 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
 |
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
||||||||
University Hotel
University of the Philippines Campus
Diliman, Quezon City
23 April 2009
8:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m.
“Agrarian Reform and Human Dignity: Converging Perspectives and Actions for the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Extension with Reforms (CARPER)”
Welcome Remarks
delivered by:
ATTY. LEILA M. DE LIMA
Chairperson, Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines
Good morning to all of you.
First of all, allow me to express my thanks, for the work put in by the organizers of this conference. The subject of agrarian reform does not always receive the attention that it rightfully deserves. That is why the Commission on Human Rights deeply appreciates efforts such as this, which seek to draw attention to, and illuminate, this issue of national importance.
In attendance here today are various and diverse individuals and institutions, all of whom have a stake in the outcome of agrarian reform in the Philippines . We come from different backgrounds. Our organizations play different roles. We bring different experiences and expertise to the table.
But we are one in the recognition that we benefit as a society, when progress is made toward a more equitable distribution of land. That is where we find common cause here today. This is where our paths coincide.
The inequitable distribution of land in the Philippines is a problem with many causes, many effects, and many interests which seek to preserve the status quo. Our response must be equal to the magnitude of the task at hand.
It is therefore heartening to see the presence at this conference, of representatives from the academe and civil society, international organizations and people's organizations, and the legislative and executive departments of government, among others. We are here to listen, to discuss, and to learn. We are here to coordinate, to seek synergies, and to plan our way forward.
The problem we face is multifaceted, but so too is our response. Proponents of the status quo may band together, but so have we. Vested interests may arm themselves with weapons and bribes and dubious arguments, but we have armed ourselves with the knowledge that the time of monolithic ownership of land, here in our country, has passed.
The tide has turned. We are not content to be a society where only a few control the land on which the many eke out a life of subsistence or something less. We are not satisfied with an arrangement which perpetuates poverty from father to daughter, from mother to son, from generation to generation ad infinitum. We do not accept this propagation of hopelessness, this institutionalization of despair.
The tide has turned because we have come to the realization that our lives are more interconnected than we might have previously thought.
Where farmers can achieve an adequate standard of living, domestic demand is created, for the goods and services that businesses offer. Where there is greater demand for these goods and services, business picks up, and jobs are created. Where enough people in rural communities can provide their children with a good education, the stage is set for an increase in the country's middle class, raising domestic demand even more, creating even more jobs, affecting us all.
And if people in general believe that they have a just share in our country's prosperity, then they will work even harder to protect the democratic institutions, which make that shared prosperity possible.
In essence, the tide has turned because we do not accept the historically unjust distribution of land ownership, and because we realize that one of the keys to unlocking our future prosperity is found in releasing the potential of our farmers and rural communities.
Having said that, allow me to discuss, for a moment, one reason there has been a shift toward agrarian reform, and away from the old, inequitable system of land ownership. This reason centers on the recognition of the importance and legally binding nature of international and national human rights law.
Specifically, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program is significant because it is one step taken to achieve the realization of the right to an adequate standard of living, to adequate food, and to the highest attainable standard of physical health, in our rural communities. In conjunction with this, the Program is also a government measure aimed at meaningfully ensuring the right to life.
All of us possess certain equal and inalienable rights. These rights do not depend on how we act, or what we say, or what we think. These rights are not something bestowed upon us by the government, or by other people. Instead, these rights are possessed by all of us, because we are human beings.
One of the most fundamental of these human rights is the right to life. Without it, all other rights are rendered meaningless. Express recognition of the right to life is found in our Constitution which says that, “No person shall be deprived of life … without due process of law.”
In addition, at the international level, the Government of the Philippines is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That covenant provides that, “Every human being has the inherent right to life. … No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”
Furthermore, that covenant obligates the Government of the Philippines to, “respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction,” this right to life.
What does this mean? It means that the Philippine government took on an international legal obligation. The government obligated itself to respect and ensure this inherent right to life.
But what about those aspects of life, without which, life itself would be rendered nearly meaningless?
Life becomes a cruel joke when a child is faced with constant hunger daily. The hunger gnaws away at the child, weakening bones, eating away at muscle, preventing clear thought, dulling the mind, robbing her of joy and hope. Where is the respect for the right to life there?
Life becomes a cruel joke when a young child constantly succumbs to preventable disease. For lack of clean water, nourishing food, a clean environment, or access to vaccines, a child's life is stunted. Again, where is the meaningful respect for the right to life there?
At the international level, the Government of the Philippines is a party to another covenant, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. That covenant recognizes, “the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food.” That covenant also recognizes, “the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical … health and human development.”
Furthermore, that covenant obligates the Government of the Philippines to, “take steps … to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization,” of these rights. The covenant mentions, “the adoption of legislative measures,” as one of these steps.
What does this mean? It means that the Philippine government took on another set of international legal obligations. The government obligated itself to take steps, to the maximum of its available resources, to progressively achieve the full realization of the right to an adequate standard of living, to adequate food, and to the highest attainable standard of physical health for and development of, its people.
The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, from its inception under the Aquino administration, had been one such step taken, in the form of a legislative measure, to achieve the full realization of these rights.
By attempting to correct the historically inequitable distribution of land ownership, the Program sought to provide farmers with the means to move from a life of subsistence, to an adequate standard of living. By attempting to give ownership and control to the farmer, the Program sought to stabilize the food supply of the farmer's family. By attempting to provide an adequate standard of living, the Program sought to meet the health needs, among others, of the farmer's family.
And by attempting to do all these, the CARP has been a government measure aimed at ensuring, in a meaningful way, the right to life, of people in rural communities.
As was stated in the Vienna Declaration, which was promulgated at the World Conference on Human Rights, the rights found in the two covenants, namely, the right to life, the right to an adequate standard of living, to adequate food, and to the highest attainable standard of physical health and the right to development, are indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated.
Having said that, was the CARP a perfect measure? No, it was not. Was it implemented the way it was intended? No, it was not, as well.
However, in terms of both land and beneficiaries, was the Program more comprehensive in its coverage than any other land reform measure which came before it? Yes, it was. Did it contribute substantially to the improvement of the quality of life of a significant number of beneficiaries? Arguably, yes, it did.
In fact, while there are still a vast number of instances where land distribution had failed, instanced by the constant picketing at the DAR and DA offices in Quezon Circle, and at times, very controversial, such as the Sumilao farmers case, agrarian reform, as a whole, has not been given the credit that it deserves. The fact of the matter is that vast tracts of land had already been distributed.
But it is not enough. Much of the land that had been distributed does not include those with adversarial or resistant claims, which, from the top of my head, could cover easily as much as half the land earmarked for the CARP.
At this point, both from an economic and human rights perspectives, would it be beneficial to extend the CARP, in order to allow it to complete its mandate, and finish the balance of land to be distributed? Absolutely.
Much is left to be discussed. Many details of an extension need to be addressed. These include the amount to be appropriated for the extension period, and its sources, safeguards regarding the identification and selection of beneficiaries, the mainstreaming of women in the bill, scrutinizing non-redistributive schemes such as the stock distribution option and leaseback arrangement, the issue of land conversion, the streamlining of the adjudication process, the recognition of the standing of farmers, the provision of agricultural credit, the planning and implementation of support services such as the Agrarian Reform Communities, increased transparency and accountability as the Program implementation continues, increased vigilance as the extension bill is debated, and modifications proposed, and more.
But more than the details and the technicalities, what we need is a final push – one that requires a monumental upheaval in the status quo. It is an upheaval that requires the sacrifice of the few for the benefit of the many. The remaining land that has yet to be distributed belongs to the elite landed class – where there is a concentration of money, influence, even magnanimity. Among the members of both houses of Congress, who are represented here today, are part of this elite. What we need is not just all this empty rhetoric about the good that agrarian reform has done. We do not need more prattle about an extension, funding, strategy, distribution. For the tide to truly turn into a tidal wave of change that the authors of the CARP had envisioned, we need the last remaining hold outs, the landed elite, to concede to the greater good, to show this last act of magnanimity of the landlord to the tenants. So the message is directed to our representatives from Congress – may your members set the example.
Many of our countrymen still wait in vain, not just for the promise of agrarian reform, but for meaningful governmental intervention in alleviating the poverty that permeates the rural countryside. To all of you, I look forward to a fruitful and informative discussion in devising the way forward in agrarian reform.
Maraming salamat at mabuhay kayong lahat..