www.soriano-ph.com

I join our countrymen and the world in mourning the passing of Tita Cory. I learned about her death while I was in Naga City. And when I came back last night after a grueling land trip to Manila, I and my son, Jimbo, did not waste any time in paying our last respect for her at La Salle Greenhills.

Many great things have been said about Tita Cory and she truly deserves all the accolade.

But I love Tita Cory because she made us believe that what it takes to be a great leader and human being is neither education nor experience nor brilliance, just plain and simple sincerity, honesty, integrity, modesty, faith and the fortitude to rise above difficult circumstances – qualities that are rare these days and you can hardly find in any of our present day leaders.

I love Tita Cory because she made sure that we, our children, and hopefully the next generation enjoy the blessings of freedom under a regime of democracy. They say that absolute power corrupts but Tita Cory did not succumb to the temptation, when it was very convenient for her to do so. Her presidency had its own share of weaknesses but no one can deny that she served us well by making sure that every Filipino enjoy the fruits of liberty.

And I love Tita Cory because she distinctly made me proud to be a Filipino. The phenomenal and world-acclaimed People Power of 1986 was bloodless and peaceful simply because Tita Cory was its icon, its inspiration, its moving spirit. And I now reminisce that part of my life circa 1983-1986 with great pleasure which I want my children to cherish and understand well.

I dare say that Ninoy’s life and death was actually meant by God to prepare Tita Cory to be our own Joan of Arc. God must be on our side for giving us Tita Cory.

“I would rather die a meaningful death than to live a meaningless life”, Tita Cory once said.  You did, Tita Cory.

“I hope that history will judge me as favorably as our people still regard me, because, as God is my witness, I honestly did the best I could. No more can be asked of any man”, Tita Cory said in her last SONA.  We know you did, Tita Cory.

With your death, may the hopes of the Filipino people live again by tying that yellow ribbon ’round the old oak tree.

Thank you Tita Cory. Thank you. Farewell.

- – - – - – - – - – - – -

Below is a song composed by my best friend, Corazon Guidote, arranged by Roy Del Valle, performed by Lisa Del Valle and photoshow assembled by Mike Reyes.

This is under  CC-BY-NC-ND Philippine License 3.0

LINK: ‘Note Verbale‘, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Section) – 15 June 2008 Issue

An average Filipino devotes at least fourteen years of his or her life in school from elementary to college. Some others would spend a couple of years more.

Student life in the country is very stressful. Pupils have to be in the campus early morning and stay there for most of the day for academic instructions and other school activities. By the time they reach home, they need to spend another time to study and prepare for homework for the next day. Some unlucky others are under obligation to fulfill household chores or even help the family earn a living. The more diligent and serious students may need to deprive themselves of a balanced way of life – unfortunately only to learn what American philosopher John Dewey referred to as dead facts and mere memorization of lessons. 

Students go to school to complete a formal education in the hope that their diplomas could be their passport for a better life for themselves and their families. After years and years of enduring the life of a student, many would land a job for which they did not prepare for. Many would have to compete for employment that does not even pay more than the minimum wage. Others would seek greener pasture in a foreign land engaging themselves even in lowly occupation. The more unfortunate of them would just probably be sitting endlessly at home searching and responding to job openings, or preparing biodata for submission to prospective employers.

This is what fourteen or more years of labor for knowledge generally await ordinary Filipino students.

There is no argument that education is essential to a civilized human existence. Ancient thinkers had long recognized that education is the process of satisfying man’s quest for perfection. Education is the key to building both the intellectual and moral fitness of human beings to serve the ultimate aspirations of individual happiness and produce a bunch of good and productive men and women who will promote the welfare of society.

Existing educational systems in almost every nation, this country included, are premised on a liberal model, a framework that promotes free thinking, free expression and self-determination. As early as the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, Scottish moral philosopher and political economist Adam Smith proposed a minimum general education for all citizens arguing that men who do not use their intellectual faculties properly are not fully human.

Some philosophers of long ago, including Dewey, abhorred specialized education or vocational training or pure craftsmanship because it is a mere training for slaves to make them fit as cogs in the industrial machine.

The irony of it all in this country, that adopts a liberal education for its citizens, is that the long and stressful years of academic pursuit make many young minds merely end up as slaves of the corporate world and of foreign employers.  Perhaps, it is safe to assume that nine of every ten Filipino graduates would always look forward to a fruitful employment after graduation rather than look at entrepreneurship or self-employment as a more viable alternative simply because they lack the skills and the talent to pursue  their own craft.

Filipino students are stucked to long years of liberal education taught over and over again in elementary, high school and even during the first two years of college. The entire process obviously delays their strong potential to become productive and responsible citizens of this country at the soonest time. At best, the process suspends their becoming a part of the unemployment and underemployment statistics of this country. Worse, the system unduly prolongs the economic burden of parents and families if only to keep them in school.

There must be another framework of a blended liberal education and craftmanship that government could adopt to reverse the predicaments confronting the country’s educational system. Of course that requires a lot of political will and conscience.

LINK: ‘Note Verbale’, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Times) – 17 February 2008 Issue

In October 1918, former Manila Mayor Justo Lukban, with all the best intentions to rid the city of vices, ordered the segregation of some one hundred seventy women of ill repute and made them board two steamers, without their knowledge and consent, so they could be relocated to Davao.

In a habeas corpus petition, the Supreme Court did not “permit a government of the men instead of a government of laws” to be set up in this country. And this was the gist of the landmark case of Villavicencio vs. Lukban decided almost ninety years ago.

In the present state of political turmoil brought about by accusations of corruption involving high officials in government both the accused and their accusers cry for the rule of law, not trial by publicity and subsequently conviction by public opinion.

As citizens of this Republic, shenanigans in government are also entitled to the mantle of protection of the Bill of Rights. And this is what the rule of law is all about because like any malefactor, they are also presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

In refusing to testify again before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee on the controversial ZTE-NBN deal, Secretary Romulo Neri publicly invokes the rule of law especially after the Supreme Court granted him a reprieve from arrest. For his part, former Commission on Elections Chairman Benjamin Abalos challenged his accusers to hail him before the courts and prove their accusations. Critics of whistle-blowers and star witnesses, Rodolfo Lozada Jr. and Jose de Venecia III contend that no evidence has been presented thus far sufficient to convict those involved in the anomalous transaction.  Every one knows that a criminal conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. Again, this is what the rule of law is all about.

Obviously, these legal standards have found their way in the country’s Bill of Rights and legal system because they are intended to safeguard individual liberties, particularly of ordinary citizens, from the enormous powers of the State. In the same token, public officials and employees proclaimed as servants of the people are entitled to the same mantle of protection.

The dilemma is ordinary folks are not similarly situated as public functionaries although they enjoy equal protection in the eyes of the law.

The rights of ordinary citizens to the secrecy of bank deposits or against any intrusion on privacy like wire-tapping or to invoke privilege communications in certain cases or not to be bound by certain evidences that are part of the ‘poisonous tree’, so to speak, are part of the processes to guarantee individual freedom, which the government could easily abuse.

But it is in a sense an irony of the rule of law if the same legal standards, system and processes are equally applied to public servants because the chance of getting them caught and convicted of their misdeeds becomes a mere fairy tale depending on the scale of the conspiracy and the level of official position they occupy. Sheer cover up, the ‘old-boys’ club’ attitude, and plain blind loyalties and obedience to powerful and influential men in government would make it almost impossible to convict government felons of grand corruption beyond reasonable doubt. And so they remain scot-free and continue to perpetuate themselves in power.

Thus, the rule of law intended to guarantee the rights of Juan de la Cruz could be the same rule of law that gives unscrupulous public officials the cloak of legal protection, perhaps just a strand short of immunity from legal prosecution.

It is easy to understand why a high position in government is a most coveted job. It is the easiest route to power, fame and wealth without the usual investment, except whom you know coupled with the willingness to cooperate.

In the Villavicencio case, the Supreme Court said that “Law defines power”. It was certainly decreed in 1919 in the context that this country is a government of laws and not of men. But nowadays the same statement could assume another import, in the negative sense.

Is there any other viable alternative to the bar of public opinion in a situation called the misrule of law?

LINK: ‘Note Verbale‘, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Section) - 27 January 2008 Issue

The congressional proceedings on the cheaper medicine bill are in the final stages. The deliberations on the measure have been controversial, if not emotional, among the stakeholders since last year. The primary objective of the proposed law is to address the popular clamor for a more affordable health care by bringing down the exorbitant costs or the overpricing of medicines in the market.

Understandably, every time government is confronted with a pressing public demand the usual response is to come up with a law to respond or as a political reaction to the issue. Fortunately for the government, the cacophony would subside momentarily. But unfortunately to the public, the predicament almost always remains unresolved. Ironically, the law in many situations consequently aggravates the issue or becomes the source of a much bigger concern.

One of the promises of the proponents of the Generics Act of 1988 was to accomplish almost the same purpose as the cheaper medicine bill. Two decades after this law, the Filipino people are still suffering from same much higher prices of medicines.

Ten years ago, Congress passed the Downstream Oil Deregulation Act of 1998. The promise is to ensure a truly competitive market under a regime of fair prices, adequate and continuous supply of environmentally-clean and high-quality petroleum products.  Price control of fuel products, which have been blamed by some quarters for higher prices, became deregulated. But still, fuel prices are unreasonably high and worse, oil companies are accused of predatory pricing under a monopolistic arrangements disguising as deregulation.

Overseas Filipino worker Flor R. Contemplacion was executed in Singapore for the murder of another Filipino domestic helper. In response to the weeks of consistent public protests over the issue and the plight of Filipino workers abroad, former President Fidel V. Ramos pushed for the passage of the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995. The promise was to reform the overseas employment industry, provide better protection to the overseas workers, and pursue a state policy of deregulation. Twelve years after, another law was passed setting aside the deregulation policy and still the victims of illegal recruitment and exploitation continue to grow in number.

In 1989, the Magna Carta for Countryside and Barangay Business Enterprises (Kalakalan 20) was passed by Congress. In 2002, an almost similar law was also enacted called the Barangay Micro Business Enterprises Act. The promise of both statutes is to promote entrepreneurship outside of urban centers by providing a package of tax and credit incentives, simplifying business regulations, and hopefully, to ease poverty and unemployment. Judging from the almost a million Filipinos seeking employment abroad in last couple of years, it is doubtful whether these programs even got off the ground.

Time and time again, government professes that foreign investments are needed to spur economic growth. But even all the packages of government incentives accorded by various laws to foreign investors did not seem to really attract them. Otherwise, this country would not be talking now about poor economic conditions and President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo would not be breaking her back campaigning to foreign businessmen that the Philippines is an ideal haven for their investments.

Twenty years ago, landless farmers and farm workers were promised a more equitable distribution and ownership of lands through the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988. With the law about to expire in June 30 and Congress talking about its extension, farmers remain poor and locked in a tug-of-war with landowners.

Labor’s demand for higher wages and the turtle pace legislative reaction brought about the Wage Rationalization Act of 1989. But the nagging issue on minimum wage fixing and implementation before the enactment of said law remains.

Other countries should envy the Philippines for having one of the best Government Procurement Reform Act, Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, and Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in the world. But corruption in government is a never-ending story.

And the list of these “false hope statutes” could be never ending.

As in most regimes, government’s stance to public issues is always reactive. Good, if the reaction provides the appropriate and lasting solution. What is worse is if the reaction simply offers a false hope.  

Sometimes it is a source of wonder why government still exists.

LINK: ‘Note Verbale‘, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Section) – 16 December 2007 Issue

A recent study on global corruption released by Transparency International put the Philippines as among the top countries with high level of petty bribery, together with Albania, Cambodia, Cameroon, Macedonia, Kosovo, Nigeria, Pakistan, Romania and Senegal.

In the 2007 Worldwide Corruption Perception Rankings of Transparency International, the country ranked 131st and tied with Honduras, Iran, Libya, Nepal and Yemen, a far-cry behind the top three nations considered as the least corrupt, Denmark, Finland and New Zealand.
 
Just this week, pollster, Pulse Asia, announced the result of an October 2007 survey that shows the incumbent president of the republic being perceived as the most corrupt vis-à-vis her predecessors Ferdinand Marcos, Corazon C. Aquino, Fidel V. Ramos and Joseph E. Estrada.

Who would argue against the proposition that the Philippines is a corrupt country?

From the time the country gained its sovereignty and political independence, the battle against corruption has always been at the forefront of every electoral issue. Quite ironically, every incumbent political administration would always claim that his or her government is or was never corrupt, or at least doing every possible means to curb corruption. But really, none of them had the political will and temerity to do so.

How can the country get rid of corruption when the bigger majority of the supposedly honorable men and women in public positions put themselves or find their way in office in the first place by corrupting the voters, or by influence peddling? What is the economics required of such public official to recover an onerous investment through a low-paying job? How should these public officials keep their benefactors constantly gratified in order to repay every political debt owed?

When a lowly driver is caught for a minor traffic violation, should he or she pay a hundred peso to the apprehending officer to go scot-free or should the violator insists that a traffic citation ticket be issued instead? When a citizen is stuck with the time-consuming and nerve-wracking bureaucratic procedures to accomplish a public requirement, would not an honest-to-goodness cost-benefit analysis produce the conclusion that it is better to pay even when it is not due than to line-up until thy kingdom come?

Isn’t it that a public official or employee, who rose from an ordinary life to a questionable life of wealth, fame, and ostentatious lifestyle that marked every ‘very important person’ and later institutionalizes his or her social standing as a political dynasty, is a very good role model to the Filipino youth to emulate? Isn’t it better to get rich quick than to dedicate one’s toil and blood to get there?

How can a public official or employee refuse a favor being sought by a member of the family, or by someone who belongs to a close circle of friends and associates, or by a classmate or a fraternity brother or sister?  Would not he or she be judged as an ingrate, swollen-headed, indifferent, and untying the ties that bind if he or she fails to give assistance or at least cooperate in compromising situations? 

Is it fair to the Filipino people for public functionaries accused or criminated with corruption to turn the table to their side by invoking the rule of law and the majesty of their constitutional rights?  But obviously, they are entitled to due process, privacy, the right against self-incrimination, presumption of innocence, executive privilege and some legal immunities, the benefits of political questions, and invoke the name of national security, are they not?

Public corruption has become a multi-million peso business to some and a cottage industry to many Filipinos. And as the country’s political history would show, it seems to be worth the time and the effort. 

By the way, it seems that getting rid of corruption is not only anti-poor. It is also anti-progress at least to those who think that hell does not exist.

That government is corrupt is perhaps not a mere perception. Regretfully, being corrupt is slowly becoming a way of life because of all the crimes, it pays.

LINK: ‘Note Verbale‘, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Section) - 28 October 2007 Issue

Pending before the Philippine Senate for ratification is the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA).

In general terms, the highlights of this agreement between the two countries include: (1) the elimination or comprehensive reduction of tariffs of industrial, agricultural, forestry and fishery products, (2) the facilitation of trade through simplification and harmonization of customs procedures and effective enforcement of measures against smuggling, (3) the liberalization of specific service sectors consistent, (4) the inclusion of provisions on protection of investment, national treatment, most-favored nation treatment and performance requirement prohibitions specifying all exceptions to these provisions, (5) the promotion of bilateral cooperation in human resource development, financial services, information and communications technology, energy and environment, science and technology, trade and investment promotions, small and medium enterprises, tourism, and transportation, (6) the enhancement of cooperation, protection and enforcement of intellectual property, (7) addressing anti-competition policies, (8)  facilitating trade in electrical products through a subsequent provision on mutual recognition, and (9) setting-up of a framework for consultation to further promote bilateral trade, investments and improvement of business environment in both countries.

In addition, JPEPA under the provisions on the “movement of natural persons” would allow the entry of qualified Filipino nurses and certified care workers to Japan. And this is seen or perceived by many as one of the immediate and significant benefits of the treaty because it would provide employment opportunities to Filipino health care professionals in lieu of the traduced export of Filipina entertainers to the “land of the rising sun”.

The demand for employment is backed up by statistics on Japan’s ageing population that necessitates the services of an estimated 7.5 million health care workers by 2010. 

The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), in supporting the agreement, pointed out that there is a ready pool of Filipino health professionals who could fill the prospect of the Japanese market, with the country’s nursing schools producing at least 950,000 graduates yearly and with the current registry of 22,580 certified care workers, 57 percent of whom are college graduates. This seems to imply that the country has excess supply of nurses and care workers readily available for overseas employment.

In his presentation entitled “Philippines: The Challenge of Managing Migration, Retention and Return of Health Professionals”, UP College of Medicine Professor Jaime Z. Galvez Tan cited recent studies showing that 85 percent of all the Filipino nurses are already working abroad in at least forty six countries, thereby making the country as the number one exporter of nurses to the world. For lack of nurses and doctors, at least a thousand hospitals have closed, fully or partially, as of November 2005. The nurse-to-patient ratio in provincial and district hospitals now stands at 1:40 and 1:60. The proportion of Filipinos dying without medical attention has reverted back to its 1975 levels of 70 percent of deaths unattended during the height of nursing migration in the year 2002-2003. 

If the health care in Japan is alarming, it is worsening for the Philippines.

The phenomenon that many Filipinos, young and old, are lured into taking up courses in health care is actually driven by global demand and therefore motivated by the prospects of economic emancipation that is wanting in the country. Oversupply is thus an overstatement.

Through the JPEPA Filipino nurses and care workers would be allowed entry in Japan and work there up to three to four years but only after completing a language training and passing the Japanese national licensure examinations obviously in Japanese. For the Filipino professionals, this means additional burden in terms of time and resources that would make Japan as a less attractive destination for them. The argument therefore that the employment benefits under the JPEPA are immediate and significant could either be a hoax or imaginary.

Perhaps, it would serve the country better if government was able to negotiate with Japan for foreign employment opportunities that would not jeopardize and compromise the national interest.

LINK: ‘Note Verbale’, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Times) – 21 October 2007 Issue 

Accountability is an ethical concept. It simply means being responsible to someone or for some activity.

They say that originally the word was an extension of the Latin word accomptare (to account), a prefixed form of computare (to calculate), which in turn derived from putare (to reckon) and commonly used in the money lending systems that first developed in ancient Greece and later in Rome.

As it permeates human conduct, accountability connotes the existence of an obligation or a duty demanded by some social force. It can be moral, which is usually self-imposed based on the norms and culture embraced by the actor. It could also be legal when compelled by some legitimate or recognized authority. Most, if not all, of existing legal accountabilities however are premised on moral accountability. Thus, the finer distinction is hardly noticeable.

Within the framework of a global consensus leaning highly towards the promotion and protection of democratic institutions, accountability is a centerpiece concern or issue in public governance. And this has reference to the need for those who govern to be highly accountable to their constituency.

Public accountability is a legal duty because it is always defined by a set of statutes or duly promulgated rules obviously to make it obligatory. This duty always carry with it financial accountability, performance accountability and institutional or structural accountability. In some jurisdiction or entities, accountability even extends to individual behavior or conduct for the obvious reason that they affect or jeopardize the strict observance of a legal duty.

Experts say that public accountability has two dimensions: answerability (for power holders to explain or justify their actions) and enforceability (having reference to the system or mechanism of penalties and punishment when accountability is breached). Otherwise, accountability becomes useless.

In order to attain these dimensions, a policy of ‘transparency’ is vital. Transparency can be in the sense of voluntary or full disclosure of power-holders or securing the right of the constituency or the stakeholders of their right to information.

And since public accountability is ingrained as a social contract, it is very difficult for any illegitimate rule to be entrusted with this obligation. From the entire gamut of the public accountability framework rests public trust and credibility.

Without public trust and credibility, the capacity and fitness to govern is severely affected and becomes highly questionable, a case of breaching the social contract.

The Philippine Constitution no less devoted an entire article on public accountability of government functionaries the essence of which is expressed in this wise: “Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.”

By simply looking at the frustrating developments in Philippine politics since this mandate was enshrined in the fundamental law, it seems to be more of a motherhood statement than an honest to goodness imprimatur. Who would disagree that every single duty referred to in the quoted provision from the context of structural, financial, structural and individual accountability is being violated with impunity?

Because the constitutional demand for public accountability is not self-executing, the country had good laws against corruption and on ethical standards. But they either become dead for lack of political will to enforce or simply become unjust because of unfair* application. Public office is a most sought career because it is the surest path to fame, power and wealth.  How they live their lives is ostentatious.

Transparency in the country’s public governance is a mere pigment of the imagination. The right of the people to public information is a tale.  Recent events calling for the invocation of the so-called ‘executive privilege’ even make the tale appalling.

Public accountability meant ‘being responsible’ in the normal scheme of things.  It meant ‘taking responsibility’ in the ideal sense.  But in the Philippines, it seems that public accountability is neither.

---

NOTE: *the modifier from the original text was changed because for some unexplainable reason the original word used by the author cannot be recognized by the write-post board.

---

LINK: ‘Note Verbale’, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Times) – 9 September 2007 Issue

In the five thousand years of Korean history, there is only one ruler conferred the title or distinction “Great” by the people of Korea, who until today is being remembered with gratitude and respect for his great wisdom.

He is King Sejong the Great, the fourth king of the Choson Dynasty of Korean who ascended to the throne in August 1418 at the age of 21 and reigned for thirty two years until his death at a young age of fifty four.

Even though Sejong merely inherited his authority as a ruler of Korea, his entire regime was solely motivated by his firm desire to serve his country well without fear of even sacrificing himself for the sake of his people. His sole standard against which he measured his success as a ruler was the happiness of his people.

When Korea was struck with successive years of bad harvests because of continuous flooding and severe drought, he starved with his people and even issued an edict making provincial officials criminally responsible if even one person in their residential district dies of hunger.

At one point on the 5th year of his rule, King Sejong declared:  “The common people are the foundation of any country. It is only when this foundation is strong that a country may be stable and prosperous.”

King Sejong had also a great concern for the senior citizens of his country.  Those who worked for his monarchy were placed in cool areas in the palace grounds where they could work in comfort.  Over the objection of his Royal Secretariat, he was also the first king to invite the elderly of lowly origin to dine with him in person at the palace. He said: “I hold these banquets to honor the dignity of old age, not to measure rank and status.”

At a time when kings were generally cruel and brutal to their subjects, Sejong showed much concern over the rights of slave and prisoners. His forbade the detention of offenders below 15 or above 70. He would make sure that prisoners were kept in clean and maintained facilities. He pursued strict observance of due process even for slaves. He implemented policies that would give women giving birth, their maternity leave and their spouses, paternity leave.

As a King, Sejong was very frugal. He wrote his commands using used government papers. When not undertaking official business, he wore patched and threadbare clothing. He did not want local delicacies being sent to him as a tribute.

King Sejong did not regard his people as simple objects of care and governance. He believed that they should be equipped with a limitless potential to put them to a higher cultural and spiritual level. To achieve this, he put great efforts to develop a new alphabet, Hangul, and put up advance printing technology for the publication of books on various subjects and made knowledge accessible to the people. 

Even at a time when his health was seriously impaired, he fortified the defenses of his country by strengthening the army and improving its standard of weaponry. He also revolutionized sciences in the field of agriculture, medicine and astronomy simultaneously with arts and literature. And they say that because of this, his people’s standard of living rose substantially.

King Sejong’s political reign was characterized by a democratic forum founded on mutual respect and tolerance. He instituted the Kyong-yon, a formal weekly occasion for reading and debate between the king and his courtiers. Through this discussion, he was able to identify and resolve national issues and ensured that every voice was heard regardless of social position.

There were a lot of other things that Sejong did for his people that made his rule a golden age in Korean history.  He is the perfect example of the ‘benevolent dictator’ or the ‘enlightened despot’ which Greek philosopher, Plato, described in his “The Republic” to build upon an ideal society.

It is safe to say therefore that the greatness of a country would always depend on the extent of greatness of its ruler.  The Philippines never had a ‘golden age’ so to speak in its history and the reason is obvious.

LINK: ‘Note Verbale‘, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Section) - 19 August 2007 Issue

Agrarian reform is not a new concept.

In the second century before Christ, Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, a Roman politician, proposed a law known as lex Sempronia agraria for the government to confiscate huge tracts of land being held by the latifundia, the wealthy upper class owning large estates, for homeless soldiers. In those times, Roman soldiers were required to serve the long duration of a military campaign and left their farms in the hands of their wives and children, who would lead a life of bankruptcy and forced to sell their lands to the latifundia. Upon their return, these soldiers joined the mob of thousands of unemployed roaming around the city of Rome because they had nowhere to go. This advocacy of Tiberius eventually led to his death after a violent confrontation with the conservative faction of the Roman Senate.

Many advocates hold the view that agrarian reform is a condition sine qua non for the development of successful economies.

And Taiwan is almost always seen as an ideal model. They say that Taiwan’s progress was greatly influenced by land reforms (agrarian reform followed by urban land reform) that led to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor.

In his article entitled: “Five Lessons for Land Reformers: The Case of Taiwan”, author Fred Harrison enumerated the factors that led to the country’s agrarian success.

Harrison first pointed out the proper allocation of land resources combined with the diligence of hard working population. With the reform, Taiwanese farmers began to plant second and intervening crops that doubled their income. In ten years, houses were rebuilt with tile roofs and cement floors and electricity extended to the countryside. The means of transport also improved from the rusty bicycles to motorcycles to automobiles. With each change, new industries were born.

The second lesson, according to Harrison, is not to displace agricultural labor until the industrial sector has developed enough to begin to demand it. At the start of the reform, Taiwan banned the importation of large farm tractors. Agriculture experts argue that mechanized equipments that were only meant to save man-hours in production are not needed in a country with manpower surplus. Harrison said that large landowners can make more money by displacing tenants and mechanizing. But displaced farm tenants have no place to go but to the edges of cities where they cluster in urban slums and where they have to be fed on the bounty of those working.

The third lesson, Harrison relates, is that a land reform which upgrades the economic condition of the peasantry provides an important political power base for the government that engineers the reform. At the time agrarian reform was introduced, majority of the country’s population were peasants. He observed that in Taiwan the central government enjoys much political authority but below this level the regime is quite democratic.

Akin to the third, Harrison pointed out that land reform was imposed on the landowners, who naturally opposed it, by a central government strong enough to do it.

And to make land reform permanent, Harrison noted that facilities for marketing, supply, and credit were adequately supplied and extended so that farmers are not driven back into the clutches of the former landlords. Taiwan did this through the cooperative system and peasant organizations to do away with the influence of the landlords who were also controlling or connected to rice mills, banking, farm input supplies and marketing. Tax systems were made conducive to the farmers.

The Philippine agrarian reform experience is far from this.

The land distribution scheme of Republic Act No. 6657 is set to expire in 2008.  Between the years 1972 to 2005, 3.7 million hectares were distributed to more than 2 million agrarian reform beneficiaries. And the combined agriculture, fishery and forestry production growth rate is only 1.8% in 2005 as reported by the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA). In terms of employment creation in the same year, the agriculture sector had only a 35.6% of the total pie

While agrarian reform is openly declared as a center-piece program of government, there is no showing that it would perform as an engine of economic growth for the country. Even with their own lands, small Filipino farmers remain to be among the poorest of the poor.

And it seems it would never be, simply because government has a thousand and one priorities.

LINK: ‘Note Verbale‘, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Section) - 29 July 2007 Issue

Republic Act No. 9372 entitled “An Act to Secure the State and Our People from Terrorism” took effect on July 15, 2007. It is government’s statutory response to the global fight against terrorism. The law is also known as the Human Security Act of 2007.

As defined, the crime of terrorism, or conspiracy to commit terrorism, takes place when (1) any person or group of persons sows and creates a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, (2) for the purpose of coercing government to give in to an unlawful demand, and (3) through the commission of the following felonies already punishable under the country’s penal statutes, namely: (a) piracy, (b) rebellion or insurrection, (c) coup d’etat, (d) murder, (e) kidnapping, (f) crimes involving destruction, (g) arson, (h) hijacking, (i) highway robbery, (j) unlawful dealing and use of hazardous and nuclear wastes, (k) unlawful dealing of atomic energy materials or facilities, and (l) illegal possession and disposition of firearms, ammunitions and explosives.

The law also provides that upon application of the Department of Justice, a Regional Trial Court, after hearing, may declare a group or association of persons as a terrorist or outlawed organization if it is organized for the purpose of committing terrorism or actually commit such acts as defined.

It is obvious that to establish a conviction for terrorism, a person or group of persons who carried out or planned the attack must openly press an illegitimate demand from the government. From this view, those behind the September 11, 2001 attack of the World Trade Center in New York City, or those who perpetrated the December 30, 2000 Rizal Day Bombings or the October 1, 2005 Bali suicide bombings in Indonesia could escape conviction under the law if prosecuted in Philippine courts because there were actually no demands raised to the government when they carried out their despicable acts. In fact, most terrorist plots are normally undertaken without warning, without the usual ‘do this or that or else’.

It seems that it would even be difficult under the law for Philippine courts to declare as a terrorist organization publicly known terrorist networks like al-Qaeda unless its leaders openly make or express an unlawful demand from the government.

But if a group of Filipino reformists take up arms against the government through rebellion or a military coup to pursue a government take-over, they would easily fall within the purview of a terrorist tag. The same is true for a disgruntled hostage taker who vents his ire on the government.

But what if the demand is legitimate like to get rid of corruption in the bureaucracy? Or what if the Abu Sayyaf commits kidnapping and seeks ransom from the victims’ families and not from the government? While there is no doubt that the group could be convicted of existing crimes like rebellion or coup d’etat or kidnapping, there is no certainty that a prosecution for terrorism would succeed if the requisite ‘unlawful demand from the government’ is not present.

Ironically, the real terrorists which the law seeks to punish have a legal justification for not falling within the penal definition of terrorism but persons or group of persons who should only be punished as ordinary criminals could easily be prosecuted as terrorists under the law.

The other focal issue in this definition is what constitutes widespread or extraordinary fear and panic? Does it include a local situation hugging national attention? It appears that this is really a matter which jurisprudence has to define in future prosecutions.

In the meantime, the law provides a penalty of half a million pesos each day of detention against the state for every unproven charge of terrorism and, after the arraignment of the accused, prosecution for terrorism bars another prosecution for the particular offense committed in violation of the penal code. Real terrorists then who should have been punished for committing ordinary crimes may remain scot-free under the anti-terror law.  Worst, they could be handsomely rewarded for committing the act.

Is the Human Security Act then a good law, a farce or a tragedy?