Will the farmers, the poor, really do the speaking by themselves, the discerning, the proposing of their own ideas, the planning of how we must as a people come together to work for the common good of the country and of ourselves?
The Second National Rural Congress set to convene on July 7-8, 2008 at the San Carlos Seminary in Guadalupe, Makati opens a door for the rural poor to speak out their concerns.
In a January 2007 Pastoral Statement of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, the bishops called for a holding of a Second National Rural Congress (NRC-II) to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the First Rural Congress of 1967. That same statement pointed out the “inequitable distribution of the nation’s wealth and the endemic social injustices” as the root cause of the prevalent evil of poverty that stalks majority of Filipinos, particularly those in the rural areas.
NRC-II will mostly comprise the rural poor who will do the talking themselves, as the pastoral statement avers—a stark departure from the 1967 Rural Congress composed mostly of intellectuals who deliberated on the concerns of the poor.
Rightly so, this attempt of the Church to give voice to the poor bolsters her desire to live out the call of the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines (PCP-II) held in 1991 to become the “Church of the Poor.”
PCP-II described the poor sectors (peasant farmers, fisherfolks, indigenous people, elderly, women, youth, disabled, urban poor) as the “minorities” because of the scant attention given to their plight by the government and the Church to some extent. The same Council document noted that the imbalance in the distribution of the country’s resources contributes in making the countryside remain mired in poverty.
Meanwhile, that same January 2007 CBCP statement pointed out the comprehensive land reform program as a means to alleviate rural poverty—an effort which the government pursued only half-heartedly to the consternation of poor farmers.
The problem of landlessness adds to a host of other factors that define rural poverty.
Landlessness – a continuing problem
Land problem in the country traces its roots as early as the Spanish era. Then the political elite comprising a tiny percentage of population owned large tracts of agricultural lands tilled by paid laborers who work either as tenants or sharecroppers.
Philippine society has long been characterized by a glaring divide between the haves and the have-nots. The poor tenants who have no resources of their own rely heavily on the landlord’s magnanimity to provide for their needs, thus forever keeping them indebted and unable to break the cycle of dependency and poverty.
During the presidency of Ferdinand Marcos in the 1970’s, land reform was instituted to address the problem of poverty and inequality. The program however, was regarded as a total failure. It eventually spawned a Maoist-style rebellion that until now has not been fully quashed although has lessened its strength in terms of ideology and manpower.
When Corazon Aquino became president, she signed the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law paving for millions of hectares of arable lands to become eligible for Agrarian Reform Program. But a landlord dominated Congress had totally emasculated the law and an indifferent government bureaucracy failed to push the proper implementation of the program. Considered the centerpiece of Aquino administration, the comprehensive agrarian reform program was touted to be the solution that would bring peace and development in the countryside that had long been overdue. However, twenty years after the law was signed, still millions of hectares of lands remain undistributed, mostly haciendas owned by rich landowners, including those owned by the families of former President Aquino and husband of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
Meanwhile, the peasants have found their voice and become active advocates of land reform programs with the support of non-government organizations and people’s organizations who have taken up their cause and advocacy.
The Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)
The Agrarian Reform Program was mandated by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law issued on June 10, 1988 with the goal to distribute lands to landless peasants in 10 years. But due to various constraints, lack of budget allocations for one, the full implementation was extended for another 10 years.
The agrarian reform program aimed for a more equitable distribution and ownership of land with a provision of just compensation for landowners. Thus undertaken, it was seen as a better way “to provide farmers and farmworkers with the opportunity to enhance their dignity and improve the quality of their lives through greater productivity of agricultural lands.”
During the Plenary Assembly of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines last January 2007, the CBCP issued a call for the extension of CARP with necessary reforms to ultimately meet its objectives. The same Pastoral Statement also called for the convening of a Second National Rural Congress (NRC-II) in time for its 40th anniversary to address the prevailing problem of landless peasants.
Archbishop Antonio J. Ledesma, chairperson of NRC-II, together with other bishops met with legislators in three separate caucuses to discuss the extension of the CARP with necessary reforms.
“As Catholic bishops, pastors, and teachers, we listened to the voices of the rural poor and civil society organizations (CSOs) working with them and, as we sat in dialogue with legislators, we sought to address CARP and Agrarian Reform through the lens of our faith, because so much is at stake in moral and human terms,” Ledesma said in a reflection delivered at a mass during the 20th anniversary of CARL at the National Shrine of St. Michael and Archangels in Malacañang last June 10.
On June 10, the 20 years of CARP reached its end with Congress failing to act on its extension, this despite the combined efforts of the Catholic Church, NGOs and people’s organization in lobbying for the extension of CARP with Reforms bill.
The First Rural Congress
When the National Congress for Rural Development was conceived in 1967, the Philippines was chosen as a venue because of the social problems existing at that time. As Pope Paul VI suggested then, the Philippines being the only Christian nation in Asia, it may, “more conscientiously bear witness to Christ in the midst of Non-Christian and predominantly Rural Asia.” The late Pope also underscored the fact that being a Christian nation, the Philippines becomes an ideal catalyst for deliberations and generation of ideas that could help in finding answers to solve the problems that overwhelm the rural and agricultural communities.
The Rural Congress whose theme was “Man and the land in the Philippines in the Light of Vatican II” drew heavily from the teachings of the Church as a guide in its reflections and discussions. The congress also adopted the slogan “The Church goes to the barrio”, a call on the Church to a deeper involvement into the plight of the poor. Then as it is still now to some extent, the rural areas were the spots often overlooked by the government’s development programs and services and Church’s pastoral concern. The call for the Church’s involvement in rural issues spawned the formation of diocesan social action centers, rural cooperatives, advocacy groups for agrarian reforms, and others.
But has the Church’s “going to the barrio” done enough to help alleviate the plight of the rural poor? Forty years since the first rural congress, the situation of the rural poor remains in its pitiful state and begs to be addressed. Still the same challenges confront us: injustices, landlessness, environmental destruction, lack of decent housing, exploitation and extra-judicial killings.
This reality was well summed up in a message delivered by Pope Paul VI on the occasion of the first rural congress which still rings true even up today. “In many underdeveloped regions there are large or even extensive rural estates which are only slightly cultivated or lie completely idle for the sake of profit, while the majority of the people either are without land or have only very small fields, and, on the other hand, it is evidently urgent to increase the productivity of the fields. Not infrequently those who are hired to work for the landowners or who till a portion of the land as tenants receive a wage or income unworthy of a human being, lack decent housing, and are exploited by middle men. Deprived of all security, they live under such personal servitude that almost every opportunity of acting on their own initiative and responsibility is denied to them and all advancement in human culture, sharing in social and political life is forbidden to them.”
Bottom-up approach
Changing its paradigm from that of the first rural congress, the NRC-II planning committee, right from the beginning had adapted a see-judge-act methodology following a bottom-up approach carried out in three stages. The first stage involved local consultations done in two parallel tracks. On the diocesan level, (ad intra) 80 consultations were completed on the role of BECs in rural development facilitated by the National Secretariat for Social Action (NASSA), CBCP-BEC Office and Episcopal Commission for Indigenous Peoples (ECIP). Parallel to it was the 13 sub-regional consultations (ad extra) that dealt on rural poverty issues among basic sectors handled by the Philippine-Misereor Partnership (PMP), the Association of Major Religious Superiors of the Philippines (AMRSP), and the Rural Poor Solidarity (RPS), an alliance of non-government and people organizations engaged in rural issues. These parallel consultations were accomplished in a span of six months, from November 2007 to April 2008.
Regional Congresses
The first stage laid down the ground work for the regional congresses which constitute Phase Two of the NRC II. Considered the most important part of the NRC II, as it is in here that the consolidated reports collated at the first stage will be discussed and participants will be able to center on localized issues and action plans.
The regions were divided into five clusters―two in Luzon (Luzon North and Luzon South), another two in the Visayas (Western Visayas, Central and Eastern Visayas) and one in Mindanao.
True to its commitment of giving a chance to the poor to speak out their concerns and be heard, participants to the regional congresses represented various sectors among the rural poor – farmers, fisherfolks, indigenous people, women, elderly and youth.
The Social Teachings of the Church served as a framework in the analysis of the consultation outputs.
Realities
Indeed the regional consultations gave an opportunity to the rural poor to voice out their concerns and show the reality of their existence. The workshops output highlighted their pitiful social condition as well as their struggle to live a life befitting a human being with dignity. Although representatives came from different regions and have diverse experiences, certain commonalities emerged in their sharing: lack of social services, no land to own and till, youth having no access to education, environmental degradation, injustices, illegal encroachment, etc.
The consultations centered on the following questions: First on the prevailing situation in the community and the factors that contribute to the situation. These questions comprise aspects of land, produce, programs and social services, marketing and other areas not specified. The second question deals on the response of government, Church, and NGOs and POs. The third aspect of the workshop dealt on recommendations and proposals from delegates.
High expectations
The NRC-II will convene a nationwide assembly at the San Carlos Seminary in Guadalupe, Makati. It expects to gather close to two hundred delegates all over the country, half of which will be representatives of the rural poor.
High expectations are being generated by the National Rural Congress. Various non-government and people’s organizations that have not been part of the entire process have expressed their desire to participate in the final phase of the congress.
In fact, representatives from various sectors as well as government officials will be invited to the congress so they will hear first hand the concerns of the poor. It is also in view of a post NRC-II scenario of engaging government, business leaders and other sectors to work together for the realization of the outcome of the congress.
Without doubt the statement that will be formulated at the end of the congress will propose a challenge to both Church and government who certainly have the greater responsibility to respond positively to meet the basic needs of the poor sectors of society. The same argument can be said to our poor brothers and sisters who are also in constant struggle to live a dignified life befitting a human being.
Indeed, the congress is an opportunity for the Church and the rest of Filipinos, especially the rural poor to tackle head on the root cause of rural poverty. But still, some nagging questions beg to be asked. Will this second National Rural Congress bring about the desired change all of us aspire for? Will it truly lead to the social transformation of our rural society so deeply mired in poverty because of indifference and neglect? Will the poor peasants for whom this Congress was organized to give them a voice will go home convinced they have been listened to if ever they had been given the chance to speak?
And the most important question of all—is the Church really serious in its preferential option for the poor?
No comments:
Post a Comment