I.
1. Did each constitution reflect the context of time when it was made? How so?
It reflected the context of the time when the constitution was made as the contents of the
constitutions were mostly aiming to solve the national issues our country is currently facing, except for the
1973 Constitution where the late dictator failed to bring the four hallmarks of democracy. The 1887 Biak
na Bato Republic Constitution properly fits its context due to the establishment of the revel government led
by Gen. Aguinaldo and the election of the officials of the supreme council which aims to form a government
that will fight against the Spanish colonizers. Similarly, the 1899 Malolos Republic aims to form a
government that will form a revolution against the Spaniards. The 1935 Commonwealth Constitution on
the other hand served as a constitution as the Philippines is just transitioning to independency which turns
out to become more like a western government where it lifted inspiration from the constitution of other
countries. The 1943 Japanese-sponsored Constitution also fit its context because of how it enabled the
Japanese colonizers to take advantage of our natural resources and other resources that our country is rich
in. The 1973 Constitutional Authoritarianism on the other hand did not fit its context due to the lack of
democracy during the Marcos regime. Not a single hallmark of democracy was present during his time;
there was no justice, peace, liberty, and equality for every Filipino people. Its objective was to keep Marcos
as the dictator of the Philippines. Lastly, the 1987 Freedom Constitution fit its context as it was made to
remove the remnants of the dictatorship, and regain democracy in the Philippines. Through this
constitution, the local government was reorganized, the declaration of martial law was modified, and term
limits for officials also received modification to avoid the past from happening again.
2. Determine the importance of the 1987 Constitution as the existing supreme law of our nation to our
society? Do our lawmakers today ensure its sanctity? Why or why not?
Through the constitution acting as the supreme law of the Philippines, it establishes a nation and
its leaders and lawmakers that are within the bounds of fairness to the public. It keeps those in power from
abusing the authority which were granted onto them by the Filipino people. A nation’s constitution is
essential as it sets limits for a country’s government on what they are only allowed to do through learning
what happened in the past which guides the making of a constitution. Unfortunately, today’s lawmakers
are not preserving the sanctity of the current Philippine constitution. How can we say that our nation is
Pro-people, Pro-God, Pro-country, and Pro-family if the ones in power and rich are the only ones benefitting
from the constitution? There is hardly any people empowerment occurring in this time which the 1987
constitution aims to do.
3. Based on the context of how federalism was pushed, as well as its provisions, do you support the urge
to replace the 1987 Constitution with a new one? Why or why not?
I support the urge to replace the 1987 Philippine Constitution as it has already served its purpose
to rehabilitate the Philippines after the years of Marcos’ power of the Philippines and as a supreme law of
our country. Our current constitution has enabled the emergence of political dynasties that is prevalent in
politics. It would most benefit the Filipino people to limit the number of politicians in an extended family to
run for positions in the government as their position is often exploited for their own gain. Moreover, it is
limiting our economic development as the current constitution imposes a ceiling for foreign companies to
invest only up to 40% of shares of the company. Due to this, foreign investors are lacking the incentive to
invest which hampers the development of our economy. Although there were many improvements in the
1987 Constitution, I believe it is time to finally amend the constitution that we have been using for more
than three decades.
III
Program
Friar Lands Act
Grounds and Provisions
The lands owned by the
Americans sold 23 large friar
estates at full cost with interest
to the Filipinos, even if they were
previously owned by their
ancestors.
The government reserves the
title to each and every parcel of
land sold under the provisions of
the Act until the full payment has
been made.
The Civil Governor is authorized
and directed to have careful
examination made to ascertain
sufficiency and soundness of the
titles.
Land Reform Code
It is the duty of the Chief of the
Bureau of Public lands to
ascertain the actual value of the
parcel of land held by each
settler and occupant.
“Agricultural leasehold relation
not extinguished by death or
incapacity of the parties. – In
case of death or permanent
incapacity of the agricultural
lessee, the leasehold shall
continue
between
the
agricultural lessee to work his
landholding personally.”
The
lessee
was
handed
obligations
in
regards
to
maintaining the land such as: to
cultivate and take care of the
farm, inform the agricultural
lessor within a reasonable time of
any trespass committed, keep his
farm and growing crops attended
to during season, notify the
agricultural lessor at least three
days before the date of
harvesting, and to pay the lease
rental to the agricultural lessor
when it falls due.
Effective or Not?
The Friar Lands Act is undeniably
ineffective in providing the
Filipino people of their land.
Because of this act, the Filipinos
were robbed of their own lands,
where the government is forcing
the Filipino farmers to buy the
land their ancestors used.
Moreover, the price of the land
was determined by the Chief of
the Bureau of Public lands which
served as a potential for the chief
to exploit the buyer of land. Not
only must the Filipinos buy the
property at full cost, they must
also pay 4% interest annually
which strains their capability to
buy back their own land even
more.
The Land Reform Code on paper
is an effective program which
protects both the lessee and the
lessor as they are both given
obligations and restrictions with
the aim of keeping fairness from
both parties. However, in
practice, it was not as effective
as planned due to its scope being
limited to only rice and corn lands
living behind other forms of
agriculture that is present in the
Philippines.
Apart from obligations, the
lessee was also prohibited from
doing the following: contracting
work additional landholdings that
belongs to a different agricultural
lessor and to employ a sublessee on his landholding, except
if its laborers have an illness or
temporary incapacity.
Amendment of Land Reform
Code
The Department of Agrarian
Reform was introduced during
the Marcos regime where its
purpose is to carry out the policy
in establishing farms as the basis
of Philippine agriculture. This
department has the authority
and
responsibility
for
the
implementation of policies on
agrarian reforms.
This act aims to protect small
farmers
from
institutional
restrains and practices, apply
labor
laws
without
discrimination, an effective land
distribution,
promote
involvement
of
the
local
government, and evolve a
system of land use and
classification.
GARB: Pro or Anti?
Bona fide farmers without lands
or agricultural owner-cultivators
are helped to acquire and own a
farm unit of not more than six
hectares each.
The main goal of GARB is to
provide farmers agricultural
lands for their own use at no
cost.
GARB has no retention limits
unlike CARP where they are
given 5 hectares for landlords
and 3 hectares for their children.
Title of full emancipation are
issued to farmer-beneficiaries for
their lands.
Similar to the land reform code in
1963, the act also aims to help
the farmers in the Philippines
through their protection. In spite
of the act’s creation, the Marcos
administration was not able to
allocate sufficient funds to
support the Filipino farmers,
making this act once again
ineffective. It is also evident that
there are loop holes that could be
exploited by the rich, which
makes them only richer.
The Genuine Agricultural Reform
Bill is an effective way of
providing small farmers in the
Philippines with lands that will be
used to improve the agricultural
sector of our country. Unlike the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program
(CARP),
GARB
addresses the loopholes that can
be exploited by bigger land
owners that will hinder the small
farmers from earning. Moreover,
if the farmers will receive the
proper budget and protection
from the government, this Act
will be effective for all parties.
IV.
1. Present a sound and logical narrative on how the present-day activism about the farmers’ rights, including
the killings of their leaders and the rallies they often stage on the streets, a consequence of past events?
The activism of farmers about their rights is a consequence of past events. Even from 1902, farmers are
the ones being oppressed by the Americans by taking control of the lands used in large-scale farming, even
up to 1983 where the expropriation of landed estates failed because of the government lacking the
capability to ensure the viability of agricultural colonies or settlements. They are fighting for their rights as
they have been the targets of oppression despite them working tirelessly to provide us Filipinos and our
importers through the practice of agriculture. Throughout history, acts were made that aims to protect the
local farmers. In spite of this, bigger land owners, the rich, and the government still abuse the loopholes
that are present in the laws that were made. An example of this was when farmers in Mindanao fought for
their rights due to the agrarian reform in Tagum City. They were demanding land for peasants, and an end
to the killing of farmers in Mindanao. It is evident that the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Policy enacted
in 1988 has failed, so the farmers are appealing for the Genuine Agrarian Reform Bill (GARB). Farmers up
to day are experiencing the repercussions from the failure of the previous governments in the Philippines.
2. Let’s say that you were a legislator, what law, which embodies your recommended solutions to put the
peasant struggle into halt, would you propose and lobby to the congress? Give at least three salient features
of that legislation.
If I were to become a legislator, I would find ways to incentivize farming as a career and promoting the
exportation of agricultural products to other countries. To convince potential farmers as a choice of career,
giving them benefits such as insurance, acceptable income, programs that will help throughout their career,
and government subsidies that will aid in the equipment that farmers need in maintaining the agricultural
land. This subsidy will cover their daily commodities to ease their way of living. Moreover, to increase the
export rate of our agricultural goods, I would decrease the tariff that companies must pay before
exportation while increasing the tariff on foreign goods. Through the decrease of tariff, local farmers are
given more capability to export goods due to the decreased price. Lastly, giving them loans at 0% interest
if they want to further expand their farm in terms of property size or acquiring more equipment.