Mula sa Tanggapan ni Anakpawis Rep. Crispin B. Beltran
News Release/November 26 , 2004
House of Representatives, South Wing Rm 602931-6615
Ina Alleco R. Silverio, Chief of Staff
Email: paggawa@edsamail.com.ph, anakpawis2003@yahoo.com
Celphone number 09213907362
Visit: http://www.geocities.com/ap_news
Solon critical of motives behind moves to revive Aquino-Galman murder case; pushes for the reopening of investigations into Olalia-Alay-ay murders and Mendiola Massacre, among others.
Anakpawis Representative Crispin Beltran today said that the moves to reopen the Aquino-Galman murder case were connected to the ongoing investigations on the Hacienda Luisita Massacre last November 16 which claimed the lives of 14 farmwrorkers and wounded scores of others. Beltran said that the Cojuangco family led by former congressman Jose "Peping" Cojuangco, former president Corazon C. Aquino and Tarlac 2nd District. Rep. Benigno C. Aquino III were trying to divert the public's attention from the brutality they ordered to be unleashed against the workers and farmworkers of Hacienda Luisita and Central Azucarera de Tarlac, and turn the spotlight once more on the martyred Ninoy Aquino.
"It's impossible not to see a connection between these two developments. The investigations on the Luisita Massacre have been gaining headway and moving on towards the divulging of reasons why there is widespread discontent among the farmworkers and workers of Hacienda. The massacre is deeply rooted in the decades-long struggle for land and the Cojuangco's refusal to surrender what rightfully belongs to the thousands of farmworkers and their families. The Cojuangcos are deliberately trying to illicit sympathy from the public by reviving the Aquino-Galman case," he said.
Beltran said that if the martyred senator and acknowledged hero of the anti-dictatorship struggle were alive today, he would not have condoned what the Cojuangcos have done to the farmworkers.
"What is most important now is that not only should the perpetrators and masterminds of the Luisita Massacre be sacked and punished - among them labor secretary Patricia Sto. Tomas - but the roots of the land conflict in the Hacienda be arrived at.
The Stock Distribution Option (SDO) program in the Hacienda should be reviewed and then abolished, and the land genuinely and evenly distributed among all the farmworkers of the hacienda," he said.
The labor leader turned lawmaker said that if the Aquino-Galman case would be revived, then he is also pushing for the revival of the double-murder of labor leader Rolando Olalia and his aide, worker-activist Leonor Alay-ay who were both killed by the military in November 1996, a few months after Cory Aquino was installed in Malacanang.
"Ka Lando was became the president of the KMU after his father, Ka Bert Olalia died in 1983. He became the legal counsel of National Federation of Labor Unions (NAFLU). He also became the president, both of the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN), and Partido ng Bayan.
Because of his unflinching criticism of the continued exploitation that workers suffered even under the supposed 'revolutionary government' of President Corazon Aquino, Ka Lando like his father before him was targeted by military forces allied with the government.
Together with Alay-ay, Ka Lando was abducted on the night of November 13, 1986. The following day, their dead bodies were found. They bore signs of vicious torture. Ka Lando sustained four gunshots in the head, and six stab wounds in his torso. His mouth was stuffed with newspapers, his hands tied closely together with his own belt.
On the day of his burial, more than 600,000 workers and people from all walks of life joined the funeral march and demanded justice for his brutal murder. Work stoppages took place in 217 workplaces.
Beltran also said that the Mendiola Massacre case has not been resolved either - "Pres. Aquino did not push as hard as she should have for the resolution of the Mendiola Massacre, not even when it was made known that a large number of the participants to the rally that was attacked were from Tarlac and other provinces in Central Luzon." #
Saturday, November 27, 2004
Monday, November 22, 2004
There's The Rub: Broke
Updated 01:09am (Mla time) Nov 22, 2004
By Conrado de Quiros
Inquirer News Service
Note: Published on page A14 of the November 22, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
"HERE is a land in which a few are spectacularly rich while the masses remain abjectly poor. Gleaming suburbia clashes with the squalor of the slums. Here is a land consecrated to democracy but run by an entrenched plutocracy. Here, too, are a people whose ambitions run high, but whose fulfillment is low and mainly restricted to the self-perpetuating elite. Here is a land of privilege and rank-a republic dedicated to equality but mired in an archaic system of caste."
The one who said this was not Ka Paeng or Ka Pepe, it was Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino. He said this in an article in 1968 in the US journal Foreign Affairs. This was typical of what politicians and radicals alike were saying before martial law, particularly to warn that the country was a "social volcano" all set to explode. Aquino himself suggested the way by which the explosion might be averted: "The wealth that the oligarchy rapaciously covets and hoards must get down to the masses in the form of roads, bridges and schools; these are what the tao understands as good or bad government."
I remarked in the book "Dead Aim": "Caught in the rapture of his eloquence, Aquino forgot that his in-laws owned a hacienda that stretched as far as the eye could see. And one that would remain untouched by land reform two decades later."
The past comes back to haunt. As indeed do Cory's own words, when she promised during the "snap elections" that the first thing she would do was subject Hacienda Luisita to land reform. What a difference a month makes, which was all the time it took from the "snap elections" to Cory replacing Marcos, which turned out to be a sea change not just in the political landscape of the nation but in the moral outlook of the new governors. That was all the time it took for Cory to forget her vow.
Hacienda Luisita will always be a festering sore. It will always be the symbol of the failure of Edsa to move the country from tyranny to democracy, if by democracy is also meant-as Ninoy argued-the pushing back of oligarchic rule. You can't have a more oligarchic rule than feudal rule, which takes place in Hacienda Luisita notwithstanding its seemingly capitalist conversion into an industrial enclave. All the conversion shows is that, as in the days of the feudal manor, serfs are owned by their landlords body and soul. They can be told to do anything, including to agree to "stock option." Their well-being is a matter of manorial beneficence. They have no more power to determine the future of Hacienda Luisita, or their share of its profits, than beggars have the power to determine the amount of alms they can get from prospective donors.
Noynoy Aquino says leftists goaded the workers in Hacienda Luisita, who have been complaining about their lot, to strike. Well, so what? At the very least, try goading workers who have no deep-seated grievance to strike and see how far you'll get-these days, particularly, when work is harder to come by than honesty in GMA's government. May be leftists goaded the workers in Hacienda Luisita to strike-I can believe it-but they could not have succeeded if the workers were not ripe for the goading.
At the very most, workers have a right to strike. One would imagine congressmen would know that. A strike is neither illegal nor immoral, it is sanctioned by the Constitution and enshrined in the tradition of the workers' movement. Only Lucio Tan and now Ninoy's namesake think it is not.
While at this, if leftists had not goaded workers, farmers, students and other sectors to mount national strikes, or "welgang bayan," during martial law, the Aquinos would not be there. It was the efforts of the leftists to goad Filipinos to fight sleep in the early years of martial law that assured they would be awake to react to the murder of Ninoy much later.
Cory cannot understand why the workers refuse to accept her offer of sympathy and prayers for the dead? Well, if I recall right, Cesar Virata had to scurry away from Sto. Domingo Church after conveying to her the sympathy and prayers of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos for the death of her husband. He feared being torn limb from limb. The sympathy and prayers of the one who caused you grief are never welcome. The life of Ninoy is not more important than the lives of the 14 workers who died in the blaze of gunfire from goons in the uniforms of cops and soldiers last Tuesday. Other than in oligarchic reckoning, which deems the lives of serfs as nothing compared to that of the lord of the manor.
"If it ain't broke," says Department of Agrarian Reform chief Rene Villa, "why fix it?" That is his reaction to calls for a review of the "stock option" plan.
What, the corpses of 14 workers strewn over a dusty road in Hacienda Luisita are not a sign something is broke? Again, maybe it's true leftists goaded the workers to strike. But as I wrote a long time ago, when Isidro Cariño, then the education secretary, said the same thing about the 3,000 public school teachers who went on strike against him, and vowed to hunt the goaders down, the words of leftists are nothing compared to the flailing of hunger. And hunger has no address.
But the 14 corpses lying on the ground point to something broke that's even bigger than that Hacienda Luisita hasn't been land-reformed. That is, that the foundations of democracy in this country are crumbling. No, more than that, that is, that the moral foundations of this country are crashing. Power has made people forget what it means to lose a loved one to tyranny.
Ninoy Aquino might have been talking of today when he said: "Here is a land consecrated to democracy but run by an entrenched plutocracy. Here is a land of privilege and rank-a republic dedicated to equality but mired in an archaic system of caste."
If that ain't broke, what is?
By Conrado de Quiros
Inquirer News Service
Note: Published on page A14 of the November 22, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
"HERE is a land in which a few are spectacularly rich while the masses remain abjectly poor. Gleaming suburbia clashes with the squalor of the slums. Here is a land consecrated to democracy but run by an entrenched plutocracy. Here, too, are a people whose ambitions run high, but whose fulfillment is low and mainly restricted to the self-perpetuating elite. Here is a land of privilege and rank-a republic dedicated to equality but mired in an archaic system of caste."
The one who said this was not Ka Paeng or Ka Pepe, it was Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino. He said this in an article in 1968 in the US journal Foreign Affairs. This was typical of what politicians and radicals alike were saying before martial law, particularly to warn that the country was a "social volcano" all set to explode. Aquino himself suggested the way by which the explosion might be averted: "The wealth that the oligarchy rapaciously covets and hoards must get down to the masses in the form of roads, bridges and schools; these are what the tao understands as good or bad government."
I remarked in the book "Dead Aim": "Caught in the rapture of his eloquence, Aquino forgot that his in-laws owned a hacienda that stretched as far as the eye could see. And one that would remain untouched by land reform two decades later."
The past comes back to haunt. As indeed do Cory's own words, when she promised during the "snap elections" that the first thing she would do was subject Hacienda Luisita to land reform. What a difference a month makes, which was all the time it took from the "snap elections" to Cory replacing Marcos, which turned out to be a sea change not just in the political landscape of the nation but in the moral outlook of the new governors. That was all the time it took for Cory to forget her vow.
Hacienda Luisita will always be a festering sore. It will always be the symbol of the failure of Edsa to move the country from tyranny to democracy, if by democracy is also meant-as Ninoy argued-the pushing back of oligarchic rule. You can't have a more oligarchic rule than feudal rule, which takes place in Hacienda Luisita notwithstanding its seemingly capitalist conversion into an industrial enclave. All the conversion shows is that, as in the days of the feudal manor, serfs are owned by their landlords body and soul. They can be told to do anything, including to agree to "stock option." Their well-being is a matter of manorial beneficence. They have no more power to determine the future of Hacienda Luisita, or their share of its profits, than beggars have the power to determine the amount of alms they can get from prospective donors.
Noynoy Aquino says leftists goaded the workers in Hacienda Luisita, who have been complaining about their lot, to strike. Well, so what? At the very least, try goading workers who have no deep-seated grievance to strike and see how far you'll get-these days, particularly, when work is harder to come by than honesty in GMA's government. May be leftists goaded the workers in Hacienda Luisita to strike-I can believe it-but they could not have succeeded if the workers were not ripe for the goading.
At the very most, workers have a right to strike. One would imagine congressmen would know that. A strike is neither illegal nor immoral, it is sanctioned by the Constitution and enshrined in the tradition of the workers' movement. Only Lucio Tan and now Ninoy's namesake think it is not.
While at this, if leftists had not goaded workers, farmers, students and other sectors to mount national strikes, or "welgang bayan," during martial law, the Aquinos would not be there. It was the efforts of the leftists to goad Filipinos to fight sleep in the early years of martial law that assured they would be awake to react to the murder of Ninoy much later.
Cory cannot understand why the workers refuse to accept her offer of sympathy and prayers for the dead? Well, if I recall right, Cesar Virata had to scurry away from Sto. Domingo Church after conveying to her the sympathy and prayers of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos for the death of her husband. He feared being torn limb from limb. The sympathy and prayers of the one who caused you grief are never welcome. The life of Ninoy is not more important than the lives of the 14 workers who died in the blaze of gunfire from goons in the uniforms of cops and soldiers last Tuesday. Other than in oligarchic reckoning, which deems the lives of serfs as nothing compared to that of the lord of the manor.
"If it ain't broke," says Department of Agrarian Reform chief Rene Villa, "why fix it?" That is his reaction to calls for a review of the "stock option" plan.
What, the corpses of 14 workers strewn over a dusty road in Hacienda Luisita are not a sign something is broke? Again, maybe it's true leftists goaded the workers to strike. But as I wrote a long time ago, when Isidro Cariño, then the education secretary, said the same thing about the 3,000 public school teachers who went on strike against him, and vowed to hunt the goaders down, the words of leftists are nothing compared to the flailing of hunger. And hunger has no address.
But the 14 corpses lying on the ground point to something broke that's even bigger than that Hacienda Luisita hasn't been land-reformed. That is, that the foundations of democracy in this country are crumbling. No, more than that, that is, that the moral foundations of this country are crashing. Power has made people forget what it means to lose a loved one to tyranny.
Ninoy Aquino might have been talking of today when he said: "Here is a land consecrated to democracy but run by an entrenched plutocracy. Here is a land of privilege and rank-a republic dedicated to equality but mired in an archaic system of caste."
If that ain't broke, what is?
Friday, November 19, 2004
Open Letter of the UP Student Regent on UP Presidency
Carry on the Fight for Our Right to Education!
Defeat Malacañang Intervention in the Selection of the Next UP President!
An Open Letter from Student Regent Marco Dominic delos Reyes
19 November 2004
To the iskolars ng bayan and members of the UP Community,
Last 17 November, the Board of Regents met to elect the next UP President. For four rounds of voting through secret balloting, a stalemate persisted; six votes went to former Finance Secretary Edgardo Espiritu, six votes to UP Diliman Chancellor Emerlinda Roman. The BOR decided to hold another meeting on 22 November with the hope of breaking the tie. For the meantime, UP has yet to elect a new president.
The results, I think, reflect the division in the BOR between those who voted for Chancellor Roman for various reasons on the one hand, and those who wanted to impose upon UP a Malacañang puppet in the person of former Finance Secretary Espiritu on the other. Given Malacañang’s strength of will and numbers in the BOR, I believe the stalemate is a victory – albeit a tactical one – for the UP Community.
The criteria I used for voting was formed through consultations with the iskolars ng bayan and other sectors of the UP Community. The Congress of the Katipunan ng mga Sangguniang Mag-aaral sa UP provided a most important help in creating a students’ agenda for the selection of the next UP President. I also consulted other student formations, the All-UP Worker’s Union and the All-UP Academic Union.
In the end, I voted for Chancellor Roman. In the past, we iskolars ng bayan have either united with or struggled against her on particular issues. We have united with her most notably in fighting for greater state subsidy for UP and education and against US wars of aggression. On the other hand, we have struggled against her on the issue of commercialization, RGEP, Senate Bill 2587 and UP Charter Change.
What clinched my vote, however, were reliable information from different quarters that President Macapagal-Arroyo is hell-bent on intervening in the selection of the next UP President in order to impose someone who will be rabid in defending and implementing her policies for UP and education, and in supporting her national policies and stands. In short, she wants a Malacañang puppet as UP President.
Of course, I expected Malacañang intervention, given the high stakes UP has for the government. The government is beset with a fiscal crisis it plans to solve by, among other measures, reducing the budget for UP, education and social services. Large-scale commercialization measures are in the offing for UP: tuition fee increase through STFAP Rebracketting and commercialization of lands.
The violent dispersal of striking farmers in Hacienda Luisita comes to mind: With the fiscal crisis, the government is desperate to quell dissent, uphold the interests of a few and attack the democratic interests of the youth and people. One way for the government to do that in UP is to install a puppet president whose loyalty and service will not go to the UP Community but to Pres. Macapagal-Arroyo herself.
From this analysis, it became clear to me that my responsibility and task to the iskolars ng bayan and the UP Community is not just to choose a UP President but more importantly to expose and oppose Malacañang intervention in this process. The BOR meeting held yesterday merely validated the correctness of this analysis.
Who is Espiritu? He served as Finance Secretary in the cabinet of former President Estrada and held key Philippine posts of the ADB, World Bank and the IMF. He did not attend any of the public fora held in the UP campuses. On June 2005, he will be 70 years old, past the age limit for a UP president set by the University Code. This merely underscores the brazenness of Malacañang in trying to elect him.
In his vision paper, Espiritu attacks our fight for greater state subsidy, and says that UP does not need to “beg for subsidies from the national government.” While UP has been commercializing for years, Espiritu asserts that UP has not done enough. He proposes to further commercialize UP and reduce student admission. This vision for UP could only endear him, and others like him, to Malacañang.
In the same way that President Arroyo dwarfs her predecessors in wreaking havoc to the country and economy and serving the US, a Malacañang puppet – if not defeated in its quest for power – is headed to surpass other UP presidents in commercializing UP and attacking our right as iskolars ng bayan to education. He or she is a clear and present danger to the UP Community that must be opposed.
History teaches us a lesson. The last time there was an impasse in the selection of a UP President was in the late 1950s. It was widely believed that the Archbishop of Manila of that time, through President Ramon Magsaysay and the Education Secretary, was maneuvering for the selection of a UP President sympathetic to the Catholic Church. Because of this, UP had an acting president from 1956 to 1958.
The deadlock was ended after the students launched a strike and defiantly absented themselves from classes. The Board of Regents was forced to take action in electing Vicente Sinco, who is now known for “clashing with conservatism” in his term.* With the persisting undemocratic structure of governance that is the BOR, Malacañang can make the battle long and arduous for us iskolars ng bayan. But our weapons of vigilance, unity and collective action can be decisive.
Our fight is correct and just. Our opposition to Malacañang intervention is principled and not opportunistic. It is based on our democratic rights and interests. The proposed P67.9 M UP budget cut for 2005 is proof of the thrust of the Arroyo administration – that is, to pass on the youth and people the burdens of the fiscal crisis. Malacañang having its way on the UP presidency means more budget cuts, more attacks on the right to education of the iskolars ng bayan.
I therefore call on the iskolars ng bayan: It is our militant and collective action that can tilt the balance in the BOR. Let us carry on the fight for our right to education and defeat Malacañang intervention in the selection of the next UP President. Let us oppose the proposed P67.9 M budget cut, as well as other anti-student and anti-youth policies of the Arroyo administration. Let us also push for the democratization of structures of governance in the University.
Even if we succeed in defeating Malacañang intervention, we must and will continue to act and fight for our rights and interests. We will remain vigilant with every actions and policies of the UP President. What is pressing right now, however, is for us to come together, dialogue, and act as one to defeat Malacañang intervention.
I call on fellow iskolars ng bayan to join the mobilization at the Quezon Hall on 22 November, so we can assert our call directly to the BOR. Most important of all, let us walk-out of our classes and join the mobilization on 23 November to oppose the proposed P67.9 M UP budget cut. History is in our hands. I trust that the iskolars ng bayan will not default in acting to change it for the better.
Seize the day!
Mabuhay ang mga iskolar ng bayan!
*Milagros Guerrero, “Sinco’s Clash with Conservatism” in Oscar M. Alfonso, ed. University of the Philippines: The First 75 Years (1908-1983). Quezon City: UP Press, 1985.
Defeat Malacañang Intervention in the Selection of the Next UP President!
An Open Letter from Student Regent Marco Dominic delos Reyes
19 November 2004
To the iskolars ng bayan and members of the UP Community,
Last 17 November, the Board of Regents met to elect the next UP President. For four rounds of voting through secret balloting, a stalemate persisted; six votes went to former Finance Secretary Edgardo Espiritu, six votes to UP Diliman Chancellor Emerlinda Roman. The BOR decided to hold another meeting on 22 November with the hope of breaking the tie. For the meantime, UP has yet to elect a new president.
The results, I think, reflect the division in the BOR between those who voted for Chancellor Roman for various reasons on the one hand, and those who wanted to impose upon UP a Malacañang puppet in the person of former Finance Secretary Espiritu on the other. Given Malacañang’s strength of will and numbers in the BOR, I believe the stalemate is a victory – albeit a tactical one – for the UP Community.
The criteria I used for voting was formed through consultations with the iskolars ng bayan and other sectors of the UP Community. The Congress of the Katipunan ng mga Sangguniang Mag-aaral sa UP provided a most important help in creating a students’ agenda for the selection of the next UP President. I also consulted other student formations, the All-UP Worker’s Union and the All-UP Academic Union.
In the end, I voted for Chancellor Roman. In the past, we iskolars ng bayan have either united with or struggled against her on particular issues. We have united with her most notably in fighting for greater state subsidy for UP and education and against US wars of aggression. On the other hand, we have struggled against her on the issue of commercialization, RGEP, Senate Bill 2587 and UP Charter Change.
What clinched my vote, however, were reliable information from different quarters that President Macapagal-Arroyo is hell-bent on intervening in the selection of the next UP President in order to impose someone who will be rabid in defending and implementing her policies for UP and education, and in supporting her national policies and stands. In short, she wants a Malacañang puppet as UP President.
Of course, I expected Malacañang intervention, given the high stakes UP has for the government. The government is beset with a fiscal crisis it plans to solve by, among other measures, reducing the budget for UP, education and social services. Large-scale commercialization measures are in the offing for UP: tuition fee increase through STFAP Rebracketting and commercialization of lands.
The violent dispersal of striking farmers in Hacienda Luisita comes to mind: With the fiscal crisis, the government is desperate to quell dissent, uphold the interests of a few and attack the democratic interests of the youth and people. One way for the government to do that in UP is to install a puppet president whose loyalty and service will not go to the UP Community but to Pres. Macapagal-Arroyo herself.
From this analysis, it became clear to me that my responsibility and task to the iskolars ng bayan and the UP Community is not just to choose a UP President but more importantly to expose and oppose Malacañang intervention in this process. The BOR meeting held yesterday merely validated the correctness of this analysis.
Who is Espiritu? He served as Finance Secretary in the cabinet of former President Estrada and held key Philippine posts of the ADB, World Bank and the IMF. He did not attend any of the public fora held in the UP campuses. On June 2005, he will be 70 years old, past the age limit for a UP president set by the University Code. This merely underscores the brazenness of Malacañang in trying to elect him.
In his vision paper, Espiritu attacks our fight for greater state subsidy, and says that UP does not need to “beg for subsidies from the national government.” While UP has been commercializing for years, Espiritu asserts that UP has not done enough. He proposes to further commercialize UP and reduce student admission. This vision for UP could only endear him, and others like him, to Malacañang.
In the same way that President Arroyo dwarfs her predecessors in wreaking havoc to the country and economy and serving the US, a Malacañang puppet – if not defeated in its quest for power – is headed to surpass other UP presidents in commercializing UP and attacking our right as iskolars ng bayan to education. He or she is a clear and present danger to the UP Community that must be opposed.
History teaches us a lesson. The last time there was an impasse in the selection of a UP President was in the late 1950s. It was widely believed that the Archbishop of Manila of that time, through President Ramon Magsaysay and the Education Secretary, was maneuvering for the selection of a UP President sympathetic to the Catholic Church. Because of this, UP had an acting president from 1956 to 1958.
The deadlock was ended after the students launched a strike and defiantly absented themselves from classes. The Board of Regents was forced to take action in electing Vicente Sinco, who is now known for “clashing with conservatism” in his term.* With the persisting undemocratic structure of governance that is the BOR, Malacañang can make the battle long and arduous for us iskolars ng bayan. But our weapons of vigilance, unity and collective action can be decisive.
Our fight is correct and just. Our opposition to Malacañang intervention is principled and not opportunistic. It is based on our democratic rights and interests. The proposed P67.9 M UP budget cut for 2005 is proof of the thrust of the Arroyo administration – that is, to pass on the youth and people the burdens of the fiscal crisis. Malacañang having its way on the UP presidency means more budget cuts, more attacks on the right to education of the iskolars ng bayan.
I therefore call on the iskolars ng bayan: It is our militant and collective action that can tilt the balance in the BOR. Let us carry on the fight for our right to education and defeat Malacañang intervention in the selection of the next UP President. Let us oppose the proposed P67.9 M budget cut, as well as other anti-student and anti-youth policies of the Arroyo administration. Let us also push for the democratization of structures of governance in the University.
Even if we succeed in defeating Malacañang intervention, we must and will continue to act and fight for our rights and interests. We will remain vigilant with every actions and policies of the UP President. What is pressing right now, however, is for us to come together, dialogue, and act as one to defeat Malacañang intervention.
I call on fellow iskolars ng bayan to join the mobilization at the Quezon Hall on 22 November, so we can assert our call directly to the BOR. Most important of all, let us walk-out of our classes and join the mobilization on 23 November to oppose the proposed P67.9 M UP budget cut. History is in our hands. I trust that the iskolars ng bayan will not default in acting to change it for the better.
Seize the day!
Mabuhay ang mga iskolar ng bayan!
*Milagros Guerrero, “Sinco’s Clash with Conservatism” in Oscar M. Alfonso, ed. University of the Philippines: The First 75 Years (1908-1983). Quezon City: UP Press, 1985.
Unprovoked Carnage
Streetwise
by: Carol Pagaduan-Araullo
Business World/Friday-Saturday, November 19-20, 2004
The words of regret and commiseration ring hollow.To the relatives of those killed among the Hacienda Luisita strikers and theirsupporters, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's statement calling for "prudenceand sobriety on both sides" and for "settling the dispute in a peaceful andrationale manner" must be causing more agitation than calming their outrage atthe violent dispersal that left seven people confirmed dead, 43 wounded andscores arrested.Even as party-list representatives from Anakpawis and Bayan Muna, Rafael Marianoand Satur Ocampo, called for a thorough investigation of the violent enforcementby the PNP and AFP of a questionable return-to-work order issued by DoLE, it isclear the victims were the workers, their families and supporters and that theemployment of superior and inordinate force lay squarely on the side of government.It is appalling how the management and owners of Hacienda Luisita, Inc. (HLI),the heirs of Jose Cojuangco Sr., including no less than former President CorazonAquino, and Malaca§ang, through Labor and Employment Secretary Patricia Sto.Tomas, not only allowed this carnage to happen, but apparently colluded intrying to break the 11-day strike by employing the state's Armed Forces.
Contrary to the claims of HLI through its spokesperson, Atty. Vigor Mendoza,former congressman Jose "Peping" Cojuangco Jr. and presidential son Rep. Benigno"Noynoy" Aquino, the United Luisita Workers Union (ULWU) and Central Azucarerade Tarlac Labor Union (CATLU) had not closed themselves to negotiations toresolve outstanding differences and to avoid violence at the picket lines. In fact, Rep. Satur Ocampo and other progressive party list congressmen, with the consent and cooperation of the two labor unions, had been shuttling to and from the hacienda to try to find peaceful avenues to address the issues raised by thefarm and sugar mill workers.
Rep. Ocampo had been in touch with Secretary Sto. Tomas, apprising her of the situation wherein any assault on the strikers would invariably result ininnumerable deaths and injuries to even family members who had been helping their kin take turns at the picket lines, cooking food and providing all-out support. He appealed to her for government to show maximum restraint and assist in mediating the conflict rather than insisting on breaking up the strike and protest rally at the hacienda gates and calling out the police and military to do it.
Hours before Tuesday's assault, Ocampo had brought representatives of the strikers to dialogue with Peping Cojuangco. The latter even refused to meet withtwo ULWU representatives, claiming that a new set of officers had taken over theretrenched union officials. (The management continues to obfuscate the fact thatwhat triggered the strike of the farm workers in the first place was thedismissal of almost all of the new ULWU officials, along with 327 other workers,thus effectively undermining a new collective bargaining agreement beingnegotiated by ULWU with management.)
The dialogue ended in an impasse when Cojuangco insisted on both unions liftingtheir strike before any negotiations on their demands could be restarted and theworkers refusing to do so until they had assurances that management would facetheir demands.Soon after, all hell broke loose when soldiers and police commenced with theirbrutal attack using three armed personnel carriers, high-powered rifles, teargas, water cannons and truncheons.
Thus, there should be no whitewash of this condemnable use of the armed might ofthe state to crush an unarmed workers' strike and a protest rally of their supporters. Any decent and upright person, once the facts and circumstances arebrought to light, would join in the just demand for an impartial andthoroughgoing investigation to find out the truth behind the bloody dispersal aswell as the historical roots of the festering social conflict in Hacienda Luisita.The propensity of the spokespersons of the management and owners of HLI as well as that of Malacanang, DoLE, the PNP and AFP, to utilize the smokescreen of innuendoes against the Left, specifically Bayan, Bayan Muna and other militant organizations, should be exposed for what it is -- a blatant attempt to cover uptheir culpability in this massacre of defenseless people carried out to crush their fierce struggles for decent wages and better living conditions. Instead of recognizing the miserable plight, if not legitimate grievances, of farm workers, some of whom had pay envelopes showing a take-home pay of P9.50after deductions due to loans and advances, whose work days had been reduced toonce or twice a week or who had been unceremoniously fired from their jobs, the propaganda line of the Cojuangcos is that non-workers, non-Tarlaquenos and leftist troublemakers made up the bulk of people manning the picket lines.
Moreover, these "outsiders" were supposedly agitating with issues plucked out of thin air. According to HLI spokesperson Mendoza, these pertained to "rehashed issues" likethe stock distribution option (or what the family of Cory Aquino used to goaround land distribution mandated by law and demanded by generations of theirfarm worker employees) and other "non-labor" issues which were not specified,but by imputation had to do with political demands of the Left.
To criticism that Ocampo, Mariano and other progressive party-list representatives were partial to the strikers, their unabashed reply is "Yes, we are, because they are our constituents" and because, we may add, this is only being consistent with their genuine leftist politics which takes the interests and views of the deprived and oppressed masses as their own. Having said this does not mean Ocampo et al. cannot be objective and could not play a positive role in helping to mediate the conflict, at least in delaying if not preventing what Bayan-Central Luzon called the "unprovoked carnage" of lastTuesday.
Any attempt by government and HLI to still use squid tactics to obscure theworkers legitimate demands and red-baiting to muddle the real issues will fail in the light of their bloodied hands.
by: Carol Pagaduan-Araullo
Business World/Friday-Saturday, November 19-20, 2004
The words of regret and commiseration ring hollow.To the relatives of those killed among the Hacienda Luisita strikers and theirsupporters, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's statement calling for "prudenceand sobriety on both sides" and for "settling the dispute in a peaceful andrationale manner" must be causing more agitation than calming their outrage atthe violent dispersal that left seven people confirmed dead, 43 wounded andscores arrested.Even as party-list representatives from Anakpawis and Bayan Muna, Rafael Marianoand Satur Ocampo, called for a thorough investigation of the violent enforcementby the PNP and AFP of a questionable return-to-work order issued by DoLE, it isclear the victims were the workers, their families and supporters and that theemployment of superior and inordinate force lay squarely on the side of government.It is appalling how the management and owners of Hacienda Luisita, Inc. (HLI),the heirs of Jose Cojuangco Sr., including no less than former President CorazonAquino, and Malaca§ang, through Labor and Employment Secretary Patricia Sto.Tomas, not only allowed this carnage to happen, but apparently colluded intrying to break the 11-day strike by employing the state's Armed Forces.
Contrary to the claims of HLI through its spokesperson, Atty. Vigor Mendoza,former congressman Jose "Peping" Cojuangco Jr. and presidential son Rep. Benigno"Noynoy" Aquino, the United Luisita Workers Union (ULWU) and Central Azucarerade Tarlac Labor Union (CATLU) had not closed themselves to negotiations toresolve outstanding differences and to avoid violence at the picket lines. In fact, Rep. Satur Ocampo and other progressive party list congressmen, with the consent and cooperation of the two labor unions, had been shuttling to and from the hacienda to try to find peaceful avenues to address the issues raised by thefarm and sugar mill workers.
Rep. Ocampo had been in touch with Secretary Sto. Tomas, apprising her of the situation wherein any assault on the strikers would invariably result ininnumerable deaths and injuries to even family members who had been helping their kin take turns at the picket lines, cooking food and providing all-out support. He appealed to her for government to show maximum restraint and assist in mediating the conflict rather than insisting on breaking up the strike and protest rally at the hacienda gates and calling out the police and military to do it.
Hours before Tuesday's assault, Ocampo had brought representatives of the strikers to dialogue with Peping Cojuangco. The latter even refused to meet withtwo ULWU representatives, claiming that a new set of officers had taken over theretrenched union officials. (The management continues to obfuscate the fact thatwhat triggered the strike of the farm workers in the first place was thedismissal of almost all of the new ULWU officials, along with 327 other workers,thus effectively undermining a new collective bargaining agreement beingnegotiated by ULWU with management.)
The dialogue ended in an impasse when Cojuangco insisted on both unions liftingtheir strike before any negotiations on their demands could be restarted and theworkers refusing to do so until they had assurances that management would facetheir demands.Soon after, all hell broke loose when soldiers and police commenced with theirbrutal attack using three armed personnel carriers, high-powered rifles, teargas, water cannons and truncheons.
Thus, there should be no whitewash of this condemnable use of the armed might ofthe state to crush an unarmed workers' strike and a protest rally of their supporters. Any decent and upright person, once the facts and circumstances arebrought to light, would join in the just demand for an impartial andthoroughgoing investigation to find out the truth behind the bloody dispersal aswell as the historical roots of the festering social conflict in Hacienda Luisita.The propensity of the spokespersons of the management and owners of HLI as well as that of Malacanang, DoLE, the PNP and AFP, to utilize the smokescreen of innuendoes against the Left, specifically Bayan, Bayan Muna and other militant organizations, should be exposed for what it is -- a blatant attempt to cover uptheir culpability in this massacre of defenseless people carried out to crush their fierce struggles for decent wages and better living conditions. Instead of recognizing the miserable plight, if not legitimate grievances, of farm workers, some of whom had pay envelopes showing a take-home pay of P9.50after deductions due to loans and advances, whose work days had been reduced toonce or twice a week or who had been unceremoniously fired from their jobs, the propaganda line of the Cojuangcos is that non-workers, non-Tarlaquenos and leftist troublemakers made up the bulk of people manning the picket lines.
Moreover, these "outsiders" were supposedly agitating with issues plucked out of thin air. According to HLI spokesperson Mendoza, these pertained to "rehashed issues" likethe stock distribution option (or what the family of Cory Aquino used to goaround land distribution mandated by law and demanded by generations of theirfarm worker employees) and other "non-labor" issues which were not specified,but by imputation had to do with political demands of the Left.
To criticism that Ocampo, Mariano and other progressive party-list representatives were partial to the strikers, their unabashed reply is "Yes, we are, because they are our constituents" and because, we may add, this is only being consistent with their genuine leftist politics which takes the interests and views of the deprived and oppressed masses as their own. Having said this does not mean Ocampo et al. cannot be objective and could not play a positive role in helping to mediate the conflict, at least in delaying if not preventing what Bayan-Central Luzon called the "unprovoked carnage" of lastTuesday.
Any attempt by government and HLI to still use squid tactics to obscure theworkers legitimate demands and red-baiting to muddle the real issues will fail in the light of their bloodied hands.
Monday, November 15, 2004
20 REASONS WHY PHILIPPINE PRESIDENT GLORIA ARROYO DOES NOT DESERVE A DOCTORATE FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO
By BAYAN-USA
November 11, 20041
BAYAN-USA/522 Valencia Street, San Francisco, CA 94110
bayan-usa@riseup.net
November 11, 20041
- The fiscal crisis under Arroyo is the worst ever in the history of the Philippines. The country's external debt as of September 2003 stood at P1.5trillion, of which 51 percent is direct government debt to international financial institutions, such as the IMF and World Bank. The foreign debt eats up some 31% of the national budget. By January, 2004, total outstanding debts of the government already exceeded P3 trillion. Arroyo has borrowed the most among all Philippine presidents. The majority of the borrowing is from the United States. From 2001 to 2003 she borrowed more money in 3 years than Presidents Ramos and Estrada did for eight years, 1992 to 2000. Foreign credit analysts have started downgrading the Philippines as an investment destination. The purchasing power of the peso has steadily declined and is at its worst in 2004, from 1.49 in 1990 to .56 in 2004, (calculated at a 1994 value of 1.00).
- Her policies have increased poverty and now 88% of Filipinos today are poor. The Philippines slid from 77th to 85th place among countries in the world where people live under extreme poverty. In the National Capital Region, the P280 minimum wage is way below the needed P545.73 minimum wage for a family of six. Nationwide, a P125 minimum wage increase is needed to begin to get Filipino workers out of poverty. Some 481,000 peasants and fisher folks lost their livelihood within just one year, from April last year to April this year.
- She has made the wealthiest 10% of the population 80% richer in comparison to the poorest 10% of the population. In 1994, the top 10 percent income bracket earned 19 times greater than the income of the bottom10 percent of the population. Today in 2003 the top 10 percent income bracket earns 24 times greater than the bottom 10 percent. Her policies have proved to widen the income gap, inequalities and disparities, and further marginalize the poor and underprivileged.
- 10 Party-list representatives were murdered during the NationalPresidential Elections of 2004, all of whom were part of organizations who openly campaigned against her re-election. 6 campaigners of Bayan Muna were killed, 3 members of Anakpawis and 1 from Gabriela Women's Party had deaths. Many of these killings are allegedly under the auspices of the Armed Forcesof the Philippines, of which she is Commander-in-Chief. The 2004 elections were the bloodiest elections in the history of the Philippines since the Marcos dictatorship.
- There have been more Human Rights Workers killed under the Arroyo Administration than under Marcos. The killings of 14 human rights workers, those persons who investigate human rights abuses, are unprecedented under the Arroyo administration. Known alleged perpetrators, such as Col. Jovito Palparan, Jr. (a.k.a.-the Butcher of Mindanao), have been promoted to General under her administration.
- Attacks on Filipino journalists have reached crisis proportion, a substantial number under the Arroyo administration. Since 1986, 54 journalists have been murdered. 6 of them occurred in August of 2004. The National Union of Journalists in the Philippines (NUJP) are demanding justice, as none of the perpetrators since 1986 have been brought to justice. The journalists who are targeted are those who are exposing corruption in the government and those exposing scams and scandals by the Philippine landlords and wealthiest families. The first casualty of democracy is the truth.
- Her track record and attention to matters of human rights violations is one of the worst since Marcos. In May of 2003, Amnesty International, released a report that practically condemned the Arroyo administration for the increasing number of violations in 2002. The number of human rights violation (HRV) cases nationwide between January and May 2003 was 2,010 cases, representing 163,023 individual victims, 16,348 families and 70 communities. Most common human rights violations are harassment (i.e.-threats, surveillance, etc.) at 668 cases; unjustified arrest (230cases); killings (i.e.-summary executions, political assassination, massacre) at 140 cases; and forced evacuation (127 cases).
- Contractualization and job lay-offs under Arroyo are widespread, increasing up to 85 percent nationwide in 2001, since 1992. The practice of hiring workers on contractual basis has deprived workers of their right to job security, benefits, right to organization and grievance. For example, magnate Henry Sy, who owns ShoeMart, employs 20,000 contractual employees in 15 malls nationwide, and only around 4,000 of his workers are regular employees. Contracts last for 3 to 5 months.
- She extended the national Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) to 2008, which is notorious for being a bogus land reform policy. After 16 years, CARP has had inconsequential impact on the peasant population. CARP is estimated to have benefited less than 5% of an estimated 10 million farmers nationwide. CARP is notorious for its loopholes which have allowed large landlords to re-cover, retain or be exempted from land re-distribution to peasant farmers (such as the Aquino family in Tarlac or the Cojuanco family's monopoly of land for coconut production).
- Indigenous groups are decrying 7 years of the IPRA Law and the violations of indigenous peoples rights under the Arroyo administration. Indigenous peoples have exposed the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) as "toothless" in protecting their rights. The Mangyans of the Bigkis at Lakas ng mga Katutubo sa Timog Katagalugan) said foreign-owned development projects like mining and mega-dams violate their rights and place the ills of liberalization on the lands of indigenous peoples. They said the IPRA empowers the state to control and supervise exploration, development and utilization of natural resources, it disempowers the indigenous peoples from using the resources in their ancestral lands. They said the government titling and certification of ancestral land is a violation of their rights.
- Arroyo has allowed the education budget to be slashed, impoverishing Filipino children and youth. According to the Wallace Report, there are 1.7million children in the Philippines aged 7 to 12 who are not in school because of poverty. Education spending has dropped from 19.3 percent of total government expenditures in 1997 to 15.5 percent in 2004. The average government spending on education per student is $170. This pales incomparison to Thailand ($550) and Malaysia ($930). There is a 73% drop-out rate in tertiary education. Based on the Wallace Report last June, of 100 who enter primary school, only seven shall be able to finish college.
- She introduced 8 new tax measures which focus on raising indirect taxes from the pockets of the poor, while corruption is rampant in her administration. The budget deficit reached P200 billion ($3.57 billion) in2003. As austerity measures, Arroyo introduced new taxes by: shifting to agross income tax system, implementing a P2 peso across-the-board increase on petroleum products, increasing the value-added tax on common goods from 10%to 14%, increasing taxes on alcohol and tobacco products, increasing government service fees and charges, and placing a tax on text messaging. Meanwhile, the purchasing power of the peso is falling, which means that the money left over for Filipinos after taxes buys less than before. Also,corruption cases such as that of General Garcia of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the prolonged justice against deposed "President" Estrada go without just resolution.
- Water remains unaffordable and inaccessible after she privatized public water. Since the privatization of the Manila Waterworks and Sewerage System(MWSS) in 1997, water rates in Metro Manila have increased by as much as 400 percent. Furthermore, only 57 percent of the population covered by the newly privatized company, Maynilad, have 24-hour water service. Privatization has increased foreign-ownership of Philippine water by multi-billions of dollars of investment, which has the impact of placing public water issues in the hands of foreign owners.
- Her policies on deregulation of the oil industry failed to bring down oil prices and instead increased oil prices to unprecedented levels. Arroyo ignored consumer groups and other cause-oriented organizations who called for the long-standing nationalization of the oil industry as the alternative to deregulation. In a recent report by IBON Foundation, oil companies were found to have over-priced their products by P0.16 per liter, and garnered extra profits amounting to P216 million ($3.86 million) for the period. The increase in oil prices makes the prices of basic commodities, such as transportation fares, gas for cooking, and other products.
- Arroyo's further privatization of the oil industry puts oil further into the hands of oil barrons, foreign ownership and monopoly pricing, with little public accountability. Arroyo plans to sell 3.75 million government shares in Petron to private corporations in order to raise money for the national deficit. This revenue generating scheme being prodded by the IMF/World Bank is in collaboration with the scheme to deregulate the downstream oil industry in the Philippines, and put the Philippines crucial oil needs under stronger foreign control. Petroeum prices have increased 7 times this year and 61 times since the oil industry was deregulated in 1996.
- Arroyo implemented new "unbundled power rates" and privatized the National Power Corporation of the Philippines. At the behest of theIMF/World Bank, Arroyo's privatization increased the prices of electricity and had the public foot the bill for stranded debts. The private company that benefited is MERALCO. Arroyo unfurled legislation featuring: the unjust and oppressive purchase power cost adjustment under four cost charges; a 16.7 centavos overcharge; a socialized pricing scheme that allows Meralco to get hundreds of millions of additional profit; and, stranded debts and contract costs of privatizing will be paid by consumers instead of by private companies.
- Arroyo was exposed and allegedly guilty of using government funds to finance her electoral bid. According to former Solicitor-General Frank Chavez, the government money used to finance Arroyo's presidential campaign could amount to as much as P15 billion ($267.9 million).
- Arroyo re-tooled the government's labor-export policy to support the United States' war of aggression and colonial occupation of Iraq. The policy can now be called labor-conscription which aims to recruit overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) to render auxiliary services that the U.S. armed forces need in their wars of aggression today. Wanting to cash-in on the spoils of war, Arroyo in April 2003 sent Roberto Romulo as head of the newly-formed Philippine Public-Private Sector Partnership for the Reconstruction and Development of Iraq to Washington DC to promote the export of 100,000 overseas Filipino workers to the Middle East. Of 4,000 OFWs in Iraq, 80 percent are employed by Prime Projects International (PPI), a subcontractor of US Vice President Cheney's Halliburton KBR Engineering & Construction. Workers are exploited and are at great risk, not to mention the policy displaces thousands of potential Iraqi workers.
- Arroyo has been declared a war criminal by the International Criminal Tribunal for Iraq (ICTI). Held on October 16, 2004 at the Camelot Hotel in Quezon City, the ICTI was joined by prominent international jurors and prosecutors. The ICTI said Arroyo made the Philippines an unwilling partner in the U.S. wars of aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq. She stands guilty of violating the independence and sovereignty of these countries as well as the Philippines' 1987 Constitution, which mandates a peaceful foreign policy, its own commitment to the United Nations and to international law. The ICTI also held Arroyo accountable for making the entire Philippine territory a haven for American war criminals by granting them immunity from prosecution before the International Criminal Court (ICC).
- GLORIA, RESIGN! On October 21, on National Peasant Day, a protest demonstration became an occasion to air the growing demand for the resignation of President GloriaArroyo. Peasant protesters held a "Street Conference" and launched a "Manila Declaration," a petition aiming to gather a million signatures for the resignation of Arroyo. Some 481,000 peasants and fisher folks lost their livelihood within just one year, from April last year to April this year. The declaration assailed the anti-peasant and anti-people policies of the Arroyo administration, including agricultural trade liberalization and the absence of a genuine agrarian reform program.###
BAYAN-USA/522 Valencia Street, San Francisco, CA 94110
bayan-usa@riseup.net
Sunday, November 14, 2004
2004 Merit Incentive and Rice Subsidy Released to UP Manila Employees
Release of both benefits belied the rumor that the P1,000.00 worth of rice subsidy will be deducted from the P5,000.00 Merit Incentive Bonus.
The first batch of the 2004 Merit Incentive Bonus amounting to P5,000.00 and the P1,000.00 worth of Rice Subsidy equivalent to 56 kgs. of Sinandomeng rice variety were released last week to all qualified UP Manila and PGH employees. The distribution of rice subsidy was started on Monday, November 8, 2004 and as of Friday, November 12, 2004, only about 300 of the 3,409 qualified employees have yet to received their rice deliveries. Meanwhile the first batch of the 2004 Merit Incentive Bonus amounting to 5,000.00 was released early evening of Thursday, November 11, 2004 through each employees' Savings Account in the Philippine National Bank.
The release of P5,000.00 Merit Incentive belied the persistent rumor since last month in employees' lounges that the rice subsidy for this year will be deducted from the merit incentive bonus.
The Merit Incentive Bonus was authorized through the 1188th meeting of the UP Board of Regents (BOR) held last October 28, 2004 and the subsequent Memorandum No. FN-04-26 dated October 29, 2004 issued by President Francisco Nemenzo. The said BOR meeting further gave authority to President Nemenzo, "to give additional merit incentive and the authority to decide when such merit incentive shall be released." Said BOR meeting further clarified that the merit incentive is not a "new" or "additional" benefit which are suspended under Section 3 (b) of Administrative Order 103 of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo dated 31 August 2004 "Directing the Continued Adoption of Austerity Measures in the Governement." It states finally, that the grant of merit incentive "is also in keeping with the Collective Negotiation Agreement (CNA) between U.P. and the All U.P. Workers Union.
In the history of merit incentive bonus in the University, the lowest was given in the year 1999 when U.P. and P.G.H. employees only received P2,500.00. The All U.P. Workers Union then was not the recognized union of of the University. The Merit Incentive Bonus only goes up to P10,000.00 level starting in 2001. Incidentally, 2001 was also the year that the All U.P. Workers Union won in the Certification Election held on April 2001. Such amount was maintained in 2002 and went down a bit at P9,000.00 in 2003.
This year 2004, as early as October 18, 2004 our National President, Mr. Clodualdo "Buboy" Cabrera wrote President Nemenzo, conveying our request for the said incentive saying that: "sana'y mas higit pa sa ibinibigay sa nakaraang tatlong taon." Said letter further expresses our collective concern in stating: "Napakalaki ng maitutulong nito sa lahat ng empleyado upang kahit papaano ay makaagapay sa napakatinding krisis pangkabuhayan na dinaranas ng milyong-milyong mamamayan sa kasalukuyan."
The first batch of the 2004 Merit Incentive Bonus amounting to P5,000.00 and the P1,000.00 worth of Rice Subsidy equivalent to 56 kgs. of Sinandomeng rice variety were released last week to all qualified UP Manila and PGH employees. The distribution of rice subsidy was started on Monday, November 8, 2004 and as of Friday, November 12, 2004, only about 300 of the 3,409 qualified employees have yet to received their rice deliveries. Meanwhile the first batch of the 2004 Merit Incentive Bonus amounting to 5,000.00 was released early evening of Thursday, November 11, 2004 through each employees' Savings Account in the Philippine National Bank.
The release of P5,000.00 Merit Incentive belied the persistent rumor since last month in employees' lounges that the rice subsidy for this year will be deducted from the merit incentive bonus.
The Merit Incentive Bonus was authorized through the 1188th meeting of the UP Board of Regents (BOR) held last October 28, 2004 and the subsequent Memorandum No. FN-04-26 dated October 29, 2004 issued by President Francisco Nemenzo. The said BOR meeting further gave authority to President Nemenzo, "to give additional merit incentive and the authority to decide when such merit incentive shall be released." Said BOR meeting further clarified that the merit incentive is not a "new" or "additional" benefit which are suspended under Section 3 (b) of Administrative Order 103 of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo dated 31 August 2004 "Directing the Continued Adoption of Austerity Measures in the Governement." It states finally, that the grant of merit incentive "is also in keeping with the Collective Negotiation Agreement (CNA) between U.P. and the All U.P. Workers Union.
In the history of merit incentive bonus in the University, the lowest was given in the year 1999 when U.P. and P.G.H. employees only received P2,500.00. The All U.P. Workers Union then was not the recognized union of of the University. The Merit Incentive Bonus only goes up to P10,000.00 level starting in 2001. Incidentally, 2001 was also the year that the All U.P. Workers Union won in the Certification Election held on April 2001. Such amount was maintained in 2002 and went down a bit at P9,000.00 in 2003.
This year 2004, as early as October 18, 2004 our National President, Mr. Clodualdo "Buboy" Cabrera wrote President Nemenzo, conveying our request for the said incentive saying that: "sana'y mas higit pa sa ibinibigay sa nakaraang tatlong taon." Said letter further expresses our collective concern in stating: "Napakalaki ng maitutulong nito sa lahat ng empleyado upang kahit papaano ay makaagapay sa napakatinding krisis pangkabuhayan na dinaranas ng milyong-milyong mamamayan sa kasalukuyan."
Ex-AFP Inspector-General Sees Whitewash in Court Martial vs General
Retired Navy Captain Danilo Vizmanos, formerly with the AFP Office of the Inspector General, is not convinced the court martial proceedings recently initiated against Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia would result in a fair rendering of justice. Court martial proceedings can actually be used to perpetrate a whitewash in military scandals, he says.
BY ALEXANDER MARTIN REMOLLINO
Bulatlat
The court martial proceedings initiated last week against Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia, former Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) comptroller, are not assurance that justice will be done in his case, according to retired Navy Captain Danilo Vizmanos former AFP Inspector-General.
Garcia presently stands accused of amassing some P143 million ($2.55 million based on a $1:P56 exchange rate) in ill-gotten wealth. The difference between his income in the last 10 years and his total expenses for the same period amounts to only P2.57 million.
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, apparently feeling the impact of public pressure to act against military corruption, had called for court martial proceedings against Garcia.
But the Garcia corruption case has also triggered a constitutional crisis, with the Sandiganbayan (anti-graft court) split over whether to continue administrative charges against the former AFP comptroller and the AFP insisting on its court martial jurisdiction.
Questions have been raised on whether the supremacy of civilian courts is now being undermined again by the AFP just like what happened under martial law in the 1970s.
What happens in a court martial?
Taking off from the Garcia case, Vizmanos said: “There should first be an investigation, it could be by the inspector-general or the provost marshall, depending on the nature of the case. In the case of Garcia, it may be the inspector-general. That is to find out whether there is indeed something fishy going on – to unearth the facts of the case, so it’s something like a fact-finding operation.”
If there is an established basis, the inspector-general would recommend to the AFP chief of staff that a pre-trial investigation be conducted. The chief of staff would then appoint a pre-trial investigator; usually any officer could serve as pre-trial investigator. “But in big cases like the Garcia scandal,” he said, “the investigators would have to come from the Judge Advocate General’s Office (JAGO).”
The pre-trial investigator, who serves as the counterpart of the civil court’s fiscal, will look into the case to see if there are reasonable grounds for filing a case. If warranted, the pre-trial investigator would prepare a charge sheet.
The charge sheet would then be referred to the JAGO and sent to the chief of staff or any concerned officer. The concerned officer would become a convening authority and issue orders for court martial.
There are three kinds of court martial: general court martial, special court martial, and summary court martial. The summary court martial, the lowest level, has only three members; while in the special court martial there are five members. The general court martial has seven members.
The court martial officers, according to Vizmanos, should be equal in rank to the accused, or higher. “In the Garcia case it is rather difficult for them, considering Garcia’s rank: the court martial officers to try him should be major generals or higher.”
Appointment of court martial officers
“Now, it is in the appointment of court martial officers that you can sense whether or not there will be any justice done,” Vizmanos reveals. “You can see in this where the sympathies of the superior officers lie: whether they are in favor of the prosecution or the defense.”
This can be figured out, Vizmanos said, from the composition of the officers appointed to the court martial. “Who is appointed trial judge advocate (the counterpart of the civil court’s prosecutor), who is appointed defense counsel – because they are all appointed by just one authority, the convening authority.”
In the Garcia case, Vizmanos pointed out, “the convening authority is the chief of staff.”
“If the convening authority is biased toward the defense, he would appoint a former classmate or schoolmate, or even someone who is involved in the case,” Vizmanos said. “So if the chief of staff is also involved, he could weaken the case by appointing a mediocre trial judge advocate and putting the more competent ones in the defense side. They could even get civilian lawyers to help the defense.”
“In the Garcia case, the office of the chief of staff is apparently also involved,” Vizmanos said, “and yet it is the convening authority for the court martial. So it is possible that the court martial proceedings would continue, but the proceedings may be confined to only one person.”
Lawyer Roel Pulido, who presently handles the case of some 300 soldiers who staged an armed protest action in Makati City last year against military corruption and atrocities against the civilian populace, agrees with Vizmanos on the argument that court martial would not necessarily bring justice. “The court martial may even be used to exonerate accused officers favored by the higher-ups or prevent the entire truth from coming out,” he told Bulatlat in an interview.
Pulido also said that his clients have not told him of any single case in which top-ranking officials were convicted in court martial proceedings.
In a court martial, Vizmanos said, the whole truth will not necessarily come out. “It could be only a partial truth that would come out of the proceedings,” he pointed out. “The court martial can be a means of covering up the whole mess, sacrificing one person and keeping others off the hook.” Bulatlat
© 2004 Bulatlat ■ Alipato Publications
BY ALEXANDER MARTIN REMOLLINO
Bulatlat
The court martial proceedings initiated last week against Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia, former Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) comptroller, are not assurance that justice will be done in his case, according to retired Navy Captain Danilo Vizmanos former AFP Inspector-General.
Garcia presently stands accused of amassing some P143 million ($2.55 million based on a $1:P56 exchange rate) in ill-gotten wealth. The difference between his income in the last 10 years and his total expenses for the same period amounts to only P2.57 million.
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, apparently feeling the impact of public pressure to act against military corruption, had called for court martial proceedings against Garcia.
But the Garcia corruption case has also triggered a constitutional crisis, with the Sandiganbayan (anti-graft court) split over whether to continue administrative charges against the former AFP comptroller and the AFP insisting on its court martial jurisdiction.
Questions have been raised on whether the supremacy of civilian courts is now being undermined again by the AFP just like what happened under martial law in the 1970s.
What happens in a court martial?
Taking off from the Garcia case, Vizmanos said: “There should first be an investigation, it could be by the inspector-general or the provost marshall, depending on the nature of the case. In the case of Garcia, it may be the inspector-general. That is to find out whether there is indeed something fishy going on – to unearth the facts of the case, so it’s something like a fact-finding operation.”
If there is an established basis, the inspector-general would recommend to the AFP chief of staff that a pre-trial investigation be conducted. The chief of staff would then appoint a pre-trial investigator; usually any officer could serve as pre-trial investigator. “But in big cases like the Garcia scandal,” he said, “the investigators would have to come from the Judge Advocate General’s Office (JAGO).”
The pre-trial investigator, who serves as the counterpart of the civil court’s fiscal, will look into the case to see if there are reasonable grounds for filing a case. If warranted, the pre-trial investigator would prepare a charge sheet.
The charge sheet would then be referred to the JAGO and sent to the chief of staff or any concerned officer. The concerned officer would become a convening authority and issue orders for court martial.
There are three kinds of court martial: general court martial, special court martial, and summary court martial. The summary court martial, the lowest level, has only three members; while in the special court martial there are five members. The general court martial has seven members.
The court martial officers, according to Vizmanos, should be equal in rank to the accused, or higher. “In the Garcia case it is rather difficult for them, considering Garcia’s rank: the court martial officers to try him should be major generals or higher.”
Appointment of court martial officers
“Now, it is in the appointment of court martial officers that you can sense whether or not there will be any justice done,” Vizmanos reveals. “You can see in this where the sympathies of the superior officers lie: whether they are in favor of the prosecution or the defense.”
This can be figured out, Vizmanos said, from the composition of the officers appointed to the court martial. “Who is appointed trial judge advocate (the counterpart of the civil court’s prosecutor), who is appointed defense counsel – because they are all appointed by just one authority, the convening authority.”
In the Garcia case, Vizmanos pointed out, “the convening authority is the chief of staff.”
“If the convening authority is biased toward the defense, he would appoint a former classmate or schoolmate, or even someone who is involved in the case,” Vizmanos said. “So if the chief of staff is also involved, he could weaken the case by appointing a mediocre trial judge advocate and putting the more competent ones in the defense side. They could even get civilian lawyers to help the defense.”
“In the Garcia case, the office of the chief of staff is apparently also involved,” Vizmanos said, “and yet it is the convening authority for the court martial. So it is possible that the court martial proceedings would continue, but the proceedings may be confined to only one person.”
Lawyer Roel Pulido, who presently handles the case of some 300 soldiers who staged an armed protest action in Makati City last year against military corruption and atrocities against the civilian populace, agrees with Vizmanos on the argument that court martial would not necessarily bring justice. “The court martial may even be used to exonerate accused officers favored by the higher-ups or prevent the entire truth from coming out,” he told Bulatlat in an interview.
Pulido also said that his clients have not told him of any single case in which top-ranking officials were convicted in court martial proceedings.
In a court martial, Vizmanos said, the whole truth will not necessarily come out. “It could be only a partial truth that would come out of the proceedings,” he pointed out. “The court martial can be a means of covering up the whole mess, sacrificing one person and keeping others off the hook.” Bulatlat
© 2004 Bulatlat ■ Alipato Publications
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
