Agrarian Reform in the Philippines

Has there really been an agrarian reform in the Philippines? Or it's just in black in white and has really never been realized? Yes we have Republic Act 9700 or the CARPER Law which provided for the extension of land acquisition and distribution for five years. And that five years will soon end come June 30, 2014!

So what will happen now? What happens to the public and private agricultural lands which have yet to be distributed under the CARPER Law? According to the Department of Agrarian Reform,  a total of 790,671 hectares of public agricultural lands still remain to be covered under the CARPER Law. So what does this mean? Time was not enough to distribute all the lands covered by the law? Or there was something more than meets the eye?

No wonder Rep. Teddy Baguilat filed a bill (House Bill No. 4296) seeking to continue and complete the land distribution and acquisition process for all public and private agricultural lands covered under the CARPER Law. The bill is seeking to extend the distribution even beyond June 30, 2014. While this is a good measure to ensure that lands are distributed, there is no assurance that this will be accomplished in due time. There will always be excuses and, worse, the way out can always be through extension of the agrarian reform program.        

  

      

RH and Sin Tax Laws: Legacy of the 15th Congress?

The doctrine of separation of powers divides the role of government into three: legislative, executive and judicial. It simply means that the making of laws belongs to the legislative branch, the enforcement of laws to the executive branch, and the interpretation of laws to the judicial branch of government.

It is called separation of powers in the sense that each department is not permitted to encroach upon the powers of the other. Each branch has its own role to play and power to exercise. In this aspect, it can be said that the legislative department, through the 15th Congress, was able to perform its duty and exercise its power as expected by the Filipino people.

Laws that change or may change the people’s lives and the country’s socio-economic directions were enacted. Reforms agenda were fulfilled. Laws were passed to enable various sectors of society to benefit from economic growth. As reported by NEDA, the Philippines registered rapid economic growth of 6.6% last year. While we recognize that more needs to be done, it cannot be denied that both policy and legislative reforms contributed to this growth.

During the last three (3) years, despite the squabbles and controversies, legislators were able to accomplish their tasks and justify the taxpayers’ money through the laws passed by both Houses of Congress. For example, controversial bills have been passed into law by the 15th Congress – the RH and the Sin Tax Law. For quite a long period of time, these bills had been held in abeyance but were finally enacted.

More than an amendment to the National Internal Revenue Code to raise excise taxes on alcohol and tobacco, the sin tax measure was enacted as a health measure. The new law is expected to generate additional revenue of 34 billion pesos, and the bulk is earmarked to fund the government’s Universal Healthcare Program; thus, boosting economic activity in the healthcare industry, which may result in the generation of more employment and economic opportunities.
 

Likewise, the whole nation was witness to the highly charged deliberations in both Houses of Congress for the passage of the RH Bill. Although the implementation of the RH law was suspended by the Supreme Court for 120 days pending petitions challenging the constitutionality of the law, the passage of the law by Congress exemplified diligence and determination on the part of the lawmakers. It was a long and rough road for the RH bill before it finally became a law. Hopefully, once implemented, this law will contribute towards having a progressive and more developed economy through population control.

Powerful forces attempted to block the measures but the attempts were unsuccessful. So it’s good that the bills have been closed so that everyone can move on, and come up with other laws that will significantly impact on the country’s growth and development.

     

Tripartism Stakeholders

Malacañang has released the appointment of the members of the reconstituted Tripartite Industrial Peace Council (TIPC), the national consultative and advisory body on labor and employment policymaking.

Created pursuant to Executive Order 403, Series 1990, issued by former Pres. Cory Aquino, the TIPC was reconstituted to ensure effective consultation among representatives of the government, employers and workers in the formulation and implementation of labor and employment policies.

According to the Department of Labor and Employment, the TIPC was last reconstituted in June 2001 following the resignations of most of the labor sector representatives. The DOLE, however, recognizes the need to reconstitute the TIPC membership to be consistent with Pres. Aquino’s directive for inclusive tripartism and social dialogue.

The TIPC is composed of representatives from the government and 20 representatives each from the employers’ and workers’ sectors. 

The members representing the employers’ sector are Aniano Bagabaldo, Ernesto Cecilia, Rene Cristobal, Francisco Floro, Edgardo Lacson, Vicente Leogardo Jr., Manolito Adolfo Madrasto, Mario Mamon, Jorge Mendiola, Mary Ng, Sergio Ortiz-Luiz Jr., Ranulfo Payos, Eduardo Rondain, Anton Sayo, Rene Soriano, Ancheta Khan, Feleciano Torres, Jesus Varela, Schubert Caesar Austero and Emerico De Guzman.

Representing the workers’ sector are former Sen. Ernesto Herrera, Benjamin Alar, Norberto Alensuela Sr., Manuel Arias, Victorino Balais, Angelito Calderon, Gregorio Del Prado, Zoilo Dela Cruz Jr., David Diwa, Daniel Edralin, Josua Mata, Jose Sonny Matula, Allan Montaño, Ezperanza Ocampo, Milagros Ogalinda, Gerardo Seno, Vladimir Tupaz, Jose Umali Jr., Jesus Villamor and AlejandroVillaviza.

The selection was made on the basis of the “most representative” criteria set forth in ILO Convention 144 (Tripartite Consultations to Promote the Implementation of International Labor Standards) which mandates the ratifying states to ensure effective consultation among representatives of the government, employers and workers on policy and programs concerns. The Philippines ratified the Convention in June 1991. 

Appointees from the employers’ sectors come from the Employers Confederation of the Philippines and its member-organizations including PHILEXPORT, Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry, American Chamber of Commerce, Philippine Contructors Association, and Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Inc.

Appointees from the workers’ sector come from the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines, Federation of Free Workers, Alliance of Progressive Labor, Alliance of Filipino Workers, National Confederation of Labor, Pambansang Diwa ng Manggagawang Pilipino, Trade Union of the Philippines and Allied Services, National Federation of Labor Unions, Bukluran ng Mangagawang Pilipino, Workers for the Advancement of Reforms Coalition, Lakas Manggagawa Labor Center, National Union of Bank Employees, and Alliance of Independent Hotel and Restaurant Workers Union.

Aside from being a policy consultative body, the TIPC also acts as a high level tripartite monitoring body on the application of international labor standards, particularly ILO Convention on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize (No. 87).  

Workers' Friend or Enemy?

In the history of the Philippine labor relations, the armed forces have never engaged in a dialogue with the labor sector. You cannot think of a time or an instance that the armed personnel, touted as the protector of the people and the State, would sit down with the working class and talk about respecting the workers’ rights to self-organization and collective bargaining. But everything has become possible. The Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police are now positioning themselves as allies and friends of thelabor sector by way of engaging in social dialogue.

The question is: Does the labor sector really find an ally in them? Some say YES, some say NO. There are those who say that the security forces, especially the AFP, have managed to reinvent themselves and do away with the negative image attached to them by the public. They have successfully portrayed an image that they are indeed the protector of the Filipino people and they are here to maintain peace and security.

Unfortunately, though, some members of the labor sector, especially those who claim to be socialists, believe that the security forces are not sincere in their efforts to respect the workers’ rights to self-organization and collective bargaining. According to them, cases or instances of violations of workers’ rights still abound despite the projection of the security forces that they are pro-labor. Case in point is the alleged red-baiting and labelling of trade unions as communists by the AFP. Workers say that this is a clear violation of trade union rights. The armed forces, they say, should not brand the workers as communists based solely on their ideologies that are almost similar to that of the communists. Just because they believe in what the communists believe and share with their aspirations does not mean that they too are communists.

The security forces, however, are quick to react saying that they do not engage in such acts without basis or valid information. There is always due process involved in any acts or operations of the security personnel on labor dispute matters as emphasized in the AFP’s Internal Peace and Security Plan “Bayanihan.” The plan, according to AFP, is “a campaign for winning the peace” in the country. And how will the AFP implement the plan? It says the plan is implemented through what the AFP calls the whole-of-nation approach and the people-centered approach. The AFP has a lot of advocacy to do for the public, especially the workers, to understand, digest and believe this military language that it is speaking about.      

Church-Labor Connection

I never thought the Catholic Church would find enough time to get involved in matters relating to labor and employment. But it actually did. In a forum specially organized for the Church-Labor Conference, claiming to be an alliance of church groups and labor organizations in the Philippines, the Catholic Church expressed its concern on the long-standing issues of workers (unemployment, security of tenure and right to self-organization) and vowed to support the workers in their fight to address these issues.

Labor and employment issues are usually tackled in policy discussions among labor, management and government representatives. You would not expect the priests and all other sacred cows to preach about how employers should behave and what workers should get in return for their hard work. But I was amazed to find out that the Church had its own literature on such topics as human work, wages and unionism, eventually making its way connected to labor advocacy.              

The connection is found in what the Church calls the Catholic Social Teaching (CST). Fr. Enrico Adoviso of the Archdiocese of Manila Labor Center explains that CST refers to “a limited body of literature written in the modern era that is a response of papal and episcopal teachers to the various political, economic and social issues of our time.” It “encompasses all the ideas and theories that have developed over the entire history of the Church on matters of social life.” Simply put, it is understood as “an effort by the pastoral teachers of the church to articulate what the broader social tradition means in the era of modern economics, politics and culture.”

Believe it or not, the Church has its own substantial explanation of what a “wage” is as found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2434:

“A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice. In determining fair pay, both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. Remuneration for work should guarantee humans the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for themselves and their family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good (Gaudium et Spes, #67). Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages.”

Another scripture on the relationship between the workers and employers is articulated in Rerum Novarum # 20:

“Among the most important duties of employers, the principal one is to give all workers what is justly due them. Assuredly, to establish a rule of pay in accord with justice, many factors must be taken into account. But, in general, the rich and employers must remember that no laws, either human or divine, permit them for their own profit to oppress the needy and the wretched or to seek gain from another’s want. To defraud anyone of the wage due him/ her is a great crime that calls down avenging wrath from Heaven: Behold, the wages of the laborers . . . which have been kept back by you unjustly, cry out: and their cry has entered into the ears of the Lord of Hosts (Jas 5:4).”

Summarizing the scriptures in Tagalog, Fr. Adoviso says: “Dapat tandaan ng mga mayayaman na walang batas ang nagbibigay sa kanila ng karapatan upang alisan o bawasan ng takdang sahod ang manggagawa.”

Government Gobbledygook

During my first few months in a traditional government office, I had difficulty in stringing words into sentences…the government way. I realized that people in government speak and write differently from that of the people in the private sector. There seems to be a difference in the application of the elements of style.  

Believe it or not, this has made my first few days in government service a little less enjoyable. I needed to adjust, against my will, my writing style to fit in the system, if only to avoid conflict and misunderstanding. It was quite difficult because at that time I was already used to my KISS writing style.

I'm glad there is now an initiative to improve the system of written communication in government agencies through Senate Bill 1859 filed by Sen. Miriam Santiago. The bill, if passed into law, will somehow standardize the writing style of government employees and, in effect, avoid or lessen any conflict between superiors and subordinates who have different ways of speaking their minds in printed words.      

As reported, Senate Bill 1859, otherwise known as the Plain Language Act, seeks to improve the effectiveness and accountability of government agencies to the public by promoting clear communications that the public can understand and use.

According to Sen. Santiago, “in using plain language, we will be able to communicate information to a broader range of recipients in terms of educational capacity. We will be able to reach out to more people inside and outside the government.” The senator is right, and I support her in pushing for reforms in the government communication system which is so “governmentalese” – by government, for government.     

So what is a plain language, by the way? Let us check a definition from an online dictionary: “plain language is clear, direct and honest expression in speech and writing. Plain writing is free from jargon and rarely used words and terms, and comes straight to the point being addressed.”

An English professor explains that plain English is “clear, straightforward expression, using only as many words as are necessary. It is language that avoids obscurity, inflated vocabulary and convoluted sentence construction. It is not baby talk, nor is it a simplified version of the English language.”

Back to the Plain Language Act, I notice that is a little bit similar to the U.S. Plain Writing Act of 2010 which took effect in October 2010, requiring federal agencies to write new publications, forms and publicly distributed documents in a “clear, concise and well-organize manner” and banning the use of confusing words and sentences in government documents such as the words shall, precluded, heretofore, in accordance with and herein. 

I have not read the full version of the law, but from its description, I can say how much the U.S government puts greater value on the power of written communication. In a document from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, officials argue that implementing the plain writing law will:

• improve public understanding of government communications;
• save money and increase efficiency;
• reduce the need for the public to seek clarification from agency staff;
• improve public understanding of agency requirements and thereby assist the public in complying with them;
• reduce resources spent on enforcement;
• improve public understanding of agency forms and applications and thereby assist the public in completing them; and
• reduce the number of errors that are made and thus the amount of time and effort that the agency and the public need to devote to correcting those errors.

With these benefits, I cannot find any valid reason not to enact the bill. Passing the bill into law will somehow emphasize the importance of establishing "a system of transparency, public participation and collaboration" in government.