Category: Documents

Your Excellencies, I am writing this letter from my heart, I am expressing myself as a faithful lay person. I am doing this in my baptismal vocation to voice out what I know is right as a Catholic. I am doing this in good faith with one motive: to express my thoughts regarding politics and the way our Church is dealing with it. I am not worried about what people will say or think about me writing you.  I am more worried about what God will say about me if I do not share you these thoughts which are based from my personal views, experiences and observations.

 “Why Are We What We Are Today…?”

The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) in its 1997 Pastoral Exhortation on Philippine Politics asked the question: Why are we what we are today- a country with a great number of poor and powerless people?

The CBCP answered its own question in this manner: “Philippine politics, the way it is practiced has been most hurtful for us as a people, it is possibly the biggest bane in our life as a nation as a nation and the most pernicious obstacle to our achieving full development.  If we are what we are today- a country with great number of poor and powerless people- one reason is we have allowed politics to be debased and prostituted to the level it is now.”

The Bishops’ Call to the Laity

Expressing concern for this sorry state of affairs in the country due to politics, in 1991, during the PCP II, the bishops, have collectively called upon the laity to actively participate in politics. “In the Philippines today given the general perception that politics has become an obstacle to integral development, the urgent necessity is for the lay faithful to participate more actively, with singular competence and integrity, in political affairs. It is through the laity that the Church is directly involved” Quoting PCP II, the bishops further said, “Our Plenary Council stands on record to urge lay faithful to participate actively and lead in the renewing of politics in accordance with values of the Good News of Jesus.”

Probably, the bishops then asked, and still perhaps are asking these critical questions: Who is going to respond to this call? Who is willing to begin? What needs to be started? Are there lay men and women out there with ideas and vision who are ready to restore the temporal order and bring back God at the center of politics?

Responding to the Bishops’ Call

In response to this call of PCP II, in August 2002, Nandy Pacheco, along with other lay faithful, formed the Kapatiran sa Pangkalahatang Kabutihan (KPK).  This was our way of eloquently expressing our “Christian obedience” to our bishops as Church leaders.

KPK was established to develop an enlightened, mature, and responsible citizenry from which servant-leaders can be chosen, through character-building, values formation based on the Social Teaching of the Church, consistent ethic of life, good citizenship, catechesis and political education, and to encourage the formation of responsible and accountable political parties. This is in accord with the pronouncement of Pope Benedict XVI when he said “the specific mission of the laity is Christian action in the public sphere, where they act on their own initiative and in an independent manner, in the light of faith and the Church’s teaching.

It is worthy to note that it is not the purpose of KPK (now Ang Kapatiran Party) to lead this country by using the Catholic dogma.  That would be dictatorship. We party members are neither minions of the Catholic bishops. That would be indentured servitude.

AKP has clear and specific objectives in its platform-based politics, the politics of virtue and of duty, and politics of transparency and public accountability, and to draw up a list of aspirations. Examples of these objectives are the abolition of pork barrel, family political dynasties, fighting the RH law, gambling and promoting gun control.

On May 8, 2004, two days before the national elections, the Commission on Elections accredited the Alliance for the Common Good, otherwise known as Ang Kapatiran Party, as a national political party.  The party took part in the 2007 elections with three senatorial candidates and some local candidates.  In 2010, Ang Kapatiran Party had a presidential candidate and vice presidential candidate and seven senatorial candidates.  We AKP candidates lost the elections but did not lose the Catholic principles which got us involved in politics. Indeed, we accepted the challenge to run for elective positions (I ran for a senate seat) under AKP. But we didn’t get enough support from our own flock including our church.  Many of our brethren thought we AKP candidates were outlandish.  They thought that our efforts were inutile that we cannot outsmart those candidates who were popular and moneyed.   Indeed, we AKP candidates were not only aware of the financial difficulties of the party but also we were willing to be misunderstood and, worse, ridiculed.

Ang Kapatiran Party (now Kapatiran Party) is the only political party, a laity-organized party that seriously responded to the call of the bishops by bringing forth strong lay leadership specifically focused on the renewal of the temporal order.   It is the only political party that has a role model in the persons of St. Thomas More and the late president Ramon Magsaysay.  It has a theme song whose title is “Pananagutan” which expresses the very essence of what Ang Kapatiran Party is all about. It is the only party that pursues and accepts Christ’s peace with love, justice, truth, reconciliation, freedom and active non-violence.

No less than the late Eminence Jaime Cardinal Sin referred to Kapatiran as “a group of concerned Catholic laity who wanted to contribute to the social transformation by raising the political awareness and maturity of our people.”  Certainly, AKP is the closest political party that the Church has in mind because it champions a wide spectrum of Her teachings as part of its platform of government.

Manifesto of the Federation of Free Farmers (FFF) and the Federation of Free Farmers Cooperatives (FFFC)

During its recent annual national meetings, the National Convention and National Policy Board (NPB) of the Federation of Free Farmers (FFF) and the General Assembly and National Board of Directors of the Federation of Free Farmers Cooperatives (FFFC) unanimously resolved to aggressively campaign against the candidacy of Senator Cynthia Villar who is running for re-election to the Senate.

The FFF and FFFC have taken note of the series of actions of Senator Villar which have been seriously detrimental to the interests of the millions of small farmers in the country, to wit:

1. Senator Villar was the principal author and proponent of the Rice Tariffication Law (RA 11203).  The country was obliged under our commitments to the World Trade Organization (WTO) only to remove the quantitative restrictions (QRs) on rice imports and replace them with tariffs.  Senator Villar however pushed for a law which also deregulated and liberalized the rice industry and removed most of the powers of the National Food Authority (NFA) to monitor and regulate the industry, thus making it easier for smugglers and unscrupulous grains businessmen to take advantage of both consumers and farmers.  The Rice Tariffication Law also clipped the functions of the NFA both in terms of supplying cheap rice to poor consumers and providing farmers with a support price in case farmgate prices go down drastically.  The law further removed the option of the government under WTO rules to reimpose quanti-tative restrictions on imports when needed, not only for rice but for all other crops.
   Even before the Law could take effect, palay prices have already gone down to as low as P14 per kilo, or P6 per kilo lower than their levels last year.  If this trend continues, farmers will end up losing P75 billion in 2019 alone for the palay they sell to the local market.  Once the tariffication law takes effect, more imports are expected to come in and further depress prices, resulting in even more losses to farmers who are already reeling from the effects of the El Nino drought. 
   Poor consumers are also expected to suffer because of the Tariffication Law provision that NFA’s buffer stocks can only be released during calamities and emergencies.  Additionally, NFA will now be required to sell at at least break-even prices, and will probably auction its stocks to the highest bidders.  This means that the P27 NFA rice will most probably disappear from the market and poor consumers will now have to spend more to buy rice in the open market.
   Senator Villar is directly responsible for the harm that the Rice Tariffication Law will surely bring to consumers and farmers.  During the Senate hearings, she refused to listen to the concerns of farmer representatives and heed their advise on how to cushion the effect of rice tariffication on rice farmers.  
2. As Chairperson of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Senator Villar was also responsible for sitting on the consolidated Senate Coconut Levy bill during the 16th Congress and then the crafting of the revised Coconut Level bill in the current 17th Congress which President Duterte eventually vetoed.  This has led to further delays in the utilization of the coconut levy funds for the benefit of coconut farmers, all of whom have been suffering from the extremely low prices for copra and raw coconut.
3. Senator Villar has also failed to conduct any substantive hearing on various bills filed in the Senate to legislate important land use policies, particularly those that will govern the conversion of agricultural lands into non-agricultural uses.  In comparison, the House of Representatives had approved and passed on third reading their own version of the Land Use Act in previous years
4. Senator Villar has also blocked initiatives to increase the capitalization and enlarge the scope of the crop insurance program despite the fact that such a program is critical to protect farmers from recurring calamities and damages from pest and diseases.  Without crop insurance, farmers’ loans will remain unpaid and farmers will not be able to immediately recover from calamities and crop damage.

Candidates AGAINST Federalism

1. Alejano, Garry
2. Aquino, Bam
3. Binay, Nancy
4. Colmenares, Nery
5. De Guzman, Leody
6. Diokno, Chel
7. Gutoc, Samira
8. Hilbay, Pilo
9. Javellana, RJ
10. Macalintal, Macaromy
11. Matula, Jose Sonny
12. Montaño, Allan
13. Osmena, Serge
14. Poe, Grace
15. Roxas, Mar
16. Tanada, Erin
17. Villar, Cynthia

Candidates with NO POSITION on Federalism

1. Aguilar, Freddie
2. Angara, Sonny
3. Arias, Marcelino
4. Austria, Bernard
5. Casiño, Toti
6. Ejercito, JV
7. Gadon, Larry
8. Guiyaguma, Junbert
9. Jangao, BFG Abraham
10. Lapid, Lito
11. Manicad, Jiggy
12. Meniano, Luther
13. Roleda, Dan
14. Sahidulla, Lady Ann
15. Valdes, Butch

Candidates IN FAVOR of Federalism

1. Abejo, Vangie
2. Afuang, Abner
3. Albani, Shariff
4. Alfajora, Richard
5. Alunan, Raffy
6. Arcega, Gerald
7. Arellano, Ernesto
8. Baldevarona, Jonathan
9. Caceres, Jesue
10. Cayetano, Pia
11. Chavez, Melchor
12. Chong, Glenn
13. Dela Rosa, Bato
14. Escudero, Agnes
15. Estrada, Jinggoy
16. Francisco, Elmer
17. Gaddi, Charlie
18. Generoso, Gen Federalismo
19. Go Bong-Go
20. Mallillin, Emily
21. Mangondato, Faisal
22. Mangudadato, Dong
23. Marcos, Imee
24. Nalliw, Joah Sheelah
25. Ong, Doc Willie
26. Padilla, Dado
27. Pimentel, Koko
28. Ponce Enrile, Juan
29. Revilla, Bong
30. Tolentino, Francis

No To Con-Ass

We, the undersigned academics and professionals, are expressing our deep concern as regards the process of reviewing and possibly amending our Constitution.

We acknowledge the importance of discussing ways to improve governance in the country, particularly when it comes to a possible shift to a new, federal form of government. Some of us actually support federalism, while others oppose it. We have nevertheless united in this common statement to acknowledge the importance of evidence-based debate and discussion to root out the main benefits and costs of such a reform.

Given the far-reaching implications of this reform, we believe the process must be much more participatory—including not just those who are for this reform, but also those who oppose it. International policy experience and evidence suggests that constitutional reforms are more effective if deliberations are front-loaded at the crafting stage, rather than belatedly appended once these reforms are already ratified.

The present environment is not conducive to reforming the constitution. The most recent nationwide surveys of SWS and Pulse Asia last March 2018 show that only 25% of our citizens sufficiently understand our existing constitution, while only 37% support the shift to federalism. 64% are against charter change. ‘Changing the Constitution’ also ranked last in the ‘most urgent national concerns’ with only 3% of the Filipinos saying that it should be acted upon immediately.

We do not support calls to channel this reform through a Constituent Assembly.

Almost 80% of Congress is comprised of political dynasties, and the empirical evidence suggests that a majority of them may face deep conflict of interest if a new constitution aims for reforms that level the political playing field. The risk of capture by vested interests affecting our present politics is too great.

We do not support calls to postpone or cancel elections in 2019.

Finally, we believe that there are more pressing and immediate policy challenges that our leaders must address. The rising death toll linked to the anti-drugs campaign, which now includes many children and young people. The killings of political leaders and priests also further raise the spectre of injustice. Rising prices of basic commodities, transportation and other needs are also hitting the poor, our workers, and millions of low income households. If these are unresolved, then how can we credibly unite around “rule of law” and “human rights” under an amended constitution?