Is it goodbye? Nope, Never Forget.

Is it goodbye? Nope, Never Forget.

(Or: "Remembering Capitol Theatre in Escolta, Manila")

Despite numerous protests, proposals, and everything meant to preserve this timeless edifice from the past, this one of a kind neighbor in old Manila was dealt the final death blow some weeks ago.

Located along the stretches of Calle Escolta in Binondo, Manila. This prewar art deco edifice was designed by National Artist Juan Nakpil.  And it was known for its first-class status, where Filipinos got a taste of local and foreign films as well as live-production acts, with a total seating capacity of 800, fully air-conditioning units, and a double balcony, which by that time was rare.

It was 2017 when news surfaced that the iconic theatre will be converted into a high-rise residential building, and it was actually given the go-sgnal by the National Commission for Culture and the Arts, National Historical Commission of the Philippines, and the National Museum with the condition that one part of the structure, if not a facade, was to be retained and included in the proposed building, especially the featured bas-relief sculpture by renowned Italian expatriate sculptor Francesco Monti. The sculpture featured Filipina muses—one holding a mask to represent theater, and the other holding a lyre to represent music. The lobby, which boasted of a mural by Filipino modernist Victorio Edades, was also demolished.

During its completion in 1935, Escolta was a booming centre of business, commerce, and entertainment as financial institutions, theatres, commercial establishments, and others were built in its way. It was basically known as the Philippines' counterpart of New York's Times Square, if not China's own Shanghai Bund as Americans transformed Manila from a Spanish-era town into a modern-day city.

When Manila was ravaged after the Second World War, much of the prewar structures were devastated, including the Capitol. Though it was restored as any other neighbouring prewar structure, this theatre, like others within the district, was affected by the developments in the subrubs, that includes the rising presence of cinema houses in Malls. With these "developments", the theatre was eventually closed to the public, and left to decay decades after.

It is quite saddening for like any other structures started to get lost through time and thus becoming an opportunity for its demise, efforts to preserve are either fall into deaf ears or treated as empty promises by those who "swore" to revive Manila from being forgotten. Laws like the Heritage Act RA10066 stated that architectural icons over 50 years old are to be protected. But did it block those who wanted to destroy for the sake of "high-rise" developments with profit as its agenda?

Of course developers would speak of cases regarding heritage preservation such as the Luneta Hotel in Ermita, Laperal in University Belt, and the old San Miguel-built Coca Cola plant in Paco; but how about the old Magnolia in Echague? And today's Capitol in Escolta? For sure its apologists would use the "Facadism" card as a "tribute" to its past, even it affects the structure's integrity, authenticity, and historicity. Worse, rather shrugging it off altogether like in the case of Locsin's Mandarin Ortiental and Hotel Intercontinental in Makati, Carlos Palanca Mansion along Taft Avenue, and the 1936 Meralco Head Office in San Marcelino, Manila. These were eye catching and worthy of preservation, but it all end destroyed by the wrecking ball of interest with "development" for a reason. 

There were even proposals in transforming Capitol into a mixed space by some concerned architecture students, keeping the structure while making some major interior changes enough to make relevance alongside Escolta reviving as an arts and culture district. But these were rather treated academically.

For sure people will just say "move on" for this, accepting that much of Manila's grandeur will remain in the past with nostalgia pages churning photos and reminisces, but for a concerned, this cannot be forgotten, what more having the will to oppose this kind of measure. 

All in all, this note, like others concerned, expressed heartbrokeness after losing one of the structures that "what makes Manila, Manila." 

Can't say "goodbye" for this, but instead, Never Forget. 

Towards a Nation of the Working Masses: Up the People's Republic!

Towards a Nation of the Working Masses: 

Up the People's Republic!

By: Kat Ulrike

 

At this present time, the Philippines tries to preserve the national sentiment in the hearts and minds of the people. 

Whether it is in a form of a cultural group, political organisation, or a trade union centre, these and more would say trying their best to promote and cultivate national sentiment, trying to save from extinction the its history, heritage, anything that keeps a nation thriving if not great. That the public life of the nation has been generally so much identified with the struggle for cultural, what more of political emancipation, all from which its people actively contributed about with all their lives; while on the other hand, seeing the economic side of the national situation has rather recieveth a very small amount of attention- an issue that's "only to be discussed by experts".

With this, there is a danger that from those who trying to distort or dilute national sentiment, reducing its significance by neglecting vital living issues, to those of turning historical studies into a mere worship of the past, turning nationalism into a tradition – "glorious and heroic indeed", as what Ireland's Connolly said, "but still only a tradition." 

And these would say "provide inspiration" to uplift a nation, yes indeed, but not enough to steer the tide of revolution. A Filipino athlete may win the prize, or a giant skyscraper somewhere in Mega Manila be praised as a country's feat, but these cannot end the centuries-old chains that binds this nation: that of landlords and corrupt bureaucrats supporting interests of both Uncle Sam and Fu Manchu. 

Perhaps, in this month supposedly commemorating this country's "independence", let the folk again remind what Connolly saidth:

"If the national movement of our day is not merely to re-enact the old sad tragedies of our past history, it must show itself capable of rising to the exigencies of the moment."

And in it must show to the folk, to the masses that this nationalism isn't about lamenting after ashes but of lighting the fire, something more than the "pride" being prodded by the order and the idealisation of the past, but instead, of seeking truth from facts, of creating a distinct and definite answer to the problems of this ever continuing past and a political and economic creed capable of adjustment to the wants of the present and in the future. But the error caused by disregarding the socioeconomic cause to fight for national independence is clear: for Filipinos didn't fought for civil rights alone or for the sake of reviving their lost culture. As history showeth that the most of the working folk was and is driven by their hunger to fight for their lives as well as their communities.

For sure some would dismiss it as "mere idealism", a "folly", but the ones who wished to break the bonds from the colonisers and domestic exploiters tend to invoke something despite the limitations brought by their time. But this time people wished to break away from this ever-continuing past in order to build a better future as Filipinos.

And this future is far from the follies the order presented, a debt driven one that benefited the landlord and the corrupt bureaucrat, whose flag waving apologists, no matter how they recognise the problem still dismissing it in favour of their delusion- flaunting its apostasy to the traditions of the Revolution of their forefathers the order "praised about" in this independence month; where the power of the purse has established a new tyranny under the forms of freedom, making laws that represses while pretending about the restoration of order.

At this moment, this note wishes for a republic whose people carries the ideal that at times serves as lodestone to the oppressed with the promise not just freedom, justice, and prosperity, but also a renaissance that's more than a showcase of knowledge and talent, but of dynamism, a struggle to take back the future. Especially in this days an nights of disquiet and rage:

Of tenant farmers and farmworkers all ground between feudal landlordism and the cash crop economy; of workers in the cities, regardless of their sector yet suffering from the exactions of the slave-driving capitalist and the corrupt bureaucrat, living uner threat both by labour laws and "technology". All these labouring folks are toiling away all their lives for a wage barely sufficient to keep body and soul together as well as their families- only to realise getting their pay reduced due to taxes and various sorts of dues that in the end benefited the corrupt than going directly to the nation's needs. This misery continues even as society "marches into the path of progress", a misery hidden behind the structures of glass and steel, or the smile and joy of a beautiful Filipina.

Thus, this linking together of national aspirations with those hopes of those common folks, of working masses who have raised the standard of revolt against that system of imperialism of which the United States and the rising fading-"red" China as most aggressive types trying to upheld their interests by both hard and soft power-of existing treaties and new rephrased agreements enough to snare the country with false hopes and tangible repressions, of bureaucrat capitalists trying to maintain their personal interests while feigning service to the country and to the flag and at the expense of the working folks, and of feudalism that bounds the majority into the soil with injustice as landlords conniving with international capitalism seeking for raw materials. For sure orderists would downplay these major social ills, describing as passe if not meaningless as they justify unequal treaties and more to exploit the people while claiming as "patriots". It is not surprising that in any sense, trying to import elements of discord into the ranks of earnest nationalists, and would serve to place in touch with "fresh reservoirs of moral and physical strength" sufficient to lift the cause of the Philippines to a more commanding position than it has before.

It may be pleaded that with the ideal such as those of a People's Republic, implying, as it does, a complete political and economic revolution would be sure to affect every sector, including those of alienating well-to-do supporters, who would dread the loss of their property and privileges. This matter has been an issue during the 1896, or 1870 attempts for independence, especially when these calls also ran contrary to their interests- for as in the past, the national struggle doesn't just limit to those of redeeming the nation, but also to reclaim what as rightfully theirs, like the right to till by the peasants, that for the order, a loss of their property and privileges.

***

What does this objection mean? That must conciliate the privileged classes in the country regardless of their exploitation- "think about 'national unity'" as one may say.

But if one may think or ask, can this "unity" and "conciliation" disarm their hostility by assuring them their privileges especially in the economy? will not be interfered with. That is to say, that one must guarantee that the government will still continue foreign-dictated and interest-driven policies with some piecemeal compromises with the poor, while the armed forces, police, courts, the laws and the corrupt bureaucrats will guard the fraudulent gains of compradore capitalist and despotic landlord from the masses just as remorselessly as in the past when the country was colonised.

On no other basis will these privileged classes unite with. Does one expect the masses to fight for this ideal?

When one talks about liberating the country, does it only mean the land alone or its culture, reviving heritage and tradition? Or is it the people who sustains this nation's survival? If the latter, then how to free them from the system that binds them into bondage for centuries? 

Remember, as what Ireland's Connolly said, that:

"...all systems of political administration or governmental machinery are but the reflex of the economic forms which underlie them."

Ever since the Spaniards, and then the Americans colonised the Philippines what everyone sees the fact that these conquerors in the past forced upon the country a property system founded upon coercion, exploitation, even murder. They would utilise legal and extralegal means just to upheld their interests from the Encomendero to the Multinational companies, that even until this present when their domestic stooges continue their vassalage and pretending the country as "independent" complete with flag and a government. But so long the present order involves the continual practice of legalised spoliation and fraud, then this "semicolonial, semifeudal" kind of existence is found to be the most suitable form of order by which this exploitation can be protected by law and by force when the fears of the privileged demands it.

And like what happened in history, the masses, being the creators of history, is willing to take back the future that's supposed to be theirs. As Nationalists, what more as Socialists (with the capital "S") and Revolutionaries, should be willing to destroy the entire tree from its root, trunk, and branch that brutally materialistic order to which like the English language being adopted as its own after got from the Americans, as far more deadly foe to those of foreign rule and subsequent vassalage, than the superficial thinker who imagines it is possible to reconcile Nationalism with those of insidious but disastrous forms of economic subjection be it feudal tyranny, bureaucrat-capitalist corruption, imperialist-neoliberal-globalist bullshitry; baneful fruits of Conquest of which the compromiser Pedro Paterno, the "Pacificados", to those of this present Duterte regime– as precursors and apostles. These capitulationists would say wanting to maintain the peace when in fact trying to maintain their interests even it requires reducing or outright sacrificing the belief in nationhood, to which it resulted to the death and despair of many nationalists like Andres Bonifacio, Apolinario Mabini, or Crisanto Evangelista.

At present the country's flag continues to fly alone at Malacanang Palace, Senate, and at the Batasang Pambansa. Of course the order will say that the country as "free, united, and independent" while continues to exploit the masses either by issuing exorbitant taxes, levies, to those of policies that benefited the compradore and the landlord while acting as vassals to either Uncle Sam or Fu Manchu. With this would say that even the flag of the nation flies, so long as the people remains exploited, and unless one set about the organisation of this "Republic of the Masses" the efforts to "win back the land, the nation and its future" would be in vain.

And in speaking of those imperialists, both the United States and China would still rule over through her allies in the government, the capitalists with its various multinational/transnational companies, financiers with its moneylending organisations (IMF-WB or AIIB), anything that has planted in this country and watered with the blood, sweat, and tears of the masses.

***

For sure orderists would say "move on" and "past is past" in regards to this matter. Knowing that they are still indebted to their former masters who continues to dictate with "softer" tones and "safer" phrases. But unless the nation is truly capable of becoming its own self by unlocking its forces that "keeps a nation great" then how sham that independence is- for imperialism such as from both United States and China would still rule up to thy ruin, even while offering some hypocritical homage to Freedom whose cause the order had betrayed.

Or is it because the order is even scared of socialism even it meant the realisation of National independence? For sure the Jacobin-influenced Bonifacio did notice that the revolution of his has a "social character" elitists ought to shrug it off or treat it "as little as possible", but this "social character" is more than just fighting for freedom alone but rather having the will to seize the means that sustains them as a nation the way they claim back their faith and honour - if "national consciousness" is the democratic foundation for justice and social solidarity between members of the same people, as the Greek tradition understood it ("Ethneos"), then that advent of Socialism can only take place when the revolutionary proletariat, together with the peasantry and other patriotic forces, altogether as the organised forces of the nation and having the national and social consciousness will be able to build a new social organisation that's in line with the natural march of development.  

For just like Democracy, Nationalism without Socialism – without a reorganisation of society on the basis of a broader and more developed form of that common property like which the majority of the folk fought for from the days of Bonifacio or those of Crisanto Evangelista and Benigno Ramos - is only national recreancy.

With this one would say that a "Philippine Republic" that adheres to National and Social interest would then become a natural depository of people's power. That republic has to become a tool for the construction of the new society and a weapon of social emancipation, the only power which would show in its full light all these class antagonisms and lines of economic demarcation at obscured by the mists of bourgeois-centric "unity".

For now orderists, trying to cling in their interests on the pretense of "national unity" had so far succeeded in inculcating to the people their perverted versions of freedom, justice, and morality; or even democracy and discipline to the people and becomes as if as its own belief; but the question is, until when this perversion of such belief persist? For sure one, two, three till more would realise that these perverted versions may be "wrong" therefore comes the idea to seek truth from facts in order to gain what is true and to fight back as possible. 

This writer would may say "pardon for the thought" in expressing this note, but as any deeply concerned patriot would think that having little attention to economic and social matters within the national issue- especially those of the working folk has forgotten that these working folks are the ones who till and forge their country of theirs; what more that by letting the traders and landlords dominate much of economic, political, and even cultural affairs, all for their vested interests and not about their love for the nation.

"For Folk and Land: the struggle for Genuine Agrarian Reform as a National Struggle"

"For Folk and Land: 

the struggle for genuine agrarian reform 

as a national struggle"

At first, agrarian reform in the Philippines has been one of the major social issues the present order treats with contempt or as a propaganda piece. 

Originally seeks to solve the centuries-old problem of landlessness in rural areas, this program, described as a "difficult task" by the order, has undergone various laws and measures, the latest was through the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Extended with Reforms(CARPER) initiated in 2015. This recent program updated those of its past laws, with the government trying to address key national goals particularly the promotion of equity and social justice, food security and poverty alleviation in the countryside. 

However, despite the lofty goals, the program remains yet to be completed as it currently burdened with major issues - from opposition and suspicion by landlords and entrenched interests, neoliberal-oriented economists viewing the idea with great skepticism, lack of support from legislators, lack of financial and material resources, and general public apathy. 

But despite the setbacks and loopholes to the program, peasants and its supporters continue to assert an alternative, "genuine solution" to the agrarian question that lingers for centuries, with much of the skepticism about every measures offered having deep roots in history and at the same time a major issue within the National Struggle.

Revisiting the past

As a former colony of Spain, the Philippines inherited an agrarian program that was feudal in character. Mostly intended as gifts to those participated in pacification campaigns, vast tracts of lands were in the hands of the few while tillers worked on it as outright workers or as sharecrop tenants. The native aristocracy do also have their share of lands in exchange for loyalty, but vast landholdings were rather appropriated by religious orders- the friar lands which totalled some 53,330 hectares shared by religious orders like the Augustinians, Dominicans, Franciscans, and Recollects. These lands originally meant to sustain their missionary work, however turns out to be for their secular interest.

It was also during the Spanish regime when the government attempted to systematise land tenure by urging landowners to secure titles to their lands. But the system worked in reverse as affluent and influential groups used this system for landgrabbing, hence relegated small landholders to the role of share tenants. This aggravated as. The feudal order in the Philippines got a glimpse of capitalist characteristics through shift from sustenance to those of cash crops, all for export abroad like Coffee, Cacao, Indigo, and Sugar.

This exploitative kind of situation became a factor for the Filipino folk to join in the struggle for independence. Whereas the Filipino intellect fought out of civil libertarianism, the masses fought mostly for their right to till. There were also plans encouraging Filipinos to become pioneers in unchartered lands, like in the case of Jose Rizal with his "Nueva Calamba" plan in North Borneo, but this plan was quashed nonetheless by the Spaniards themselves citing lack of manpower if not simply an outright disagreement by the authorities.

During the first Philippine Republic in 1898, the government headed by President Emilio Aguinaldo attempted to expropriate huge landed estates, especially the "Friar lands". However, since the republic was short lived, and the personages of the first republic as nonetheless trying to defend their interests, the plan did not materialise.

During the American colonial period the problem on land tenure was tried to be addressed by the authorities. Several laws were passed to regulate and improve, among which was the Philippine Bill of 1902 giving more specific conditions on the disposition of friar lands; the Land Registration Act of 1902 (Act No. 496) providing for a systemic registration of land titles under the Torrens system; and the Rice Share Tenant Act of 1933 (Act No. 4054) regulating relationships between landowners and sharecroppers, especially tenants of sugarcane fields. These attempts continued during the period of limited self-rule (commonwealth) as existing laws on self-tenure were amended giving more freedom to the landowners and tenants to enter under tenancy contracts not contrary to law, morals, and public policies; providing for compulsory arbitration of land disputes and agrarian conflicts; and suspending any action to eject tenants. There were also expropriation of landed estates and big landholdings initiated by the government, leasing to farmworkers such as in the case of Buenavista estate in Bulacan. Furthermore, an attempt for homesteading was done through the National Land Settlement Administration, with Mindanao as its focal point for its projects. Landless farmers, especially those who opted not to work in the haciendas were encouraged by the government to become pioneers, settling in virgin public agricultural lands.

But despite these efforts meant to pacify tensions between the landed gentries and the farmhands, these failed to stem the tide of agrarian unrest. Revolts like the Sakdalista, Tanggulan, to those of the Colorums showed how the struggle for land as also entwined with the struggle for independence. And as in the late Spanish period, agriculture was primarily devoted to the needs of international capitalist interests as Sugar, Copra, Manila Hemp, Coffee, and Copra became much needed crops for export. From this somehow meant for plantations to expand their farms, that affects smallholders in the countryside as well as those of national minorities, furthering exploitation with meagre salaries and slavelike conditions.

During the Second World War, the desire for social justice was intensified as one of the calls by the old Communist Party. Through its armed wing the HUKBALAHAP, the zones controlled by the said force involves a land to the tiller program. Prior to this, most agricultural fields were controlled by the Japanese as well as its collaborators with production primarily devoted to rice and cotton, with the latter used for the production of explosives. Landowners were also divided by loyalties, some remained loyal to the American-supported commonwealth with its promise of self-rule, while others became outright collaborators of the Japanese, who also carried with the same thought of "independence" as their basis for their occupation. In areas that the HUKBALAHAP controlled, they set up local governments (Barrio United Defense Corps) and instituted land reform, dividing up the largest estates equally among the peasants and often killing the landlords. In some cases, however, landlords were welcomed as participants in the resistance, swayed by anti-Japanese sympathies through the slogan "anti-Japanese above all".

But this brief moment of agrarian freedom brought by the HUKBALAHAP  through its liberated zones end short lived as the liberation and return of the Commonwealth government meant a return to prewar social order. Using the restoration of law and order as its pretext, landlords used both police and the military to repress tenants and its organisations, driving them to armed struggle, making tensions further than its prewar and wartime pasts. Much of the land continues to held by big landlords, with most of them became legislators and office holders even in a time where much pressure on the latter years of the commonwealth to the early years of the republic to redistribute land to the landless. 

In response, postwar-era agrarian reform programs in the Philippines were more an elite response to rising peasant unrest aimed at avoiding land redistribution than a wider social measure aimed at a more equitable and democratic society. Mostly focused on resettlement over land redistribution to the tillers if not regulating production relations between landowners and tenants (especially on sharing crops and rights to till), this palliative measure was (and perhaps even is), a sentiment rather than a serious matter of social justice.

From the 1950s onward, the land reform laws that were implemented, such as the "Agricultural Tenancy Reform Act" and the "Agricultural Leasehold Act", among others, tended to be mere concessions to tenants and were insufficient to bring about fundamental changes in the structure of land ownership. The Agricultural Land Reform Code, aiming to  abolish tenancy and established a leasehold system in which farmers paid fixed rentals to landlords, was also weakened by the failure of the landlord-dominated Congress to allocate necessary funds for effective implementation of the law. 

But despite these alleged intents, these policies did not transfer ownership to peasants and merely focused on regulating production relations between landowners and tenants. Multinationals  also engaged in agriculture especially in the production of Pineapples, Bananas, and other cash crops in partnership with local landlords. 

In 1972, through  Presidential Decree no. 27 under former president Ferdinand Marcos, the order offered a limited land redistribution window by covering only rice and corn lands. However, the value of the land was fixed at two and a half times the average harvest of three normal crop years immediately preceding its promulgation. It was then made to be paid for 15 years of 15 annual payments with 6 percent interest per annum. On the other hand, it was the same Marcos regime that was also in connivance with multinationals and landlords- that prior to the creation of Presidential Decree 21, he urged landlords to shift from subsistence to cash crops, and partnerships with multinationals engaging in agribusiness.

So were the succeeding regimes. Contrary to the expectation of the folk in attaining justice for the Farmers, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), being the centerpiece of the Aquino administration's social legislative agenda was as same as its predecessor acts.

More like an amended PD27 tailored-fit for the new regime, the law ideally paved the way for the redistribution of agricultural lands to tenant-farmers from landowners, who were "paid in exchange by the government through just compensation but were also allowed to retain not more than five hectares of land." However, this same law also made corporate landowners allowed under the law to "voluntarily divest a proportion of their capital stock, equity or participation in favor of their workers or other qualified beneficiaries", in lieu of turning over their land to the government for redistribution. Thus, instead of land distribution, the Cojuangco-owned Hacienda Luisita reorganized itself into a corporation and distributed stock, a controversial move that distorts the very essence of Agrarian Reform. 

The Ramos, Estrada, Arroyo, and the Aquino regimes did continue treating land reform as a populist ploy with words like "productivity", "tenant emancipation" and/or "rural development" while at the same time continues to accommodate multinational/transnational agribusiness conglomerates in big farmlands. Certain provisions of the law still protected the interests of landlords, with the latter supporting the interest of the other especially when it comes to expanding for new markets. And despite numerous  measures meant to improve the program there were also constraints such as the need to firm up the database and geographic focus, generate funding support, strengthen inter-agency cooperation, and mobilize implementation partners such as farmers groups, non-government organizations, local governments, and the business community.

During the Ramos administration, policies on agrarian reform were focused on accelerating direct land transfer and non-land transfer through adopting more rational, fair and inexpensive settlements. It encouraged landowners to invest in rural-based industries that are connected to agriculture in an attempt to shift from subsistence agriculture to agribusiness. 

Estrada also followed suit with the program focused most on fast tracking land acquisition and distribution. It wanted to reduce uncertainties in land market in rural places to help farmers’ efficiency and private investment to grow. It encouraged joint ventures, corporative, contact farming and other marketing arrangements to protect the status of stakeholders and promotion of agri-industrialization.

However, the Agrarian Reform program is itself contrary to the neoliberal "agricultural modernization" plans which involved large-scale land acquisition at the expense of the farmers. As in the past, the intent  Furthermore, neoliberal-oriented laws like the RA 8178 known as "An Act Replacing Quantitative Import Restrictions on Agricultural Products, Except Rice, with Tariffs Creating the Agricultural Competitiveness Enhancement Fund, and for Other Purposes" repealed the Magna Carta of Small Farmers of 1991, which protected products of small farmers and replaced all quantitative restrictions on agricultural imports with tariffs, this and other related laws further consolidate interests from entrenched entities and exploiting further poor farmers towards serf-like conditions.

Last 2009, the Arroyo administration passed a law trying to "improve" the existing Agrarian Reform Law through the "Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Extension with Reforms" (CARPER). Given its name as "Extended and Reformed" the law at first is an amendatory law that extends again the deadline of distributing agricultural lands to farmers for five years and has provisions that were generally favorable to their intended beneficiaries. However, like its predecessor laws (including CARP), it was again essentially the result of a compromise between pro and anti-agrarian reform blocs in the Philippine Congress with provisions inserted by landed gentries that are considered loopholes in the law. 

So was during the Aquino administration when his predecessor's land reform efforts under CARPER were then extended. In 2012, a Supreme Court decision ordered the total distribution of Hacienda Luisita to its beneficiaries. However, only 4,099 out of 6,453 hectares had been distributed while the remaining goes to the Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway, malls, factories, and even creeks, while others end reserved for possible commercialisation projects. In 2013, the contested "Stock Distribution Option"  was replaced by a lottery system- that created confusion if not opposition from farmer-beneficiaries due to resuffling. Worse, harassments occur that involved state elements against farmers.

Agrarian Reform today

At present, the program, in general continues to further hampered by an ineffectual bureaucracy in undertaking, what more of incursions of property developers (especially those engage in real estate targeting agricultural lands in Mega Manila) and other rent-seekers, as well as expanding special economic zones, in line with the expansion of urbanization into the countryside leading to further land conversions and the displacement of peasant and indigenous communities, or expanding corporate farming interests (mainly in connivance with landed gentries and the government) especially those of cash crops thus exploiting rural communities and others for cheap labour. Apologists may brand these as agricultural modernisation, "new thinking", and the likes; but agricultural liberalisation, or any form of liberalisation, that includes privatisation (also called commercialisation or corporatisation), deregulation, and denationalisation of patrimonies never served anyone except those wielding political and economic power. As in the past, the order have marked their own selfish interests at the cost of sustenance and livelihood of hundreds of thousands of Filipino families.

And contrary to its developmental intents, agriculture-related funds like the Rice Competitiveness Enhancement Fund will only serve those who controlling it, particularly the granary owners and rice dealers/importers with entrenched interests, as well as anomalously used funds such as those from tobacco excise taxes as more than enough proof that such agri-related funds hardly reach farmers and fisherfolks yearning for development.

Opposition to this unjust measures are even responded with the "law", making controversies unavoidable as they encountered landlords openly harassing peasants with guns and forcing them out of the lands. Worse, there are landlords who are in connivance with state authorities in harassing and displacing in the name of "counterinsurgency" measures such as "Red-tagging", harassments, even murder those who assert land redistribution and social justice.

And as an offshoot of such repressive policies and actions brought by the order, peasant unrest continues to aggravate like in the case of Mendiola Massacre in 1987, Hacienda Luisita in 2009, Kidapawan in 2015, the dispute in Lapanday in 2016,  and others that authorities downplaying all these as a "product of deception by subversive elements". With these situations, the struggle for land and justice continues as a part of national struggle for independence. Regardless of the attempts, the order is not serious to appreciate this kind of campaign, let alone a rhetoric meant to appease the folk with piecemeal reforms and all. This attitude was and is to be expected, either seeing legislators and officials under the strong influence of landed interests, to those of groups in connivance with multinationals and local despots insist amendments to existing agrarian reform laws/programs to those of outright scrapping. Progressives within the legislature are seriously trying to push for a genuine agrarian reform with land to the landless and rural empowerment as its primary measures, and still fighting.

Hoping for the future

As any other National Issue, the demand for Agrarian Justice continues to resonate in the countryside. No matter how its critics and apologists of the order tend to downplay it, this issue on land and justice for the peasantfolks is a major matter that the order tend to dismiss as an issue on landlord-tenant relationship or a matter of property dispute. 

But for the Filipino peasant, and in extension the entire community, the issue on land lies the redemption of the nation itself, for it has been one of the reasons to fight for the nation's independence, alongside the struggle for political, civil, and economic rights of a citizen.

That even in this present time continues to linger. Protests for land and justice resonates alongside right to just wage and better working conditions, women's rights, to those of struggle for national sovereignty, these and more would say been "nightmares" to an order that's trying to keep firm their interest.

All in all, it is unsurprising that agrarian reform, was and is, a major issue the order failed to addressed as such. Primarily driven by the intent to lessen the tension between the order and the people, this kind of measure, as any other issue, are all made against the backdrop of rebellion, what more exacerbated by the abuses of the order itself, making their fear of mass violence, with the threat of an outright full blown rebellion as itself imminent.

"To seek truth and call for change is not terrorism!"

"To seek truth and call for change

 is not terrorism!"

By Kat Ulrike

At first, this note strongly opposes the proposed Antiterrorism act of 2020 that was recently approvrd by the allies of the Duterte administration in congress on its third and final reading.

Just like its counterpart in the Senate which was passed last February, this proposed law is all but made in a time focused on coping this COVID19 pandemic. To think that these lawmakers seemed having the "concern" in fighting against terrorism, this present setting is supposed to be focused on fighting this unseen enemh such as this COVID19 virus and to help the people using every attention, effort, and resource especially as the health system trying to struggle beyond their limits. It is also supposed to be the time for mutual aid as millions of folks lost their jobs, closed businesses, and are hungry for financial assistance as promised by the government. With these realities somehow legislators are supposed to address these than focusing on a bill that's in fact further consolidates interests all in the name of "peace and order" even it impairs constitutional rights.

It is unsurprising for the fact that with the regime hungry for power and facing a greater opposition from the concerned folks and masses alike, this kind of act doesn't just reinforces the existing laws concerning "human security", but may also to pave way to other similar laws whose intent is to push through an orderist agenda that disregards civil rights and liberties, as it brands those who oppose theirs, especially those who voice their legitimate grievances as "terrorists" and therefore subjected to the consequences according to law. Worse, this also to further justify extrajudicial acts as a necessary procedure by the state as what happened before and in this recent "anti-illegal drug operations ". This not just affects the suffering poor, but also those whose concern for the country has made them to seek truth from facts that made them expose and oppose the inconveniences and injustice the system has brought to the folk, be it corruption to those of selling national patrimony.

As of this day apologists would time and again insist the act as "necessary" regardless of its controversial nature. They doesn't matter much about its implications, as the act's very nature gives the folk anxiety and fear from its  provisions written being crouched in language that's sweeping, equivocal and thus subjected to misinterpretation and abuse. 

From the creation of an "Anti-Terrorism Council with powers to impose arrests, to those of vague definition of the word "terrorist", these and more weakening right to protect one's privacy, the right to due process, fair trial, and safeguards against arrests and detention without warrants. Again, it is unsurprising that even in this pandemic crisis the order, despite making a measure to protect the people, can also be the same law to oppress.

But this proposed act, if implemented as a law, would rather benefit those who profit from exploiting the folk, from the very order itself where scruplous big institutions, corporations afraid of an ever rising people all pushing for better wages, benefits, and better working conditions; of bureaucrats trying to push their agendas at the expense if the laboring folk; and despotic landlords who consistently opposed to land reform and empowerment of rural communities. Those who rallied on the proposed act and its provisions, all in the name of "peace and order" are at first, against to social justice, wealth redistribution, and other genuine but greater economic reforms, they are the ones who will benefit from the Antiterrorism act. What more that as they themselves ever consistent in their repression and injustice, that through and with the state as their extension of their power, hence, they themselves are the terrorists than those who complained if not resisted against their want.

Today, the people are becoming aware of the moves brought by the order through the present administration. They, despite he risks, are trying their best in seeking truth from facts so as to make people aware that the nation still remains vigilant not just in this time of pandemic crisis, but also against those who push forward a repressive, despotic agenda. 

And if this seeking truth from facts and pushing forward social change as an act of terrorism, then so be it. 

"Anti-Terror Law to fuel further dissent"

"Anti-Terror Law to fuel further dissent"

At first, this note disagrees with the order's proposed "anti terrorism act of 2020".

For regardless of its intent, this proposed law and its provisions, brought by Duterte’s minions in Congress will further reinforce the tyrant's martial law regime and aggrandize his military camarilla with even more powers to perpetuate their repressive policy in the name of “fighting terror.” Furthermore, it showed the utter disregard to the people, particularly the immediate need to check the spread of COVID19  pandemic, such as demanding funding for free mass testing and other urgent measures; and instead an obsession to control people’s freedoms and bullheaded insistence to establish a “new normal” of militarist and neoliberal policies.

In the same way as that made Marcos declared Martial Law in 1972, this act will be used to terrorize and silence, shut all avenues for democratic expression, as it gives the military and police the license to pounce on anyone it wants to accuse of being a "terrorist", along with warrantless arrests, wiretapping, and surveillance to those being suspected.

However, even before this kind of act being railroaded threats against the concerned masses been shown be it in the president's month or by the deed of his supporters: from the non-health military lockdown, maligning concerned government officials to the shutting down of ABS-CBN, to the recent killing of urban poor leader Carlito Badion, this give the people a glimpse into the gross abuse of power which Duterte and his ilk are set to commit with the proposed act.

Furthermore, it gives bureaucrats to fill their coffers for their interests, with a new "Anti Terrorism Council" with its budget and staff determining who is a "terrorist".

But the fears of abuse, misinterpretation, or misapplication of laws including this by the order will further aggravate tensions instead of its supposed pacification. Especially in this pandemic crisis, the order took this situation as an opportunity to push their interest such as putting down opposition on the basis of "human security", and that includes hampering the right to speech, press, assembly, organise, even the right to mutual assistance such as in this period. Furthermore, it may lead further to the creation of new laws, that supports or supplants this kind of "security measure".

It is not surprising actually that the order wished for a new normal  that's based on fear and coercion. As the apologists threw themselves in support of this measure, it is obvious that they wished to sacrifice civil rights and liberties for the sake of what they perceive as security and stability. As in the past, stifling the right to dissent has been the major topic especially as the masses concerned exposed and opposed the antipeople agendas and its actions brought by the order, but it is clear that the Filipino people, no matter the risks, are filled up with the Duterte regime’s militarist response to every situation, that they had enough with the tyranny that tries to cover its atrocity what more of using this pandemic as an "opportunity" to create a "new normal" scheme to pave way to a renewed phase of repression similar to Oplan Tokhang, Oplan Sauron which all meant state terrorism in the guise of "antiterrorism".