term of President Diosdado Macapagal that the Philippines saw the first move toward a progressive land redistribution via his Agricultural Land Reform Code. Unfortunately, the caciques of his time, threatened by this progressive program of Macapagal, managed to drive him out of office and instituted Ferdinand Marcos in the elections of 1965.
Fortunately, Marcos upheld the spirit of Macapagal’s aborted land reform by implementing Presidential Decree 27, a drive toward land redistribution to small farmers and the creation of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) as a consequence thereof. Unfortunately, his land reform program affected only corn and palay lands and failed to deliver the much needed support services (access to credit/capital, subsidized fertilizers and seedlings, technical know-how, post-harvest facilities, etc.) needed by farmers. Then on June 10, 1988, President Aquino signed into law her legacy--the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law that instituted that which we now know as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
Together with other government agencies and the Land Bank of the Philippines, DAR was mandated to implement within ten-year’s time the CARP in all agricultural lands, public or private, and provide the support services needed by the farmers in order to make the utopian dreams and aspirations of a genuine land reform come true in our country. Together with DENR, DAR was mandated to redistribute unto farmers 7.2 million hectares of agricultural lands.
After the originally mandated 10 years and another ten-year extension granted by the Philippine congress in 1998, the issue on a genuine agrarian reform persists in the current Philippine society because of its perceived failure to deliver. I wish not to voice out my opinion as to the success or failure of the CARP, but let me just point out that there is indeed a need to extend the life and financial requirements of DAR and CARP as a whole in order to attain farmers empowerment.
Yes, CARP is not a complete failure neither a success because it has somehow redistributed (in paper) agricultural lands to poor farm workers and peasants. Out of the original 7.2million hectares of land for redistribution, there remains 1.2million hectares classified as doable cases, whereas another contested 600,000 hectares are classified as “problematic”. (The owners of these contested lands happen to be caciques and powerful political and business families, who refuse to submit their lands for agrarian reform. Examples: Haciendas Yulo, Luisita, and those owned by the Arroyos, Alcantaras, Danding Cojuanco, the Aranetas, and the Ayalas.)
Yes, CARP has somehow alleviated the economic status of a lot of agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) by providing subsidies, post-harvest facilities, and access to capital. Unfortunately, these support services are available only to ARBs who live in government-established agrarian reform communities (ARCs). All over the Philippines, there are only about 1,800 ARCs, with each ARC consisting of 3,000 ARBs or 5.4million farmers out of the total 30+million farmers in our country. In interviews I conducted among leaders of farmers’ union and organizations, I was informed that the support services are open only to farmers living in ARCs. As a matter of fact, LandBank refuses to extend credit to non-ARC cooperatives, so with subsidized fertilizers and seedlings and solar dryers that remain only to be dreams to the immense majority of the Philippine farmers/peasantry, who happen to be living in and tilling lands outside of the ARC coverage. The question now is, what is to be done with these 24million non-ARC farmers?
There are more issues and problems sorrounding the proposed CARPER Bill (HB 4077). Some groups refuse another CARP extension because they perceived CARP as a failure. Others prefer to scrap the CARPER Bill in favor of Crispin Beltran’s Genuine Agrarian Refrom Program (HB 3059). And still others, including the CBCP, favor another CARP extension because they believe that the goals of CARP are not yet fully achieved.
For my part as a student of public administration and as a concerned citizen of our beloved country, I believe that the CARPER Bill must be passed into law, PROVIDED that the insertions to the bill during the House of Representatives’ session last December 16, 2008 be scrapped out. The inserted provision I am speaking of is that of the exemption from CARP of all agricultural lands dedicated to export crops such as bananas, pineapple, copra, etc. More to this, I also approve of the CARPER Bill if our congressmen will repeal the lenient provision for land conversion of lands classified for agrarian reform. And I will gladly and actively campaign for it if the bill will include the non-ARCs as beneficiaries and accessible to the support services of CARP being provided by various non-farmer stakeholders of CARP.
It must be understood that the first-two provisions I mentioned above kill the spirit and real purpose of the agrarian reform program of the government. We must bear in mind that much of the remaining 1.8million hectares of CARP-able lands are owned by rich families and haciendero congressmen (111 out of the total 238 ++ congressmen are big landowners), with these lands in question devoted either to cash crops or to land conversions, such as that into golf courses, industrial and residential lands. It is my opinion that these big landowners treat and view their lands in terms of the profits the lands can give them, and not in light of food sustainability, sustainable use of land resources, poverty alleviation, and other macroeconomic long-term benefits that the Philippines can obtain out of a genuine and efficient land reform program.
As to where I presently stand, I support CARP extension because i believe that a genuine agrarian reform has not yet been [completely] implemented in our country. I support CARP extension because I know that we, as a nation, can gain much from it if it were to be faithfully implemented regardless of the political and economic clout of the landed gentry. And as in the case of Korea and Taiwan (which, by the way, are share a very similar history with the Philippines because they were subjected to Japanese colonialism, just as the Philippines was subjected to Spanish and American colonialism), I believe that a reformed and empowered agrarian reform can lead our country into industrialization and a deeper consciousness of our race, our needs, our economy, our environment, and our strengths and limitations as a nation.
The GARB (HB3059) espouses a very utopian society. It espouses very progressive ideas and land reform concepts. Indeed, it is very good…but only in theory. Because in practice and given the culture and weak (cacique or elite-controlled) state that the Philippines has, the mandatory land transfer or land sale provision of this bill is already a reason on why almost half (if not a great majority) of our congressmen take it as if it were never proposed in Congress. A person cannot go against his class, as a cliche goes.
Ipaglaban ang karapatan ng mga maliliit na magsasaka, mangingisda, manggagawa, kababaihan, at ng mga batang walang tahanan!
With these, I rest my case.
Ipaglaban ang karapatan ng mga maliliit na magsasaka, mangingisda, manggagawa, kababaihan, at ng mga batang walang tahanan!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)