‘Noy-noy’s smile that provoked adverse reaction and harsh criticism.’

HONG KONG is not a country, not a nation-state. It is a special administrative region, a euphemism for an autonomous province, of China. It is self-governing but it is Beijing that handles its defense and foreign affairs. Its chief executive, therefore, is not a head of state.

Now that we have that straightened out, let us look objectively at what Hong Kong’s chief executive Donald Tsang tried to do. He was trying to reach a head of state, President Noynoy Aquino, directly. And when he couldn’t reach him, he felt he was being ignored and incensed the Chinese nationals in Hong Kong by telling them so. (Please note – the people in HongKong, including Tsang, are Chinese subjects. If they think they have a separate national identity, that’s their problem. They have to sort that out with Beijing.)

To put it bluntly, Tsang had no business demanding that he speak with the head of state of a country directly, he being a mere equivalent of a provincial governor. He should have coursed whatever he wanted to do through the Chinese Foreign Ministry as he was already treading on foreign affairs. So, there.

***

I was informed by a very reliable source that the office of Tsang called Malacañang at around 4 p.m., Monday. An aide of Noynoy referred the caller to his future ex-foreign secretary, Alberto Romulo, and gave the latter’s mobile phone number. The aide then called Romulo instructing him to take, not initiate, the call. Romulo waited for hours but Tsang never called. Apparently, Tsang felt it was beneath his dignity to talk only with Romulo. He wanted Noynoy himself!

After the bloody end to the hostage drama, a Malacañang official instructed Romulo to call Tsang which he did. He conveyed to the latter our extreme regret over the incident and expressed condolences to the victims’ families.

The following day, it was reported that Noynoy himself called Tsang. He shouldn’t have. He should have called instead his counterpart, President Hu Jintao, or at the very least, Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, he (Noynoy) being a head of state and government at the same time. Besides, Romulo had already spoken to Tsang.

Again, I ask, who the hell is advising Noynoy on foreign affairs? I heard his chief protocol officer now holds the position of presidential adviser on foreign affairs as well. Good heavens, he couldn’t be the one, could he?!

It should be Romulo. Unfortunately, foreign affairs is not his forte. It could have been consular matters, but, alas, even that he bungled. So, who? Noynoy had better find a good foreign secretary soon. Otherwise he may well be in for more unnecessary and unwanted trouble. He has enough of that on his plate.

***

Noynoy said he is still optimistic about his planned visit to the UN/US. I am not against his traveling abroad per se. What I am against is the timing. Even the so-called traditional call on Asean leaders has no urgency to it. (He will meet all of them anyway when he goes to Vietnam later in the year to attend the Asean Summit.) He is now reportedly going first to Vietnam, then Indonesia and on to the UN/US. So, next month, he will be away for a total of around ten days – Sept 13-14 in Vietnam, Sept. 14-15 in Indonesia and for a week starting on Sept. 20, in UN/US.

According to one of his mouthpieces (I forget which one), Noynoy will have a lean delegation for all these sorties, official delegation, that is. But the bulk of those involved in presidential trips is not the “official” delegation. That is normally small in number in deference to the host country. Aside from the usual hangers-on, it is the “unofficial” delegation members and others involved in the preparation for a presidential visit that comprise the bulk of the entourage, e.g., advance parties of security, media, protocol, Malacañang and DFA staffers.

In this connection, one news report said that accompanying Noynoy to the UN/US are Speaker Feliciano Belmonte, Jr., Mandaluyong congressman Neptali Gonzales II and Mayor Benhur Abalos. What role can these people possibly play in attracting foreign investments? Bakit may mga congressman na naman? At sino sa Senado at sa Cabinet ang kasama? Hay naku! Wala yata talagang pagbabago!

***

The tragedy in Luneta last week has sullied and tarnished our reputation abroad. And as leader of this country, Noynoy’s image has suffered as well. His handling of the crisis left some doubts in the minds of many about his ability to lead. I am not one of them. Not yet. He is new on the job. He has surrounded himself with some people whose fitness for their jobs are now suspect.

As one of his bosses, I urge Noynoy to re-consider going to Vietnam, Indonesia and the UN/US next month. The national treasury is almost depleted as he himself claims. He could go next year when he may have something more to show for his avowed reforms and when the Luneta fiasco would no longer be fresh in people’s mind. He shouldn’t be swayed by the warm reception from the students of Rizal Technological University in Mandaluyong alone!

***

I didn’t see it myself but from all accounts, the smile provoked a lot of adverse reaction and harsh criticism.

One does not smile during a tragic situation. Noynoy did when he visited the hijacking site in Luneta. And, ironically, after his witless functionaries in the Palace asked the citizenry to put on a somber mien in view of the tragic incident.

Noynoy himself was hard put to explain the smile. He was uncertain about the reason he smiled – he smiles when happy or faced with an absurd situation, he claimed.

“It’s more of an expression maybe (?) of exasperation rather than anything and again, I apologize if I offended certain people who misunderstood (my) facial expression,” he said.

To me, I think it simply is a part of his being a basically shy person. I saw it when he was asked to sing during the post-inauguration shindig in Quezon Memorial last month. It requires such great effort for a shy person to put up a brave and confident front, especially when asked to speak or worse, sing, before a large audience. One automatic reaction is to put on an awkward smile.

***

The DFA spokesman, commenting on the black travel alert issued by the Chinese, rightly said that the tragic incident was isolated and “is in no way reflective of the peace and order situation in the Philippines.”

He added that the government is “committed to ensuring the safety of all foreign nationals within its territory.”

In this regard, diplomats are foreign nationals and we are responsible for their safety too. But we can’t protect them if they keep going to troubled areas in the country especially Mindanao without informing the authorities concerned in advance. They even visit and talk with MILF rebels in their lair. What if these rebels decide suddenly to hold them hostage?

To begin with, dealing with MILF rebels directly is tantamount to interfering in our domestic affairs which is against diplomatic conventions. Unfortunately, in some instances in the past, Romulo and his favorite and future ex-undersecretary Rafael Seguis who was the peace panel head during the despised Arroyo regime even encouraged and gave permission to American diplomats to negotiate directly with the MILF rebels. That was treasonous by any measure.

In some countries, the government requires foreign envoys to give advance information on their plan to travel beyond a certain radius from the capital. We should do the same.

***

Speaking of Seguis, he now has the gall to boast to those who would listen that his boss has recommended career officers to replace the 25 political ambassadors whose tenure will expire at the end of September, unless some of them succeed in convincing Noynoy to allow their stay beyond that date. Seguis even brags about two career ambassadors’ request for extension having been denied.
That’s fine. But shouldn’t Romulo have been doing that in the six years he has been DFA head – standing up for career officers and not merely following blindly Gloria Arroyo’s whims? Shouldn’t he have recommended to Arroyo to please refrain from appointing too many political ambassadors and extending the services of career ambassadors who have reached the mandatory retirement age of 65?

And now, Seguis has the cheek to go around telling everyone who would care to listen what his master is doing to boost the latter’s image? Wala na! Too late!

On another matter, what has Seguis done about Romulo’s violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act by putting his maid and personal driver in the DFA payroll? As undersecretary for administration, it is his duty to conduct an investigation of the matter and, if warranted, file the necessary charges against his boss before the Ombudsman.

No, wait. He doesn’t even have to do that. The Supreme Court has recently ruled that the Ombudsman has the authority to order the dismissal of any executive official down to the barangay level – except the president and members of Congress and the judiciary.
The Supreme Court said: “The Ombudsman is clothed with authority to directly remove an erring public official other than members of Congress and the Judiciary who may be removed only by impeachment.”

Paging Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez!

***

Also, has Seguis done anything about the closing of the service road fronting the American Seafront compound to the detriment of motorists, including DFA personnel? He should summon the American ambassador and ask him if the US Embassy had anything to do with the closing of that road. A former DFA protocol chief told me that he did ask a former Pasay City mayor why the road was closed. He never got a clear answer and simply gave up after that. If Seguis knows what sovereignty means, he should forthwith summon the American ambassador to his office. If he does not, he can delegate the task to the DFA protocol chief.

Incidentally, the barrier put up to block the northward direction of the road now looks like a garbage dump.

***

Since I could not reach him on the phone, I would like to ask DFA Assistant Secretary for Personnel Catalino Dilem, Jr. these questions: Who are Ivan Verzosa and Maureen Joy Santos? Are they your nephew and niece, respectively, as alleged? And who is George Labrador who allegedly is now a contractual employee but allegedly has no civil service eligibility?

If Dilem so wishes, I will post his reply in this space.

***

Today is the 62nd day Romulo’s self-promoting tarpaulin has been defacing the DFA Building façade.

***

Today is the 126th day of the fourth year of Jonas Burgos’ disappearance.

***

Email: roacrosshairs@yahoo.com

I remember most vividly the Corazon Aquino’s presidency had early problems about Cabinet members hiding behind the president when the going got tough instead of them shielding her from danger. The hostage fiasco triggered this memory recall as it seems that P-Noy has been taking the flak directly without his Cabinet appointees protecting him. More mice than men is an apt description of officials who do not have either the good sense or the guts to take the blows for their president.

It is a good moment for President Noynoy to assess the men and women who comprise his official family. I am sure that they presented themselves top him as aggressive, go-getters and achievers – especially when they were angling for their appointments. There were personalities who kept pushing their faces in front of Noynoy before and after he was sworn in as P-Noy, pushing for their appointment or for the appointment of their proteges. In fact, I keep hearing of regular visits from familiar faces with folders of recommendations visiting P-Noy every chance they get. Yet, they are completely out of sight when it comes to making life easier for P-Noy in a bad time. Opportunists, they used to be called. Cowards may be the more accurate term.

P-Noy went out on a limb to create a new Kamaganak, Inc, not of his blood kin, but kin of blood nonetheless around him. Well, this new Kamaganak, Inc, have been nowhere in sight in the battle field. They would be uncomfortable in an arena where they put themselves in front of their principal to be clobbered; it is easier just watching him take the blows rather than risk their positions. So much for courage and loyalty.

There was a horrible ending to the hostage-taking. It was not the death of some hostages but the way they died that classified the incident as one big blunder. Although a president of the republic is not expected to be the field commander of a crime scene, the length of the drama and the massive coverage by local and international media elevated a simple hostage situation to be more than what it was to the perception of people. P-Noy is even being blamed for not taking a call he did not know about. The administrator for Hong Kong is not, in the world of protocol or diplomacy, at the same level as the president of the Philippines. P-Noy did not even have to take his call even if he had known. The ARMM governor cannot just call the president of China or the United States and expect to be answered by him instantly and directly.

But the national and international attention focused by media on the hostage drama did create a context where P-Noy or his spokesman was pressured to confront the situation frontally. Bungling by the police was worsened by another fiasco – the public relations kind. I had thought that there was an unusual number of demanding applicants for presidential spokesman, or to be in charge of messaging for the president. Well, as media kept the cameras on the fated bus for several hours, the messagers or explainers disappeared. They were more mice than men, after all.

When his mother took over Marcos in 1986, her detractors said she was not competent enough to govern. It seemed at first that they were right when her men hid behind her skirts when trouble would erupt. But Corazon Aquino proved that integrity would produce courage, and that courage would produce results. She quickly fired some members of her Cabinet and proceeded to finish her term despite a relentless rebellion by some members of her own AFP. In contrast, the macho that the dictator Marcos was, or screen hero Estrada, wilted and collapsed with under people power.

P-Noy will survive the absence or cowardice of many of his appointees. He will survive even after he fires some of them. He has two debacles to address – the hostage negotiations which ended in a tragedy, and a public projection which developed a perception that he was wishy-washy by default, by the absence of appointees who were only recently so eager to script or speak for him. P-Noy should survive because the people elected him and have placed on him their greatest expectations and sincerest hope, and because he would terminate those who are more mice than men.

Those who were pushy enough to work for their appointments, those who were pushy enough to perter P-Noy for the appointment of their people, and even those who were simply appointed, they should form a protective wall around P-Noy in challenging times. It matters little what their job descriptions are; what matters most is the first and common job description they have – members of the official family. And in a family, the patriarch must be fiercely defended and protected. He is symbol and he is authority. If he falls, all fall.

So, to those who are more mice than men, please understand that Malacanang is not primarily for the ambitious, not primarily for the greedy, not primarily for the proud, but first and foremost, for the braveheart. You must find your courage because the presidency of P-Noy will not be a walk in the park. His destiny is about sacrifice, about courage in the face of adversity, about change against the odds. P-Noy has been tempered by the pain of a personal history, Have you?

“There is always a philosophy for lack of courage.” Albert Camus

Visiting Italian Lawyer Gabriella Citroni, in a forum marking the International Day of the Disappeared (which was actually last Monday) at the University of the Philippines, said a person disappearing does not follow logic.

“People are born, they live and they die. They don’t disappear,” she said. But it happens. In the Philippines the practice is more known as “salvaging” a cruel play on the word that means “saving”.

Citroni, a professor at the University of Milano-Bicocca, has been active in the United Nations effort to ratify and eventually implement the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances.

She said Enforced Disappearances start with deprivation of liberty, followed by concealment or denial of the victim.

In searching for the disappeared kin, relatives often are met with questions by law enforcement authorities, “Who is he? Is there such a person?”

“Can you think of a much worse human brutality than someone telling you that your loved one never existed”, she asked.

Yesterday’s forum was also the launching of the film documentary “Unsilenced” about desaparecidos in the Philippines.

“Unsilenced”, directed by King Mark Baco took off from the case of six workers of PICOP (Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines) in Agusan del Sur who disappeared after they were picked up by soldiers belonging to the 62nd Infantry Battalion of the Philippine Army on October 14, 2000.They were Joseph Belar, Jovencio Lagare, Romualdo Orcullo, Diosdado Oliver, Artemio Ayala, and Arnold Dangkiasan.

Ten years have passed. One, Cpl Rodrigo Billones, has been convicted in 2008. The other officers have not made been made accountable for their crime and have, in fact, been promoted.

FIND and AFAD lauded the refusal of the families the PICOP 6 to be silenced. “With the growing support from the Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates, AFAD and other kindred groups, the families are more inspired to pursue the fight to its final resolution, “ they said.

The two groups said the International Day of the Disappeared “was an occasion to revisit the chronicles of courage and self-sacrifice of the desaparecidos which remind us that the commission of involuntary disappearance particularly against suspected enemies of the state persists with impunity.

“The abominable global offense, a State-perpetrated violence, has spawned violations of practically all human rights. Precious lives are snuffed out, civil liberties curtailed voices of protest and resistance muffled amidst a chilling culture of impunity.

“Putting an end to enforced disappearance poses a great challenge to human rights advocates and defenders. Far greater is to successfully compel states to sign and ratify the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance and ensure that enforced disappearance constitutes a criminal offense in their statute books.

“Learning from the Philippine experience, it is possible to enact special laws criminalizing human rights violations. In November last year,t he Philippines enacted Republic Act No. 9745 or the Anti-Torture Law.Lamentably, the proposed law defining and penalizing enforced or involuntary disappearance still awaits congressional imprimatur even as the Convention remains unsigned.

AFAD and FIND appealed to President Aquino as well as the leaders of Timor Leste, India, Indonesia, Pakistan,Thailand and Nepal to take the lead in the signing and ratification of the Convention.

To date, the Convention has 83 signatories and 19 state parties (India is a signatory but not a state party. TheNetherlands is reported to have virtually reserved for the 20th slot that will mark the Convention’s entry into force.

The joint statement asked: “Shouldn’t AFAD’s member organizations’ respective states and other Asian states race to be the 20th state party and show the world that they are sincere in upholding human dignity and human rights more particularly the right not to be disappeared?”

http://www.ellentordesillas.com/?p=12685&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+EllenTordesillas+%28Ellen+Tordesillas%29

Weeks have now passed since the shocking August 23 hostage taking and siege by a police of a tourist bus in Manila but the shame, disgust and recriminations remain and grow more intense instead of waning. Eight of the 22 tourists from Hong Kong were killed by the hostage taker, a former highly decorated Manila police officer 55-year-old Senior Inspector Rolando Mendoza.

Writers, journalists and political leaders have expressed profound apologies to the families of the dead and wounded on behalf of the nation. Church leaders called for prayers for the victims and survivors. They prayed for reconciliation and forgiveness from the people of Hong Kong where many thousands of Filipinos work as domestic helpers. Some fear for their jobs. Thousands marched last week in solidarity with the victims.

However, apologies, shame and prayers are not sufficient to deal with the poison diet of moral decadence and corruption that has fed the arrogance and culture of impunity that surrounds many police and military in the Philippines today. There are many good, upright and brave police and military personnel but they do not seem to the ones who gather the awards, medals and promotions. Nor are they numerous enough or in higher positions of authority to be able to counter balance and overwhelm the apparently more numerous nefarious members of the Philippine National Police.

This decades old environment of non-accountability, casual routine crime by people in power who are paid to prevent it, brought Roland Mendoza and his victims to their tragic end. He was a multi-awarded officer who was cited in 1986 by Jaycees International as one of the 10 outstanding policemen of the Philippines. The Jaycees will need to revise their criteria for background checks and replace their selection committee. They pinned medals on a multiple murderer.

Last January, Mendoza and his police unit was charged with framing up an innocent person, extorting 20,000 pesos and inflicting physical injury on the victim. He was fired only after the incident was exposed on the internet. He denied any wrongdoing, despite strong evidence to the contrary. He was incensed that he was accused, was not brought to trial and he demanded he be reinstated. He had no remorse for what he had done. He believed himself innocent thinking perhaps that a high ranking officer with his awards and medals could do no wrong. Mendoza arrogantly believed that his authority placed him above the law, all accusations and ordinary mortals. This is the culture of impunity that grows in those that rise to power, claim elite status and entitlement to position and privilege.

When his demand for reinstatement was ignored, he took the people hostage and sought vengeance. The 11-hour siege was broadcast live on radio. When he saw or heard his brother, who was bought in to help with the negotiations, being arrested, he started his killing spree. This was followed by an incompetent assault by a Manila Police Swat team which may have caused him to kill more hostages.

A week previous to the hostage taking, another multi-award police inspector was seen on television torturing a hapless victim lying naked on the floor of the Tondo police station with a wire tied around his penis and genitals that the highly decorated inspector was pulling as the naked victim screamed and writhed in agony. The police inspector was beating him repeatedly with a belt or rope to get him to confess. He later disappeared.

These are just the symptoms of the deeper underlying malady of police aggression and brutality within the force that the Aquino government needs to address urgently. There is hope for a more intelligent and educated police force is developing.

More women police with higher rank is essential. Training will have to focus on making the police the defenders of human rights and not the violators. Preda @ info. com .ph, www.preda.org

~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
Contact Fr. Shay Cullen at the Preda Center, Upper Kalaklan, Olongapo City, Philippines.
e-mail: preda@info.com.ph
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
PREDA Information Office
PREDA Foundation, Inc.
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
www.preda.org

A culture of corruption is established when a society freely accepts, adopts and practices the mindset that IF WE CAN GET AWAY WITH IT, THEN DO IT. In our culture, we call this patinikan which promotes the WIN AT ALL COSTS mentality. Win at all costs is the modern day expression of the Nicolo Machiavelli mindset of “The ends justify the means.”

Don’t you find it hypocritical that many of our universities and colleges — the very ones whose basketball teams play in the UAAP and NCAA tournaments — are not practicing what they teach? No university or college will ever endorse the Machiavelli “The ends justify the means” mindset which is associated with the excesses and evils that mark the dark pages of world history. 

The Machiavelli “The ends justify the means” mindset manifested in the Marcos pursuit of a New Society which brought us to an all-time high in corruption and human rights violations. It also formed Adolf Hitler’s excuse for committing genocide while pursuing the evolution of a pure, superior Aryan race. It was also the philosophy of the US government for the genocide of the Native Americans so that they can remove them from their ancestral lands. 

If the universities and colleges will condemn the Machiavelli mindset, are they not subscribing to it when they recruit the taller and heftier foreign basketball players in order to win in the UAAP and NCAA cage wars? It is one thing if these foreigners freely opted to study in their schools and another if they were recruited and offered incentives to play for the school. Reliable sources confirm that these foreign players were recruited and offered substantial rewards for donning the school uniform.

This recruitment started with the Filipino-Americans from abroad. The excuse then was that they had Filipino ancestry. The spirit of competition among local born and home grown Filipinos was trashed for the sake of “bringing honor” to the alma mater. There being no honor in living by the Machiavelli mindset — what kind of an example then is the educational institution giving their students?

If the recruitment of Filipino-Americans is not bad enough, now we see the recruitment of foreign players who do not even have a drop of Filipino blood in them. Fifty years ago, no school would think of going this far. Fifty years ago, we were never this corrupt.
We do not want to single out a particular school in this issue but the case of the San Beda Red Lions of the NCAA sticks out like a sore thumb. San Beda won three consecutive NCAA championships with Sam Ekwe, a foreign recruit, playing a crucial role. Now, San Beda is poised to win another NCAA championship with Sudan Daniels, another foreign recruit, as a key player. Both Ekwe and Daniels excel in stifling the basket attempts of their opponents.

Without counterpart imports, it is like playing against a loaded deck of cards. A tall and imposing player like Ekwe and Daniels will force the smaller opponents to avoid lay ups and resort to the low percentage outside shots. On the offensive end, these tall foreign recruits provide offensive rebounds, thereby increasing their chances to score. For an all-Filipino team, it’s like playing against a team with a 10-point advantage in baskets and easily 8 more rebounds.

It is clearly unfair competition and the school officials cannot claim not to know that. Still, they allowed it. Just because other schools did it before and got away with it does not justify the adoption of what is inherently unfair. Just because the rules of the tournament did not have the foresight to anticipate this development and prohibit it — does not justify implementing what is clearly against the spirit of fair competition.

The schools that allow this practice of recruiting foreign players are setting a bad example of violating what they preach. They’re also losing sight of the aim of the sports competitions as promoters of the spirit as well as the concept of fair play and friendly contests.

Who can thus blame the disadvantaged teams for sometimes resorting to rough tactics as they desperately try to even the odds? While it cannot be condoned, we must nevertheless understand that this disadvantage provokes the tripping, elbowing and punching which mar the games. Have we not seen enough of that human tendency in the pages of history — when the cold and hungry resorted to bloody violent means in their desperate attempt to attain relief?

The collegiate Filipino center is usually 6 feet four inches in height. He is up against a foreign recruit who stands at least 6 feet 7 inches and is heavier. Unable to shoot baskets against the foreign recruit, unable to rebound — the poor Filipino center gets a mouthful from his coach. Sometimes, the poor Filipino center is even insulted by his coach just to prod him to contain the damage being wrought by the foreign recruit. Desperate, the poor Filipino center throws a punch, is thrown out of the game and is suspended from playing in the next game.

Why do we allow this to happen to our own kind? Whose side are we really on? Where is our Filipino heart? Where is our Filipino soul?

* * *

Chair Wrecker e-mail and website: macesposo@yahoo.com and www.chairwrecker.com

Just as we hoped for a new beginning with President Noynoy Aquino with a new mandate, a desperate Filipino ex-policeman holds a busload of Hong Kong tourists in the Philippines hostage, killing eight. The ripples of lack of safety and security in our country has alarmed the international world, further causing our dwindling tourism into depth and dismay.

Immediately, our usual Filipino finger-pointing as to who did or did not do what promptly follows. Who is ultimately responsible?

Even more disturbing, nations, which should behave as adults, according to national and international standards and norms, reflexively resort to retaliatory and unreasonable responses, acting more like children than children. Hong Kong immigration officials reportedly dealt undue harrassment of Filipinos entering their country.

Nevertheless, we Filipinos, and our own Philippines, remain targets of unfair conclusions and repercussions. Our divisiveness and inability to build something positive out of an unfortunate situation only fuels the fire.

Why couldn’t the poor ex-policeman, driven by his dire situation, be solely responsible? Why must we put blame elsewhere? Fact is: the exact same events could have happened anywhere in the world. It is sad that it happened, but it did. Why single out the Filipinos, as a people? The Philippines as a nation?

Perhaps, if anything, the unfortunate event points to a few, if not several, inadequacies of our country, of our emergency response systems among other things. Perhaps, it is a wake up call for both our people and our country. The event is but a trigger calling attention to realities about our people and our country we have taken for granted.

Let us focus on us, Filipinos, as a people.

Are we a nation?

Certainly the Philippine archipelago is a real geographic physical presence, and the Philippine government, a unique democracy adopted from the west, a real entity. But after all 500 or so years of historical existence, are we, Filipinos, as a people, truly a nation?

Perhaps, 400 years of Spanish oppression and denigration, 43 years of American domination and 5 year of Japanese abuse and brutalization before our political independence as a people and a “nation”, caused us to develop basic culture of survival and attitude that puts family first and last.

Even as we earned our “freedom” to govern ourselves, the poor two thirds of our people continue to live in poverty and servitude. The other third, including the ones entrusted with the care and management of our people and country, appear to take care only of themselves and their families.

Sure, we had the likes of President Ramon Magsaysay, Senator Claro M Recto and a few others who stand out as true statesmen. We also have our short list of true patriots and real heroes who have actually died for our country and our people

But do we, Filipinos, at home and anywhere abroad, really have a sense of nation? Individually and collectibly?

Unfortunately, despite the rise of the educated, intellectuals and the wealthy in depth and numbers, the Filipinos, in general, remain focused on propelling only themselves as individuals with their families. Friends may be among beneficiaries, but the others are worth no more than token charity, and are often left to fend for themselves.

We number about 5 million Filipinos in the United States. The average annual income of Filipinos in the U.S. is second only to immigrants from India. Yet we are a non-entity to the United States government and officials. Why is that?

Could it be our lack of sense of nation?

The only time we perhaps truly stood, a nation, as a people, was during People Power I, led by President Cory Aquino, after her husband, statesman and patriot, Benigno “Ninoy”Aquino, Jr.’s ultimate sacrifice for his people and country.

God blessed us with Tony Meloto, who founded Gawad Kalinga. Here is a man who choose to find hope in calamities and despair, find good even among the dirty politicians and criminals. He has made, more than anyone, many Filipinos come out of their zealously protected citadels, grand or little, to help our poor and derelict, become ONE and be a nation.

We have also been blessed with a new president, Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III, committed to the legacy his parents have left, professed to be the Filipino people’s servant and leader. He is scheduled to come to the United States this September for a state visit.

Let us show the world we are ONE people and ONE nation. Let us express our sincere solidarity with our president. Let us welcome our president to the United States. Email, write press releases, write your senators and congress representatives that we, collectively as Filipinos, ONE nation, support and welcome our president as he visits the U.S.

Let us be

Filipinos, ONE Nation, from hereon forwards.

A Filipina friend from Israel emailed me that when she was in Hongkong a few years ago, she visited a non-Filipino colleague at his condo unit. As she was leaving, he warned her that she might get challenged for using the elevator because Filipino domestic employees, he said, are restricted to the stairs. “It was a very high-rise building!” she related in shock.

In the new award-winning Ted Unarce documentary, Modern Day Slaves, a Filipina domestic employee in Hongkong (one of four OFW subjects of the film) narrates how she was punished for prematurely cooking rice before her employer had ordered her to do so. Fearing the loss of her job which was the main source of income for her family in the Philippines, she complied with her sadistic employer’s punishment to pound her forehead to the base of the kitchen sink 40 times until she almost lost consciousness. (The film will be shown at the Santa Clara University Center of Performing Arts on September 11).

Over the years, thousands of Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) in Hongkong have filed complaints detailing the abuse they suffered at the hands of their employers. Very little has been done about their complaints and now it is unlikely that any of them will ever see justice, all because of the actions of one disgruntled police inspector, Rolando Mendoza, who kidnapped 25 Hongkong tourists in Manila on August 23 and then shot and killed 8 of them about 10 hours later when his demand for reinstatement to his post was not met.

Several days after the slaughter, 36-year old hostage survivor Lee Ying-chuen wrote a 5,000 word essay for the Ming Pao newspaper to describe the 10 hours she spent on the tourist bus parked in front of the Quirino Grandstand in Manila.“These few days I have thought about this incident many times, with immense anger, sorrow and guilt. How come after such a long wait, we were still silently anticipating the rescue that would never come? Why did we hand our lives over to that useless government?” she wrote.

Lee narrated that when she returned to Hongkong, she repeatedly heard Chinese people make racist comments about Filipino maids, and contemptuously refer to the Philippines as “the land of slaves”. “I understand Hongkongers’ rage over the inability of the Filipino government and police – I experienced it. But what does this have to do with the common people?” Lee asked. To do the victims justice, Lee said the focus should be on the Philippine government and police.

The day after the bus tragedy, Hongkong superstar Jackie Chan issued a tweeter statement expressing his sympathy for the “tough dilemma” faced by Manila police officers attempting to rescue the hostages. He also urged the public not to vent their anger at Filipinos living in Hongkong. Chan’s call for calm was met with fury and derision as he faced sharp attacks from the public including Facebook users who set up three groups called “Jackie Chan doesn’t represent me”.

Among the vitriol Chan received: “Shut up! Hongkong people don’t need you. You side with outsiders and not your own. You will face karmic retribution for your disrespect for the victims,” Iris Yau said. “He just doesn’t understand the pain of Hongkong people,” Violet Wing wrote.

In his official website, Jackie Chan immediately issued an “apology” expressing regret that his American assistant did not “entirely capture” what he meant to say. “What happened to the Hongkong tourists in the Philippines – being taken hostage and then killed – was a terrible and heartbreaking tragedy. I am 100% Chinese and I’m from Hongkong. I feel grief and pain for the Hongkong citizens who lost their lives during this unfortunate incident, and I deeply sympathize with the families who have lost their loved ones. I sincerely hope that those injured during the ordeal will get well soon.”

“What I wanted to convey was that I won’t hate Filipino people as a result of this tragic incident. There are several hundred thousand Filipinos working in Hongkong, and there are quite a few Hongkong people working in the Philippines as well. If we start hating each other, it will cause great damage to both Hongkong and the Philippines,” Chan said.

The respected South China Morning Post agreed and posted an editorial on August 25 advising its readers that Filipinos are the “wrong targets” of the collective anger of the people. “The actions of a unit of police commandos were not the Filipinos’ doing. Tarring them with the same brush of incompetence isn’t right,” the editorial read, adding that venting anger toward Filipinos “smacks of racism.”

The editorial also criticized the Hongkong government’s issuance of its “highest travel alert for those thinking of going to the Philippines. Based on a single isolated incident, it has determined that a severe threat exists and that all travel should be avoided,” it said. “Travel bans are for safety, not political retribution.”

“The 150,000 Filipinos who live among us in Hongkong and the untold millions in the Philippines who rely on our business and tourism dollars cannot provide what we want to know. They are as much innocent bystanders to the tragedy as we are and deserve to be treated as such,” the editorial said.

On Sunday, August 30, more than 100,000 Hongkong residents staged a march and rally, jointly organized in a rare display of unity by both pro-Communist and pro-democracy political parties, to grieve for the victims of the Manila bus tragedy and, as Tsang Yok-sing, the president of Hong Kong’s Legislative Council, said, “to denounce the unacceptable way the Philippine authorities handled the situation”.

“Everyone saw how the Philippine government mishandled the situation before TV cameras and the chaos in the country,” Andy Wong, 49, said at Sunday’s protest rally. “As a Chinese person, I need to demand justice.”

The Filipino people share the grief and outrage of the Chinese people and of their need to demand justice. But justice should not be blind vengeful retribution directed at all Filipinos.

The hardworking OFWs of Hongkong – modern day slaves – are also victims and also deserve justice.

(Rodel50@aol.com)

After attending the inauguration of President Benigno Simeon “Noynoy” Cojuangco III on June 30, 2010, the US Pinoys for Noynoy, which has been renamed US Pinoys for Good Governance, and together with non-US based leaders of the Overseas Filipino Nation, has embarked into an ambitious patriotic project to help the Philippines pay for its debilitating foreign debts and for its development projects.

The idea is to harness and transform the global Filipinos, starting with the almost 4 million in the United States, to a credit source, thru issuance of Bayan Ko Bonds, to be sold primarily to Filipinos in the United States, but would also be eventually available to the 10 million overseas Filipinos around the world.

At present, almost 35 percent of the Philippine budget is allotted to automatic servicing of its debt of about USD$53 Billion, as mandated by law. The Arroyo administration left the country with empty coffers. This forces us to be niggardly in our spending for much needed education and health services, which amplifies the hardships of the most deprived sectors in our society. Something needs to be done with this massive debt service hemorrhage at the earliest opportunity concurrent with the administration’s vigorous effort to halt the internal leakages from graft and corruption.

Together with their allies from all over the world, US Filipinos are trying to step into the plate to provide the Philippines with an alternate source of credit that would be less costly in real terms compared to conventional external sources. While doing that, rolling over the externally held debt into peso bonds will provide these Filipinos the opportunity to earn a good return on their savings.

An attractive incentive in this Bond offering is the opportunity to double your investment in ten years at an approximate compounded annual rate of 7 plus percent. In this arrangement a PhP 5000 investment in 2010 gets to be redeemed at PhP 10,000 in 2020. These investors also have the option to take on shorter term tenors of 5 years with almost the same pro-rated earnings as the ten-year Bayan Ko Bonds. An indication of its potential is manifested by the popularity, overwhelming unmet demands for, and success of, the PHP Retail Treasury Bonds because of the credibility highs being enjoyed by Noynoy’s presidency.

The objective of this venture is to use the proceeds from these bonds to be split 50/50, half for servicing of the country’s external debt and half for the much-needed development projects in various sectors in the Philippines. The target size of the Bayan Ko Bonds initial issuance is USD$500 Million to USD$1 Billion. Once the kinks are ironed out in the mobilization of funds from what is now recognized as a virtual Overseas Filipino Nation (OFN), then the process can be repeated as often as needed, bounded only by the willingness of the OFN residents to share their fortunes with their native land.

The annual remittances from overseas Filipinos is almost USD$20 Billion. The estimated aggregate income of the 11 million Overseas Filipinos is around USD$500 billion, about 3 times the expected GDP of the Philippines for 2010. The 20 billion dollar remittance which translates into a monthly inflow of about 1.7 billion dollars is just about 4 percent of the total income of the OFN. If OFN residents saved 20% of their income, that would translate into USD$90 Billion savings each year, an enormous untapped potential for investment fund inflows to the Philippines. Indeed, the Global Filipinos, a Sleeping Giant, can be a powerful force in rebuilding the Philippines.

Since the purchase of the Bayan Ko Bonds will be in hard currency, the expected increase of investment inflows will tend to appreciate peso values and would favor the peso holders of the Bayan Ko Bonds, explains New Jersey City University Fil-Am Professor Gil Ramos, who holds a doctorate in monetary economics and proponent of this Bond.

More than 98% of the Filipinos abroad left the Philippines out of necessity. Many of them long to return out of love for their Motherland, to visit or to retire. Inspired by the election of President Noynoy and his policy of good governance, most Filipinos abroad want to help our country eradicate corruption and poverty, and for the Philippines to prosper once again, as a nation with dignity, honor, and pride.

Shoulder-to-shoulder with their fellow Filipinos at home, the Filipinos abroad, can expedite in earnest the transformation of the Philippines into a nation where no crook shall walk on the halls of Congress, no criminal shall go unpunished, no person shall go to bed hungry, no family shall be homeless, no child shall be left behind, and where social justice shall equally serve the poor and the weak, and not just the rich and the powerful.

The Bayan Ko Bonds is not only a benevolent financial investment but a faithful patriotic bet on the return of glory to our beloved land of birth. This alone would be a most inspiring and satisfying yield.#

Email: scalpelpen@gmail.com

From February 2005 to May 2010, I was Vice President for Public Affairs of the University of the Philippines System, serving under UP President Emerlinda R. Roman. Under me were the Information Office, the Office of Alumni Relations of the UP System, and the Gurong Pahinungod.

Because UP was preparing for the celebrations of its Centennial in 2008, our work load—heavy at best—became considerably heavier. A slew of other tasks was added to the regular responsibilities of running three newspapers, maintaining the UP System website, producing regular magazine-sized reports, writing and sending out regular media announcements, providing support for the Office of the President during the annual presentation of the UP Budget to Congress and the campaign in Congress for the approval of the new UP Charter, and providing communications support for the offices of the other Vice Presidents.
Among these additional responsibilities were President Roman’s alumni caravan, which took us around the country to involve UP alumni in the celebration and in the fund-raising campaign; and several special projects—a coffee table book, another book called Kwentong Peyups, a short documentary film, a UP history book project, supplements for the print media, and several Centennial contests (for the Centennial logo, the Centennial literary award, the Centennial song, the Centennial short film, etc.). My Assistant VPs and I worked long hours, including weekends, and out-of-town trips.

Throughout this period, I continued to teach graduate courses–sometimes one, sometimes two, each semester.

On one such weekend in June 2006, Lydia Arcellana (AVP and Director of the Office of Alumni Relations) and I had a lunch meeting with a group of UP alumni at the Dulcinea, a restaurant on Tomas Morato.

On September 14, 2006, UP received a Subpoena from the “Task Force O-Plan Red Plate” of the Office of the Ombudsman, directing it to submit my driver’s Trip Tickets “and all other appurtenant and relative documents authorizing the use of government vehicle with plate no. SET-536 (the car assigned to my office) for the period June 13-28, 2006.” It contained the ominous threat that failure to do so within 3 days of receipt would “merit the filing of criminal charges” as well as administrative charges. The document, signed by Atty. MARK E. JALANDONI, Assistant Ombudsman, “issued by authority of the Honorable Ma. Merceditas Gutierrez, Tanodbayan,” did not state what these “charges” were.

Atty. Marvic Leonen, then UP Vice President for Legal Affairs, assured me there was nothing to worry about. The car might just have been seen outside the UP campus. He would submit the required trip tickets and a letter with a detailed explanation of the nature of my job. This was in September 2006.

Since we did not hear from the Ombudsman again, we assumed the documents were satisfactory. We were wrong.

In May of this year, I officially retired as full-time UP Professor and VP for Public Affairs. On July 12, 2010 (four years after the initial communication), UP received an “Order” from MEDWIN S DIZON, Acting Director, PIAB-A.

Atty. Marvic Leonen had left his post to become Dean of the UP College of Law. So it was Atty. Theodore Te who replaced him as VP for Legal Affairs who helped me plough through the legal jargon to determine what the problem was.

The Ombudsman was claiming that on June 25, 2006, a Sunday, the car assigned to me had been seen in front of Tonton Thai Massage on Tomas Morato Street at 3:30 PM.

The strange thing is that the accompanying photos (the evidence, I assume) showed the car to be parked in front of—not the massage establishment named—but the restaurant Dulcinea with the sign above its entrance prominently shown. And the affidavits of the people who allegedly saw the car and took the photographs—a certain Peter John R. Arellano and a certain Rholie C. Besoña, “Associate Graft Investigation Officers”—did not claim that they had gone inside Tonton Massage to see whether I was indeed there, or that they tried to find the driver and examine his trip ticket. They even got the time wrong. As indicated in the trip ticket earlier submitted, we had left Dulcinea at 1:30 PM.

On the basis of this, my driver and I were being investigated for graft, and for “dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.” Mr. Jacinto claimed that we had “caused undue injury to the government, consisting in (sic) the unnecessary consumption of fuel and undue wear and tear of the vehicle.” He added that this was “flagrant wastage of government funds,” and “showed utter disregard on (sic) the policy that public officers and employees should uphold public interest over and above personal interest.”

Does not working on weekends to raise funds for UP qualify as “upholding public interest over and above personal interest”? Apparently not. For the Ombudsman it might even be a crime.

After we had filed our counter-affidavits, we received yet another “Order” dated August 9, signed by the same Mr. Dizon, concerning the “administrative case” against us. We have complied with more affidavits containing basically the same facts.

I am an elderly academic, with an impeccable record of more than 20 years of public service, and numerous awards, for both my teaching and my writing. The latest is the title Professor Emeritus, surely one of the highest honors UP can confer on one of its own. I cannot understand why the Ombudsman seems determined to believe that I (and my Assistant Vice President and my driver) are lying about our whereabouts on that fateful Sunday, particularly since their own evidence shows my car to be parked in front of the restaurant where we said we were, and their own investigators did not bother to enter the restaurant to confirm this.

I feel most aggrieved. Given the countless cases of blatant graft and corruption, involving billions of pesos, which seem to be resolutely ignored, why am I being singled out for this harassment by the Office of the Ombudsman?

http://www.stuartsantiago.com/why-am-i-being-hounded-by-the-office-of-the-ombudsman/

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, in 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.

Then-Philippine President Ramon Magsaysay reportedly 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.

Instead, Magsaysay and Benigno Simeon “Ninoy” Aquino, Jr. discussed the possibility of Jose Cojuangco Sr., Aquino’s father-in-law, acquiring Hacienda Luisita and Central Azucarera de Tarlac from their Spanish owners.

Magsaysay was a “ninong” (principal sponsor) at the wedding of Ninoy and 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 the 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.” (itals by ed.) 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 was 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 into surrendering 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. They also argued that sugar lands were not covered by existing agrarian reform legislation. Anti-Marcos groups claimed that the government’s case was an act of harassment against Ninoy Aquino’s family.

August 21, 1983After 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, then 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

Then-Agrarian Reform Secretary 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

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 land. The governor of Tarlac province at that time was Margarita “Tingting” Cojuangco, wife of Jose “Peping” Cojuangco, Jr., brother of Cory Aquino.

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 increased to 2-3 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 and 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.

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.

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 on 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.

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 took his oath as the 15th Philippine president.

August 6, 2010

HLI and factions of farmers’ groups signed 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 (SDO), one of the two choices offered by HLI to the farmers in the agreement (the other choice was land distribution). The rival faction also questioned the authority of the signatories in the agreement to represent the plantation’s farmer-beneficiaries.

August 18, 2010

For the first time since the land dispute was brought to its doors four years earlier, the SC heard oral arguments on the Hacienda Luisita case.

Compiled by Andreo Calonzo, Sophie Dedace, Veronica Pulumbarit, Yasmin Arquiza, and Howie Severino, GMANews.TV

http://www.gmanews.tv/story/198854/holding-on-a-hacienda-luisita-timeline-from-the-spanish-to-the-noynoy-eras