FEB 2017 ISSUE 1
FEB 2017
ISSUE 01
Php10.00
1
PARA SA SOSYALISMO
Editorial
The election of President Duterte marks the end of an era of the post-Marcos „Edsa regimes‟, spanning a period of more than three
decades, from Cory Aquino to her son Noynoy Aquino. The masses, frustrated and desperate in the face of the inability of the „Edsa
regimes‟ to find lasting solutions to the country‟s ongoing and chronic socio-economic problems, placed Duterte, a warlord, in power.
After more than three decades of „Edsa rule‟ we still face mass unemployment, low wages, an agrarian crisis, acute shortage of
housing and little or non-existent social services. The situation has reached crisis proportions with the unbridled neo-liberal assault on
these fronts, through privatization, deregulation and trade liberalization, the restructuring and decimation of big sections of the labor
force through contractualization, and the inability of successive governments to deliver meaningful agrarian reform and restructure
socio-economic relations on the land to benefit the rural poor. Moreover, the environmental crisis increasingly devastates large
sections of the population, and effective disaster response, adaptation and mitigation strategies needed to save lives, are mired in
corruption and undermined. The Duterte government is a direct consequence of the political bankruptcy and failure of the Edsa
regimes, combined with the socio-economic havoc created by the imposition of neoliberal economic rule.
Despite President Duterte‟s seemingly contradictory pronouncements, such as the „anti-US‟ stance in foreign policy, his railings
against the old oligarchs, vows to end labor contractualization and even his declaration that he is a „socialist‟, the new regime, with its
warlord style heavy-handed tactics, has far-right characteristics. The extra-judicial killings in the name of the „war on drugs‟,
misogyny, sexism AND general social backwardness, herald a dangerous and uncertain political period ahead. The far-right character
of the regime is further clouded by the left‟s participation in government, with those aligned with the CPP-NPA-NDF, heading up
important cabinet positions.
The rightist features of the Duterte government are even more significant, given the ascendancy of the far right internationally,
especially marked in the West. The election of Donald Trump as president of the United States on an anti-migrant, Islamophobic, antiwomen and protectionist platform, Britain‟s decision to abandon the European Union, a position promoted by the far-right, the rising
popularity of racist and anti-migrant, neo-fascist movements in the West, to the re-instatement of right-wing governments in Latin
America through „constitutional coups‟, most notably against the Workers Party (PT) government in Brazil, are all indications of this
political shift to the right worldwide. The Bolivian Marxist (and Vice President) Alvaro Garcia Linera argues that these international
political developments signify the end of globalization as an ideology, but that the „death‟ of globalization has “left the world with
neither triumph nor an alternative on the horizon”. These international developments are in general, also reflected in the Philippines,
including in the character of the Duterte regime.
The Duterte government is also a result of the failure of the left to put forward and win mass support for a credible, radical, political
alternative. Although left leadership is urgently needed, the left is unfortunately too weak, divided and too compromised to meet the
challenges of these new and uncertain times. It lacks the clarity to chart its political course and the credibility to provide political
leadership. Despite its weakness, however, the political situation today still demands left leadership and a left alternative.
For some time now there has been a need and even a clamor for a paper of the left – a socialist paper. A socialist paper, as a political
instrument, to promote the open discussion and debates necessary to clarify political perspectives, advance, test, assess and develop
relevant strategies and tactics, to help educate and organize new generations of activists and to support the building of a left
alternative.
The paper – Ang Masa, para sa sosyalismo -- stands for a genuine socialist alternative. Only a left and socialist alternative can provide
long-term solutions in these crisis-ridden times. The paper‟s editorial policy will promote discussion and debates and carry analytical
articles in keeping with this view point. Over the coming months some of the main issues addressed in the paper will contribute to
framing the rationale for and the character of a socialist alternative, including that of a socialist center or organization. We believe
such a paper is needed in the current political conjuncture. It‟s with this rationale and stand point that we publish the first issue of Ang
Masa, para sa sosyalismo.#
Is globalization dead?
By Ramani Silva*
Do recent international political developments at the centers of the capitalist global empire – the electoral victory of Donald
Trump in the United States and the exit of Britain from the European Union – herald the end of globalization? If so, what
capitalist or non-capitalist alternatives have emerged to replace it?
Latin American Marxist and Vice President of Bolivia‟s left-wing government Alvaro Garcia Linera in a recent article entitled
“Globalization as an ideology is dead and buried”** puts forward a compelling analysis arguing that what we are witnessing today is
the collapse of the ideology of globalization or the “the end of history as the end of ““the end of history”” – the phrase coined by the
conservative ideologue Francis Fukuyama and which symbolized capitalist triumphalism in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet
Union -- the supposed triumph of the free market and capitalism over „socialism‟.
Globalization as an ideology
Linera argues that “Globalization, as an overarching discourse or ideological horizon able to move collective hopes toward a single
destiny and vision of material welfare has shattered into a thousand pieces.”, and that “Britain‟s decision to abandon the European
Union, the most important state unification project of the past 100 years, coupled with Donald Trump‟s electoral victory that rode on
vows to boost protectionism, build a monumental wall to stem migration, and ditch trade pacts have annihilated the biggest and most
successful liberal dreams of our time.”
While Linera views globalization as primarily an ideological creation launched by its chief protagonists Margaret Thatcher and
Ronald Reagan some 35 years ago that is, “the biggest ideological trickery of recent centuries”, the impact of neoliberal policies
resulting in the “devastation of productive economies and relentless blows to the middle class” have left people disgusted and angry,
thus tipping the balance in the recent elections towards “a fearful retreat behind borders and a return to political tribalism”.
Back to Marx
Karl Marx uncovered the inherently expansionist nature of capitalism and the tendency towards ever increasing centralization and
concentration of capital. His analysis is an important contribution to understanding the process of globalization – nationally, continentwide and then globally.
Linera (drawing from the works of sociologist Giovanni Arrighi), posits that each successive phase of this globalization process was
driven by a „hegemonic state‟: Genoa in the 15th and 16th centuries, the Netherlands in the 18th century, Britain (19th century) and
the United States (20th century). “Each hegemon acted as a catalyst to globalization (firstly commercial, then productive,
technological, cognitive and finally environmental) and to the territorial expansion of capitalist relations.”
According to Linera “a distinctly recent development in this globalizing process is its construction as an ideological project or bid to
unify the political beliefs and moral expectations of men and women worldwide” that is, globalization.
What alternatives
Linera claims that there is no viable global alternative on the horizon, that “there is no “global” alternative for now as far as collective
hopes are concerned” and humanity is “without direction or certainty” facing a “void that follows a period of history”. However, in the
same breadth as it were he infers that the contours of what has emerged as an alternative for the twenty first century is materializing
within the revolutionary struggles and movements in Latin America, where the beginnings of the unravelling of the ideology of
globalization began in the first years of the twenty first century.
The anti-neoliberal mass upsurges that laid the basis for the election of the revolutionary governments of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela
to Evo Morales in Bolivia, and the ongoing albeit now protracted struggles in these countries, represent the most advanced frontline
struggles against neoliberalism.
Hugo Chavez attempted to describe the alternative – both its overall trajectory and the building blocks of the here and now – as
Twenty First Century Socialism.
However, Linera warns that globalization has taken its toll on the masses – “its moral cost and social frustrations [which] themselves
become an obstacle to finding immediate alternatives to globalization.” This statement strikes a chord when we observe the situation
that we face in the Philippines today.
Here too the electoral victory of Duterte represents a certain turning point: the end of the post- Marcos „Edsa regimes‟, thrown out by
a people disgusted and desperate for a change. The masses, worn out by decades of neoliberal rule that has destroyed jobs and
livelihoods through contractualization, the stalling and subverting of land reform, destroying industrial and rural production,
privatizing services driven by the profit motive instead of the public good and depressing communities.
Linera‟s article is an important contribution to understanding the broad brush strokes of the specific conjuncture and the nature of the
period that we face. It provides useful insights to understanding the challenges that we face in advancing the struggle in the
Philippines.
In the Philippines too the alternative is unclear. While Duterte raves against some aspects of neoliberal globalization and the oligarchy
that implemented the neoliberal policies, such as the contractualization of labor, he has neither the political will or strategies in place
to deliver on his promises. The left too has been unable to put forward and win popular support for a transitional socialist alternative.
However, as Linera points out, this ideological void in which capitalist society finds itself, presents the socialist movement with a
unique opportunity to put forward solutions to the way forward, out of this impasse.#
*Ramani Silva is the head of the international desk of the Partido Lakas ng Masa and Chairperson of Transform Asia Gender and
Labor Institute.
**The article “Globalization as an ideology is dead and buried” by Alvaro Garcia Linera can be accessed at
http://worldcrunch.com/opinion-analysis/globalization-as-ideology-is-dead-and-buried
http://links.org.au/garcia-linera-trump-brexit-globalization
ANG KARAKTER NG REHIMENG DUTERTE
ni Sonny Melencio
NANALO si Rodrigo Duterte bilang pangulo sa pamamagitan ng isang kampanya na sumakay sa pagkasuklam at
pagkasiphayo ng masa sa sistemang trapo.Isang sistema na pinaghaharian ng mga Dilawan o mga pwersang nagtataguyod ng
interes ng oligarkiya.
Sa mga unang buwan ng kanyang pamumuno, isinumpa ni Duterte ang oligarkiya bilang mga “halimaw” na pinagpipistahan ang
dambuhalang mga kontrata sa pamahalaan, lumulusot sa pagbabayad ng tamang buwis, at pinayayaman ang sarili sa pawis ng marami.
Nangako ang pangulo na susugpuin ang oligarkiya kasama ang mga drug dealer.
Itinuro niya si Roberto Ongpin, dating ministro ng trade and industry noong panahon ni Marcos, bilang halimbawa ng nasa oligarkiya.
Ani Duterte, ibinubulid ng taong ito, na walang inisip kundi magpayaman, ang mga mamamayan sa masamang bisyo ng online
gambling. Agad iniutos ni Duterte na alisan ng rehistro ang PhilWeb, ang kompanya sa online gambling ni Ongpin. Sa takot ng huli,
nag-divest ito ng lahat ng share at nag-resign bilang pinuno ng PhilWeb.
Nang walang kaabog-abog, binili ito ni Greggy Araneta, asawa ni Irene Marcos, na naging bagong tagapangulo ng kompanya. Mula
nang makuha ito ng mga paryentes ni Marcos, tumigil na ang atake ni Duterte kay Ongpin. Gayundin ang kanyang mga atake sa
oligarkiya.
Kaya totoo ba na seryoso ang rehimeng Duterte sa pagtibag sa oligarkiya gaya nang naunang mga pronouncement nito?
Ngayong Enero, ipinatawag ni Duterte sa isang piging ang mga pangunahing tycoon, taipan at kapitan ng industriya at kalakalan sa
Pilipinas.Iniulat ng media na nagkaroon ng “intimate dialog” ang Pangulo sa mga top honchos na gaya nina Manny Pangilinan ng
PLDT, Jaime Zobel de Ayala ng Ayala Corporation, Henry Sy ng SM, Erramon Aboitiz ng Aboitiz Group, Enrique Razon ng
International Container Services, at iba pang mga nabibilang sa 20 pinakamayayamang Pilipino sa bansa.
Ito ang kaunaunahang pagtitipon ng oligarkiya sa palasyo ng Malakanyang, at sa imbitasyon ng pangulo na minsang nilibak silang
mga “halimaw”. Nagbago na ang tinig ng pangulo. Balik-ligaya na naman ang oligarkiya.
Sinu-sino ang Oligarkiya
Ang oligarkiya ay isang maliit na grupo ng mga tao, pangunahing mga kapitan ng industriya at kalakalan na may kontrol ng
pamahalaan. Ang pagsugpo sa oligarikiya ang isa sa mga dahilang ginamit ni Ferdinand Marcos sa pagdeklara ng martial law noong
1972. Tinutukoy niya noon ang gaya ng mga Lopez (may kontrol ng media at iba pang negosyo), mga Zobel at Ayala, at mga Aboitiz.
Sa ilalim ng diktadura ni Marcos, sinupil ang marami sa oligarkiya (ipinakulong halimbawa ang isa sa mga Lopez) at nagtatag ng mga
“bagong oligarkiya” na nagsimulang mga “cronies” o kasapakat ni Marcos sa negosyo. Ito sina Lucio Tan, Henry Sy, Roberto Ongpin,
Herminio Disini, Gilberto Duavit, Antonio Floirendo, Danding Cojuangco, at mga gaya nila. Sila ang mga cronies na tumanggap ng
maraming pondo at rekurso ng gobyerno para palakihin pa ang kanilang mga korporasyon at ari-arian (na may malaking hamig si
Marcos).
Nang maupo si Cory Aquino noong 1986 sa bisa ng Edsa Revolution, agad ibinalik sa kanikanilang negosyo ang “lumang oligarkiya.”
Nailipat muli sa kanila ang mga ari-arian at negosyong siniquester ni Marcos noong martial law. Pero dahil hindi man lamang
nakasuhan ang mga cronies ni Marcos, nanumbalik din sila sa negosyo. Ang ilang mga tuso ay itinago o ipinasa-pasa sa iba pang
korporasyon ang kitang nakalaan kay Marcos para hindi ito mahabol ng Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG). Sa
kalaunan, ang ill-gotten money na para kay Marcos money ay nagmistulang Mafia money – naging lehitimong kapital sa lehitimong
mga negosyo. Ganito ang naging proseso ng share ni Danding Cojuangco sa SMC.
Noong mangampanya si Duterte, may mga myembro ng oligarkiyang tomodo ng suporta sa kanya. Isa na rito ang numero-unong
oligarch na pamilya Marcos. Isa pa rin ang Mindanao “banana king” na si Tony Floirendo na nagbigay ng P75 milyon dahil daw sa
“pag-ibig kapatid” niya kay Duterte. Ang mga ito ay bahagi ng “bagong oligarkiya” na nabuo noong panahon ni Marcos.
Dahil sa suporta ng oligarkiya, walang naging pangulo ng Pilipinas na hindi nagtaguyod ng kanilang interes pagkaupo sa pwesto.
Minsan, inisip ng marami na naiiba itong si Duterte. Pero ngayong nag-iba na ng tono ang pangulo at nagpapatuloy ang neoliberal na
programa na ang nakikinabang ay malalaking kompanya, nasaan ang pagbabago? Isang patunay ng anti-oligarkiya ay kung
magkakaroon ng political will ang pangulo na isabansa ang malalaking korporasyon at industriyang magbibigay ng malaking ginhawa
sa masa.
Mga paksyon sa gobyerno
Bagamat naglubay na si Duterte sa pag-atake sa oligarkiya, hindi naman naglulubay ang kanyang paksyon na kopohin ang estado
laban sa dating naghaharing paksyon. Ang huli ay tinatawag ding mga Dilawan, binubuo ng mga trapo sa ilalim ng dating
namamayagpag na Liberal Party. Ito‟y halos anino na lamang ng nakaraan dahil sa pagsapi ng marami rito sa “supermajority” ni
Duterte sa Kongreso.
Ang paksyon ni Duterte ay pangunahing binubuo ng mga lokal na politiko na nasa gilid-gilid ng tinatawag nilang “Imperial Manila” o
mga trapong matagal nang kinopo ang mga pambansang pwesto. Ang base ng suporta ni Duterte ay mga trapo ring nakakalat sa mga
probinsiya at rehiyon.
Isa sa mga layunin ng paksyong ito ay ang pagbaliktad sa paghahari ng Imperial Manila sa pamamagitan ng pagtatayo ng federal
system na may parliamentaryo o magkahalong presidential-parliamentary na gobyerno. Para mangyari ito, kailangang baguhin ang
Konstitusyon. Nagkakaisa ngayon ang Kongreso na ideklara ang kanilang sarili bilang Constituent Assembly (Con-Ass) para isulong
ang Chacha. Ang pamamaraang ito, ani House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, ay gaganapin sa loob ng anim na buwan mula ngayon .
Warlordismo
Kinakatawan ng paksyon ni Duterte ang penomenon ng warlordismo sa bansa. Ito ang paraan ng paghahari na gumagamit ng
sukdulang karahasan – kabilang ang pagbubuo ng private army at death squad – para isulong ang sariling ambisyon. Ito ay matagal
nang umiiral sa iba‟t ibang lugar, gaya ng Davao (sa ilalim ni Duterte), Isabela (ang mga Dy), Escalante (mga Yap), Maguindanao
(mga Ampatuan), at iba pa. Ang warlordismo ay nakapundar sa makasarili at authoritarian na paraan ng paghahari, at sa gayo‟y
madaling dumausdos sa pagwasak sa anumang anyo ng liberal na demokratikong proseso.
Ang penomenon ng warlordismo sa bansa ay iniluluwal ng isang sistemang pinanday ng kolonyal at pyudal na kasaysayan kung saan
ang naghaharing uri ay silang tumanggap ng biyaya sa kolonyal na administrasyon. Inari nila ang malalawak na lupain at sa batayan
nito ay naging mga political clan na naghari-harian sa kanilang mga lugar.
Ang paghaharing ito, na hindi nakabatay sa merito o anumang liberal na demokratikong proseso, ang salalayan ng warlordismo sa
maraming lugar sa Pilipinas. Pinatutunayan din nito na ang pambansang estado (nation-state) sa Pilipinas ay mahina, at kinokontrol ng
oligarkiya at mga political clans na walang pakialam sa mga probinsya at rehiyon hangga‟t nasa kanila ang kakayahang mamahagi ng
mga dinadambong sa pamahalaan.
Ang pagkapanalo ni Duterte ang kauna-unahang pagkakataon sa kasaysayan na umupo sa pambansang pwesto ang isang lokal na
warlord.
Maghanda
Sa harap ng isang rehimeng otoritaryan at may warlord na sikolohiya at pamamaraan, nahaharap ang uring manggagawa at ang masa
sa isang maselan at mapanganib na panahon.
Pitong buwan pa lamang si Duterte sa pwesto, subalit lumilinaw na ang limitasyon ng kanyang rehimen. Nauuwi sa rhetorics ang
maraming pahayag ng pangulo, gaya ng pagpapalayas sa US military sa bansa at pag-repeal sa mga di-pantay na tratado sa Amerika.
Maraming pangako ang nababali, gaya ng pagbuwag sa kontraktwalisasyon.
Ang halos natitira na lamang na accomplishment ni Duterte ay ang bangis ng kanyang gyera laban sa droga. Pero kung nais ni
Duterteng matupad ang kanyang mga pangako sa masa, ang kamay na bakal ay hindi dapat ituon sa pagpaslang sa 7,000 mahihirap sa
ilalim ng gyera sa droga. Ito ay dapat ituon sa pagsugpo sa oligarkiya at pagtigil sa mga patakarang neoliberal na dahilan ng sobrang
kahirapan at istagnasyon ng ekonomiya sa bansa.
Kung hindi magkakagayon, hindi magaganap ang mga pangako. At sa oras na kumilos ang masa para maningil dito, oras din na
sasambulat sa kanila ang tunay na katangian ng rehimen.
Kailangang maghanda. At kasama sa paghahanda ang malawakang paglalantad sa katangian ng rehimen, ang pagpapalakas ng ating
hanay, at ang pagsusulong ng mas malalaki at mas matitinding mobilisasyon ng masa. #
*
Si Sonny Melencio ay Chairperson ng Partido Lakas ng Masa.
by Eduardo C. Tadem*
In 2017, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) marks the fiftieth year of its founding with the Philippines as the
host country. Civil society organizations (CSOs) and peoples’ organizations across the region have been challenging the
regional organization to address issues and concerns that affect the peoples of Southeast Asia. Among the more prominent
CSO concerns are: (1) lack of popular participation in ASEAN decision-making; (2) rising inequalities between and among
member countries; (3) weakening democracies and prevalence of authoritarian governing modes resulting in human rights
deficits; (4) dominance of an elite-centered development strategy and the resulting failure to attain inclusive growth; (5)
competition rather than complementarity in trade and investment relations; (6) absence of sanctions against rogue regimes;
(7) lack of a regional identity and unity; (8) weak social protection for all residents and migrants; and (9) prevalence of gender
inequalities.
The main forum for civil society engagement with the ASEAN process is the ASEAN Civil Society Conference / ASEAN Peoples‟
Forum (ACSC/APF) which was established in 2005 in Kuala Lumpur. Its constituents are: workers, the peasantry, urban poor,
fisherfolk, women, youth/children, LGBT community, indigenous peoples, migrants, older persons, employees, professionals, students
and persons with disabilities. Among its thematic priorities are human rights, social protection, foreign policies, trade and investments,
labor and migration, social inequalities, peace and security, food sovereignty, women, gender and LGBT rights, and climate justice.
Throughout its eleven years of engagement with ASEAN, the ACSC/ APF has focused on organizing national consultations and
workshops, national and regional meetings with government counterparts, regional consultative meetings, crafting the ACSC/APF
annual statement, holding of a parallel conference with the ASEAN Summit, mass mobilizations (rallies, etc.) and an interface with
ASEAN heads of state.
The specific issues and concerns are: inequituous free trade agreements, rampant land conversions and land grabbing, heightened
militarization, pollution, disasters, migration, feminization of informal sector, high-skilled and low-skilled divide among migrant
workers , internal conflicts and displacement, absence of a genuine agrarian reform, agro-ecology, neglect of agriculture, gender
inequality and women disempowerment, lack of universal health care, poor access to education, power and water issues, homophobia
and misogyny, trafficking of persons, and the marginalized informal sector.
The question, however, is whether these eleven years of CSO engagement with ASEAN has borne fruit. Tellingly, an internal
ACSC/APF Ten-Year Review (2005-2015) concluded that “individual ASEAN member countries have consistently resisted and
vacillated with regards civil society participation and engagement” and that “ASEAN and its member governments have been seen to
be more comfortable with the private sector and academic and research think tanks than with civil society.”
The ACSC/APF 2016 Timor Leste Statement stated that “ASEAN civil society remain extremely concerned about ASEAN‟s
prevailing silence and lack of attention and response to the observations and recommendations raised in all previous ACSC/APF
Statements” connoting “disregard of the need to engage substantively with civil society in ASEAN and (this) is cemented in the lack
of open and safe space that promotes meaningful and substantive participation, inclusion and representation of all peoples of ASEAN
... in the various processes of ASEAN structures and mechanisms.”
A press release issued by the ACSC/ APF Co-Chairs upon the close of the two Laos Summits of Leaders in 2016 expressed
“disappointment at the continued lack of opportunity to voice human rights concerns and critically engage with government .. (and of)
ASEAN governments‟ lack of recognition of civil society as a critical stakeholder.”
Given the disappointing results of ten years of engagement with ASEAN utilizing modes as outlined above, what is needed now is a
new vision for engagement by civil society in general and by the ASEAN ACSC/ APF for 2017 and beyond. This is a way of
overcoming the frustration and vexation felt by CSOs. Accordingly, the Philippine Process of the ACSC/ APF has initiated the
development of a new vision for ACSC/APF based on people-to-people interactions rather than state-to-state relations or purely
market-oriented interactions. The CSO network intends to take the initiative of providing organizational and intellectual leadership for
Southeast Asian civil society.
The strategy for the new vision is to build on the existing initiatives and practices at the ground level which are alternative and nonmainstream and which encompass economic, political, and socio-cultural aspects. At the economic level, examples are: people-topeople trade through cooperatives; reviving local markets; social enterprises; sustainable food production systems, organic farming,
agroecology, biodiversity, zero-waste production, building forward and backward production and marketing linkages, and,
community-based renewable energy systems.
On the political front, the new vision would entail expanding networks and international gatherings of CSOs on environmental issues,
human rights, and peace and human security. At the local level, this means looking into alternative modes of governance that are
participatory and popularly-based. On the socio-cultural aspect, visual artists and performers are to engage in exchange programs and
visits in order to share the richness and diversity of Southeast Asian cultures and arts that are liberative and emancipatory.
From these alternative practices, ACSC/APF will henceforth develop a new form of regional integration from below by:
1. Coordinating the interactions between the alternative practices;
2. Convening and organizing conferences and workshops of the groups and communities involved in alternative practices;
3. Researching and documenting the practices and building a data base;
4. Conducting alternative learning and training programs based on grassroots needs;
5. Conceptualizing and making sense of the practices and developing new paradigms and strategies of development;
6. Mobilizing the entire universe of alternative practices, regional interactions and the communities and organizing joint actions
and initiatives;
7. Promoting the replication of the alternative practices in order to mainstream them; and,
8. Establishing a regional mechanism at the civil society level that is based on the interactions and cooperative practices between
these alternative practices.
The above strategy for a people-to-people regional integration does not preclude the continuation of engaging the official ASEAN
process as before. This traditional form can continue in order to win concessions on specific issues and concerns and extend support
for reform-minded government officials and personnel. It will, however, no longer be the main focus of ACSC/APF as it harnesses its
regional network‟s members to work for a new Southeast Asian civil society peoples‟ integration.
While being initiated at the Philippine level of ACSC/APF, it is hoped by its visionaries that this rethinking of CSO engagement with
ASEAN will be adopted as well by other national processes of ASEAN member countries. By the time ACSC/ APF convenes in its
annual gathering in mid-2017, a unified goal should have been arrived at transforming the eleven-year network and recharging its
vibrancy and optimism.
The eleven-year experience of engagement with the official ASEAN process has taught civil society movements in Southeast Asia
valuable lessons that should guide its future trajectories. Disappointments, rejections, and disillusionments should now be a thing of
the past and chalked up to experience. The real challenge facing ACSC/APF today lies from outside and beyond the established
ASEAN process. ACSC/ APF must be firmly linked and tightly interconnected with grassroots initiatives and the creative practices of
real peoples struggling to carve a better and more dignified life for their families and communities and for the future. ACSC/APF has
to take up this challenge or continue to be mired in the old ways that have proven to be ineffectual and counterproductive.#
*Eduardo C. Tadem Ph.D. is Co-convenor, ASEAN Civil Society Conference/ASEAN Peoples‟ Forum (ACSC/APF 2017); President, Freedom from
Debt Coalition (FDC); and Professorial Lecturer of Asian Studies, University of the Philippines Diliman. This paper is based on the ACSC/APF
Philippine Process‟s vision paper for 2017: “Beyond Boundaries: Solidarities of Peoples in Southeast Asia.”
Duterte’s Solution to ‘Endo’:
Rendering Exploitation More Efficient
By Luke Espiritu*
Before the year ended, media reported that President Rodrigo Duterte gave the go-ahead to Labor Secretary Silvestre Bello
III to sign the administration’s much-hyped solution to contractualization --- a new Department Order (D.O.) replacing the
current D.O. 18-A. The Labor Department had circulated a draft of the new D.O. last December 12, 2016.
However, Bello denied the truth of the media report a few days later in a dialogue with various labor groups under the Nagkaisa labor
coalition. He instead promised the Nagkaisa leaders that any new issuance would have to undergo consultations with labor groups
under the National Tri-Partite Industrial Peace Council. What he did not emphasize, though, was that he was not replacing the draft
D.O. with a new one; and it was precisely the contents of this draft D.O. that drew flak from organized labor rather than the absence of
consultations prior to approval. While not yet final, the draft D.O. continues the established policy on contractualization, i.e. that it
must be regulated rather than prohibited. The Duterte administration shows no indication to abandon this policy despite the President‟s
rhetoric against “endo”. All past regulatory issuances have not curbed contractualization. On the contrary, they promoted it.
Successive improvements on regulation (as what the draft D.O. intends to be, i.e. to be the latest) merely served to reinforce the
trilateral work relationship between principal, contractor and workers by forcing it to evolve from various stages of primitiveness to its
relatively developed forms.
In a word, successive improvements on regulation merely render contractualization more efficient, therefore, further strengthening it
as an instrument of exploitation. The primitive level of contractualization is that contractors or service providers do not have sufficient
assets, machines, tools and equipment or do not act independently but are mere agents of the principal. Under the Duterte
administration‟s proposed regulations, there are stricter registration and capitalization requirements that would not allow such
conditions. It requires service providers to be truly independent in terms of their own capital and control of contractual workers.
However, this is not to say that preventing the primitive type of contracting is something new that came about only with Duterte. Fact
is, thistype of contracting by mere alter-egos of the principal is precisely “labor-only contracting”, declared illegal, albeit by lip
service, by the Labor Code and all of the past implementing rules and regulations. What is new, though, under the Duterte draft D.O.
are proactive mechanisms to ensure that existing trilateral work arrangements do not fall under “labor-only contracting.” Before, these
mechanisms did not exist and the lack of regulation allowed the mushrooming of illegal labor-only contractors. However, far from
ending contractualization, the Duterte draft D.O. is merely re-tooling it as an institution at that precise historical stage when service
providers have amassed enough capital and, therefore, can move from primitive accumulation as illegal labor-only contractors towards
legitimate accumulation as independent contractors. What appears, therefore, as a progressive advance from less to more strict
regulation by the State simply reflects the actual material development of service providers from initially operating as alter-egos of the
principal to becoming capitalists themselves.
At this historical stage, the State can demand that the Philippine Association of Legitimate Service Contractors or AsiaPro model of
labor-contracting must be the exclusive norm. From here on, based on the Duterte draft D.O., service providers would no longer be
tolerated if they had no capital or investment of their own in the form of tools, equipment, machineries and work premises. The State,
from here on, shall strictly monitor compliance and punish violations. From here on, contractors‟ workers shall be their own regular
employees, who are therefore entitled to minimum wage and all legally-mandated rights and benefits.
In fact, the idea of stringent regulatory measures to address contractualization is welcomed not by organized labor but by the
capitalists themselves through the Employers Confederation of the Philippines (ECOP), though they are supposedly the ones affected
by the State‟s adoption of exacting standards and departure from past leniency.
In contractualization, where lies the exploitation? It lies in how the workers are cheated in the sale of this special commodity and the
only one they possess, labor-power. Political-economy teaches that labor-power may be different in so far as it creates surplus value,
but it is similar to any other commodity under capitalism in all other respects. In the sale of commodities in general, sellers can
negotiate for a better price if they sell direct to the end-users. What happens in labor contracting is that instead of workers being able
to sell their labor-power direct to the capitalist end-user, a middle man is introduced so that the workers are forced to sell cheap. In a
word, the transaction is made artificially trilateral instead of bilateral. It is artificial because unlike in tangible commodities where
physical restrictions of location and geography may give rise to middle men as intermediaries between sellers and end-users, in laborpower, as a rule, there are no such restrictions. The worker can himself go direct to the capitalist to apply for a job, or sell his laborpower.
In the long run, the trilateral arrangement in the sale of labor-power depresses the social average of the value of labor-power as
purchased by the capitalist as a class. It does not matter whether the middle man is merely an alter ego of the capitalist (primitive type)
or an independent capitalist himself (modern type). As long as the trilateral arrangement is forced artificially upon the transaction, the
exploitation subsists. The workers sell cheap, depressing the social average of the value of labor-power and, therefore, the capitalist
buys cheap even if in the short run he had to spend extra by sharing with the middle man a portion of the surplus value created by the
use of labor-power.
Therefore, anything short of abolishing the trilateral work arrangement in favor of direct or bilateral transaction between workers and
the capitalist is nothing but continuing the same exploitation in a different form. The solution to contractualization is to do away with
middle men altogether, may they be called labor-only contractors or legitimate service providers. They are a superfluity serving no
productive function except to add another layer to the sale of labor-power. In fact, the law provides Secretary Bello the alternative of
requiring the direct hiring of workers by the principal and prohibiting all forms of contractualization.
Under Article 106 of the Labor Code, the Labor Secretary may, by appropriate regulations, restrict or prohibit the contracting-out of
labor to protect the rights of workers. Two powers are conferred here. First is mere regulation and second is outright prohibition of the
contracting-out of labor. So far, all the past Secretaries up to Secretary Bello have gone the route of regulation. No one has ever
prohibited contractualization. Mere regulation, like the Duterte draft D.O., can never solve the problem because it presupposes or
creates the problem first. “Regulating” the trilateral work arrangement means instituting it a priori and preserving it as an institution.
Decades of regulation have brought workers to economic misery, loss of bargaining power at the workplace and in-security of tenure.
Not regulation but only the complete abolition of all forms of contractualization can improve the lives of millions of Filipino
workers.#
*Luke Espiritu is the President of the militant labor federation, SUPER.
ni Lorena Ladipe*
Noong Enero 16, 2017, isang magandang kaganapan ang nangyari sa Cavite State University- Silang kung saan inilunsad ng
mga kabataan ang nagkakaisang pagkilos upang ipaglaban ang kanilang mga karapatan at upang ipakita sa administrasyon
ng paaralan ang di-patitinag nilang paglaban. Hindi lamang mga kabataan ang nandoon. Nandoon din ang kanilang mga
magulang na sumusuporta sa kanilang laban.
Napaiyak ang mga magulang sa sobrang emosyon, emosyon na umaapaw at naglalagablab mula sa mga kabataan na ipinaglalaban ang
bawat pribilehiyo na dapat nasa sa kanila. Dito lang napatunayan ng ibang mga kabataan, saksi ang ilang mga kasama, na ang
nagkakaisang kabataan ay kailanma‟y hindi magigiba.
Dito nailathala ang isyu na nais ipangalat sa marami dahil isyu ito ng lahat. Mahigit 4,000 mag-aaral ng Cavite State Universitv-Silang
(CvSU-Silang) ang pinagsisinungalingan at itinatago sa kanila ang dapat na sa kanila. Hindi man makapagsalita ang ilang kabataan,
makikita ang kanilang suporta at hiyaw sa mga isyu na isinisiwalat ng mga kabataang nag-picket sa harap ng eskwelahan.
Madaming mga gahaman sa posisyon ang naglabasan, maraming mga nang-harass pero hindi kami nagpatinag. Ito‟y una sa
kasaysayan ng CvSU-Silang campus, kung saan may nagprotestang mga estudyante na sumisigaw ng hustisya at katotohanan!
Dekalidad na edukasyon; sagutin ang katanungan ng mga estudyante; at maka-estudyanteng pakikitungo ng student council at
administrasyon ng eskwelahan -- iyan ang pangunahing hiling ng mga mag-aaral noong mga oras na iyon. Dapat hindi na ito hinihingi,
dapat ay ibinibigay at ginagawa nila bilang serbisyo at paggampan ng kanilang sinasabing mga misyon.
Nagngingitngit ang kalooban ng mga estudyante – mula sa mga nag pi-picket na mga estudyante at sa suporta ng nakararaming
estudyante. Hindi sila umalis sa aming tabi hanggat hindi natatapos ang programa. Tunay ngang nakikinig sila at interesado sa bawat
isyu na aming tinatalakay.
Nakatataba ng puso ang aming nasaksihan na todong suporta ang ibinigay ng aming kapwa mag-aaral sa kabila ng mga pangungutya
ng ilang mga guro. Hindi sila nagpatinag at sila‟y sumuporta pa din. Kaya sumpa namin, kung hindi maisasaayos ang mga napagusapan, BABALIK KAMI NA MAS MARAMI PA, bitbit ang pangunahing MGA isyu at ipapangalat pa tulad nito:
Kasong libel at perjury sa 34 na estudyante, ibasura!
Tatlumpu‟t apat na estudyante ng CvSU-Silang ay naghain ng petisyon sa Pangulo ng CvSU upang humingi ng klaripikasyon hinggil
sa suspetsa nilang anomalya na kinasasangkutan ng dating Dean Dr. Dinah Espineli, dating OSA Head Quintin Subong at Merrill Kim
Almeda na kasalukuyang Pangulo ng Cavite Student Government (CSG).
Layunin ng petisyon na magkaroon ng kaliwanagan kaugnay ng mga sumusunod:
Magkakaibang paliwanag tungkol sa status ng second-hand na Toyota Innova na ginagamit nina Mr. Subong at Kim;
Kwestyonableng paggamit ng ng CSG fund sa proyektong Student Park;
Di-makataong pakikitungo sa mga estudyante ng CvSU, ROTC at sa mga non-teaching staffs ng dating dekana Gng. Espineli.
Sa halip na pagtuunan ang nasabing mga isyu, sinampahan ang 34 ng kasong libel at perjury sa Office of the Provincial Prosecutor sa
Imus, Cavite.
Itinakda ang kanilang hearing noong Enero 17, 2017.
Ang hinihiling ng mga estudyante ay simpleng klaripikasyon sa accountability ng administrasyon kaugnay ng nabanggit na mga isyu.
Ito‟y bahagi ng karapatan ng mga mag-aaral na maging transparent ang mga opisyal tungo sa matapat na paglilingkod at pagtataas ng
kalidad ng edukasyon.
Ang pagsasampa ng kaso laban sa mga estudyante ay nangangahulugan lamang ng pag-iwas sa katotohanan at pananakot upang sila‟y
patahimikin. Nilalagay nito sa panganib ang karapatan at pangarap ng kanilang mga magulang na makapagtapos sila ng kolehiyo at
maging produktibong Pilipino.
Ang laban ng CvSU-Silang 34 ay laban nating lahat para sa isang disente at malinis na CvSU-Silang Campus.
Ilan lamang ito sa mga panawagan naming mag-aaral. Hindi lamang ito sa CvSU-Silang Campus kundi sa buong sistema ng ng Cavite
State University upang mabago at malinis ang mga bulok na sistema na umiiral sa buong unibersidad at magkaroon ng kapita-pitagang
reporma na inaasam ng CvSUeño. Sa 11 satelite campus at sa aming main campus, gusto naming maranasan ang tunay na kalidad ng
edukasyon, malayang pakikitungo sa kapwa mag-aaral man o sa administrasyon, at isang patas na paglilingkod. Walang dahas, walang
korapsyon, at higit sa lahat mayroong maayos na pakikitungo upang mapunto ang ninanais na pagbabago. Ito‟y hinahangad namin
hindi lamang para sa aming mga sarili kundi pati narin sa mga susunod pang henerasyon na magsisipag- aral sa aming sintang
unibersidad.
Ito‟y laban din namin para sa aming mga magulang na nagsisikap na kami‟y mapag-aral. Sila‟y lumalaban din bilang mga
manggagawa upang kami‟y mabigyan ng magandang kinabukasan.
Kaming kabataan na pag-asa ng aming pamilya at higit sa lahat ng bayan, ayaw naming masadlak sa kawalang pag-asa, at higit sa
lahat, ayaw naming hayaan na ang nararanasan namin ngayong krisis dahil sa bulok na sistema ay maranasan pa ng mga susunod na
henerasyon ng kabataan.
Kung may magagawa kami ngayon, bakit kailangang ipagpabukas pa? Ayaw na naming ipagpaliban ito, dahil baka maudlot pa ang
pag-asa ng bayan.
Layunin naming mga bukas na ang isipan na buksan din ang isipan ng iba. Hindi na kami magpapatumpik-tumpik pa: laban kung
laban! Hanggang makamtan ang inaasam ng ating bayan. Bilang mga Iskolar ng Bayan, kami ay lumalaban sa maling aming nakikita
at aming ipinaglalaban kung ano ang tama.
Dahil KABATAAN, KAISA KA, MAY PAKIALAM KA.
*Si Lorena Ladipe ay lider ng Young PLM sa Cavite. Binubuo nila ngayon ang chapter ng PLM (Partido Lakas ng Masa) sa Cavite
State University campus.
Proletarianization of the artisanal miner and “mongoloid”
capitalism:
The Political economy of “Oro”
by Merck Maggudayao*
For twenty years, Elmer and his men freely mine in the tiny but gold-rich island of Lahuy Island in the town of Caramoan in
Bicol. As artisans in the 21st century, they have long been eking out a living by selling their gold to Kapitana, the elected
village chief and guild master of the miners, who trades the gold in Manila for higher rates. The relationship of the miners and
Kapitana is semi-feudal–the miners hold a seemingly communal ownership of Lahuy, provided they pay their tribute to
Kapitana. And true to the semi-feudal set-up of Lahuy, the miners’ families are practically immobile. Most, if not all of them,
depend their lives exclusively on mining, and leaving the island is not an option.The film erstwhile had two proletarian
characters–Elmer’s wife Linda and her co-teacher who work in a rural public school. Still, their wages pale in comparison to
the money generated from gold, which barely meets the island folks’ subsistence.
Enter the militia dubbed as Patrol Kalikasan– the private army of the provincial governor masquerading as eco-warriors. For the first
time in twenty years, the tranquility of Lahuy is shattered as they forcibly evict the miners from their workplaces, seizing their
minuscule tools of production while invoking bourgeois laws esoteric to the island folks (“All laws do not favor the poor,” remarked
Elmer). Co-opting Kapitana‟s rival Leticia Razon as their buyer, the armed men initially manned the mining site but they do not have
the skill to mine. Hence, the militia went back to the homegrown miners and employed them by having them sign contracts as their
workers. In this scene, the homegrown miners, once artisans, are transformed into proletarians as they now own nothing but their labor
power for Patrol Kalikasan had seized Lahuy‟s mine as their–or to be more precise, their boss‟–private property.
Here we see how capitalism strangled Lahuy‟s semi-feudal, artisanal existence, but not in capitalism‟s ways in advanced economies.
In the Third World, capitalism, in the words of the late Popoy Lagman, is a “mongoloid economy, afflicted by an abnormality in its
fetal stage of development.” In Oro, the new private owner of Lahuy‟s mines is not a corporation but a local elite (the governor)
whose capital is political power and public fund, his rule enforced by his repressive apparatus (the Patrol Kalikasan) and with a
middle-lady (Leticia Razon) as the forger of “consent” by magnetizing the homegrown miners for want of subsistence, in the process
unseating Kapitana from her reign.
The governor‟s method of capital accumulation maybe primitive in the era of globalization and increasing commercialization, but
historically, capitalism takes root from the bourgeoisie‟s forcible expropriation of land from the peasant toilers, with the latter
eventually hired as wage-earners.
Corporatizing mining in Lahuy is not in any way more humane than the Patrol Kalikasan‟s forcible seizure of the mines. Ultimately,
as what happens in the Philippines, the governor had to give the mines to a corporation and as shown in pictures and the attendant
disasters of large-scale mining, it only caused irreparable damage to the environment and the lives of people, as what happened in
Marinduque, Compostela Valley, Rapu-Rapu, and Semirara (Oro did not delve on this, though).
Kapitana‟s painstaking effort to secure a permit from the Environment Department is all but a holding action to recover her and her
constituents lost livelihood by restoring the old artisanal way. Unfortunately, capitalism knows no sentimentality, just like how
Cinema Paradiso was demolished in Giancaldo to pave way for a parking lot. Artisanal mining has to be abolished and it was
enunciated in the murder of Elmer and three other miners during Patrol Kalikasan‟s retreat.
In Oro, Lahuy is a late-bloomer in capitalist development, it being one of the decaying bastions of semi-feudalism in the Philippines.
Tourism is the main industry of its town Caramoan, and it serves capital as some former miners turn into tourism workers. Still, if all
forms of mining cannot be temporarily stopped through a national moratorium, corporations will soon plunder its land and waters. The
ghosts of the felled Lahuy miners will continue to haunt the island, unless the living stand up to fight not only for social change, but
also for social progress.#
*Merck Maggudayao is a freelance writer. He is also the General Secretary of Super, a militant labor federation.
PARA SA SOSYALISMO___
ni Ric Reyes*
Pormal na nagwakas noong Hunyo 2014 ang batas ng gubyerno sa reporma sa lupa – ang Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program ( CARP ) matapos ang unang 20 taon ng implementasyon at huling 5 taon ng extension sa ilalim ng CARP Extension
with Reforms (CARPER ).
Nagkamit ng lupang sinasaka ang mahigit 3 milyong magbubukid (1) sa karamihaý mga lupaing nasa ilalim ng mga tradisyunal o
malapyudal na sistema at ilang tampok na hacienda sa Negros at plantasyon sa Mindanao at ang Hacienda Luisita na may kapitalistang
katangian. Ito‟y nakamit ng organisadong magbubukid at manggagawang bukid matapos ang mahaba at mahirap na pakikibakang
legal at metalegal na pinagbuwisan ng buhay.
Subalit nagwakas ang batas na ito nang hindi mapagpasyang nalansag sa buong kapuluan ang pribadong kontrol sa lupaing
agrikultural ng mga panginoong maylupang may tradisyunal at/o kapitalistang katangian at mga kapitalista sa agribusiness at real
estate. Sa mga nagkamit ng maliliit na saka, walang katiyakan ang kinabukasan dahil sa impak ng walang tigil na liberalisasyon, at
agresibong landgrabbing ng mga kapitalista sa agribusiness at real estate, bukod pa sa pananalasa ng mga superbagyo at tagtuyot dulot
ng pagbabago sa klima.
Napakalaki ng lupaing agrikultural na hindi nagalaw ng CARP/CARPER. Inamin ng DAR na hindi nasaklaw ng CARPER ang may
700, 000 ektarya at hindi na ito nagpaliwanag sa pagkawala sa implementasyon ng may 1 milyong ektarya pa. Dagdag dito ang daandaang libong ektaryang hindi isinama sa CARP sa bisa ng DOJ Opinion No. 44 noong 1990 – mga lupaing agrikultural na
klasipikadong komersyal, industriyal at residensyal bago Hunyo 1988. Isa pa ang Local Government Code ng 1991 na nagbigay ng
kapangyarihan sa lokal na gubyerno na baguhin ang klasikipasyon ng lupa na nagbigay daan sa mga conversion.
Bukod pa, ang sinaklaw ng implementasyon ay binutas ng mga probisyon sa batas tulad ng Voluntary Land Transfer ( VLT ), stock
distribution option ( SDO ) at leaseback arrangement (1 ) na hindi tunay na nagpapamahagi ng pag-aari at kontrol ng lupa sa
magsasaka. Dinemonyo rin ito ng maraming exemption, malawakang korupsyon, at mga scam sa lupa ng mga burukrata. Pinilay ito
ng pagkakait ng Kongreso ng sapat na pondo. Sinagasaan ito ng mga land grabbing at conversion at sari-saring legal na maniobra at
karahasan sa mga magbubukid ng mga panginoong maylupa at kapitalista.
Ang mga naglalakihang asyenda sa Negros, mga malalaking pribadong lupain sa Bikol at Timog Katagalugan, iba pang lugar sa
Kabisayaan at ang mga plantasyon sa Mindanao ang matibay na saksi ng pananatili ng pribadong monopoly sa lupa.
Ang opensiba para sa katarungang panlipunan na binunga ng pakikibakang bayan sa panahon ng diktadura at matapos nito ay
napalitan ng bagong opensiba ng malakihang pribadong akumulasyon ng pag-aari at kontrol ng lupa.
Taglay ang saligang kahinaan at limitasyon ng isang burgis na reporma sa lupa, ang CARP/CARPER ay binansot pa at tuluyang
pinatay ng burgis na gubyerno . Di tulad ng mga burgis na gubyerno sa ibang bansa na nakapagpatupad ng reporma sa lupa bilang
mayor na sangkap ng kanilang sariling industriyalisasyon at ekonomya, ang mga kapitalistang Pilipino na nagdodomina sa gubyerno
ay karay-karay lamang ng mga global na pwersang kapitalista at marami pang tali sa mga pwersang malapyudal sa kanayunan. Wala
silang balak at kakayahan na magpaunlad ng sariling agrikultura at industriya. At lalong wala silang intensyon na magreporma sa lupa
pa. Wala tayong maaasahan na sa kanila.
Talagang wala na tayong maasahan sa umiiral na sistema sa harap ng nagpatung patong pang mga pahirap sa mamamayan. Ang
agribusiness at real estate at minahan na itinayo sa lupang agrikultural ay lalong nagpahina sa ating seguridad sa pagkain, nagpalala sa
pagwasak ng kapaligiran at kawalan ng balanse ng ekolohiya ng maraming lugar, at nagpalayas sa mga mamamayan mula sa kanilang
saka, tirahan at/o lupang ninuno.
Ang burges na reporma sa lupa ay hindi na makapagbibigay ng hustisya sa lupa at mayor na papel sa pagpapaunlad ng ating
agrikultura at depensa ng ating kapaligiran. Patitindihin lang nito ang kapitalistang pandarambong at malakihang akumulasyon ng lupa
at pagwasak ng kapaligiran.
SOSYALISASYON NG LUPA
Tawag ng panahon ang radikal na solusyon. Ang solusyong ito ay SOSYALISTANG SOLUSYON. At ang ibig sabihin nito sa saligan
ay sosyalisasyon ng pag-aari at kontrol ng lupa bilang pwersa ng produksyon.
Ang pananalasang nagaganap ay nagpapatampok ng kahungkagan ng pribadong pag-aari ng lupa. Para mapalitaw na may batayan ang
pribadong pag-aari sa lupa sa ilalim ng kapitalismo, ilang siglo nang ginigiit ng mga neoklasikal na kapitalistang pantas na ang
paglalapat ng lakas paggawa at mga produkto nito tulad ng teknolohiya ay nagbibigay ng halaga sa lupa kung kayat maaari itong ariin
nang pribado. Inaargumento nila na ito ay kaiba sa pag-aari ng lupa ng mga hari at mananakop na bansa na nakabatay sa lantay na
marahas na pananakop.
Ang hindi malutas-lutas ng mga pantas na ito ay ang problema na ang lupa bilang lupa lamang ay hindi produkto ng lakas paggawa di
tulad ng teknolohiya, makinarya at iba pa na maaaring kunan ng sobrang halaga na gagawing kapital.
Isa pang problema nila ay pwede naming kwentahin ang halaga ng lakas paggawa na ginamit sa lupa nang hiwalay sa angking halaga
ng lupa batay sa tinatawag na “ socially necessary labor time “.
Ang aral ng Simbahang Katoliko na ang lupa ay hindi dapat ariin ninuman dahil ito ay natural na biyaya ng Maylikha ay pilipit sa
harap ng pagpayag nilang ariin ito pero may regulasyon ng estado para sa kagalingan ng lahat.
Mas malinaw at buo ang paniniwala ng mga katutubo tulad ng sinabi ng lider- Cordillera na si Macliing Dulag na paano masasabi na
pwedeng ariin ang lupa gayong kapag wala na tayo, nandyan pa ang lupa. Ang lupa ang nagmamay-ari sa atin. Paalala ito na bago ang
300 taon ng kolonyalismong Espanyol at sumunod na kolonyalismong Amerikano, ang malaking kalakhan ng mga lupain, kagubatan
at katubigan sa Pilipinas ay tinakda ng ating mga ninuno na mga KUMON. Pamana ng kolonyalismo ang pribadong pag-aari ng lupa
batay sa lantay at marahas na pananakop na hanggang ngayon ay nagdudulot ng walang kapantay na inhustisya at pagkakait sa
kagalingan ng lahat.
Walang ibang solusyon sa problema ng lupa kundi ang kilalaning wala dapat magmay-ari nito nang pribado. Ang papel ng estado o
komunidad ay stewardship sa ngalan ng bayan. Sa karanasan ng mga sosyalistang rebolusyon at pagbubuo ng lipunan, maraming
mapanlikhang porma ng stewardship na ito para ikumbina ang mga layuning 1) pangalagaan at pagyamanin ang pag-aari at kontrol ng
bayan sa lupa, 2) mapalitaw at mapalakas ang produktibong enerhiya at kapakinabangan ng mga magbubukid at manggagawa sa
agrikultura, 3) matiyak na maglilingkod ito sa seguridad sa pagkain at soberanya sa pagkain ng bansa , pangangalaga sa balance ng
ekolohiya at paglikha ng industriya.
Halimbawa ng mga pormang ito ay mga sakahang pang-estado kung saan ang estado ay naggagarantiya sa batas at sa suporta at ang
pamamahala ay nasa kamay ng mga magbubikid at/o manggagawa sa pamamagitan ng kanilang mga komite. Isa pa ay ang
magkasamang estado at kooperatibang magbubukid at/o
manggagawa. At ang isa pa ay ang kooperatibang bayan na magpapatakbo ng produksyon . Marami pang ibang malilikha batay sa
maayos na pag-aaral at konsultasyong bayan.
TRANSISYON
Subalit sa kasalukuyang kalagayan, hindi to mailalapat nang buo at bigla. Isang malaking hamon ay ang mahigit 3 milyong
magbubukid na nagkamit ng sariling lupa sa ilalim ng natapos na batas sa pamamagitan ng kanilang pakikibaka. Dapat ito ay kilalanin
at iproseso tungo sa boluntaryong pagkakaisa sa pamamagitan ng pagpapalakas ng kanilang kooperatiba, sosyalistang edukasyon at
ayuda ng estado. Isa pang hamon ay ang mga katutubo sa mga lupang ninuno.
Kailangan kung gayon ng isang PROGRAMA ng TRANSISYON. Kabilang sa mga mayor na sangkap nito ay sumusunod : 1) pagtigil
agad sa lahat ng konbersyon ng lupa at pagrepaso sa lahat ng nagawa na - ang napatunayang ginawa nang marahas at may panloloko
at korupsyon ay dapat bawiin at/o gawan ng isang sistema ng restitusyon para sa mga nabiktima; 2) paglansag sa mga pribadong
monopoly sa kalakal sa produktong agrikultural at isabansa ang kalakalang ito; 3) kumpiskasyon o ekspropriasyon ng malalaking
lupaing agrikultural at libreng ipamahagi ito at kasama ng mga magbubukid at/o manggagawa, magtayo ng kooperatibang bayan o
magkasanib na estado-kooperatiba o sakahang estado; 4) pagpapalakas ng kooperatibisasyon ng mga magbubukid na nagkamit na ng
sariling lupa, bombahan sila ng puhunan, patubig at teknolohiya at ikondona ang amortisasyon ng mga may CLOA; 5) pagkilala at
pagtaguyod sa karapatan ng mga katutubo sa lupang ninuno at pagtigil sa mga minahan at logging sa kanilang mga lupa; 6) aktibong
pagtatayo at pagganyak ng kaugnay na industriya ng processing sa pagkain at produktong agrikultural at mga serbisyo para bigyan ng
trabaho ang mga manggagawang bukid na walang lupa; at 7) pagsama at pagpapakilos sa mga magbubukid at manggagawang bukid
para sa mga hakbanging ito na dapat tumungo sa ibayong paglakas at pangingibabaw ng sektor ng publiko at estado sa
agraryo/agrikultura.#
*Ric Reyes is a long-term socialist activist and advisor to Katarungan.