After 40 years: NRC 2

I attended the Second National Rural Congress (NRC2) yesterday and today.  This is the culmination of a yearlong process of local rural congresses and various activities that involved the church and the rural poor.  The First NRC was 41 years ago and it was entitled, “National Congress for Rural Development.”  According to Abp. Tony Ledesma, NRC 1 was held in February 5-11, 1967 in Manila, Los Banos, and Cagayan de Oro.  Its theme was “the church goes to the barrio.”    

 

Forty years after, the CBCP issued a pastoral statement calling for the extension of the CARP “defective as it may be.”  It also called for the institutionalization of reforms in the program so it could be better implemented.  The statement took a step further when it announced the convening of a second NRC.  As such, beginning July 2007 until July 2008, bishops, priests, nuns, and the religious listened to the peasants, indigenous peoples, and rural women.  They also joined the efforts of the rural poor to protect their rights and restore their dignity.  In congress, for instance, 39 bishops wrote to the legislators seeking the passage of the bill on CARP extension with reforms (CARPER).  When the agrarian reform committee at the lower house was set to vote on the substitute bill on CARPER, several bishops celebrated a mass at Batasan.  This prevented the anti-CARP legislators to vote against the bill.  Magically, all that Pabling Garcia was able to muster was a lame abstain vote.    

 

In the land cases of farmers like the Sumilao case, the church extended all possible support to the farmers.  From Mindanaw to Manila, from one diocese to another, bishops, priests, nuns, and the religious gave food, shelter, clothing, and financial help to the farmers.  They spoke on behalf of the tired farmers and the President yielded to the pressure.  On December last year, the revocation of SMFI’s conversion order and the church’s commitment to see the case through provided the aces that made SMFI sit on the negotiation table.  Three months after, four princes of the church, Cardinal Rosales, Bp. Pabillo, Abp. Ledesma, and Bp. Pacana, served as the farmers voice in the settlement. 

 

The theme of the NRC 2, which was also the title of the pastoral statement, is “the dignity of the rural poor: a gospel concern.”  It used three methods in arriving at conclusions: see, judge, and act.  For a year, the church saw, heard, and judged for itself the situation of the rural poor.  It was like the good Samaritan (and not the priest nor the levite) that stopped near the robbed and ailing man.  The church lingered and pondered.  The process is not yet through for it would still act.

 

I am excited about the possible outcomes, in particular, about the statement, of the NRC 2.  The process could yield mechanisms that could open doors for sustained church and rural poor engagement.  However, given the many disappointments and frustrations I have against certain people and groups, I have tempered my expectations. 

 

Still, when I think of the bishops we have worked with in the past year – Abp. Ledesma, Abp. Lagdameo, Bp. Pabillo, Abp. Cruz, Abp. Arguelles, Abp. Palma, Bp. Pacana, Bp. Iñiguez – and how the peasants were able to build relations with them, I begin to conclude that the NRC 2 is a resounding success.  That in itself is a victory.  My bonus came when when I heard Bp. Ambo David and Bp. Chito Tagle speak today at the congress.  GerryBu correctly concluded that if they would be the next leaders of the church, the rural poor are in good hands.

 

Let me digress: I am thrilled to be a part of the NRC2; not just in the various processes but also in its culmination event at the San Carlos Seminary.  The last was 40 years ago.  On NRC 3 I would be old and gray and gracious and grandiose.  In that occasion, I would be sharing with mid-aged development workers, alternative lawyers, and executive directors my experiences during the second NRC.  I would be name dropping the bishops that I had workshops with, I would be reminiscent, I would be full of wise and cool words.  I would recall that I was 30, and not a Catholic, during the second NRC.

 

 

Buklod-Bakod: DLSU and ADMU

Last Saturday, students from De La Salle and Ateneo de Manila went to Barangays Baha and Talibayog in Calatagan, Batangas to help the farmers fence their property.  The campaign, which was launched that day, was entitled “Buklod-Bakod para sa lupa ng Calatagan: Defending their rights, fencing their claims.”  The premise is clear: the farmers own the land, they say who gets in and who are not allowed inside.

 

The students – along with farmers groups like PAKISAMA, religious organizations like SLB, and NGO workers – were there to fence the rights of the farmers.  In this sense, the campaign is not just literal or the setting up of physical fences.  It is likewise figurative: it is the creation of human fences, of people who would insist on social justice, defend the rights of farmers, talk on their behalf, and tell their stories.  

 

The imperative for Buklod-Bakod came when Asturias Chemical Industry attempted to enter the barangays twice.  It wanted to bring inside their materials for the planned relocation site.  Unfortunately for them, the farmers barricaded the entrance and were knowledgeable on their rights.  They insist on their land ownership by virtue of their agrarian titles.  They have fully paid for their lands.  Despite Asturias’s name dropping, the farmers stood their ground. 

 

Still, Buklod-Bakod is not only a defensive campaign.  It is also offensive for it aims to generate public support for the calls of the Calatagan farmers: protect their Emancipation Patents, cancel the Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) of Asturias, and demand the issuance of a Presidential Proclamation stating that the land is agricultural.

  

I was proud of the La Salle and Ateneo students during the Buklod-Bakod launching.  Come Sunday, they would be the fiercest rivals in the men’s basketball game of the 71^st season of UAAP.  But that day, hand-in-hand with the Calatagan farmers, they carried and cut bamboos, hammered nails into fences, and dug holes so that posts could be put up.  It was as if the basketball game is not several hours away. 

 

Ateneo won the game with a 6-point margin.  I could just imagine the happiness in Katipunan in the same way that I could imagine the collective sadness at DLSU.  I remember when DLSU lost the championship to Ateneo in 2002.  That night, the mood in the campus was grim it could be described as community-based melancholy.  Losing a championship is sad; and to lose it to Ateneo adds insult to injury, salt to wound.  I remember reading Br. Rolly Dizon’s letter to the Lasallian community saying, “be humble in victory, be gracious in defeat.”  Only those who were made of sterner stuff (defined as “mga kumain ng ulam na maraming vetsin mula nung bata sila”) were able to be gracious in spite of the agony. 

 

Hence, to see students of the two universities together in a place far from Manila, listening to farmers, and stretching their bones is a sight to behold.  The scene lacks the intensity of a competitive game, but it has the serenity and warmth of a community bayanihan.

 

Truly, “the best offence is the fence.”  Five-o-seven!