I will send the attachment later, Yahoo is having trouble sending it.
JFLVN
Monday, December 6, 2010
Transect Walk and Library Time
SW 121 Library Work Instructions.
A. Based on your first essay and Chapter 9 of HBSE by Schriver, please provide the following:
1. the classical definition a community
2. modern and emerging definitions of the community
3. different concepts of the community
4. Elements to be observed in conducting a community study
5. Theories that you can use in analyzing the community
If you finish today, December 7, 2010, please leave your output in my pigeon hole. Of course, if your answers are found satisfactory, you will be given extra credit.
B. Using the attached PDF file, try to apply the transect walk technique of observation in the communities where you live. Draw a map of you community highlighting the structures you identified during the transect walk and important elements for observation. Be creative in drawing your community map. Be sure that you drawing will be understood even by community folks. If you have access to other information, you may apply the other techniques found in the PDF file and include it as additional attachments to you community map. Target submission date: December 14, 2010
Sunday, November 21, 2010
TENTATIVE COURSE FLOW SW 121
November 21, 2010
Dear SW 121 Students:
1. For our sharing on November 30, please be ready to submit and read your summary. Bring bond paper, masking tape and permanent markers. To facilitate faster discussion of the concepts, you will have to post the important concepts of your thinker on the board.
2. We will use you initial reading list to define the community and provide an initial structure of the community. Later, we will also discuss the various symbolic conception of the community. Since the book on Ross is with Kath, she is in charge to share with the class concepts found in the book, possibly provide some notes on the reading (Of course, with additional credit).
3. To synthesize our discussion, hopefully on the same day, please read the following:
a. Schriver, Joe,M. 1995. Human Behavior and the Social Environment. Mass.: Allyn and Bacon. Chapter 9: Pp. 447-491.
Concepts found in the book may need to be memorized and may be the content of our first examination (maybe the meeting before Christmas break)
4. For December 7 (or Devember 14, depending on the length of our sharing session), please read the following:
a. Landa Jocano, Felipe. (2001). Filipino Worldview: Ethnography of Local Knowledge. Manila:Punlad Research House, Inc.
b. Landa Jocano,Felipe.(1997). Filipino Value System: A Cultural Definition. Manila:Punlad Research House, Inc.
We will divide the class into four groups to present “creatively” in class the following dimensions of the Filipino World view and Values
a. Natural dimension – Group 1
b. Biological dimension – Group 1
c. Communal dimension – Group 2
d. Social dimension – Group 2
e. Normative dimension - Group 2
f. Dimension of the self – Group 3
g. Ethical dimension – Group 3
h. Moral dimension – Group 3
i. Aesthetic dimension - Group 4
j. Teleological dimension – Group 4
k. Ideological dimension – Group 4
| Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | Group 4 |
| Don Lima JV Carrascal Kathleen Valdez Eunice Tan Karen Asuncion | Eva Daruca Ayrah Lorico Karleen Reodique Glacy Agustino Ma. Perpetua Sadio Manalang, Andrew Rex | Ia Guevarra Gilda Waniwan Jan Kim Co Mark Manalang Emgeelee Gonda | Camille Barlis Christopher Sun Linda Pracejus Aga Bedi Judilyn Ferrer
|
These groups are tentative and simply based on the sitting arrangement except for Ms. Asuncion and Ms. Sadio whom I assigned. If you want the groupings to be changed then text me or email me. I just do not know if we have internet access in Davao. That is also the reason I am sending you this email before we leave Tuesday morning.
5. For January, we will discuss indigenous or ethnic communities, their structure, culture and processes. Main text is as follows.
a. Landa Jocano, Felipe. (1998). Filipino Indigenous Ethnic Communities: Patterns, variations, and typologies. Manila: Punlad Research House, Inc.
6. For February, we will be practicing partipatory methods in studying a community. See main text below:
a. Participatory Methods in Community-based Coastal Resource Management. Published by IIRR,IDRC and CIDA. (HT 395,A8,W67,1997)
7. Actual community study will be conducted in February and March.
Our College faculty meeting will be on November 30, 2010 but I think it will be in the morning. Just in case it will be in the afternoon, please meet by groups, plan for your report and your initial community observation. I suggest that we choose a community within the UP area. If the facuolty meeting is in the morning then we meet in the afternoon and go on with our sharing of the concepts and definitions of a community.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
SW 122 OPTIONAL FINALS
OCTOBER 7, 2010
SW 122 OPTIONAL FINALS
1st Semester SY 2010-2011
This optional examination is being administered to service those students who think they are not performing well in class. If you think that your class standing is above average then there is no need to take the examination.
Please copy the examination questions and print it with your answers. Answers may be handwritten but must be on short bond paper only. Submission is on October 12, 2010, class time. You have the option to answer the test today, October 7, 2010, (most preferably in the CSWCD library or our original room assignment) and likewise, submit the accomplished test today. Please do not discuss with your classmates while answering the test. JVN
TEST PROPER
A. Given the situation of the Philippines for the first 100 days of President Aquino’s term, construct a PROBLEM TREE on the issue and problem of CORRUPTION. Provide at least three levels of causes and three levels of effect. Provide an analysis statement on the diagram you constructed.
B. Based on your problem tree, construct a FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS of Aquino’s Platform against corruption. Identify the facilitating and hindering factors. Again, provide a paragraph or two explaining your analysis.
C. Given your two diagrams, comment on the concept of “Culture of Corruption” among the Filipinos. Can you trace this from certain events in history?
D. [For the Japanese cross-registrants] How would you compare the situation of the Philippines with that of Japan with regards to corruption? How does the Japanese cope with the issue of corruption?
---/o/--
SW 122 OPTIONAL FINALS
1st Semester SY 2010-2011
This optional examination is being administered to service those students who think they are not performing well in class. If you think that your class standing is above average then there is no need to take the examination.
Please copy the examination questions and print it with your answers. Answers may be handwritten but must be on short bond paper only. Submission is on October 12, 2010, class time. You have the option to answer the test today, October 7, 2010, (most preferably in the CSWCD library or our original room assignment) and likewise, submit the accomplished test today. Please do not discuss with your classmates while answering the test. JVN
TEST PROPER
A. Given the situation of the Philippines for the first 100 days of President Aquino’s term, construct a PROBLEM TREE on the issue and problem of CORRUPTION. Provide at least three levels of causes and three levels of effect. Provide an analysis statement on the diagram you constructed.
B. Based on your problem tree, construct a FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS of Aquino’s Platform against corruption. Identify the facilitating and hindering factors. Again, provide a paragraph or two explaining your analysis.
C. Given your two diagrams, comment on the concept of “Culture of Corruption” among the Filipinos. Can you trace this from certain events in history?
D. [For the Japanese cross-registrants] How would you compare the situation of the Philippines with that of Japan with regards to corruption? How does the Japanese cope with the issue of corruption?
---/o/--
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Draft Statement: (Not Yet Official) Save Lives: Increase Spending for Reproductive Health Care Including Family Planning
Save Lives: Increase Spending for Reproductive Health Care Including Family Planning
A joint statement of the University of the Philippines College of Social Work and Community Development (CSWCD) and the UP Center for Women's Studies (UPCWS)
Every day 11 Filipina women die from pregnancy and birth complications. . Every year 400,000 Filipinas suffer some form of illness or disability because of giving birth.
The majority of those who die or become ill from childbirth come from poor communities and families who can least afford to lose a mother or a sister or a wife. The health care burden to poor and middle income families of morbidities related to childbirth , can also be devastating.
And yet, we have the capacity to avoid most of the deaths and half of the morbidity related to childbirth. Health experts agree that delivery with a properly trained birth attendant, access to obstetric and new born care , and access to family planning services are effective and doable measures that will ensure better health outcomes for pregnant women and their families.
Of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) the Philippines is likely to fail in meeting the goal of reducing maternal mortality rates by 2015. The reason is clear, the Arroyo administration has consistently neglected the services women need. This, despite compelling evidence that major sectors of our society (health, academic, business, labor) and the majority of our people accept the need for contraceptive services.
Today, we reiterate our call, echoed in the promises of the Philippine government and the policy pronouncements of President Benigno Aquino III, to ensure adequate funding for contraceptive supplies as a first step towards ensuring access to family planning services to all women.
Today, we reiterate that access to contraceptives within the framework of informed and free choice is a moral imperative guaranteed by international human rights standards and the Philippine Constitution as well as sentiments of the common citizenry.
With political will, we can yet achieve the health related MDGs, including the MDG on the goal of significantly reducing maternal mortality by 2015. Achieving this will definitely redound the attainment of other related MDGs on gender equaliy, women's empowerment and poverty reduction.
Beyond the political debates, the scientific data, international and local laws, the reality upon which an enlightened and moral policy on family planning must be based is that is saves the lives of women and their children.
September 30, 2010
Contact Persons:
Sylvia Estrada-Claudio, MD, PhD
Director
UPCWS
Amaryllis T. Torres
Dean CSWCD
A joint statement of the University of the Philippines College of Social Work and Community Development (CSWCD) and the UP Center for Women's Studies (UPCWS)
Every day 11 Filipina women die from pregnancy and birth complications. . Every year 400,000 Filipinas suffer some form of illness or disability because of giving birth.
The majority of those who die or become ill from childbirth come from poor communities and families who can least afford to lose a mother or a sister or a wife. The health care burden to poor and middle income families of morbidities related to childbirth , can also be devastating.
And yet, we have the capacity to avoid most of the deaths and half of the morbidity related to childbirth. Health experts agree that delivery with a properly trained birth attendant, access to obstetric and new born care , and access to family planning services are effective and doable measures that will ensure better health outcomes for pregnant women and their families.
Of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) the Philippines is likely to fail in meeting the goal of reducing maternal mortality rates by 2015. The reason is clear, the Arroyo administration has consistently neglected the services women need. This, despite compelling evidence that major sectors of our society (health, academic, business, labor) and the majority of our people accept the need for contraceptive services.
Today, we reiterate our call, echoed in the promises of the Philippine government and the policy pronouncements of President Benigno Aquino III, to ensure adequate funding for contraceptive supplies as a first step towards ensuring access to family planning services to all women.
Today, we reiterate that access to contraceptives within the framework of informed and free choice is a moral imperative guaranteed by international human rights standards and the Philippine Constitution as well as sentiments of the common citizenry.
With political will, we can yet achieve the health related MDGs, including the MDG on the goal of significantly reducing maternal mortality by 2015. Achieving this will definitely redound the attainment of other related MDGs on gender equaliy, women's empowerment and poverty reduction.
Beyond the political debates, the scientific data, international and local laws, the reality upon which an enlightened and moral policy on family planning must be based is that is saves the lives of women and their children.
September 30, 2010
Contact Persons:
Sylvia Estrada-Claudio, MD, PhD
Director
UPCWS
Amaryllis T. Torres
Dean CSWCD
Monday, September 27, 2010
INformal Settlers Seeking Relocation (From ABS-CBN News)
NHA: More informal settlers want relocation
MANILA, Philippines – More informal settlers in Metro Manila are availing of voluntary relocation, the National Housing Authority (NHA) said on Monday.
Around 67 families a day are now filing applications to be relocated to government housing projects, NHA community relations chief Socorro Salamat said.
She said that before the demolition of shanties in North Triangle, Quezon City, the NHA had been receiving only 50 applications a day.
Salamat said some families who had been considering relocation are now having second thoughts because the demolition project was suspended.
She praised the government’s relocation project and allayed fears raised by informal settlers.
Senate Edgardo Angara, meanwhile, said the upper house will look at the possibility of realigning around P6 billion in government funds for housing projects.
The amount is currently earmarked for various projects under the Department of Interior and Local Government and the Department of Social Welfare and Development.
Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC) Undersecretary Nestor Borromeo said the agency’s allotted budget is not enough to meet the public’s need.
He said the HUDCC only received P5.6 billion from the P11 billion budget that the agency asked for.
"What will be greatly affected is the program of the National Housing Authority," Borromeo said.
He added that lack of funds will prevent the NHA from relocating informal settlers and families living in danger zones.
He said the HUDCC may also fail from reaching its target of building 350,000 new homes. – Atom Araullo and Ryan Chua, ABS-CBN News
MANILA, Philippines – More informal settlers in Metro Manila are availing of voluntary relocation, the National Housing Authority (NHA) said on Monday.
Around 67 families a day are now filing applications to be relocated to government housing projects, NHA community relations chief Socorro Salamat said.
She said that before the demolition of shanties in North Triangle, Quezon City, the NHA had been receiving only 50 applications a day.
Salamat said some families who had been considering relocation are now having second thoughts because the demolition project was suspended.
She praised the government’s relocation project and allayed fears raised by informal settlers.
Senate Edgardo Angara, meanwhile, said the upper house will look at the possibility of realigning around P6 billion in government funds for housing projects.
The amount is currently earmarked for various projects under the Department of Interior and Local Government and the Department of Social Welfare and Development.
Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC) Undersecretary Nestor Borromeo said the agency’s allotted budget is not enough to meet the public’s need.
He said the HUDCC only received P5.6 billion from the P11 billion budget that the agency asked for.
"What will be greatly affected is the program of the National Housing Authority," Borromeo said.
He added that lack of funds will prevent the NHA from relocating informal settlers and families living in danger zones.
He said the HUDCC may also fail from reaching its target of building 350,000 new homes. – Atom Araullo and Ryan Chua, ABS-CBN News
Friday, September 24, 2010
North Triangle Demolition
Quick facts about the North Triangle project and demolition of Sept. 23
Ayala Land signed an agreement with the National Housing Authority to develop, at a cost of P22 billion, 29 hectares of the 256-hectare of the North Triangle area that is to be developed as the QC Central Business District, presumably to be pattermed after Ayala Business District in Makati..
But there are 6,000 families in the area. The residents have already held 4 dialogues with the NHA since they received the 30-day notice of demolition on May 2010 where they offered suggestions to the authorities. However NHA officials insist that they should resettle in Montalban, Rizal, which is more than 20 kilometers north..
The NHA offered the residents P1,000, 5 kilos of rice, 2 packs of instant noodles and 2 canned sardines if they would agree to be relocated to Montalban..
They are also being offered a 20-square meter house at the relocation site, worth supposedly P250,000 which are not free. On the second year, those who would be relocated would have to pay P200 monthly and P600 monthly from fifth year onwards.
The biggest problem of the 6,000 families is that they earn their livelihood near the area , and Montalban is more than 20 kilometers away. Aside from that, they complain that the facilities like water and power are not yet in place, and the area is prone to flooding.
Residents said they are not fighting to own the land but to get what is due and fair to them, which includes an on-site or in-city relocation.
Judge Maria Padilla of RTC 225 ordered a stop to the demolition mid afternoon yesterday, and today Aquino III stopped the demolition for the moment.
For more facts and figures, go this page:
http://www.arkibongbayan.org/2010/2010-09Sept24-NTriangle/demolition.htm
Ayala Land signed an agreement with the National Housing Authority to develop, at a cost of P22 billion, 29 hectares of the 256-hectare of the North Triangle area that is to be developed as the QC Central Business District, presumably to be pattermed after Ayala Business District in Makati..
But there are 6,000 families in the area. The residents have already held 4 dialogues with the NHA since they received the 30-day notice of demolition on May 2010 where they offered suggestions to the authorities. However NHA officials insist that they should resettle in Montalban, Rizal, which is more than 20 kilometers north..
The NHA offered the residents P1,000, 5 kilos of rice, 2 packs of instant noodles and 2 canned sardines if they would agree to be relocated to Montalban..
They are also being offered a 20-square meter house at the relocation site, worth supposedly P250,000 which are not free. On the second year, those who would be relocated would have to pay P200 monthly and P600 monthly from fifth year onwards.
The biggest problem of the 6,000 families is that they earn their livelihood near the area , and Montalban is more than 20 kilometers away. Aside from that, they complain that the facilities like water and power are not yet in place, and the area is prone to flooding.
Residents said they are not fighting to own the land but to get what is due and fair to them, which includes an on-site or in-city relocation.
Judge Maria Padilla of RTC 225 ordered a stop to the demolition mid afternoon yesterday, and today Aquino III stopped the demolition for the moment.
For more facts and figures, go this page:
http://www.arkibongbayan.org/2010/2010-09Sept24-NTriangle/demolition.htm
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Conditional Cash Transfer - Unsustainable?
GOV’T CAUTIONED AGAINST CONDITIONAL CASH TRANSFERS: PROGRAM UNSUSTAINABLE, ADDS TO DEBT BURDEN
As allocations for poverty programs continue to be deliberated in the national budget for 2011, research group IBON cautions government on the conditional cash transfers program (CCTP), saying that the program is not sustainable and will add to the country’s debt burden.
The 2011 national budget has proposed a Php29.2-billion allocation for the CCTP, a program that distributes cash to indigent families with various conditions such as ensuring the children’s school attendance and immunization among others. The program is funded by loans, and with the latest US$400 million-loans (Php19 billion) from the Asian Development Bank, will mean an additional debt burden for Filipinos.
The program moreover is not sustainable; according to the group, when funding for the program runs out, Filipinos will be left jobless and poor as ever, especially with how present economic policies prevent the economy from creating jobs and incomes for the country’s growing population.
Even the United Nations (UN) has criticized current approaches to cutting poverty like the CCTP and has warned that these may be “misconceived” especially with how such programs separate poverty from broader processes of economic development. The UN has moreover estimated that these approaches to poverty may leave around 1 billion poor worldwide by 2015.
IBON stresses that the CCTP is a dole-out program which does not address the roots of poverty and only sugarcoats the implementation of the neoliberal policies that have caused deep unemployment and severe poverty in the country.
The group also notes that the program is prone to corruption, especially with its primary task being the distribution of cash down to the barangay level. Similar to other countries that implemented the CCTP, the program lacks a reliable monitoring mechanism ensuring that cash transfers are received by indigent families.
While giving out cash transfers to indigent families may be an option at certain times, this should not be at the core of government poverty programs. IBON stresses that basic economic reforms are needed to substantially address poverty. At present however, the CCTP seems to divert the public’s attention from the real causes of poverty and on how government continues to implement problematic economic policies that worsen the conditions of poor Filipinos. (end)
IBON Foundation, Inc. is an independent development institution established in 1978 that provides research, education, publications, information work and advocacy support on socioeconomic issues.
As allocations for poverty programs continue to be deliberated in the national budget for 2011, research group IBON cautions government on the conditional cash transfers program (CCTP), saying that the program is not sustainable and will add to the country’s debt burden.
The 2011 national budget has proposed a Php29.2-billion allocation for the CCTP, a program that distributes cash to indigent families with various conditions such as ensuring the children’s school attendance and immunization among others. The program is funded by loans, and with the latest US$400 million-loans (Php19 billion) from the Asian Development Bank, will mean an additional debt burden for Filipinos.
The program moreover is not sustainable; according to the group, when funding for the program runs out, Filipinos will be left jobless and poor as ever, especially with how present economic policies prevent the economy from creating jobs and incomes for the country’s growing population.
Even the United Nations (UN) has criticized current approaches to cutting poverty like the CCTP and has warned that these may be “misconceived” especially with how such programs separate poverty from broader processes of economic development. The UN has moreover estimated that these approaches to poverty may leave around 1 billion poor worldwide by 2015.
IBON stresses that the CCTP is a dole-out program which does not address the roots of poverty and only sugarcoats the implementation of the neoliberal policies that have caused deep unemployment and severe poverty in the country.
The group also notes that the program is prone to corruption, especially with its primary task being the distribution of cash down to the barangay level. Similar to other countries that implemented the CCTP, the program lacks a reliable monitoring mechanism ensuring that cash transfers are received by indigent families.
While giving out cash transfers to indigent families may be an option at certain times, this should not be at the core of government poverty programs. IBON stresses that basic economic reforms are needed to substantially address poverty. At present however, the CCTP seems to divert the public’s attention from the real causes of poverty and on how government continues to implement problematic economic policies that worsen the conditions of poor Filipinos. (end)
IBON Foundation, Inc. is an independent development institution established in 1978 that provides research, education, publications, information work and advocacy support on socioeconomic issues.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Monday, September 20, 2010
Christmas Song by Sir Nilan
Hi guys:
Please view a song written by Sir Nilan. Below is the link or just copy paste it to your browser. Thanks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wOt2BVCwgs
Please view a song written by Sir Nilan. Below is the link or just copy paste it to your browser. Thanks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wOt2BVCwgs
Sunday, September 19, 2010
SW 122 Final Paper Guide
SW 122 FINAL REPORT GUIDE
I. introduction
A. National Situation – Facts and Figures related to your sector; Situation of the Philippines at present and how it affects your sector/ may include historical accounts if needed in your analysis
B. Local Situation – A Thorough description of the situation of the sector in the Philippines
1. Facts and Figures
2. Issues affecting the sector
C. Discussion on important concepts on the Sector (Mostly what you presented in class)
II. Analysis of the Situation of the Sector in General
A. Perspective to be used in analysis (Structural Functionalist; Conflict; Interactionist; Constructivist; Feminist; Post-Modern, etc)
B. Framework for Analysis – Specific Conceptual framework applicable to the issue you chose; It may include specific theories that are sector specific (e.g. theories or frameworks on children)
C. Discussion on how your issues may be viewed from the chosen perspectives and theories.
III. CASE PRESENTATION (Thorough Narrative of the Case explained in your own words – exact copies of the case may be attached in the annexes)
IV. INTERPRETATION & ANALYSIS OF THE CASE (Use your perspective and theories)
A. How the issue affects the situation of the marginalized sector
B. Identification of the gaps that need to be addressed by social welfare
C. Discussion of the role of Social Workers, Community Development, and Public Administrators in addressing the gaps
D. A Survey of the Existing Agencies (GO, NGO, PO, IO), Programs and Policies already extending services and support to the sector in matrix form, showing the basic thrust of the agency, a short description of the program, policy or project
E. Identifying further the gaps or areas not addressed by the existing structures (Mostly from the workshop- sharing done in class)
V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY
VII. ANNEXES AND ATTACHMENTS [Tables; copies of news articles; copies of policies; other details of the agencies, programs and policies;
VIII. Softcopy of the Report and Powerpoint presentation, videos and other materials you wish to submit
I. introduction
A. National Situation – Facts and Figures related to your sector; Situation of the Philippines at present and how it affects your sector/ may include historical accounts if needed in your analysis
B. Local Situation – A Thorough description of the situation of the sector in the Philippines
1. Facts and Figures
2. Issues affecting the sector
C. Discussion on important concepts on the Sector (Mostly what you presented in class)
II. Analysis of the Situation of the Sector in General
A. Perspective to be used in analysis (Structural Functionalist; Conflict; Interactionist; Constructivist; Feminist; Post-Modern, etc)
B. Framework for Analysis – Specific Conceptual framework applicable to the issue you chose; It may include specific theories that are sector specific (e.g. theories or frameworks on children)
C. Discussion on how your issues may be viewed from the chosen perspectives and theories.
III. CASE PRESENTATION (Thorough Narrative of the Case explained in your own words – exact copies of the case may be attached in the annexes)
IV. INTERPRETATION & ANALYSIS OF THE CASE (Use your perspective and theories)
A. How the issue affects the situation of the marginalized sector
B. Identification of the gaps that need to be addressed by social welfare
C. Discussion of the role of Social Workers, Community Development, and Public Administrators in addressing the gaps
D. A Survey of the Existing Agencies (GO, NGO, PO, IO), Programs and Policies already extending services and support to the sector in matrix form, showing the basic thrust of the agency, a short description of the program, policy or project
E. Identifying further the gaps or areas not addressed by the existing structures (Mostly from the workshop- sharing done in class)
V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY
VII. ANNEXES AND ATTACHMENTS [Tables; copies of news articles; copies of policies; other details of the agencies, programs and policies;
VIII. Softcopy of the Report and Powerpoint presentation, videos and other materials you wish to submit
Thursday, September 16, 2010
UP BUDGET CUT PRIMER
DBM 2011 Budget Site:
http://www.dbm.gov.ph/index.php?pid=9&xid=30&id=1306
Narito ang pahayag sa pormang praymer ng UP Kilos Na: Labanan ang budget cut.
Ang pagbubuo nito ay isa sa mga naging resolusyon ng Sept.2 and 3 System-wide, Multi-Sectoral Conference na ginanap sa SOLAIR. Kanina, Set. 16, nagkaroon ng round table discussion sa UP Diliman na inorganisa ng tatlong Sectoral Regents. Dinaluhan ito ng mga opisyal ng mga organisasyon ng faculty, kawani at estudyante at ilang mga college faculty administrators sa UP Diliman. Napagkaisahan na buuin ang Diliman chapter ng UP Kilos Na: Labanan ang budget cut para maglobby sa HOR at Senate para mapigilan ang P1.39 B cut sa proposed 2011 budget para sa UP.
Napagkaisahan din ang mga sumusunod na mga aktibidad:
1. September 22: maging bahagi ng system-wide campus actions to oppose the budget cut. Sa UP Diliman, magkaroon ng talakayan sa AS lobby ng 11:30 to 1 pm at magkaroon ulit ng talakayan sa AS steps umpisa ng 4 pm.
2. September 24: BOR meeting at Public Forum ng 11 nominees para sa UP President.
3. September 27: HOR Committee on Appropriations hearing on SUC budget.
Paghahandaan din ang pagdalo sa plenary session ng Lower House kung saan tatalakayin ang SUC budget. Wala pang petsa ito.
Hinhiling sa mga kasamahan sa mga ibang UP units na magkakaroon din ng mga pagkilos para tutulan ang budget cut at maigiit ang mas mataas na budget para sa ating unibersidad. Bukod sa mga lokal na talakayan at mga aksyon, hinihiling na lapitan. magkaroon ng dialogue sa inyong mga Kongresista para ihapag ang ating panawagan.
Pakibahagi ng inyong mga plano at mga pakilos. Salamat.
Judy
Labanan ang P1.39 budget cut sa UP!
Igiit ang mas mataas na budget para sa UP at sa iba pang SUCs
Pahayag sa Anyong Praymer ng
UP Kilos Na: Labanan ang Budget Cut!
Setyembre 16, 2010
Sa panukalang P1.645 trilyong budget para sa 2011 ni Pangulong Noynoy Aquino, anu-ano ang dinagdagan at anu-ano ang binawasan?
Halos pitong porsiyento ang itinaas ng P1.645 trilyon na panukalang budget para sa 2011, ang kauna-unahan sa termino ni Aquino, kumpara sa P1.54 trilyong budget noong 2010. Tinawag ito ni Aquino bilang “reform budget” at aniya’y may pagkiling sa mahihirap.
Pansinin kung anu-ano ang nagkaroon ng pagtaas:
Interes sa Bayad-Utang
+ P80.9 bilyon
AFP
+ P10 bilyon
PNP
+ P 6.6 bilyon
PDAP (pork barrel)
+ P13.9 bilyon
GOCCs
+ P 1.1 bilyon [1]
Incentives for private investments
+ P15 bilyon
Basic Education
+P 32.3 bilyon
Pabahay
+ P273 milyon
Naglaan ng P823.27 bilyon (P357.09 bilyon sa interes at P466.18 bilyon sa prinsipal na hindi isinama sa kabuuang buget proposal ng pamahalaan) sa bayad-utang. Tumaas ng P80.9 bilyon ang alokasyon sa bayad sa interes pa lamang. Samantala, dinagdagan ng P10 bilyon ang budget ng Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) at lumaki rin ang pondo ng Philippine National Police (PNP) ng P6.6 bilyon.
Higit sa doble rin ang naging pagtaas ng budget para sa takaw-korapsyon na “pork barrel,” mula P10.9 bilyon tungong P24.8 bilyon. Naglaan din ang pamahalaan ng mahigit P15 bilyon para akitin ang mga pribadong mamumuhunan na makipagsosyo sa gobyerno upang magtayo at magpatakbo ng mga serbisyo at imprastraktura sa pamamagitan ng “public-private partnerships.” Taliwas ito sa sinabi ni Aquino noong kanyang unang SONA na walang gagastusin ang pamahalaan para sa mga hakbanging ito.
Taliwas sa anunsiyo ni Kalihim Florencio Abad ng Department of Budget and Management (DBM) na mababawasan ng P16 bilyon (mula P39.3 bilyon tungong P23.3 bilyon) ang budget para sa mga government-owned and controlled corporation (GOCC) ay tataasan ito ng P1.1 bilyon batay sa pag-aaral ni Senador Franklin Drilon.
Tumaas naman ng P32.2 bilyon ang alokasyon para sa basic education para tugunan ang dagdag na silid aralan, dagdag na mga item para sa mga guro at pagtaas ng suweldo ng mga empleyado sa sektor ng edukasyon. Ang alokasyon naman para sa pabahay ay nagkaroon ng bahagyang pagtaas na P273 milyon tungo sa kabuuang P5.7 bilyon
Sa gitna ng mga pagtaas na ito, kailangang pansinin ang ilan sa mga nabawasan:
Serbisyong Pang-ekonomiya
-P37.8 bilyon
Kalusugan
-P1.4 bilyon
State Universities and Colleges (SUCs)
-P437 milyon
Nabawasan nang halos sampung porsyento ang alokasyon para sa serbisyong pangekonomiya: mula P398.9 bilyon noong 2010 tungo sa P361.1 bilyon para sa 2011. Tinamaan nang husto ang agrikultura at repormang agraryo, komunikasyon, kalsada, at iba pang imprastrukturang pangtransportasyon, enerhiya, pagpapaunlad ng water resources, at flood control. Nagbabadya ang ganitong pagbabawas ng lalo pang pribatisasyon ng mahahalagang imprastrukturang pampubliko at ang kakambal nitong pagtaas ng presyo.
Ang 2010 alokasyon sa kalusugan na P40 bilyon ay nabawasan pa, ginawang P38.6 bilyon na lamang para sa 2011.
Gaano kalaki ang planong pagbabawas sa budget ng UP para sa 2011?
Sa taong 2011, sa unang panukalang budget na inihapag ng kauupong administrasyong Aquino, bumulaga ang planong muling bawasan ang budget ng ating unibersidad. Mababa ng halos P1.4 bilyon ang 2011 panukalang UP budget kumpara sa naaprubahang budget noong 2010.
Panukala
Aktwal
2010
P5,289,346,000
P6,916,801,000
2011
P5,525,844, 000
(P5,525,844, 000)
Difference
+P236,498 M
-P1.39 B
May pagtaas sa personal services (PS) bunga ng implementasyon ng ikalawang tranche ng Salary Standardization Law 3 (SSL3), ngunit kinaltasan ng P654 milyon ang maintenance and other operating expenses (MOOE). Samantala, walang inilaan o zero ang capital outlay (CO).
PS
MOOE
CO
TOTAL
2010
P4,275,534
P1,358,332
P1,282,935
P6,916,801
2011
P4,871,845
P653,999
0
(P5,525,844)
Diffe-rence
P596, 311
-P704,333
P1,282,935
-P1,390,957
Ano ang naging pahayag ng Administrasyong Roman kaugnay ng nakaambang pagkaltas sa budget ng UP?
Ayon kay Pangulong Emerlinda Roman sa interbyu sa kanya ng Philippine Collegian, ang pagbaba ng MOOE ng mahigit pitong milyong peso ay bunga ng “‘non-recurring items’ in the budget, which are sums given to the university for specific research and construction projects in a certain year.” (“DBM slashes P1.3B from proposed P11B UP budget,” Set. 3, 2010, p. 3). Totoo man ang ganitong paliwanag, lumalabas na mismong si Pang. Roman pa ang nagbibigay ng katuwiran sa pagliit ng budget ng UP. Batid naman ng administrasyong Roman kung gaano naiipit ang iba’t ibang kolehiyo at yunit, pati na ang Philippine General Hospital (PGH), dahil sa kakapusan ng panustos para sa pagmementina ng mga gusali at pasilidad, at dahil sa kakapusan ng pambayad sa taon-taong pagtaas ng gastusin sa tubig at kuryente sa gitna ng pagtitipid ng mga administrador at empleyado.
Sa kaniyang paliwanag sa Philippine Collegian, litaw na litaw ang pagtanggap na lamang ni Pang. Roman sa budget cut at ang kaniyang kawalan ng political will upang ipaglaban ang mas mataas na UP budget:
“The President’s (Aquino) message about reducing subsidy to higher education is not different from the previous administration’s position… This is why UP has been trying to generate resources from other sources and its land grants.” (ibid)
Tila nakaligtaan ni Pang. Roman ang probisyon sa 2008 UP Charter, Section 22 (f):
“That funds generated from such programs, projects or mechanism (patungkol sa kikitain ng unibersidad sa mga land grants at iba pang pag-aari) shall not be meant to replace, in part or in whole, the annual appropriations provided by the national government to the national university.”
Ano ang magiging epekto sa komunidad ng UP ng patuloy na pagliit ng UP budget?
Kapag higit pang binabaan ang UP budget, mas may dahilan ang administrasyon ng UP na magpataw ng dagdag na bayarin at singilin sa mga estudyante, at mapabilis pang lalo ang komersyalisasyon ng mga lupain at mga serbisyo ng UP.
Apektado rin ang mga faculty na walang item, mga kontraktwal na kawani at ang mga doktor sa UP Manila PGH na “without compensation” ang katayuan. Sa isinumite ng administrasyong Roman na P18 bilyong 2011 UP budget sa DBM, mayroong alokasyon para sa mga dagdag na item para sa kaguruan at para sa regularisasyon ng mga emplayadong kaswal. Mayroon ring alokasyon para mabayaran ang mga doktor ng PGH na ngayon ay “without compensation.” Humingi rin ang UP ng dagdag na MOOE.
Nakikita rin na dahil sa patuloy na pagkaltas sa UP budget, lalong igigiit ng administrasyon ng UP ang pagsasara sa University Food Service upang diumano’y makatipid at upang magkaroon ng dagdag na kita sa pamamagitan ng mas marami pang pribadong concessionaire. Higit pang tataasan ang mga singilin sa mga sektor ng manininda at drayber ng mga pampublikong jeep sa UP.
Ano ang maaari nating gawin para labanan ang budget cut sa UP?
Alalahanin ang tagumpay na nakamit natin sa sama-samang pagkilos noong 2009 para ipaglaban ang mas mataas na budget para sa UP. Nag-lobby tayo sa Kongreso at nagkaroon ng maraming kilos-protesta para igiit ang mas mataas na budget para sa UP at sa buong sektor ng edukasyon. Dahil sa sama-samang pagkilos, napigilan ang pagbawas sa MOOE at nadagdagan ito ng halos P400 milyon. At sa halip na zero ang CO ay nakakuha tayo ng P1.28 bilyon para sa iba’t ibang proyektong imprastruktura sa unibersidad.
2010 Panukalang Budget ni Arroyo
2010
Aprubadong Budget
PS
P4,609,223,000
P4,275,534, 000
(di kasama ang retirement benefits)
MOOE
P680,123,000
P1,358,332,000
CO
0
P1,282,935, 000
TOTAL
P5,289,346,000
P6,916,801,000
Sa kasalukuyang budget deliberations sa Kongreso, magkaisa tayo para igiit ang sumusunod na mga kahilingan para sa karagdagang budget ng UP batay sa mahahalagang pangangailangan ng ating unibersidad:
Additional Faculty Item
P238.331 milyon
Regularization of Existing Casual
P57.592 milyon
Lump sum for honoraria/ allowance/ for UP Manila faculty without compensation (WOC)
P26 milyon
Additional MOOE
P693.356 milyon
Ang mga nasa itaas ay kinuha sa P18.53B 2011 UP Budget na isinumite ng UP sa DBM. Bukod sa mga ito, humihingi tayo ng alokasyon na P200 milyon para maipatayo ang bagong gusali ng UPIS sa loob ng academic oval na matagal nang hinihingi ng mga guro, magulang at mag-aaral nito. Humihingi rin tayo ng dagdag na alokasyon para makapagpatayo ng housing sa loob ng kampus para sa mga faculty at empleyado ng UP. Walang naitayong bagong housing sa campus sa termino ng tatlong nakaraang Pangulo ng UP: Javier, Nemezo at Roman, o sa nakaraang halos 18 taon.
Nakasaad sa 2008 UP Charter na bukod sa regular na alokasyon at dagdag sa taunang GAA, may taunang centennial fund na P100 milyon, sa loob ng limang taon, na dapat kasama sa budget ng UP. (Section 28, 2008 UP Charter: “In addition to the regular appropriations and increases for the university under the annual GAA, a centennial fund shall be appropriated in the amount of One Hundred Million Pesos (P100,000,000.00) per year for a period of five years, which shall likewise be included in the annual GAA.”)
Bakit sinasabi na inaabandona ng Administrasyong Aquino ang obligasyon ng gobyerno sa tersaryong edukasyon?
Ayon sa pag-aaral na ginawa ng Kabataan Partylist[2], matindi ang pagbawas sa budget hindi lamang ng UP kundi ng halos lahat ng SUCs:
Para sa taong 2011, ang ilalaan na kabuuang subsidiya ng administrasyong Aquino para sa mga SUC’s ay mahigit-kumulang P23.41 bilyon (kabilang na ang pondo para sa Personnel at Retirement Pension benefits na sa aktwal na General Appropriations Act ay hiwalay sa budget ng SUC’s). Mas mababa ito nang mahigit P437 milyon mula sa budget ng SUC’s ngayong 2010, at mas mababa ito nang halos P2 bilyon mula sa budget ng SUC’s noong 2009
Ang pinakamalalang tatamaan ng mga budget cut para sa 2011 ayon sa indibidwal na proposed budget ng mga SUC’s (hindi pa kasama ang dagdag na halaga mula sa hiwalay na Personnel at Retirement Pension benefits) ay ang mga sumusunod:
SUC’s NA MAY PINAKAMALALANG BUDGET CUT SA 2011 (AYON SA PORSYENTO)
1. Philippine Normal University (-23.59%)
2. Aurora State College of Technology
(-22.21%)
3. Cerilles State College (-21.95%)
4. University of the Philippines (-20.11%)
5. University of Southeastern Philippines
(-20.03%)
SUC’s NA MAY PINAKAMALALANG BUDGET CUT SA 2011 (AYON SA AKTWAL NA SUBSIDIYA)
1. University of the Philippines (-P1.39 bilyon)
2. Philippine Normal University
(-P91.35 milyon)
3. Bicol University (-P88.81 milyon)
4. University of Southeastern Philippines
(-P44.39 milyon)
5. Central Bicol State University of Agriculture (-P31.65 milyon)
Lumaki ang bahagdan ng mga bayarin ng mga estudyante ng SUCs mula halos pitong porsyento (6.6%) noong 2000 tungong 20.2% ngayong 2010 at magiging 22.1% sa 2011. Samakatuwid, ang self-generating income ng SUCs ang inihahalili sa pagkaltas ng budget ng SUCs. Tuloy-tuloy ang pagliit ng subsidyo ng gobyerno sa pampublikong paaralan sa tersaryong lebel, mula 87.74% noong 2000 tungong 66.31% sa panukalang 2011 budget. [3]
Lantarang inamin ni Pangulong Aquino sa kaniyang budget message ang kaniyang pagpapatuloy sa programa ng Administrasyong Arroyo:
“We are gradually reducing the subsidy to SUCs to push them toward becoming self-sufficient and financially independent, given their ability to raise their income and to utilize it for their programs and projects.”
Tulad nang nagyayari sa UP, ang pagliit ng alokasyon para sa SUCs ay nangangahulugan ng pagtaas ng singilin at bayarin sa mga mag-aaral at ng higit pang komersyalisasyon ng mga pampublikong unibersidad. Imperatibong labanan natin ang pagpapatuloy ng bagong administrasyong Aquino sa mga patakaran ng administrasyong Arroyo, at ang pagsunod sa dikta ng World Bank sa pag-abandona ng gobyerno sa obligasyon nito sa edukasyon.
Labanan ang P1.39 bilyong budget cut sa UP!
Labanan ang budget cuts sa SUCs!
Igiit ang mas mataas na budget para sa tersaryong edukasyong pampubliko!
Irechannel and debt-servicing at budget ng militar sa edukasyon at iba pang serbisyong panlipunan!
Labanan ang tumitinding komersyalisasyon at pribatisasyon ng UP at ng lahat ng SUCs!
Tutulan ang pag-abandona ng estado sa edukasyon!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] “Palace jacks up GOCC subsidy by P1B”, Philippine Daily Inquirer, September 4, 2010, http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20100904-290537/Palace-jacks-up-GOCC-subsidy-by-P1B
[2] Kabataan Partylist. “Ang Proposed 2011 Budget ng Administrasyong Aquino: State Universities and Colleges’ Budget Briefer 2001”, September 6, 2010. http://kabataanpartylist.com/blog/state-universities-colleges-budget-briefer-2011/
[3] Datos mula sa Budget Expenditures and Sources of Financing (BESF) ng Department of Budget and Management (DBM), http://www.dbm.gov.ph/index.php?pid=9&xid=30&id=1306
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
From Ma'am Bennette:
Dear Class:
Here are some insights shared by Ma'am Bennette regarding the hostage taking incident. It may help you in accimplishing the quiz.
Subject: Fw: Chinese Tiananmen Square and the Phippine Quirino Granstand and their respective August carnage... something to think about
--- On Wed, 9/1/10, rossane bahia wrote:
It is sad to have noted the unfortunate attacks that happened recently in your
country. When we visited Manila we could never have thought of such vicious
acts. I hope God will give sanity to other perpetrators to be and make them
realise the importance of life. That way peace will prevail on earth...
The known facts are these:
On August 19, 2005, Emmanuel "Bong" Madrigal, a Manila-based Filipino executive
of the multinational Shell, was visiting Beijing on vacation with his wife
Vivian, his daugher Regina Mia, and two younger daughters. That day, they rode a
tourist bus to Tiananmen Square, the heart of the capitol.
Upon arriving at the square, Emmanuel Madrigal was the first to descend from the
bus, followed by Vivian and Regina Mia. A Chinese man wielding a scythe--in some
reports it was described as a sword--suddenly appeared out of nowhere and hacked
Emmanuel across his torso. He died on the spot. The man also attacked and
seriously wounded Vivian. He then slashed at and killed Regina Mia. By this
time, bystanders were trying to subdue the man, and Vivian shouted to her two
other daughters to get away and save themselves. Somehow the girls made their
way back to the hotel. Vivian was brought to a Beijing hospital, where she died
several days later of her injuries.
An Associated Press report still circulating on the internet states that the
killer was Wang Gongzuo, 25, a farmer from eastern China's Jiangsu province. He
was sentenced to death for the murder of the Madrigals and executed a few weeks
later, in September. The AP report states: 'Wang's motive for killing the two is
unclear. After the incident occurred the Beijing Morning Post reported that he
had wanted to 'affect society using extreme actions,' but didn't elaborate."
Reflect on the parallels. A family of vacationers on a tourist bus: the Leungs
and the Madrigals. A killer out to "affect society using extreme
actions": Mendoza and Wang. A massacre in a public place of symbolic
significance: The Quirino grandstand, where the presidential inauguration had
been held just weeks before, and site of the civil society protests against the
Marcos regime; and Tiananmen Square, since ancient times the symbol of the
centralized power of the Chinese state, and site of the 1991 civil protests
against the government.
In both incidents, the state failed miserably in protecting innocent tourists.
And there the parallels end.
President Aquino has apologized to the families of Mendoza's victims and
conveyed his sorrow to the people of Hongkong, Chief Executive Donald Tsang, and
Ambassador Lin Jian Chao. The Philippine National Police acknowledge that they
botched matters beyond comprehension. Philippine legislators, ahead of their
Hongkong counterparts, called for a full investigation. Philippine media
organizations are looking to their own culpability in the affair. And masses of
ordinary Filipinos, on TV, radio, print, and the Internet, are expressing
collective horror, remorse and pity over the terrible fate of the innocent
tourists, and bow their heads in shame before the Hong Kong people's sorrow and
anger.
That is how it should be, that is only right. But.
To this day, five years after it happened, there is no public record of any
Chinese official acknowledging the tourist killings in Tiananmen Square and
apologizing to the Madrigals, much less the Filipino people, for the murder of
Emmanuel, Regina Mia and Vivian. Not a single expression of regret that the
Chinese police failed in their duty to protect the lives of innocent tourists in
the very heart of Beijing, in the symbolic center of a state that prides itself
most of all for its ability to control and contain disorder. There was a total
blackout on the part of the Chinese press, and, according to another news
report, government censors quickly blocked many internet sites where Chinese
users had begun to post comments about the killing. So we will likely never know
what ordinary Chinese citizens had to say about about the incident. Maybe some
of them were actually sorry for what happened.
The closest thing to expressed regret was in fact the final reported action of
the killer Wang, who waived his right to appeal the sentence of execution, and
got a bullet in the back of his head.
To add to the horror, it would appear that the Arroyo administration was
complicit in the silence. No public statement was ever made by the Philippine
government regarding the incident. Unlike in Hongkong, no flags were flown at
half-mast in Manila, and no three-minute silence was observed to mark the deaths
of the innocent Filipino tourists. No demand has ever been made by any Filipino
official for an apology, and for an accounting.
A full investigation of the Quirino Grandstand killing is ongoing. But what of
that other killing, also in August, five years ago in Tiananmen Square?
###
NB: This email and its contents are subject to our email legal notice which can
be viewed at: http://www.treasury.gov.za/Email_Disclaimer.pdf
Here are some insights shared by Ma'am Bennette regarding the hostage taking incident. It may help you in accimplishing the quiz.
Subject: Fw: Chinese Tiananmen Square and the Phippine Quirino Granstand and their respective August carnage... something to think about
--- On Wed, 9/1/10, rossane bahia
It is sad to have noted the unfortunate attacks that happened recently in your
country. When we visited Manila we could never have thought of such vicious
acts. I hope God will give sanity to other perpetrators to be and make them
realise the importance of life. That way peace will prevail on earth...
The known facts are these:
On August 19, 2005, Emmanuel "Bong" Madrigal, a Manila-based Filipino executive
of the multinational Shell, was visiting Beijing on vacation with his wife
Vivian, his daugher Regina Mia, and two younger daughters. That day, they rode a
tourist bus to Tiananmen Square, the heart of the capitol.
Upon arriving at the square, Emmanuel Madrigal was the first to descend from the
bus, followed by Vivian and Regina Mia. A Chinese man wielding a scythe--in some
reports it was described as a sword--suddenly appeared out of nowhere and hacked
Emmanuel across his torso. He died on the spot. The man also attacked and
seriously wounded Vivian. He then slashed at and killed Regina Mia. By this
time, bystanders were trying to subdue the man, and Vivian shouted to her two
other daughters to get away and save themselves. Somehow the girls made their
way back to the hotel. Vivian was brought to a Beijing hospital, where she died
several days later of her injuries.
An Associated Press report still circulating on the internet states that the
killer was Wang Gongzuo, 25, a farmer from eastern China's Jiangsu province. He
was sentenced to death for the murder of the Madrigals and executed a few weeks
later, in September. The AP report states: 'Wang's motive for killing the two is
unclear. After the incident occurred the Beijing Morning Post reported that he
had wanted to 'affect society using extreme actions,' but didn't elaborate."
Reflect on the parallels. A family of vacationers on a tourist bus: the Leungs
and the Madrigals. A killer out to "affect society using extreme
actions": Mendoza and Wang. A massacre in a public place of symbolic
significance: The Quirino grandstand, where the presidential inauguration had
been held just weeks before, and site of the civil society protests against the
Marcos regime; and Tiananmen Square, since ancient times the symbol of the
centralized power of the Chinese state, and site of the 1991 civil protests
against the government.
In both incidents, the state failed miserably in protecting innocent tourists.
And there the parallels end.
President Aquino has apologized to the families of Mendoza's victims and
conveyed his sorrow to the people of Hongkong, Chief Executive Donald Tsang, and
Ambassador Lin Jian Chao. The Philippine National Police acknowledge that they
botched matters beyond comprehension. Philippine legislators, ahead of their
Hongkong counterparts, called for a full investigation. Philippine media
organizations are looking to their own culpability in the affair. And masses of
ordinary Filipinos, on TV, radio, print, and the Internet, are expressing
collective horror, remorse and pity over the terrible fate of the innocent
tourists, and bow their heads in shame before the Hong Kong people's sorrow and
anger.
That is how it should be, that is only right. But.
To this day, five years after it happened, there is no public record of any
Chinese official acknowledging the tourist killings in Tiananmen Square and
apologizing to the Madrigals, much less the Filipino people, for the murder of
Emmanuel, Regina Mia and Vivian. Not a single expression of regret that the
Chinese police failed in their duty to protect the lives of innocent tourists in
the very heart of Beijing, in the symbolic center of a state that prides itself
most of all for its ability to control and contain disorder. There was a total
blackout on the part of the Chinese press, and, according to another news
report, government censors quickly blocked many internet sites where Chinese
users had begun to post comments about the killing. So we will likely never know
what ordinary Chinese citizens had to say about about the incident. Maybe some
of them were actually sorry for what happened.
The closest thing to expressed regret was in fact the final reported action of
the killer Wang, who waived his right to appeal the sentence of execution, and
got a bullet in the back of his head.
To add to the horror, it would appear that the Arroyo administration was
complicit in the silence. No public statement was ever made by the Philippine
government regarding the incident. Unlike in Hongkong, no flags were flown at
half-mast in Manila, and no three-minute silence was observed to mark the deaths
of the innocent Filipino tourists. No demand has ever been made by any Filipino
official for an apology, and for an accounting.
A full investigation of the Quirino Grandstand killing is ongoing. But what of
that other killing, also in August, five years ago in Tiananmen Square?
###
NB: This email and its contents are subject to our email legal notice which can
be viewed at: http://www.treasury.gov.za/Email_Disclaimer.pdf
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Justified?
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 7:21 AM
Subject: [dlshs63] Family of tourists killed by crazed man: A Filipino family, that is, in Beijing
To:
Think about this.
Interesting contrast/parallels......
The known facts are these:
On August 19, 2005, Emmanuel "Bong" Madrigal, a Manila-based Filipino executive of the multinational Shell, was visiting Beijing on vacation with his wife Vivian, his daugher Regina Mia, and two younger daughters. That day, they rode a tourist bus to Tiananmen Square, the heart of the capitol.
Upon arriving at the square, Emmanuel Madrigal was the first to descend from the bus, followed by Vivian and Regina Mia. A Chinese man wielding a scythe--in some reports it was described as a sword--suddenly appeared out of nowhere and hacked Emmanuel across his torso. He died on the spot. The man also attacked and seriously wounded Vivian. He then slashed at and killed Regina Mia. By this time, bystanders were trying to subdue the man, and Vivian shouted to her two other daughters to get away and save themselves. Somehow the girls made their way back to the hotel. Vivian was brought to a Beijing hospital, where she died several days later of her injuries.
An Associated Press report still circulating on the internet states that the killer was Wang Gongzuo, 25, a farmer from eastern China's Jiangsu province. He was sentenced to death for the murder of the Madrigals and executed a few weeks later, in September. The AP report states: 'Wang's motive for killing the two is unclear. After the incident occurred the Beijing Morning Post reported that he had wanted to 'affect society using extreme actions,' but didn't elaborate."
Reflect on the parallels. A family of vacationers on a tourist bus: the Leungs and the Madrigals. A killer out to "affect society using extreme actions": Mendoza and Wang. A massacre in a public place of symbolic significance: The Quirino grandstand, where the presidential inauguration had been held just weeks before, and site of the civil society protests against the Marcos regime; and Tiananmen Square, since ancient times the symbol of the centralized power of the Chinese state, and site of the 1991 civil protests against the government.
In both incidents, the state failed miserably in protecting innocent tourists.
And there the parallels end.
President Aquino has apologized to the families of Mendoza’s victims and conveyed his sorrow to the people of Hongkong, Chief Executive Donald Tsang, and Ambassador Lin Jian Chao. The Philippine National Police acknowledge that they botched matters beyond comprehension. Philippine legislators, ahead of their Hongkong counterparts, called for a full investigation. Philippine media organizations are looking to their own culpability in the affair. And masses of ordinary Filipinos, on TV, radio, print, and the Internet, are expressing collective horror, remorse and pity over the terrible fate of the innocent tourists, and bow their heads in shame before the Hong Kong people's sorrow and anger.
That is how it should be, that is only right. But.
To this day, five years after it happened, there is no public record of any Chinese official acknowledging the tourist killings in Tiananmen Square and apologizing to the Madrigals, much less the Filipino people, for the murder of Emmanuel, Regina Mia and Vivian. Not a single expression of regret that the Chinese police failed in their duty to protect the lives of innocent tourists in the very heart of Beijing, in the symbolic center of a state that prides itself most of all for its ability to control and contain disorder. There was a total blackout on the part of the Chinese press, and, according to another news report, government censors quickly blocked many internet sites where Chinese users had begun to post comments about the killing. So we will likely never know what ordinary Chinese citizens had to say about about the incident. Maybe some of them were actually sorry for what happened.
The closest thing to expressed regret was in fact the final reported action of the killer Wang, who waived his right to appeal the sentence of execution, and got a bullet in the back of his head.
To add to the horror, it would appear that the Arroyo administration was complicit in the silence. No public statement was ever made by the Philippine government regarding the incident. Unlike in Hongkong, no flags were flown at half-mast in Manila, and no three-minute silence was observed to mark the deaths of the innocent Filipino tourists. No demand has ever been made by any Filipino official for an apology, and for an accounting.
A full investigation of the Quirino Grandstand killing is ongoing. But what of that other killing, also in August, five years ago in Tiananmen Square?
Date: Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 7:21 AM
Subject: [dlshs63] Family of tourists killed by crazed man: A Filipino family, that is, in Beijing
To:
Think about this.
Interesting contrast/parallels......
The known facts are these:
On August 19, 2005, Emmanuel "Bong" Madrigal, a Manila-based Filipino executive of the multinational Shell, was visiting Beijing on vacation with his wife Vivian, his daugher Regina Mia, and two younger daughters. That day, they rode a tourist bus to Tiananmen Square, the heart of the capitol.
Upon arriving at the square, Emmanuel Madrigal was the first to descend from the bus, followed by Vivian and Regina Mia. A Chinese man wielding a scythe--in some reports it was described as a sword--suddenly appeared out of nowhere and hacked Emmanuel across his torso. He died on the spot. The man also attacked and seriously wounded Vivian. He then slashed at and killed Regina Mia. By this time, bystanders were trying to subdue the man, and Vivian shouted to her two other daughters to get away and save themselves. Somehow the girls made their way back to the hotel. Vivian was brought to a Beijing hospital, where she died several days later of her injuries.
An Associated Press report still circulating on the internet states that the killer was Wang Gongzuo, 25, a farmer from eastern China's Jiangsu province. He was sentenced to death for the murder of the Madrigals and executed a few weeks later, in September. The AP report states: 'Wang's motive for killing the two is unclear. After the incident occurred the Beijing Morning Post reported that he had wanted to 'affect society using extreme actions,' but didn't elaborate."
Reflect on the parallels. A family of vacationers on a tourist bus: the Leungs and the Madrigals. A killer out to "affect society using extreme actions": Mendoza and Wang. A massacre in a public place of symbolic significance: The Quirino grandstand, where the presidential inauguration had been held just weeks before, and site of the civil society protests against the Marcos regime; and Tiananmen Square, since ancient times the symbol of the centralized power of the Chinese state, and site of the 1991 civil protests against the government.
In both incidents, the state failed miserably in protecting innocent tourists.
And there the parallels end.
President Aquino has apologized to the families of Mendoza’s victims and conveyed his sorrow to the people of Hongkong, Chief Executive Donald Tsang, and Ambassador Lin Jian Chao. The Philippine National Police acknowledge that they botched matters beyond comprehension. Philippine legislators, ahead of their Hongkong counterparts, called for a full investigation. Philippine media organizations are looking to their own culpability in the affair. And masses of ordinary Filipinos, on TV, radio, print, and the Internet, are expressing collective horror, remorse and pity over the terrible fate of the innocent tourists, and bow their heads in shame before the Hong Kong people's sorrow and anger.
That is how it should be, that is only right. But.
To this day, five years after it happened, there is no public record of any Chinese official acknowledging the tourist killings in Tiananmen Square and apologizing to the Madrigals, much less the Filipino people, for the murder of Emmanuel, Regina Mia and Vivian. Not a single expression of regret that the Chinese police failed in their duty to protect the lives of innocent tourists in the very heart of Beijing, in the symbolic center of a state that prides itself most of all for its ability to control and contain disorder. There was a total blackout on the part of the Chinese press, and, according to another news report, government censors quickly blocked many internet sites where Chinese users had begun to post comments about the killing. So we will likely never know what ordinary Chinese citizens had to say about about the incident. Maybe some of them were actually sorry for what happened.
The closest thing to expressed regret was in fact the final reported action of the killer Wang, who waived his right to appeal the sentence of execution, and got a bullet in the back of his head.
To add to the horror, it would appear that the Arroyo administration was complicit in the silence. No public statement was ever made by the Philippine government regarding the incident. Unlike in Hongkong, no flags were flown at half-mast in Manila, and no three-minute silence was observed to mark the deaths of the innocent Filipino tourists. No demand has ever been made by any Filipino official for an apology, and for an accounting.
A full investigation of the Quirino Grandstand killing is ongoing. But what of that other killing, also in August, five years ago in Tiananmen Square?
For SW122, SW 130 & SW 144: WB 2009 Development Report
[Posted September 1, 2010]
Philippines Development Report 2009
Managing the Global Recession, Preparing for the Recovery
The 2009 Philippines Development Report (PDR) builds on its predecessors and looks to the unique economic, financial, social and political landscape shaping up in 2009 and 2010.
SUMMARY
As the global environment is beset by shocks of historical proportions, the 2009 report focuses on Managing the Global Recession, Preparing for the Recovery.
The 2009 report is structured around and aligned with the government’s 2004-2010 Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP). Key pillars of the MTPDP are fiscal stability and consolidation (aiming towards a balanced national government budget, a small non-financial public sector deficit, and reducing the public sector debt-to-GDP ratio), increased competitiveness through improved governance, better infrastructure, improved human capital (through improved service delivery in health and education).
However, as the global recession gathered momentum, the government’s goal for 2009 focused on a fiscal stimulus package (the Economic Resiliency Plan—ERP). The ERP called for a postponement of some MTPDP targets so as to achieve three overarching objectives, namely:
Maintaining macro-economic stability
Ensuring social protection for the poorest and most affected citizens
Preparing the economy for the recovery
The 2009 Philippines Development Report is itself structured along these three overarching objectives.
Permanent URL for this page: http://go.worldbank.org/NLKKODS860
Philippines Development Report 2009
Managing the Global Recession, Preparing for the Recovery
The 2009 Philippines Development Report (PDR) builds on its predecessors and looks to the unique economic, financial, social and political landscape shaping up in 2009 and 2010.
SUMMARY
As the global environment is beset by shocks of historical proportions, the 2009 report focuses on Managing the Global Recession, Preparing for the Recovery.
The 2009 report is structured around and aligned with the government’s 2004-2010 Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP). Key pillars of the MTPDP are fiscal stability and consolidation (aiming towards a balanced national government budget, a small non-financial public sector deficit, and reducing the public sector debt-to-GDP ratio), increased competitiveness through improved governance, better infrastructure, improved human capital (through improved service delivery in health and education).
However, as the global recession gathered momentum, the government’s goal for 2009 focused on a fiscal stimulus package (the Economic Resiliency Plan—ERP). The ERP called for a postponement of some MTPDP targets so as to achieve three overarching objectives, namely:
Maintaining macro-economic stability
Ensuring social protection for the poorest and most affected citizens
Preparing the economy for the recovery
The 2009 Philippines Development Report is itself structured along these three overarching objectives.
Permanent URL for this page: http://go.worldbank.org/NLKKODS860
WB Study fo SW 122 and SW144 Students
[Posted September 1, 2010 for SW 122 & SW 144 Reading]
Philippines: Inclusive Growth Provides Stronger Platform for Competitiveness—WB Study
Study says greater efforts are needed to revive growth and improve access to education, health, and social protection, particularly among the poorest populations and in the poorest regions
Contacts:
In Manila: Dave Llorito (632) 917-3047
E-mail: dllorito@worldbank.org
Erika Lacson (632) 917-3013
E-mail: elacson@worldbank.org
In Washington: Elisabeth Mealey (202) 458-5964
E-mail: emealey@worldbank.org
MANILA, AUGUST 19, 2010—The Philippines needs to aim for more inclusive growth that benefits the poor for the country’s march to development to become sustainable, a new World Bank study released today says.
The report titled “Philippines: Fostering More Inclusive Growth,” says that broad-based participation in the growth process remains critically important to ensure that the benefits of growth are shared by the poor and most vulnerable.“Growth that is inclusive, or growth that works for the poor, also provides a stronger platform for future expansion and competitiveness,” it says.
The study notes that acceleration of economic growth since 2001 has not translated into greater progress in poverty reduction. Instead, the poverty headcount as a share of the population is now back to where it was at the end of the 1990s.
“The failure of poverty to decline is partly explained by the limited dynamism of the growth experienced in 2000-06, coupled with income inequality,” says the study. “The income inequality has had the effect of reducing the income elasticity of poverty, slowing down the poverty reduction process.”
According to the study, several factors have contributed to the deterioration in the distribution of income and consumption. These factors include a sectoral distribution of growth that benefits the poor less than other income strata, an unequal pattern of regional development, intense demographic pressures, and an unequal access to social services and, in some cases, a decline of public spending on social services that benefit the poor.
From a sector development perspective, the main problem has been that the sector that employs the bulk of low-skilled workers (agriculture) has been growing more slowly than other sectors, while the sectors that have been contributing most to the acceleration of GDP growth after 2000 (mainly manufacturing) have been very capital-intensive and have not generated many new low skill jobs.
Says World Bank Country Director Bert Hofman during the release of the report: “More sustained and rapid growth remains a cornerstone for poverty reduction, but growth must become more inclusive through supporting policies in education, labor market, and support for sectors that generate more jobs for poor people."
To reduce poverty and build a broader base for future economic prosperity, the report recommends the implementation of a “two-pronged strategic approach” to foster more inclusive growth.
The first prong is for the country to take actions that enhance the income-earning opportunities of the poor. This encompasses actions designed to promote faster growth and employment generation, including addressing the vulnerable fiscal situation, upgrading the country’s infrastructure particularly in transport and electricity, and improving the overall investment climate.
“In terms of sectoral emphasis, the agriculture sector requires special attention since that is where most of the poor are currently engaged, together with the manufacturing and higher-productivity services sectors, which offer the most promise in terms of future income-earning opportunities,” says Mr. Ulrich Lachler, World Bank Lead Economist for the Philippines who led a team of experts that prepared the report.
The second prong of the strategic approach is to assist households to participate in markets and benefit from growth by enhancing their human capital to do so.
The study stresses that greater efforts are also needed to improve access to education, health, and social protection services, particularly among the poorest populations and in the poorest regions. Public spending in the areas of health, education, and social protection for the poor also needs to be improved.
“Judiciously increasing spending in these sectors, better targeting the programs that would benefit the poor, and improving expenditure management will play an important role in allowing the poor to benefit from growth and to participate in it in the future,” says Mr. Jehan Arulpragasam, World Bank Country Sector Coordinator for Human Development who is a co-leader of the Report. “In addition, improving accountability in service delivery will go a long way in making services more responsive to the actual needs and demands of poor households.”
Philippines: Inclusive Growth Provides Stronger Platform for Competitiveness—WB Study
Study says greater efforts are needed to revive growth and improve access to education, health, and social protection, particularly among the poorest populations and in the poorest regions
Contacts:
In Manila: Dave Llorito (632) 917-3047
E-mail: dllorito@worldbank.org
Erika Lacson (632) 917-3013
E-mail: elacson@worldbank.org
In Washington: Elisabeth Mealey (202) 458-5964
E-mail: emealey@worldbank.org
MANILA, AUGUST 19, 2010—The Philippines needs to aim for more inclusive growth that benefits the poor for the country’s march to development to become sustainable, a new World Bank study released today says.
The report titled “Philippines: Fostering More Inclusive Growth,” says that broad-based participation in the growth process remains critically important to ensure that the benefits of growth are shared by the poor and most vulnerable.“Growth that is inclusive, or growth that works for the poor, also provides a stronger platform for future expansion and competitiveness,” it says.
The study notes that acceleration of economic growth since 2001 has not translated into greater progress in poverty reduction. Instead, the poverty headcount as a share of the population is now back to where it was at the end of the 1990s.
“The failure of poverty to decline is partly explained by the limited dynamism of the growth experienced in 2000-06, coupled with income inequality,” says the study. “The income inequality has had the effect of reducing the income elasticity of poverty, slowing down the poverty reduction process.”
According to the study, several factors have contributed to the deterioration in the distribution of income and consumption. These factors include a sectoral distribution of growth that benefits the poor less than other income strata, an unequal pattern of regional development, intense demographic pressures, and an unequal access to social services and, in some cases, a decline of public spending on social services that benefit the poor.
From a sector development perspective, the main problem has been that the sector that employs the bulk of low-skilled workers (agriculture) has been growing more slowly than other sectors, while the sectors that have been contributing most to the acceleration of GDP growth after 2000 (mainly manufacturing) have been very capital-intensive and have not generated many new low skill jobs.
Says World Bank Country Director Bert Hofman during the release of the report: “More sustained and rapid growth remains a cornerstone for poverty reduction, but growth must become more inclusive through supporting policies in education, labor market, and support for sectors that generate more jobs for poor people."
To reduce poverty and build a broader base for future economic prosperity, the report recommends the implementation of a “two-pronged strategic approach” to foster more inclusive growth.
The first prong is for the country to take actions that enhance the income-earning opportunities of the poor. This encompasses actions designed to promote faster growth and employment generation, including addressing the vulnerable fiscal situation, upgrading the country’s infrastructure particularly in transport and electricity, and improving the overall investment climate.
“In terms of sectoral emphasis, the agriculture sector requires special attention since that is where most of the poor are currently engaged, together with the manufacturing and higher-productivity services sectors, which offer the most promise in terms of future income-earning opportunities,” says Mr. Ulrich Lachler, World Bank Lead Economist for the Philippines who led a team of experts that prepared the report.
The second prong of the strategic approach is to assist households to participate in markets and benefit from growth by enhancing their human capital to do so.
The study stresses that greater efforts are also needed to improve access to education, health, and social protection services, particularly among the poorest populations and in the poorest regions. Public spending in the areas of health, education, and social protection for the poor also needs to be improved.
“Judiciously increasing spending in these sectors, better targeting the programs that would benefit the poor, and improving expenditure management will play an important role in allowing the poor to benefit from growth and to participate in it in the future,” says Mr. Jehan Arulpragasam, World Bank Country Sector Coordinator for Human Development who is a co-leader of the Report. “In addition, improving accountability in service delivery will go a long way in making services more responsive to the actual needs and demands of poor households.”
Thursday, August 19, 2010
HLI Timeline
Holding on: A Hacienda Luisita timeline from the Spanish to the Noynoy eras
08/18/2010 | 11:19 PM
Share88
Spanish Period
Hacienda Luisita was once owned by the “Compañía General de Tabacos de Filipinas," also known as "Tabacalera", founded in November 1881 by Don Antonio López y López, a Spaniard from Santander, Cantabria, Spain.
Lopez acquired the estate in 1882, a year before his death, and named it “Hacienda Luisita" after his wife, Luisa Bru y Lassús.
Lopez was considered a financial genius and the “most influential Spanish businessman of his generation." He counted the King of Spain as a personal friend.
Luisita was just one of his haciendas. Lopez also owned estates in other parts of the country: Hacienda Antonio (named after his eldest son), Hacienda San Fernando, and Hacienda Isabel (named after his eldest daughter).
Tabacalera’s incorporators included the Sociedad General de Crédito Inmobiliario Español, Banque de Paris (now Paribas), and Bank of the Netherlands (now ABN-AMRO). Luisita was a sugar and tobacco plantation.
American Period
During the American Occupation (1898 to 1946), the Tabacalera experienced prosperous times because of the legendary sweet tooth of the Americans.
As Cuba could not supply all of the sugar requirements of the United States, they turned to the Philippines. At one point, Hacienda Luisita supplied almost 20% of all sugar in the US.
Japanese Regime
During the Japanese occupation, Hacienda Luisita continued to operate, like all haciendas and tabacaleras in the Philippines, because the Japanese wanted to ensure that commodities such as sugar and rice were available to Filipinos.
Pepe Cojuangco Period
1957
Problems with Huk rebels led the Spanish owners of Tabacalera to sell Hacienda Luisita and the sugar mill Central Azucarera de Tarlac.
Philippine President Ramon Magsaysay blocked the sale of the plantation to the wealthy Lópezes of Iloilo, fearing that they might become too powerful as they already owned Meralco, Negros Navigation, Manila Chronicle, ABS-CBN, and various haciendas in Western Visayas
The late Senator Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" Aquino, Jr. discussed with the late President Ramon Magsaysay the possibility of his father-in-law, Jose Cojuanco Sr., acquiring Hacienda Luisita and Central Azucarera de Tarlac from their Spanish owners.
Magsaysay was a “ninong" (principal sponsor) at the wedding of Ninoy and the late President Corazon Cojuangco Aquino, parents of the incumbent President Benigno Simeon "Noynoy" Aquino III.
August 1957
The Philippine government facilitated the Cojuangcos' takeover of Hacienda Luisita and Central Azucarera de Tarlac by:
(1) Providing Central Bank (CB) support to help the Cojuangcos obtain a dollar loan from the Manufacturer's Trust Company (MTC) in New York for the purchase of the sugar mill (Central Azucarera de Tarlac). The CB had to deposit part of the country’s dollar reserves with MTC for MTC to release Cojuangco’s loan. The CB's intervention was done under the condition that Cojuangco would also acquire Hacienda Luisita, not just the sugar mill, "with a view to distributing the hacienda to small farmers".
(2) Granting the Cojuangcos a peso loan through the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) to purchase the hacienda
November 25, 1957
The GSIS approved another loan made by the Cojuangcos amounting to P5.9 million, on the condition that Hacienda Luisita would be “subdivided among the tenants who shall pay the cost thereof under reasonable terms and conditions."
However, four months later, Jose Cojuangco Sr. asked the GSIS to change the phrase to ...shall be sold at cost to tenants, "should there be any." This phrase would be cited later on as justification not to distribute the hacienda’s land.
April 8, 1958
Jose Cojuangco, Sr.’s company, the Tarlac Development Corporation (TADECO), became the new owner of Hacienda Luisita and Central Azucarera de Tarlac.
Ninoy Aquino, President Cory’s husband and President Noynoy’s father, was appointed the hacienda’s first administrator.
The Ferdinand Marcos presidency
1965
Ferdinand Edralin Marcos is elected president.
1967
The 10-year window given by the Philippine government for the Cojuangcos to distribute the land elapsed with no land distribution taking place. During this time, farmers began to organize into groups to push for land distribution.
The Cojuangcos, however, insisted that there were no tenants on the hacienda, hence no need to distribute land.
The government sent three letters to the Cojuangcos between the 1960s to the 1970s to follow up the issue of land distribution.
September 21, 1972
Marcos declared Martial Law. His most vocal critic, Ninoy Aquino, was among the first to be arrested.
May 7, 1980
The Marcos government filed a case before the Manila Regional Trial Court (MRTC) to prod the Cojuangco-owned TADECO to surrender Hacienda Luisita to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform so that the land could be distributed to the farmers at cost. The case was filed as Ninoy Aquino and his family were leaving for exile in the US.
January 10, 1981
The Cojuangcos responded to the government complaint by arguing that the land could not be distributed because the hacienda did not have tenants to begin with. They also argued that sugar lands were not covered by existing agrarian reform legislations. Anti-Marcos groups claimed that the government’s case was an act of harassment against Ninoy Aquino’s family
August 21, 1983
After living in exile for three years in Boston, Massachusetts, Ninoy Aquino returned to Manila. He was assassinated on the tarmac of the Manila International Airport.
December 2, 1985
The MRTC ordered TADECO to surrender Hacienda Luisita to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform. The Cojuangcos decried this as an act of harassment because Cory was set to run against Marcos in the February 1986 snap elections. The family later elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals.
December 3, 1985
On December 3, 1985, Cory Aquino officially filed her certificate of candidacy for President. Land reform was among the pillars of her campaign. She promised to give “land to the tiller" and to subject Hacienda Luisita to land reform.
February 1986
The February 7 snap election was marred by allegations of widespread fraud against Marcos. The anti-Marcos sentiments led to the “People Power Revolution," a series of nonviolent and prayerful mass street demonstrations that toppled the dictatorship and installed Cory Aquino to the presidency.
Cory Aquino presidency
January 22, 1987
Eleven months into the Cory Aquino presidency, thousands of frustrated farmers marched to Malacañang demanding land reform and the distribution of land at no cost to beneficiaries. In a violent dispersal, 13 protesters were killed in what has gone down in history as the “Mendiola Massacre".
July 22, 1987
Cory issues Presidential Proclamation 131 and Executive Order No. 229, outlining her agrarian reform program, which covers sugar and coconut lands. The outline also includes a provision for the Stock Distribution Option (SDO), a mode of complying with the land reform law that did not require actual transfer of the land to the tiller.
March 17, 1988
The government under Cory Aquino withdrew its case against the Cojuangcos. Cory's appointee, Solicitor General Frank Chavez, filed a motion for the Court of Appeals to dismiss the civil case the Marcos government filed and won at the Manila Regional Trial Court against the Cojuangcos. The Department of Agrarian Reform and the GSIS, now headed by Aquino appointees Philip Juico and Feliciano “Sonny" Belmonte, respectively, did not object to the motion to dismiss the case.
The Central Bank also did not object to dismissal of case as it assumed that Luisita would be distributed anyway through the upcoming Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
May 18, 1988
The Court of Appeals dismissed the case filed by the Marcos government against the Cojuangco-owned TADECO. The government itself, under Cory, moved to withdraw the case that compelled TADECO to distribute land.
June 10, 1988
President Aquino signed into law Republic Act No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. A clause in the agrarian reform program included SDO, which allows landowners to give farmers shares of stock in a corporation instead of land.
August 23, 1988
Tarlac Development Co. (TADECO) established Hacienda Luisita Inc. (HLI) to implement the distribution of stocks to farmers in the hacienda.
1989
The Cojuangcos justified Luisita’s SDO by saying it was impractical to divide the hacienda’s 4,915.75 hectares of land among 6,296 farm workers because this would give farmers less than one hectare of land each (or 0.78 hectares of land per person).
May 9, 1989
Luisita’s farm workers were asked to choose between stocks or land in a referendum. The SDO won 92.9% of the vote. A second referendum and information campaign were held five months later, and the SDO won again, getting 96.75% of the vote.
Father Joaquin Bernas, a 1987 Constitutional Commission member, said Luisita’s SDO is inconsistent with the Constitution. “The [SDO] is a loophole because it does not support the Constitution’s desire that the right of farmers to become owners of the land they till should be promoted by government," Bernas said in his June 27, 1989 column in the Manila Chronicle.
May 11,1989
When the CARP was implemented in Hacienda Luisita in 1989, the farm workers’ ownership of the plantation was pegged at 33 percent, while the Cojuangcos retained 67 percent.
Luisita’s SDO agreement spelled out a 30-year schedule for transferring the stocks to the farm workers:
“At the end of each fiscal year, for a period of 30 years, the SECOND PARTY (HLI) shall arrange with the FIRST PARTY (TADECO) the acquisition and distribution to the THIRD PARTY (farm workers) on the basis of number of days worked and at no cost to them of one-thirtieth (1/30) of 118,391,976.85 shares of the capital stock of the SECOND PARTY (HLI) that are presently owned and held by the FIRST PARTY (TADECO), until such time as the entire block of 118,391,976.85 shares shall have been completely acquired and distributed to the THIRD PARTY (farm workers)."
November 21, 1989
Agrarian Reform Secretary and now Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, approved the SDO agreement of Luisita.
However, Santiago's tenure at the DAR only lasted two months. In 2005, Santiago, already a senator, said Cory allegedly removed her from the DAR because of a comment she made to the media—that Cory should inhibit herself from being the chairperson of the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC), which approves SDO agreements.
Fidel Ramos presidency
September 1, 1995
On September 1, 1995, the Sangguniang Bayan of Tarlac (Provincial Board of Tarlac) passed a resolution that reclassified 3,290 out of Luisita’s 4,915 hectares from agricultural to commercial, industrial, and residential. The governor of Tarlac province at that time was Margarita “Tingting" Cojuangco, wife of Jose “Peping" Cojuangco, Jr., brother of Cory Aquino.
Out of the 3,290 reclassified hectares, only 500 hectares were approved for conversion by the DAR.
August 14, 1996
The Department of Agrarian Reform approved for conversion 500 hectares of the Luisita land.
Gloria Arroyo presidency
2003
By this time, the farm workers’ daily wage flattened at P194.50 and work days were down to one per week. The hacienda workers then filed a petition with the DAR to have the SDO agreement revoked.
October 14, 2003
Workers from the HLI supervisory group petitioned the DAR to revoke the SDO, saying they were not receiving the dividends and other benefits earlier promised to them. Two months later, a petition to revoke the SDO bearing more than 5,300 signatures was filed by union officers at the DAR to revoke the SDO and stop land conversion in Luisita.
July 2004
The union tried to negotiate a wage increase to P225 per day. Workers also asked that the work days be 2 to 3 days per week, instead of just once a week. The management disagreed, claiming that the company was losing money.
October 1, 2004
Luisita management retrenched 327 farm workers, including union officers.
November 6, 2004
Almost all 5,000 members of the United Luisita Workers Union (ULWU) and 700 members of Central Azucarera de Tarlac Labor Union (CATLU) staged a protest against the mass retrenchment.
November 16, 2004
Violence erupted between the protesters, the police and military forces. At least seven people were killed, 121 were injured, 32 from gunshot wounds. This incident eventually became known as the “Luisita massacre."
The original petition the farm workers submitted lay dormant at the DAR since it was filed in December 2003, but began to move after the November 2004 massacre.
November 25, 2004 to February 22, 2005
The DAR's Task Force Luisita conducted an investigation and focus group discussions among the farm workers.
July 2005
The Arroyo-Aquino alliance broke up in July 2005, the same month Task Force Luisita submitted the findings and recommendations from its investigation, which became the government’s basis for revoking Luisita’s Stock Distribution Option (SDO) and ordering the distribution of the hacienda’s land to the farmers a few months later.
August 2005
A special legal team was formed by the DAR to review the report submitted by Task Force Luisita in July 2005. On September 23, 2005, the special legal team submitted its terminal report recommending the revocation of Luisita’s SDO agreement.
December 2004
In December 2004, a month after the Luisita massacre, picket lines were established around the hacienda. Soon after, eight people who supported the farmers’ cause or had evidence supporting their case were murdered one by one.
The killings began on December 8, 2004 with the death of Marcelino Beltran, a retired army officer turned peasant leader. Beltran was assassinated in his house just before he was to testify about bullet trajectories at the Senate and Congress on December 13 and 14, 2004.
September 22, 2005
Task Force Luisita recommended the revocation of the stock distribution agreement forged in May 1989, saying the SDO failed to fulfill the objectives of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law about promoting social justice and improving the lives of the farmers.
December 22, 2005
PARC issued Resolution No. 2005-32-01, ordering the revocation of Luisita’s SDO agreement and the distribution of the hacienda’s land to farmer beneficiaries.
February 1, 2006
HLI asked the Supreme Court to prevent the PARC from enforcing the resolution.
June 2006
The Supreme Court granted HLI's petition and issued a temporary restraining order, preventing the PARC from canceling the SDO agreement.
June 2007
Negotiations between the HLI management and some farmers began after representatives of AMBALA and the Supervisory group wrote to DAR that they are amenable to an out-of-court settlement.
Noynoy Aquino presidency
February 9, 2010
In Tarlac, then-Senator Noynoy Aquino said at the kick-off of his presidential campaign that Hacienda Luisita’s land would be distributed to farm workers by 2014.
June 30, 2010
Benigno Aquino III's takes oath as the 15th Philippine president.
August 6, 2010
HLI and factions of farmers' groups sign a compromise agreement giving the farmers the chance to remain as HLI stockholders, or receive their share of Hacienda Luisita land. Many voted to retain their stocks and receive cash from HLI, only to complain later that they got minuscule amounts.
August 11, 2010
HLI asked the Supreme Court to approve the compromise deal.
August 16, 2010
A faction of the farmers’ groups asked the SC to junk the compromise deal because it was signed even before the high court could rule on the validity of the stock distribution option (SD), one of the two choices offered by HLI to the farmers in the agreement. The other choice was land distribution. The farmers’ also questioned the authority of the signatories in the agreement who claimed that they were representatives of the plantation’s farmer-beneficiaries.
August 18, 2010
For the first time since the land dispute was brought to its doors four years ago, the SC holds oral arguments to hear the Hacienda Luisita case.
Compiled by Andreo Calonzo, Stephanie Dychiu, and Veronica Pulumbarit, GMANews.TV
08/18/2010 | 11:19 PM
Share88
Spanish Period
Hacienda Luisita was once owned by the “Compañía General de Tabacos de Filipinas," also known as "Tabacalera", founded in November 1881 by Don Antonio López y López, a Spaniard from Santander, Cantabria, Spain.
Lopez acquired the estate in 1882, a year before his death, and named it “Hacienda Luisita" after his wife, Luisa Bru y Lassús.
Lopez was considered a financial genius and the “most influential Spanish businessman of his generation." He counted the King of Spain as a personal friend.
Luisita was just one of his haciendas. Lopez also owned estates in other parts of the country: Hacienda Antonio (named after his eldest son), Hacienda San Fernando, and Hacienda Isabel (named after his eldest daughter).
Tabacalera’s incorporators included the Sociedad General de Crédito Inmobiliario Español, Banque de Paris (now Paribas), and Bank of the Netherlands (now ABN-AMRO). Luisita was a sugar and tobacco plantation.
American Period
During the American Occupation (1898 to 1946), the Tabacalera experienced prosperous times because of the legendary sweet tooth of the Americans.
As Cuba could not supply all of the sugar requirements of the United States, they turned to the Philippines. At one point, Hacienda Luisita supplied almost 20% of all sugar in the US.
Japanese Regime
During the Japanese occupation, Hacienda Luisita continued to operate, like all haciendas and tabacaleras in the Philippines, because the Japanese wanted to ensure that commodities such as sugar and rice were available to Filipinos.
Pepe Cojuangco Period
1957
Problems with Huk rebels led the Spanish owners of Tabacalera to sell Hacienda Luisita and the sugar mill Central Azucarera de Tarlac.
Philippine President Ramon Magsaysay blocked the sale of the plantation to the wealthy Lópezes of Iloilo, fearing that they might become too powerful as they already owned Meralco, Negros Navigation, Manila Chronicle, ABS-CBN, and various haciendas in Western Visayas
The late Senator Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" Aquino, Jr. discussed with the late President Ramon Magsaysay the possibility of his father-in-law, Jose Cojuanco Sr., acquiring Hacienda Luisita and Central Azucarera de Tarlac from their Spanish owners.
Magsaysay was a “ninong" (principal sponsor) at the wedding of Ninoy and the late President Corazon Cojuangco Aquino, parents of the incumbent President Benigno Simeon "Noynoy" Aquino III.
August 1957
The Philippine government facilitated the Cojuangcos' takeover of Hacienda Luisita and Central Azucarera de Tarlac by:
(1) Providing Central Bank (CB) support to help the Cojuangcos obtain a dollar loan from the Manufacturer's Trust Company (MTC) in New York for the purchase of the sugar mill (Central Azucarera de Tarlac). The CB had to deposit part of the country’s dollar reserves with MTC for MTC to release Cojuangco’s loan. The CB's intervention was done under the condition that Cojuangco would also acquire Hacienda Luisita, not just the sugar mill, "with a view to distributing the hacienda to small farmers".
(2) Granting the Cojuangcos a peso loan through the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) to purchase the hacienda
November 25, 1957
The GSIS approved another loan made by the Cojuangcos amounting to P5.9 million, on the condition that Hacienda Luisita would be “subdivided among the tenants who shall pay the cost thereof under reasonable terms and conditions."
However, four months later, Jose Cojuangco Sr. asked the GSIS to change the phrase to ...shall be sold at cost to tenants, "should there be any." This phrase would be cited later on as justification not to distribute the hacienda’s land.
April 8, 1958
Jose Cojuangco, Sr.’s company, the Tarlac Development Corporation (TADECO), became the new owner of Hacienda Luisita and Central Azucarera de Tarlac.
Ninoy Aquino, President Cory’s husband and President Noynoy’s father, was appointed the hacienda’s first administrator.
The Ferdinand Marcos presidency
1965
Ferdinand Edralin Marcos is elected president.
1967
The 10-year window given by the Philippine government for the Cojuangcos to distribute the land elapsed with no land distribution taking place. During this time, farmers began to organize into groups to push for land distribution.
The Cojuangcos, however, insisted that there were no tenants on the hacienda, hence no need to distribute land.
The government sent three letters to the Cojuangcos between the 1960s to the 1970s to follow up the issue of land distribution.
September 21, 1972
Marcos declared Martial Law. His most vocal critic, Ninoy Aquino, was among the first to be arrested.
May 7, 1980
The Marcos government filed a case before the Manila Regional Trial Court (MRTC) to prod the Cojuangco-owned TADECO to surrender Hacienda Luisita to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform so that the land could be distributed to the farmers at cost. The case was filed as Ninoy Aquino and his family were leaving for exile in the US.
January 10, 1981
The Cojuangcos responded to the government complaint by arguing that the land could not be distributed because the hacienda did not have tenants to begin with. They also argued that sugar lands were not covered by existing agrarian reform legislations. Anti-Marcos groups claimed that the government’s case was an act of harassment against Ninoy Aquino’s family
August 21, 1983
After living in exile for three years in Boston, Massachusetts, Ninoy Aquino returned to Manila. He was assassinated on the tarmac of the Manila International Airport.
December 2, 1985
The MRTC ordered TADECO to surrender Hacienda Luisita to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform. The Cojuangcos decried this as an act of harassment because Cory was set to run against Marcos in the February 1986 snap elections. The family later elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals.
December 3, 1985
On December 3, 1985, Cory Aquino officially filed her certificate of candidacy for President. Land reform was among the pillars of her campaign. She promised to give “land to the tiller" and to subject Hacienda Luisita to land reform.
February 1986
The February 7 snap election was marred by allegations of widespread fraud against Marcos. The anti-Marcos sentiments led to the “People Power Revolution," a series of nonviolent and prayerful mass street demonstrations that toppled the dictatorship and installed Cory Aquino to the presidency.
Cory Aquino presidency
January 22, 1987
Eleven months into the Cory Aquino presidency, thousands of frustrated farmers marched to Malacañang demanding land reform and the distribution of land at no cost to beneficiaries. In a violent dispersal, 13 protesters were killed in what has gone down in history as the “Mendiola Massacre".
July 22, 1987
Cory issues Presidential Proclamation 131 and Executive Order No. 229, outlining her agrarian reform program, which covers sugar and coconut lands. The outline also includes a provision for the Stock Distribution Option (SDO), a mode of complying with the land reform law that did not require actual transfer of the land to the tiller.
March 17, 1988
The government under Cory Aquino withdrew its case against the Cojuangcos. Cory's appointee, Solicitor General Frank Chavez, filed a motion for the Court of Appeals to dismiss the civil case the Marcos government filed and won at the Manila Regional Trial Court against the Cojuangcos. The Department of Agrarian Reform and the GSIS, now headed by Aquino appointees Philip Juico and Feliciano “Sonny" Belmonte, respectively, did not object to the motion to dismiss the case.
The Central Bank also did not object to dismissal of case as it assumed that Luisita would be distributed anyway through the upcoming Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
May 18, 1988
The Court of Appeals dismissed the case filed by the Marcos government against the Cojuangco-owned TADECO. The government itself, under Cory, moved to withdraw the case that compelled TADECO to distribute land.
June 10, 1988
President Aquino signed into law Republic Act No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. A clause in the agrarian reform program included SDO, which allows landowners to give farmers shares of stock in a corporation instead of land.
August 23, 1988
Tarlac Development Co. (TADECO) established Hacienda Luisita Inc. (HLI) to implement the distribution of stocks to farmers in the hacienda.
1989
The Cojuangcos justified Luisita’s SDO by saying it was impractical to divide the hacienda’s 4,915.75 hectares of land among 6,296 farm workers because this would give farmers less than one hectare of land each (or 0.78 hectares of land per person).
May 9, 1989
Luisita’s farm workers were asked to choose between stocks or land in a referendum. The SDO won 92.9% of the vote. A second referendum and information campaign were held five months later, and the SDO won again, getting 96.75% of the vote.
Father Joaquin Bernas, a 1987 Constitutional Commission member, said Luisita’s SDO is inconsistent with the Constitution. “The [SDO] is a loophole because it does not support the Constitution’s desire that the right of farmers to become owners of the land they till should be promoted by government," Bernas said in his June 27, 1989 column in the Manila Chronicle.
May 11,1989
When the CARP was implemented in Hacienda Luisita in 1989, the farm workers’ ownership of the plantation was pegged at 33 percent, while the Cojuangcos retained 67 percent.
Luisita’s SDO agreement spelled out a 30-year schedule for transferring the stocks to the farm workers:
“At the end of each fiscal year, for a period of 30 years, the SECOND PARTY (HLI) shall arrange with the FIRST PARTY (TADECO) the acquisition and distribution to the THIRD PARTY (farm workers) on the basis of number of days worked and at no cost to them of one-thirtieth (1/30) of 118,391,976.85 shares of the capital stock of the SECOND PARTY (HLI) that are presently owned and held by the FIRST PARTY (TADECO), until such time as the entire block of 118,391,976.85 shares shall have been completely acquired and distributed to the THIRD PARTY (farm workers)."
November 21, 1989
Agrarian Reform Secretary and now Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, approved the SDO agreement of Luisita.
However, Santiago's tenure at the DAR only lasted two months. In 2005, Santiago, already a senator, said Cory allegedly removed her from the DAR because of a comment she made to the media—that Cory should inhibit herself from being the chairperson of the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC), which approves SDO agreements.
Fidel Ramos presidency
September 1, 1995
On September 1, 1995, the Sangguniang Bayan of Tarlac (Provincial Board of Tarlac) passed a resolution that reclassified 3,290 out of Luisita’s 4,915 hectares from agricultural to commercial, industrial, and residential. The governor of Tarlac province at that time was Margarita “Tingting" Cojuangco, wife of Jose “Peping" Cojuangco, Jr., brother of Cory Aquino.
Out of the 3,290 reclassified hectares, only 500 hectares were approved for conversion by the DAR.
August 14, 1996
The Department of Agrarian Reform approved for conversion 500 hectares of the Luisita land.
Gloria Arroyo presidency
2003
By this time, the farm workers’ daily wage flattened at P194.50 and work days were down to one per week. The hacienda workers then filed a petition with the DAR to have the SDO agreement revoked.
October 14, 2003
Workers from the HLI supervisory group petitioned the DAR to revoke the SDO, saying they were not receiving the dividends and other benefits earlier promised to them. Two months later, a petition to revoke the SDO bearing more than 5,300 signatures was filed by union officers at the DAR to revoke the SDO and stop land conversion in Luisita.
July 2004
The union tried to negotiate a wage increase to P225 per day. Workers also asked that the work days be 2 to 3 days per week, instead of just once a week. The management disagreed, claiming that the company was losing money.
October 1, 2004
Luisita management retrenched 327 farm workers, including union officers.
November 6, 2004
Almost all 5,000 members of the United Luisita Workers Union (ULWU) and 700 members of Central Azucarera de Tarlac Labor Union (CATLU) staged a protest against the mass retrenchment.
November 16, 2004
Violence erupted between the protesters, the police and military forces. At least seven people were killed, 121 were injured, 32 from gunshot wounds. This incident eventually became known as the “Luisita massacre."
The original petition the farm workers submitted lay dormant at the DAR since it was filed in December 2003, but began to move after the November 2004 massacre.
November 25, 2004 to February 22, 2005
The DAR's Task Force Luisita conducted an investigation and focus group discussions among the farm workers.
July 2005
The Arroyo-Aquino alliance broke up in July 2005, the same month Task Force Luisita submitted the findings and recommendations from its investigation, which became the government’s basis for revoking Luisita’s Stock Distribution Option (SDO) and ordering the distribution of the hacienda’s land to the farmers a few months later.
August 2005
A special legal team was formed by the DAR to review the report submitted by Task Force Luisita in July 2005. On September 23, 2005, the special legal team submitted its terminal report recommending the revocation of Luisita’s SDO agreement.
December 2004
In December 2004, a month after the Luisita massacre, picket lines were established around the hacienda. Soon after, eight people who supported the farmers’ cause or had evidence supporting their case were murdered one by one.
The killings began on December 8, 2004 with the death of Marcelino Beltran, a retired army officer turned peasant leader. Beltran was assassinated in his house just before he was to testify about bullet trajectories at the Senate and Congress on December 13 and 14, 2004.
September 22, 2005
Task Force Luisita recommended the revocation of the stock distribution agreement forged in May 1989, saying the SDO failed to fulfill the objectives of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law about promoting social justice and improving the lives of the farmers.
December 22, 2005
PARC issued Resolution No. 2005-32-01, ordering the revocation of Luisita’s SDO agreement and the distribution of the hacienda’s land to farmer beneficiaries.
February 1, 2006
HLI asked the Supreme Court to prevent the PARC from enforcing the resolution.
June 2006
The Supreme Court granted HLI's petition and issued a temporary restraining order, preventing the PARC from canceling the SDO agreement.
June 2007
Negotiations between the HLI management and some farmers began after representatives of AMBALA and the Supervisory group wrote to DAR that they are amenable to an out-of-court settlement.
Noynoy Aquino presidency
February 9, 2010
In Tarlac, then-Senator Noynoy Aquino said at the kick-off of his presidential campaign that Hacienda Luisita’s land would be distributed to farm workers by 2014.
June 30, 2010
Benigno Aquino III's takes oath as the 15th Philippine president.
August 6, 2010
HLI and factions of farmers' groups sign a compromise agreement giving the farmers the chance to remain as HLI stockholders, or receive their share of Hacienda Luisita land. Many voted to retain their stocks and receive cash from HLI, only to complain later that they got minuscule amounts.
August 11, 2010
HLI asked the Supreme Court to approve the compromise deal.
August 16, 2010
A faction of the farmers’ groups asked the SC to junk the compromise deal because it was signed even before the high court could rule on the validity of the stock distribution option (SD), one of the two choices offered by HLI to the farmers in the agreement. The other choice was land distribution. The farmers’ also questioned the authority of the signatories in the agreement who claimed that they were representatives of the plantation’s farmer-beneficiaries.
August 18, 2010
For the first time since the land dispute was brought to its doors four years ago, the SC holds oral arguments to hear the Hacienda Luisita case.
Compiled by Andreo Calonzo, Stephanie Dychiu, and Veronica Pulumbarit, GMANews.TV
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)