This land is mine

By Amelia  H.C. Ylagan

Spanish colonial law prohibited Spaniards from taking land already occupied by the natives…(But as) native chiefs…were coopted into the colonial administration, they later started selling or donating great parcels of these lands to the friar orders in the name of their villages or towns. That was how the vast friar lands, and later the vast private landholdings came to be, in the 300 years of the Philippines under Spain.

In her 1998 paper, “Twenty Years of CARP,” Aurea Miclat-Teves traces the history of real property ownership in the country and landlord-tenant relationships that necessarily developed to till the huge tracts of land. The opening of the Philippines to world trade in the late 18th century increased demand for Philippine produce, and this “intensified the system of exploitation and abuses” on subjugated tenants and sub-tenants by the friar-landowners and landlords, including “the middle layer of non-cultivating leaseholders calledinquilinos, mostly Chinese mestizos and former native chieftains who had amassed wealth.” Social justice for the small farmers is an old issue for the Philippines.

The earliest efforts on agrarian land reform were when the Philippines was sold to the US for $20 million in 1898, after the Spanish-American War. The Americans encouraged settlements for the disadvantaged, while private property limited to 16 hectares was regulated under the Torrens Title framework. Still, the haciendas and plantations of the mestizerias (Spanish- and Chinese-descent landed rich) were allowed to survive, some historians say because the Americans expediently used ascendancy of this elite socio-economic group as the initial leadership clique for the so-called “government of the people, by the people”

World War II interrupted serious efforts at egalitarian land reform.

Independence was granted to the Philippines on July 4, 1946, and Filipinos had to grapple with setting up the republican government, where land reform was a later task to do. Meantime, social unrest festered in the hungry rural areas, where the economic rehabilitation after the War was slow. It was the indulgent ambience for the leftist protests and power-show of the 1950s and ‘60s. Came then the 1962 Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) with make-over changes for the Catholic Church — explicitly directing clergy, religious and the laity to work for the poor and support land reform, among other growing social and human rights concerns.

Then President Ferdinand Marcos’ 1972 Code of Agrarian Reform of the Philippines was the official starting point for land reform. Some point to the crony system in the dictatorship that favored big land owners and weakened the efforts for reform. After Corazon Aquino was installed as President by the 1986 EDSA I People Power Revolution, Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as the 1988 Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), was signed into law and became the legal basis for the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).

The 10-year life and budget of the Aquino CARP expired in 2008, and there were still 1.2 million hectares of agricultural land to be redistributed to landless farmers. The Philippine Congress was generally perceived to have reluctantly passed the five-year CARP Extension with Reforms Law (CARPER), inherited by Cory’s son, Benigno Simeon Aquino III, from the extraordinarily expanded nine-year regime of his political archrival Gloria Arroyo.

According to a 2009 activist blog “Bulatlat”: among other provisions, the CARPER bill mandates that private agricultural lands — the type that the Arroyos and the Cojuangcos own — can only be distributed if the original CARP managed to distribute 90% of its target. But CARP, despite the two decades it had, only distributed less than half of it. It’s an impossible provision that only underscores what progressive farmers have been saying all along — that CARPER is bogus.

Socially-conscious groups Anakpawis, Bayan Muna, Gabriela Women’s Party and Kabataan were cited as against the conversion of land to other uses (e.g., residential subdivisions, cyberparks, etc.) beyond the close to a million hectares that already slipped from CARP as of 2002. Also objectionable is the option to landowners for “alternatives to the physical distribution of lands, such as production or profit-sharing, labor administration, and distribution of shares of stocks which will allow beneficiaries to receive a just share of the fruits of the lands they work.”

Some more than 5,000 hectares owned by Eduardo Cojuangco in Pontevedra, La Carlota City, La Castellana and Himamaylan evaded physical distribution to farmers under CARP by creative stock option and joint-venture schemes, which fully involve the farmers in the liabilities without full and direct ownership of the land. Such, likewise, is the exception of nearly 6,500 hectares of Hacienda Luisita (owned by the Cojuangco family of Tarlac), where the farmers were given shares of the company under the stock-distribution option instead of physical land distribution.

Of course the only sympathy in agrarian land conflicts should be for the poor framers, forever the cult symbols of the oppressed and defenseless in society; the rich landowners can always take care of themselves every which way. That is the instinctive politically correct thinking. In 2001, the then newly-installed President Gloria Arroyo promised to distribute the 157-hectare Hacienda Bacan in Negros Occidental’s Guintubhan village in Isabela town, with the other pieces of agricultural land owned by the Arroyo family (in the name of her husband, Mike Arroyo) to farmers under the CARP program. But nothing happened to the promise, and in 2008 the protesting farmers who walked all the way from Negros (bridged by the RORO barges) were jailed for subversion, according to a report by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism.

In view of their similar reluctance to yield their landholdings to the small farmers under CARP, it can only be judged the utmost crudeness for the Arroyo sympathizers to rile up the farmers claiming Hacienda Luisita against PNoy Aquino — as was shamelessly done during the impeachment trial of ousted Chief Justice Renato Corona, midnight appointee of Arroyo, and opportunistically self-proclaimed “Defender of the Hacienda Luisita framers.”

And now the Hacienda Luisita farmers are up in arms against Aquino, and are stronger in their self-righteousness by the invaluable support of the CBCP (Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines). The farmers are certainly justified in their issues, but the politicians hoping for political mileage in the coming 2013 elections are low-down devious for the havoc they are selfishly wreaking. Alas, that the land reform issues in our flailing, struggling country have become so pathetically political – the purity of the fight for noble justice and equality has been so tarnished.

You have no choice, President Aquino. Settle the Hacienda Luisita problem in favor of the farmers soonest, and put away the deadly weapon of your evil detractors. ahcylagan@yahoo.com

 

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: Obama Should Press Aquino to Tackle Abuses

Justice Remains Elusive for Victims of Past Abuses

(Washington, DC, June 7, 2012) – US President Barack Obama should press Philippine President Benigno Aquino III to bring to justice security forces implicated in serious human rights abuses, Human Rights Watch said today. Obama will be the host for a visit by the Philippine president in Washington, DC, beginning on June 8, 2012.

Philippines security forces since 2001 have been implicated in hundreds of cases of extrajudicial killings, torture, and enforced disappearances, Human Rights Watch said. Victims have included leftist activists, journalists, alleged insurgents, environmentalists, and clergy. Killings have dropped significantly since President Aquino took office in 2010, but new cases have been reported and few of those responsible have been held accountable.

“Obama needs to speak frankly with Aquino about addressing Philippine security forces’ abusive record,” said John Sifton, Asia advocacy director at Human Rights Watch. “Accountability for abuses is not only a matter of justice for victims, but vital for the Philippines’ future as a rights-respecting democracy.”

US military expansion in Asia should not deter Obama from raising human rights concerns, Human Rights Watch said.

Since 2002, US military personnel have conducted regular joint military operations with the Philippines armed forces in the southern Philippines. US troops deployed in southern Zamboanga City have assisted in operations on the islands of Basilan and Sulu against the militant Islamist Abu Sayyaf group. Recent tensions in the South China Sea between the Philippines and China over the resource-rich island territories have underscored Manila’s close military relationship with the United States.

Particularly during the previous administration of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the US forcefully raised concerns about lack of accountability in the Philippines. During the Universal Periodic Review of the Philippines, the assessment of its human rights situation before the United Nations Human Rights Council, in Geneva on May 29, the US urged the Philippine government to end impunity for extrajudicial killings and to take control over paramilitary forces under military command, which have a long history of abuses.

Since 2008, the US Congress has withheld $2 to $3 million per year in assistance to the Philippines. The funds can be released only if the secretary of state certifies that the Philippine government “is taking effective steps to prosecute those responsible for extra-judicial executions [EJEs], sustain the decline in the number of EJEs, and strengthen government institutions working to eliminate EJEs.”

The Philippines has not met the conditions for restoring the withheld assistance. Since 2008, the State Department has not certified the compliance required for the release of these funds, and it did not agree to a request to certify compliance made by the Philippines foreign minister during a visit in May.

“Rather than arguing, making promises, and offering excuses, President Aquino should focus on ending and prosecuting extrajudicial executions,” Sifton said. “He should let actions do the talking.”

A key case concerns retired Maj. Gen. Jovito Palparan, who is implicated in the abduction and enforced disappearance of two activists in 2006. Although he was indicted by Philippines prosecutors in late 2011, Palparan remains at large, allegedly helped by former colleagues in the armed forces. Numerous other human rights cases have languished.

In the last decade, only seven cases of extrajudicial killings, involving 11 defendants, have been successfully prosecuted – none since Aquino took power and none involving active duty military personnel.

In a July 2011 report, “No Justice Just Adds to the Pain,” Human Rights Watch documented 10 cases of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances during the current Aquino administration for which there is strong evidence of military involvement. Police investigations remain inadequate, as they were in the previous administration, with investigators frequently not visiting crime scenes or collecting only the most obvious evidence. Evidence of military involvement is routinely not pursued, investigations cease after one suspect is identified, and arrest warrants are frequently not executed. Witnesses are not adequately protected. Not one of these cases has been successfully prosecuted, Human Rights Watch found.

Human Rights Watch has previously reported on human rights abuses by the communist New People’s Army and Islamist armed groups. But those forces’ crimes are not a justification for abuses by security forces, Human Rights Watch said.

In addition to accountability issues, the Obama administration should raise concerns with the Philippines about the use of paramilitary forces under the supervision of the armed forces or local government officials, Human Rights Watch said. Paramilitary members have in past years been implicated in unlawful killings of civil society activists and alleged insurgents. When he ran for president in 2010, Aquino promised to rescind an executive order allowing for the creation of “private armies,” but he has backtracked and has spoken about allowing paramilitary forces to provide security for private corporations, including mining companies.

“Ending abuses entails real changes,” said Sifton. “Accountability in the long term means ensuring that security forces are professional, subject to regular command, and disciplined under the rule of law.”

*

For more information please contact:
In Manila, Carlos Conde (English, Tagalog, Visayan): +63-917-545-5492 (mobile); or condec@hrw.org; Follow on Twitter @carloshconde
In Washington, DC, John Sifton (English): +1-646-479-2499 (mobile); or siftonj@hrw.org; Follow on Twitter @johnsifton
In London, Brad Adams (English): +44-7908-728-333 (mobile); or adamsb@hrw.org
In New York, Elaine Pearson (English): +1-212-216-1213; or +1-646-291-7169 (mobile); or pearsoe@hrw.org; Follow on Twitter @PearsonElaine

oh no, another VFA in the making :(

so.  the president has certified the ratification of the RP-Australia Visiting Forces Agreement as urgent, and the senate is called upon to approve and make it a binding agreement.

yesterday i caught senator miriam on the senate website’s livestream interpellating proponent senator loren on the infirmities of the agreement.  read Miriam slams Australia VFA where she points out the vagueness of certain provisions such as the “other activities mutually approved by the Parties,” the lack of specificity on the magnitude of the Australian military presence, the matter of tax exemptions that needs the approval of the majority of both houses of congress, and the rules on criminal jurisdiction that, she says, impinge on the supreme court’s exclusive powers.

nonetheless, today the senate passed the resolution on second reading, just before taking off for another vacation.

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile -together with Senators Loren Legarda, Jinggoy Estrada, Franklin Drilon, Vicente Sotto III, Pia Cayetano, Bong Revilla, Teofisto “TG” Guingona III, Antonio Trillanes IV, Edgardo Angara, Kiko Pangilinan, Panfilo Lacson and Gregorio Honasan – voted to approve the measure on second reading.

Meanwhile Senators Joker Arroyo, Ralph Recto, Serge Osmeña III, Ferdinand Marcos, Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III and Miriam Defensor-Santiago voted against the passing of the SOVFA or Senate Resolution 788, which was certified by President Benigno Aquino III as urgent and was sponsored by Senator Loren Legarda on Monday. There were 21 senators present during the plenary session.

i suppose it will be first on the senate agenda when they resume sessions in august.  second lang malamang ang RH bill.   hopefully, mainstream and social media will be paying attention then and raising the questions that need to be raised.

for the record: the status of visiting forces agreement (SOFVA) was signed in australia on 31 may 2007 by then defense sec hermogenes ebdane jr and his counterpart defense minister brendan nelson in the presence of president gloria macapagal-arroyo and then australian prime minister john howard.

the curious thing is, president gloria sat on the agreement.  in october of that year, some 4 months after the signing, opposition senators mar roxas and jinggoy estrada were complaining that gma had yet to officially transmit for Senate concurrence the Visiting Forces Agreement signed between the Republic of the Philippines and Government of Australia on May 31, 2007.

“Australia is one of the largest providers of defense training to our soldiers, second only to the United States. It has also been generous in funding human rights projects in the Philippines. Certainly, a defense agreement such as this deserves urgent attention from the Philippine side,” Roxas and Estrada pointed out.

a month later, in november, it was gloria’s new defense sec who asked the senate to ratify the agreement with australia asap.

Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro on Sunday appealed to the Senate to immediately ratify the Philippines’ Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Australia.

“Well, as soon as possible. We (defense department) were hoping that they (Senate) review it and approve it as soon as possible because Australia has already done so,” said Teodoro when asked about the urgency of the SOFA ratification.

so why did the senate sit on it, too, in the time of gloria?  america did not approve, maybe?  or maybe because there were serious objections?  read Abu Sayyaf and US and Australian military intervention in the southern Philippines by carolin liss of murdoch university.

The proposed involvement of Australian troops has also already caused concern and protests. Some activists have, for example, questioned the motivation behind Australia’s proposed involvement in the southern Philippines, accusing the Australian government of instigating SOFA to protect Australian commercial interests in the Philippines. The interests of Australian mining companies are of particular relevance here, with numerous Australian companies already active in the Philippines. Furthermore, at the time SOFA was signed, Arroyo had been meeting with representatives of the mining industry, including executives of Melbourne-based BHP Billiton to discuss a multi-billion dollar nickel project in Mindanao.

and here’s blogger friend adebrux, very into foreign affairs, commenting in ellen tordesilla’s post back in 2007 on the very day the agreement was signed in canberra:

the SOFA that will be signed between RP and Australia under the auspices of the office of Gloria bruha should be examined with a fine toothcomb.

SOFA, Status of Forces Agreement was patterned after NATO-SOFA (I know coz the guy that negotiated the SOFA for Pinas talked to me about it at length); I reminded the this friend of mine that SOFA (the NATO one) has provisions in it allowing for foreign troops not only to do military exercises but to get stationed in the host country requiring the setting up of military bases for the visiting troops (therefore foreign) or that goes against RP Constitution.

Friend told me that he reminded then DND chief (Cruz) about it – he even snickered that Cruz was just immitating the SOFA (NATO) for RP without knowing the full substance of what he was copying implying that Cruz may be a legal eagle but was still short on the very fine lines in military treatises.

Of course, the Aussies would be in in high heavens – imagine they would be able to extend their tentacles and set up military facilities in Pinas that is if the SOFA they are signing with Pinas is NATO-SOFA carbon copied.

As I’ve said time and again, in this same blog, the Aussies have more intel assets parked in Pinas than US CIAs put together.

I alerted Sen Pimentel about this when the first draft of SOFA was submitted to Pinas. He said at the time that he didn’t know what the treaty contained yet and so he’d rather wait and see.

For all you know, the SOFA that Gloria is about to sign (her DFA chief actually) might be a trap – you might wake up being surrounded not only by American troops but by Aussie troops too and all in violation of RP Constitution. While these foreign troops might want to be helpful to Pinas, their presence could also spark an Iraq scenario in the Philippines, sort of an accident waiting to happen.

Anyway, Philippines beware! [May 31, 2007 7:18 am]

Oh btw, I have no doubt the the US urged Pinas to go for the SOFA treaty with Australia. Not that Americans couldn’t have twisted the arm of Gloria to sign a SOFA with them but with the VFA already going [up] in flames, they needed an ally to take the heat away and who better than Australia to do it for them – acting as surrogate SOFA signatory for the US?  [May 31, 2007 7:23 am]

Australian defence dealers have been some of the most corrupt of the corrupt – they made several commanders of the Philippine Coast Guard VERY VERY WEALTHY! Once a shipbuilding company tried to sell a project to Pinas and almost sold it to the Navy complete with equipment that were still on the drawing board had I not shown them evidence that the company in question was about to go bankrupt unless they signed the deal with the Navy (the deal would have given them a lease on life and would have been used in Australia to get new investors in their company.) They had a broker who was a former military officer living in Forbes park and who happened to be an excellent bosom buddy of a former Senator who was chairing the defence committee in the Senate. [May 31, 2007 7:32 am]

there is also, of course, the unconstitutionality of allowing foreign military forces in our territory.  palusot lang naman talaga yung konseptong “visiting”.  pero akala ko for america lang, because of our history, kasi “special” nga, di ba.  but for australia as well?  and then, maybe, israel?  germany?  uk?

hopefully the palace is not planning to ram this VFA-A down our throats without informed public discussion.  let not the senate vote on this in the name of their constituencies without first convincing us that it would be good for the country, especially at a time like this, when we have our hands full with america and china, and our notions of sovereignty and security are on the line.

media should start doing their homework and sharing whatever they learn with their public.  whichever way it goes in august, twill be a measure of mainstream and social media’s notions of nation.

back to gloria arroyo

may kaso ba?  she’s in “jail” but the electoral sabotage case was weak to begin with.  read winnie monsod’s ‘Get real‘ 14 March 2012:

In the Arroyo case, the only evidence against her was the “eyewitness” report of Maguindanao Provincial Administrator Norie Unas, whose story strains credulity from the beginning: he “overheard” Gloria Arroyo giving orders to Maguindanao Governor Andal Ampatuan “sa isang sulok” in Malacañang that the results in the senatorial elections in Maguindanao should be 12-0. And then what is clearly hearsay: Ampatuan told him that he (Ampatuan) could not say no to the Arroyos. Norie Unas, by the way, was accused of being in charge of the backhoe operations for the burial of the Maguindanao massacre victims. Moreover, his story was never corroborated, and, following DoJ logic (in the Ortega case), should never have been given credence. Many holes in the story. Yet, it was not only given credence, but it was considered strong enough evidence so that Gloria Arroyo was not granted bail. Charged with electoral sabotage in an election in which she was not even a candidate.

so when i read here’s the latest from ellen tordesillas: Gloria Arroyo may be out on bail, thanks to DOJ-Comelec

Last Thursday , Felda Domingo, spokesperson of Pasay City Regional Trial Court Judge Jesus Mupas, said there is a possibility that the motion for bail will be granted because the complainant in the case, which is the Comelec, had failed to present two key witnesses who were supposed to affirm conspiracy between the accused in allegedly rigging the results of the 2007 elections in Maguindanao.

The accused are Arroyo, former Commission on Elections (Comelec) Chairman Benjamin Abalos Sr., former Maguindanao Governor Andal Ampatuan Sr., and former Maguindanao Election Supervisor Lintang Bedol .

The two witnesses are former Maguindanao Administrator Norie Unas and Russam Mabang,former election officer of Pandag, Maguindanao.

Comelec lawyer Maria Juana Valesa said they have lost contact with Mabang and Unas, who is under the Witness Protection Program, does not want to appear in court for security reasons.

my first reaction was, wha?!?  she’ll be out on bail?  i googled it, only to find that no one else is commenting on it, so far, as in, no one’s hooting at the DOJ except from ellen’s comment thread.

I guess the attitude is, it doesn’t matter, that case has served its purpose, got gloria arroyo arrested and prevented from leaving the country last november?  anyway, if, when, she’s allowed bail, they’ll just arrest her again for graft charges in the NBN-ZTE deal?

but wait, mike arroyo is also charged in that one and he was allowed to post bail 10 days later.  plunder is a bailable offense pala?  but wait again.  erap was charged for plunder, too, but wasn’t allowed to post bail; although after more than three years detention in camp capinpin, the sandiganbayan allowed him to move to his nearby rest house in tanay, under house arrest.

hmm.  naguluhan na ako.  ano ba talaga ang batas?  here we go again.