A Pastoral Letter on Human Rights

To all our Catholic Faithful and all People of Good Will:

One hundred years ago, on June 12, 1898, we as a people declared our independence from three hundred years of colonial rule.  Fifty years later, on December 10, 1948, the United Nations approved the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “one of the highest expressions of the human conscience of our time” (John Paul II, Address to the United Nations, no. 2, New York, 5 October 1995).  These two historic and momentous events most certainly have far-reaching significance to our life as a nation, contemporary and future.

How have we behaved as a nation in quest of genuine freedom, social justice and development—the basic human yearnings for which our gallant forebears fought and gave up their lives?  How have we promoted the human dignity and fundamental rights of each and every Filipino?

Since the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights we have gone through successive political regimes, each one promising the realization of Filipino aspirations.  Yet each regime could not adequately deliver.  We even agonized through the darkest political period of our history as a free people.  The bitter regime of Martial Law forcibly denied us our basic human rights and freedoms and violently suppressed every significant dissenting voice with arrest without warrant, arbitrary detention, torture, and extra-judicial killing—all in the name of national security and development.

It is now twelve years since those heroic days when the non-violent force of People Power, mobilized by the prophetic calls of Church leaders, liberated us from abject inhumanity.  It was a brief flash of collective brilliance by a tiny nation but it astounded a whole world and became a lesson that would be repeated in other places.

But today we ask ourselves, what have we to show to God and to the world?

The Human Person, the Image of God:  the Basis of Human Rights

“So God created man in his image; in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Gen. 1:27).

In Christian reflection, the truth of the human person created in the image of God is at the basis of human dignity and of all human rights.  Undeniably, “…there are indeed universal human rights, rooted in the nature of the person, rights which reflect the objective and inviolable demands of a universal moral law” (John Paul II, ibid., no. 3).

This moral principle of human dignity finds ultimate confirmation in the biblical revelation of Jesus who commanded what is seemingly a human contradiction:  “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you” (Lk. 6:27).  The simple logic of such a startling statement rests in his words:  “Do to others as you would have them do to you” (Lk. 6:31).  But beyond the practical motive of being treated well by others is the fact that every human person is truly ennobled and loved by God:  “Consider the ravens, they neither sow nor reap, they have neither storehouse nor barn, and yet God feeds them.  Of how much more value are you than the birds!” (Lk. 12:24).

In a less faith-oriented statement, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights echoes this truth.  It affirms “the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family.”  It declares that the recognition of this truth “is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world” (Preamble).  Thus the very first of the 30 Articles of the Declaration states:  “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.  They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood”.

The truth of human dignity and freedom is an ethical teaching common to all the great ancient religions of the world.  From this common ethical basis, the Declaration presents two broad sets of human rights:  (1) civil and political rights; and (2) economic, social and cultural rights.  Two separate documents in 1976 would later address these rights:  the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.  Both sets of rights aim to extend to all peoples “freedom from fear and want”.  Further, in 1986 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Right to Development which unequivocally declares:  “The human person is the central subject of development and should be the active participant and beneficiary of the right to development” (Art. 2, no. 1).

The 1948 Universal Declaration ends with the warning:  “Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act at the destruction of any of the rights and freedom set forth herein” (Article 30).  It is clear that in a holistic understanding of human rights, the responsibility of protecting human rights belongs not only to the State but also to every person or group.  In the recent past, some Philippine human rights groups maintained that only the State can violate human rights.  This is not correct and has since been discredited.  It is clear that individuals and groups other than the State, such as rebel groups, do violate human rights and have to be accountable.

The Philippine Bishops on Human Rights

In the movement of Filipinos to promote human rights in the past 30 years, we are particularly proud of and thankful for the outstanding deeds of thousands of lay people, clergy and religious.  Many of them were victims of human rights abuses.  To this cause of justice the Catholic bishops have made a modest contribution as Pastors of the Catholic faithful.  We wrote many pastoral statements on human rights, especially during the harshest times of Martial Law.  We issued statements on such issues as arbitrary arrests and detention, “liquidation and salvaging,” secret marshals, para-military forces, writ of habeas corpus , persecution of lay leaders, killings of church personnel, ministers, and journalists, the national security state ideology as well as the ideology of violence.

We presented concrete cases.  We dialogued with government officials locally and nationally.  Our prophetic role as pastors culminated in our 1986 pre-EDSA statement on the immorality of a government that gains power by fraudulent means.  We are thankful to the loving God that this most significant statement helped mobilize many of our people to support justice and truth in the succeeding days.  Many others all over the world considered the statement courageous and historic.

But we were also aware that the issue of human rights was being used to advance political and even ideological interests.  We, therefore, issued a pastoral statement in 1987 denouncing the manipulative use of human rights.  Today this 1987 statement continues to have value.  Many governments and lobby groups use the issue of human rights as a political and ideological tool.  They apply it with a double standard, making it a “conditionality” for some countries that need aid while conveniently ignoring the issue for other countries for the sake of their own national or political interests.  Others inveigh against the human rights abuses of their ideological enemies, while conveniently ignoring the abuses of their own groups.  But to us, truth and justice and not political or ideological interests must always be at the basis of human rights.

The Situation of Human Rights Today

We appear to have progressed significantly regarding civil and political rights since the days of Martial Law.  Yet when we survey our country today we are gravely disturbed and dismayed by seemingly unending violations of human rights.  It is a long litany of injustice against civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights, including the right to development.

We name some major violations:  kidnappings, disappearances, deep-seated and rampant corruption, electoral frauds, de facto disenfranchisement of voters, arbitrary arrests, detention in secret places, torture and other inhuman treatment, extra-judicial killings by both government and rebel forces, abuses of CAFGU (Civilian Armed Forces Geographical Units) and other armed groups.  In the judicial sphere, there are demoralizing judicial inaction and delays, denial of fair public trial due to personal and professional relationships between judges, individuals and corporations, withdrawal of key witnesses because of threats, resort to “amicable settlements” when justice could have been vigorously pursued.

Despite a negotiated cease-fire, government and MILF forces trade accusations of human rights violations.  On the other hand, civilians, politicians, policemen, former members and leaders of the NPA are condemned without due process by insurgents before so-called “people’s courts” and executed.  And today more than 10,000 victims of human rights abuses during the Marcos regime continue to wait for long-delayed indemnification.

Hundreds of families see their homes demolished because of economic projects and are not provided with substitute housing.  Sexual harassment, rape of women and domestic violence are very serious recurring problems, aggravated by a “macho culture” and by a sense of shame to report incidents.  When perpetrators are powerful, justice for the victims is dim.  We also consider government policies regarding population control and their manner of implementation as highly objectionable in light of religious freedom and freedom of conscience.  Family rights are violated as well as the rights of unborn children.

Many Overseas Filipino Workers are exploited and abused.  In some countries, Filipino Christian risk severe punishment, including death, when they practice their faith in accordance with the freedom of religion.  In such cases, our government is rendered helpless, and its appeal is based on humanitarian reasons rather than on the issue of justice and religious freedom, assured by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  Ironically, a country such as ours that has restored the death penalty has to beg for mercy before the courts of other countries when our citizens are imposed a similar penalty.  Those same countries serenely enjoy freedom of religion in other countries while denying it to others.  It is the task of the international community to correct this egregious violation of fundamental human rights.

Poverty hinders thousands of children from going to school and forces many of them to work, thus inhibiting their proper development.  Indigenous peoples face the loss of their ancestral lands and the destruction of their cultures, as projects of development aggressively attack their traditional environment.  Their rights to meaningful participation and development are often ignored.  They suffer greatly from lack of basic services, health, and education.

As the economic situation worsens, the rights of workers to association, to strike, to security or to bargain collectively are increasingly being restricted, legally and illegally.  “Labor only” subcontracting is sometimes used by employers to evade their obligations to workers and to break unions.  On the other hand it is popularly believed that many union leaders, for their own self-interests, have enriched themselves and have exploited their own members.  Further, the right of farmers and other agricultural workers to development is neglected or, at best, has been subordinated to the drive toward industrialization and global economic competitiveness.  Many tenants suffer, as in the case of the MAPALAD Bukidnon farmers, because of contrary claims to land by powerful people and because of massive land conversions in the name of development.  In such cases, true agrarian reform is deliberately ignored.  Large scale fishing, often by foreign companies, considerably deprives small fisherfolk of their only means of livelihood.  Irresponsible media reporting is known to have destroyed the fundamental right of persons to their good name.

The above situation of human rights today calls for our strong moral denunciation.  We call upon our government to do everything that it can legally do to bring to justice those who violate human rights, to correct the social structures that allow human rights violations to be perpetrated especially against the poor, the indigenous peoples, women and children, and to make sure that violations are not committed by our own security forces.

Meeting the Challenge of Human Rights: Convictions, Social Solidarity

Indeed, the injustices committed against human dignity and human rights today make our celebration of the 100th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence and the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights almost farcical.

Yet the situation is truly a challenge to all of us.  We need to pursue the task of defending and promoting human rights with the following convictions:

1. Human rights are, indeed, universal and indivisible.  They are based on the inviolable transcendental dignity of the human being and do not arise from democratic opinion surveys or from “politically or ideologically correct” beliefs, which change from time to time.  Neither can one set of rights be put aside and ignored while priority is given to another.  Unfortunately some developed countries, attempting to preserve their position of power, urge civil and political rights on peoples and governments of developing countries while ignoring the latter’s economic, social, and cultural rights.  On the other hand, some leaders of developing countries suppress civil and political rights for the sake of promoting economic development.  They even cite cultural differences as a further reason.  It is our belief that differences in cultures and religions complement rather than reject the universality and indivisibility of human rights.
2. Human rights are God-given and we, as members of the same human family, have to forge a strong network of “social solidarity” (John Paul II, ibid., no. 4. “A decisive factor in the success of those non-violent revolutions was the experience of social solidarity:  in the face of regimes backed by the power of propaganda and terror, that solidarity was the moral core of the power of the powerless “) with one another to protect and defend human rights, especially of the “least of our brethren,” as an imperative of human growth—in community.
3. There are human rights that need to be recognized and further promoted.  Among these are women’s and children’s rights together with those of the unborn, the rights of communities and indigenous peoples, the right to culture and self-identity.  The promotion of such rights is especially urgent in the Philippines when the cultures of indigenous peoples are constantly threatened by so called “development aggression.”  Furthermore, there is a need to develop the rights of nations, as Pope John Paul II pointed out (Address to the United Nations, 1995, no. 6).  Finally with the rise of biotechnologies we also need to be cautious about the move to provide commercial patents or intellectual property rights for the use of indigenous knowledge and skills to provide food, such as patenting various varieties of rice, and maintain health systems.  Such a move would give control of these to corporations and limit the access of the poor to them.  The move would also allow corporations to have property rights over life forms and its parts, in effect to tamper with life through genetic engineering for the sake of profit.
4. Violations of human rights today are not simply done by individuals or groups but are already—in the form of social sin—built into social structures, policies and laws that discriminate against other persons and other groups, especially against the lower sectors of society.  The cases of agrarian reform, the recent Mining Act, and widespread endemic corruption are illustrative examples.
5. In the final analysis, the foundation stone on which we must build a society that is respectful of human rights is the virtue of love.  This, after all, is the traditional and treasured name of the value of human solidarity.  There is no genuinely full respect for human dignity, no respect for human rights unless all peoples, irrespective of race, religion, gender, tribe, or class, truly love one another.  In the Christian Scriptures such love is expressed as the second of the greatest commandment:  “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”  And the first, on which all righteousness and justice depends, is:  “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind” (Mt. 22:36-38).
6. Therefore, in the struggle to defend and promote human rights there has to be a constant need to commend our efforts to the Almighty God, the Creator of human dignity and the Liberator and Redeemer of the human community from every form of sin, including social sin.  Without prayer, all effort at social transformation will come to no avail.

Conclusion:  Commitments

On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights we gratefully acknowledge the heroic contribution of many individuals and groups to the cause of human rights in our country.  Thousands of people, from all religious persuasions, singly or in cause-oriented organizations, church-related or otherwise, have been at the vanguard of the human rights movement in the country from the inception of Martial Law, through its dismantling, and up to the present.

Today people of good will need an even stronger solidarity with one another.  The indivisibility of human rights makes the task of defending and promoting them more complex and difficult.  The freedom to speak and the freedom to worship according to one’s conscience are inextricably bound up with the right to development.  And so the interconnectedness of other human rights.

Moreover, the forces of manipulation and oppression are many, both local and global.  We need to discern their faces more clearly.  The all-pervasive process of globalization is promoting economic, political, social and cultural values that invade our consciousness subtly through mass media and other technological advances.  New forms of freedom and rights without any moral moorings are being erected.

As we face the future, we humbly offer to all peoples of good will in our country a vision of society where respect for human dignity and human rights prevails:  a social order “founded in truth, built on justice, and enlivened by love,” and growing “in freedom towards a more humane equilibrium” (Gaudium et Spes, no. 26).

Toward this vision, we commit ourselves and our diocesan social action centers to link hands with one and all in morally legitimate action for human dignity and human rights.  We commit our parishes, Basic Ecclesial Communities, religious organizations, pastoral programs and educational institutions to do their share in educating the Filipino to justice, peace and human rights.

This we do, asking the intercession of Mary, the Mother of the Lord Jesus, who demonstrated his own human dignity by the unique way in which he loved and served others, especially the downtrodden.

For and in the name of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines:
+OSCAR V. CRUZ, D.D.
Archbishop of Lingayen-Dagupan
President, CBCP

December 1, 1998

Make Yourselves a New Heart and a New Spirit

A Joint Pastoral Letter on Gambling

Beloved People of God in Northern Luzon:

As a result of our pastoral reflection in Laoag City, from December 9 -11, 1993, the exhortation of St. Paul comes to our mind:  “Take no part in the fruitless works of darkness; rather expose them …”  (Eph. 5:11).  And so, aware of our sacred duty as your Pastors to teach and instruct on matters of faith and morals, we write you this letter on an issue of grave importance.

The issue is rampant gambling in Northern Luzon, particularly in the form of jueteng.

As we listened to reports from various northern Luzon dioceses we came to realize more than ever before how widespread and insidious rampant gambling is in our northern region.

The Situation of Gambling in the North:  A Social Cancer

It is rampant not only in cities and big towns but also in the barangays and sitios of almost every province.  Gambling agents are everywhere, at street corners, in front of school gates, near churches, and in markets.  They go from house to house, from office to office.

People from all classes of society, from various professions, and the poorest of the poor contribute some of their income to the gambling till, for a chance at winning.  Even school children with their meager daily allowance for the day are not spared from the temptations of gambling.  In many places the cycle of gambling is at least 3 times a day, everyday of the year.

Its operations are managed by powerful people whose profits are untaxed.  It hires thousands whose earnings are a mere pittance, compared to the gargantuan illegal profits that the operators and maintainers get.  It is the way of easy money.  Its clientele are thousands upon thousands of citizens, most of them very poor people, who dream of a “pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.”

Unprecedented in its frequency, widespread in its coverage, its profits are also incalculable.  Popular estimates of gross income per day per province in our northern region runs into millions of pesos.  Billions of pesos are lost every year by our people — and pocketed by gambling operators.

The Evils of Rampant Gambling

The moral evil of such large-scale, systematic gambling is not simply because it is illegal.  It is truly immoral under the circumstances that it operates and in the evil effects that it has spawned.

Today, gambling is, indeed, a social cancer, gradually and surely destroying a great many of our positive social and moral values.  It is a social scourge that is debilitating even our moral sense, our ability to distinguish right from wrong.  It is deeply infecting us as a people.

Rampant gambling, particularly in its form of jueteng, has become a way of life for many.  People no longer care or dare to condemn it because:  (a)  no effective action against gambling has ever been taken by our political and police authorities, except through some token occasional raids against small-time gambling operators; and (b) very powerful people operate gambling.

Yet, if we still have a modicum of moral sense, we have to be appalled by the callousness of big-time gambling operators, by the blatant openness with which they conduct their illegal operations, and by the shockingly huge amounts of money that are involved.

The truth is:  The victims of gambling are the many thousands of credulous and generally poor people who risk their hard earned incomes to face odds that are heavily stacked against them.  The situation is even aggravated, according to popular belief, by the manipulation of winning numbers — a likely possibility, given the secrecy with which winning numbers are often determined.

The whole racket constitutes a systematic fleecing of the poor.  Whether the victims are willing or not, the end result is the same –  objective exploitation of the poor by the powerful.  As in our economic system in general, so in jueteng:  the rich, powerful and apparently untouchable operators get richer while thousands of poor bettors get poorer.  A situation which recalls the social evil condemned by the prophet Amos:  “They trample the heads of the weak into the dust of the earth and they force the lowly out of the way”  (Am. 2:7).

For such social and moral evil to exist, can graft and corruption be far behind?

The popular belief has never been disproved that protection money is handed down in liberal proportions to police, military, and political officials.  It is even said that the control and operation of gambling are in the hands of some politicians.  If what many people say are true, and there seems to be no solid reason to disagree, then we have in the North a social plague of unrivalled scale.

The fact that gambling operations employ some thousands of  people in the whole North has become an excuse for government officials not to abolish gambling.  They stop searching for alternative and productive sources of employment.

Furthermore the popular belief remains that jueteng profits serve as bottomless “election war chests” from which unaccountable amounts of money are freely withdrawn to support political candidacies.  Again, whether true or not, such a belief among ordinary people points to the values that have grown out of the vice of gambling.

Through jueteng and other forms of rampant gambling, values are distorted.  Hard work, rational reflection and planning that are trademarks of responsible human work are substituted by irresponsible risk-taking.  Laziness is promoted while the dream of easy money becomes an obsession.  The poor are exploited.  Power and money are used to protect–as well as to enforce submission to –the system.   The values of the Gospel and of the Kingdom of God are put aside for the sake of profit.  So long have we complained about the disappearance of such values as industry, thrift, truth, honesty and integrity, and justice.

Such a terrible situation is hardly to be helped by casinos.  In fact, casinos give even more occasions to lose more money.  Businesses have collapsed because of casino gambling.  Jobs have been lost.  Families have been broken.  And in some cases, deaths and suicides have resulted.

We must moreover open our eyes to the close connection between the poor values promoted by rampant gambling and the disvalues (or lack of values) in public and private lives, that have wrecked great havoc on our country.  A liberal attitude towards rampant gambling is linked to a permissive attitude towards graft and corruption.  Because we do not act against one social vice, we tend not to act on other vices as well.

Declarations Related to Gambling

In the light of such a deplorable social situation we recall the strong words of the Lord through the prophet Ezekiel:

I  will judge you…  each  one  according  to  his  ways, says  the  Lord…  Cast  away  from  you  all  the  evils  you have committed  and  make  yourselves  a  new heart and a new spirit… Return and live!  (Ez. 18:30-32).

Therefore, as Bishops of Northern Luzon, we jointly make the following strong declarations:

1. We condemn all rampant gambling, especially in its form of jueteng, as destructive of the moral values of our people.
2. We urgently call upon our government officials to dismantle all gambling operations, including casinos.
3. We call for the immediate prosecution of all persons who operate illegal gambling, especially those that are known as big-time gambling operators.
4. We urge government officials to create and promote alternative sources of gainful employment for people displaced by dismantled gambling operations.
5. We call upon educational institutions, churches, and social agencies to institute moral renewal programs to repair the great damage  done by rampant gambling on our moral values.

In days of old, the prophets of God in Sacred Scriptures regularly called the people and their leaders to turn away from their evil paths and unto the way of God.  Today, we call the people of God to a way of renewal and conversion, of holiness and righteousness.  “Live as children of the light, for light produces every kind of goodness and righteousness and truth”  (Eph. 5:9).

May everyone hear and heed this call to renewal.  “Let us not grow tired of doing good…”  (Gal. 7:9).  We call upon you, beloved sisters and brothers, to reflect, pray, and act together in solidarity to dismantle structures of death and build up structures of life.

May the strength, the power and love of the Lord be with us in this sacred crusade toward His kingdom of truth and justice, of peace and love.

(Sgd.)+EDMUNDO M. ABAYA, D.D.
Bishop of Laoag

(Sgd)+SALVADOR L. LAZO, D.D.
Bishop of San Fernando, L.U.

(Sgd.)+SOFIO G. BALCE, D.D.
Bishop of Cabanatuan

(Sgd.)+MIGUEL G. PURUGGANAN, D.D.
Bishop of Ilagan

(Sgd.)+JESUS E. CABRERA, D.D.
Bishop of Alaminos

(Sgd.)+ORLANDO B. QUEVEDO, OMI, D.D.
Archbishop of Nueva Segovia

(Sgd.)+CARLITO J. CENZON, CICM, D.D.
Apostolic Vicariate of Tabuk

(Sgd.)+CESAR C. RAVAL, SVD, D.D.
Former Bishop of Bangued

(Sgd.)+OSCAR V. CRUZ, D.D.
Archbishop of Lingayen-Dagupan

(Sgd.) JAMES RISSE, SVD
Apostolic Administrator of Bangued

(Sgd.)+LEO M. DRONA, D.D.
Bishop of San Jose

(Sgd.)+ERNESTO B. SALGADO, D.D.
N.E.Apostolic Vicar of Baguio

(Sgd.)+JESUS C. GALANG, D.D.
Bishop of Urdaneta

(Sgd.)+DIOSDADO A. TALAMAYAN, D.D.
Archbishop of Tuguegarao

(Sgd.)+BRIGIDO A. GALASGAS, D.D.
Apostolic Vicar of Bontoc-Lagawe

(Sgd.)+RAMON B. VILLENA, D.D.
Bishop of Bayombong

Betania Retreat House
Tagaytay City

Statement of Solidarity with Cardinal Sin

Recent events in connection with the problems that have beset the Monte de Piedad and Savings Bank have tended to cause anguish to the faithful in Manila and to their shepherd, Jaime L. Cardinal Sin.

The Cardinal has borne these crosses as a true pastor, concerned not for himself but for the poor among his flock.  He has always stood by the truth, seeking justice yet always ready to forgive.

In this moment of trial, we the members of the Permanent Council of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, stand in solidarity with Cardinal Sin.  We hold him in fraternal esteem and affirm his personal integrity.  We support him with our prayers that justice and truth will prevail.

+OSCAR V. CRUZ, D.D.                                +EDMUNDO M. ABAYA, D.D.
President                                                      Vice President

+GAUDENCIO B. ROSALES, D.D.                 +JESUS Y. VARELA, D.D.
Member                                                        Member

+RAMON B. VILLENA, D.D.                          +CAMILO D. GREGORIO, D.D.
Member                                                        Member

+LEOPOLDO S. TUMULAK, D.D.                  +JESUS A. DOSADO, CM, D.D.
Member                                                        Member

+CARMELO D.F. MORELOS, D.D.                +TEODORO J. BUHAIN, JR.,D.D.
Member                                                        Treasurer

+NESTOR C. CARIÑO, D.D.
Secretary General

Pastoral Statement on the
Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA)

We are at present in the midst of a controversy regarding the VFA or Visiting Forces Agreement.  Like all Filipinos we are concerned about this agreement for it concerns the common good toward which every member of the political community should contribute.

We wish to present here some principles which will help us towards a correct decision on this matter.

1. The Church teaches the basic equality of all human beings since all men are created in God’s image, and having the same nature and origin, have been  redeemed by Christ and share the same divine calling and destiny.  (GS, no. 29)

   Thus any agreement entered into by the government with any foreign government should not result in foreigners being given preferential treatment over Filipinos in our own country.

2. In making decisions, political authority should be guided by the common good  since it exists for the common good (GS #74), which is the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily (GS, no. 26).

   Thus any agreement that does not foster the common good of the Filipinos but works to their disadvantage should be rejected.

3. Christians are called to work for peace on earth which symbolizes and derives from the peace of Christ, who is our peace and who united all man and woman in one people and one body, abolishing hatred in his own flesh (GS, #78; cf. Eph. 2:16; Col. 1:20-22).

   Hence, our government should enter into only those agreements that foster the peace of human kind.

   It is in the light of these principles that we now wish to take a close look at the VFA.

I.  Pertinent Provisions

The following are the pertinent provisions of this agreement also called Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA):

1. Purpose.  “… to strengthen international and regional security in the Pacific  area;” (Preamble)
2. Definition of United States Personnel .  “… US personnel means US military and civilian personnel temporarily in the Philippines in connection with activities approved by the Philippine Government.” (Art. 1)
3. Controversial provisions.
   1. Exemption from passport and visa regulations (III, 2).
   2. Quaratine inspection only by commanding officer of a military aircraft or vessel (III, 3, (c)).
   3. Driver’s license issued by appropriate US authority accepted as valid.  No driving test or fee (IV, 1).  Vehicles need not be registered (IV, 2).
   4. US Military authorities have primary right to exercise jurisdiction over US personnel in “offenses arising out of any act or omission done in performance of official duty” (V, 3, (b), (2)).
   5. Philippine authorities’ waiver of primary right to exercise jurisdiction when requested by US authorities (V, 3, (d)).
   6. Confinement or detention by Philippine authorities of US personnel shall be carried out in facilities agreed on by appropriate Philippine and US authorities (V, 10).
   7. No import/export taxes, duties, charges, etc. (VII, 1).
   8. Unhampered and unrestricted movement of vessels and aircrafts.  (What implementing arrangements?) No landing, no port fees (Art. VIII, 1-3).
   9. Vague termination of agreement.  “This agreement shall remain in force until the expiration of 180 days from the date on which either party gives the other party notice in writing that it desires to terminate the agreement.” (IX).

II.  Brief Comments

1. The VFA was signed in Manila on 10 February 1998 by Secretary Domingo L. Siazon, Jr. and Ambassador Thomas C. Hubbard.  It is very similar to the Draft Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) which was strongly criticized by some people.  The VFA was signed without public consultation.  Everything was done in secret.
2. Art. 1 is vaguely worded.  What activities are envisioned?  Military training exercises?  Military combat operations in the Philippines?
3. Live ammunitions are sometimes used in military training exercises.  These pose danger to human lives and animals.  They also destroy the environment.
4. All the exemptions mentioned in Articles III, IV, VII and VIII make the US personnel special class of persons.  Treated much better than Filipinos!
5. Criminal jurisdiction is a contentious issue.  The VFA does not resolve it.  As a matter of fact Article V seems to surrender national sovereignty to the US authorities.  An Official Duty Certificate is all that is needed to remove criminal jurisdiction from Philippine courts on erring US personnel.  In effect the Official Duty Certificate grants US forces diplomatic immunity.
6. The agreement does not specify in clear and concise terms the extent of access to and movement within, the Philippines of US forces “visiting” in the Philippines.  Area of coverage could be the entire country.  How about the number of US personnel?  How long will they stay?  No one knows!
7. What if the US forces bring into the country nuclear weapons?  The VFA is silent on this constitutional ban.  Philippine authorities could not inspect US vessels and aircrafts.
8. The VFA does not foster the independence of the Philippines.  What an irony.  We just celebrated the centenary of our independence.
9. This agreement will instead promote sexual adventurism and promiscuity, HIV-AIDS, and the exploitation of the Filipinos.  It will pollute and degrade the environment.

III.  Conclusion

Above premises considered, the VFAas it presently stands should be rejected.

If it is going to be renegotiated, all the ambiguous details mentioned above should be clarified.

Any final agreement must have the character of a treaty made between two sovereign nations, not between a master and a lackey.

In the matter of jurisdiction over crimes committed by visiting US personnel someone should look into similar agreement between the United States and, for example, Spain, Britain, Turkey, et al.

For the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines:
+OSCAR V. CRUZ, D.D.
Archbishop of Lingayen-Dagupan
President

13 July 1998

Pastoral Exhortation on the Philippine Economy

Introduction

In this time of crisis in the regional economy of East Asia, all the efforts of the government and private business are geared towards getting the economy back on track.  It is a concern we all share for the simple reason that the crisis means greater hardship and suffering, for our poor most especially.

The concern is all the more intense in that in this, our Christian nation, the gap between the richest and the poorest of our people is a scandal that gets more intolerable each year.  It makes us ask whether the track our economy has been on all these years is, when all is said and done, the one to be on at all.

The question is most germane to our striving for renewal against the dawning of the third millennium two years from now.  And it is especially significant in this centennial year of our independence as a sovereign nation as we take stock of ourselves as a free people and look to where we are headed.

Part I:  The Economic Situation

We in the Philippines, have not been hit as hard as our neighbors in the ASEAN Countries of Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia.  The causes of the financial collapse of this countries are many and varied:  unhealthy banking systems, unfettered borrowing and spending, bad government financial policies.  In all these countries, it is the poor who suffer the most.

Although we said we in the Philippines have escaped the worst effects of the general economic slowdown in the region, this does not mean things are all right with us. There has been some success in the past Administration’s efforts to improve the economy.  But as a 1998 US State Department Report recognizes, the disparity between the government’s economic programs and its real effect on people’s lives is quite large and points out how the government’s “social reform agenda” has made little progress.

Government spending on such priority concern, as basic education and health care and low-cost water supply was low and poorly targeted.  At the same time it has tolerated, even backed, “development aggression” –the kind of development that is hurtful of the environment and or our poorest sectors-indigenous peoples, for instance, and their rights to their ancestral domains and cultures, fisherfolk and their lessened control over fishing grounds, etc.

There is a financial crisis in the simple fact that the peso has been devalued in relation to the US dollar, thus making imports more expensive and our huge external debt ($42.6 billion-last year) harder to service.  The OFWs (overseas Filipino workers) in their remittances are the  one big support of our failing economy — an ironic fact in that they are OFWs precisely because they cannot find good jobs in their own country.

Corruption in and out of government is endemic and is one main hindrance to economic growth.  Billions of pesos that could well be spent on uplifting the life of our people end up in the pockets of unscrupulous government officials.  The “pork-barrel” funds of Congress, for example, are accepted generally as a corruption-laden institution but to date nothing has been done about it.  Most applicable to our situation is what John Paul II wrote about the evil of corruption as destructive of social and political development services essential for their development.  (cf. World Day of Peace Message, 1998).

The whole world is now subject to the economic phenomenon called globalization –the widening of international flows of trade, finance and information in a single integrated market.  “A liberalized national and global markets which will, it is believed, produce the best outcome for growth and human welfare.” (UNDP HDR, p. 82)

Globalization demands the liberalization and deregulation of a nation’s economy if it is to compete in the world market, share in its economic gain.  But seeing the disparities that it brings about, we must seriously question the waste with which globalization has been enhanced as dogma and implemented as policy: Have not the hasty drive towards industrialization and the liberalized entry of foreign developers and investments into the country, compounded by the liberal infusion of vast amount of borrowed foreign funds into our developing economy, exacerbated, rather than eased, the economic situation?  The policy, we are afraid, has resulted in an even more shabby treatment of the poor.

Part II.  The Social Teachings of the Church

We look for a form of economic development with a human face one that takes the plight of the poor as a primary consideration, ensures that social justice is achieved, the benefits of development shared equitably by all, and the economic gaps and imbalances of society removed.  We cannot as bishops provide the precise blueprint for that kind of economic development.  But we can, in the social teachings of the Church, give “principles of reflection, criteria for judgment and directives for actions”–guidelines, that is, for moral conduct in economic questions.

We start with the centrality of the human person and human solidarity: the human person, because he is the subject of rights that no one, not even the State, can violate having been made into the image of God, having been made unto the image of God;  solidarity, because people are social beings and have to strive together for the common good of all.  Any economic development hence that would diminish people, that exploits and ultimately destroys them has to be resisted by all in solidary action.

Option for the poor is another principle-it is a specific form of solidarity.  In the globalized economy that we have now, we see it is the poor who suffer most from its excessive profit orientation.  This was what impelled John Paul II to call for globalization in  solidarity and without marginalization.

The third principle is the biblical truth that God created the earth and its natural resources for the good of all, to be fairly shared and enjoyed by all.  Hence we have to reject the continuing concentration of economic power in the hands of a few and its concomitant mass poverty.  We look  for businesses that create jobs, open to the public ownership of corporations, invest in rural areas for the sake of the poor.

The human person has the God-given vocation to work–it is through work he shares in God’s productive activity.  But in today’s world, know-how, technology and skill are needed for people to engage in productive work.  This requires education, and we ask that government budgets for education, basic education especially, should not be sacrificed for other services.

In the Philippines, land still is for the majority of our people the main venue of work and productivity.  The government recognizes that agrarian reform is the centerpiece of the development of the nation.  Its comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) must hence be strengthened and pursued more aggressively.

One of the most significant principles of the social teachings of the Church is that labor has priority over capital, workers’ rights over profit.  As John Paul II puts it in his encyclical on labor, the principle means that “labor is always a primary efficient cause, while capital, the whole collection of means of production, remains a mere instrument or instrumental cause.” (LE, 12).  In the light of the above, serious questions have to be raised on the basic attitudes of businesses in regard to labor unions, collective bargaining, just wages, working conditions and the like.

After the collapse of socialism in Eastern Europe, the belief began to grow that the capitalism of the West with its free market system had finally emerged totally victorious and even the Pope acknowledged the fact.  The truth is that he still warns against a radical capitalist ideology that is “unconcerned about marginalization and the exploitation of the weak” (CA, 42).  From this we see the need for the government to dismantle all kinds of cartels, to prevent price increases, to enact laws that are truly for the common good, to stabilize the currency and act against currency speculations, etc.

International agencies, like the world bank, the international monetary fund, and the world trade organization must not be instruments of economic domination by superpowers but must help to level the playing field for all, to guarantee fairness and equity in international economic relations between developed and less developed nations.  They too must have an option for the poor.

The Church has a prophetic role to play in the economic order, more so in its globalized form.  The Pope’s concern for the marginalization and exploitation of the weak finds an echo in the UNDP Human Development Report of 1966 (pp. 6-7) which speaks of present world economic growth as jobless, ruthless, voiceless, rootless and futureless.  If globalization means unadulterated laissez-faire capitalism, it is an order that the Church’s social teachings have always condemned for being too materialistic.

A caring economy — development with a human face — this is what we look for.  It does present an alternative to materialistic models of  development, socialist or capitalist, that obtain today.  It asks that both access to and ownership of economic capital and production be dispersed, not favor entirely owners of monetary institutions, well established landlords and politicians and act responsibly in regard to national resources and the economic means of production.

Lay people whose specific vocation is the renewal of the temporal order have thus a strong prophetic role to play in the economic order.  Businessmen, politicians, landlords, power-holders–if they are Christians, they must lead in working for an economic system that will truly promote the common good of all, not just theirs.

Part III.  Recommendations

We leave technical solutions and the management of the present financed crisis to experts.  And we ask is that the ethical and religious values we have been talking about above be in the forefront of all efforts to improve the economy.  But still there are some “doables” that we can recommend.

1. We reiterate one of the important decrees of the second Plenary Council of the Philippines: the task of social action to “set up special programs to address such crucial issues as peace and economy, agrarian and industrialization concerns, the exploitation of women and minors and overseas workers, children and youth, and intensify the organization of the grassroots people or empowerment and self-reliance through cooperatives and livelihood programs and projects” (PCP-II, Art. 23, #1).
2. We should facilitate domestic saving and increase access to credit by supporting the microsaving and microfinance activities of the poor and by linking them to formal savings and credit institutions (see World Bank, SFPP, Annex B, “Microfinance in the Philippines,” pp. 62-65).  Such access to credit by the poor should be facilitated by interest rates within their reach.
3. In the light of the principle of subsidiarity, the government should support, rather than penalize, the informal economy of small independent producers and sellers; this is the real safety net of the poor.
4. Safety nets should be well targeted on the most vulnerable groups; likewise the Social Reform Agenda must be better targeted.
5. Increase rather than reduce investment in human development–health and education; evaluate the privatization of health and welfare services before going further; focus on public education resources on improving grade-school education, rather than on turning out more law and commerce graduates.
6. Rural development and food security must be ensured as further industrialization is promoted. Genuine cooperativism and the establishment of cooperatives among the poor should be encouraged and supported without any political patronage. Agrarian Reform must be pushed forward resolutely, decisively, and rapidly.
7. In line with the example of the early Christian communities, widespread sharing of resources must be practiced, as in the program of Alay Kapwa, in small communities, and at the level of parishes and dioceses.
8. As a sign of goodwill, legislators must give up their Countryside Development Funds and their membership in legislative committees that involve conflict of interest on their part.
9. Monopolies and control of business through franchises and control of choke points should be eliminated.
10. Revise the tax system, particularly the assessment of land taxes and all other tax provisions that lead to corruption.
11. Restore people’s confidence in the system by greater transparency.
12. Equal opportunities, responsibilities and participation in development must be given to women.
13. R.A. 8042 on OFWs should be fully implemented, a fast and effective mechanism for OFWs to invest in the Philippines created..
14. A culture and work ethic that prizes competence, efficiency, and production as the key to success, and support this with appropriate reward structures.
15. Partnerships for change among all agents of society should be established – trade unions, the media, community groups, private companies, political parties, academic institutions, professional associations-the “intermediary groups” of social encyclicals. Pope John Paul II called for a “social pact” among such.
16. Work at the international level for the establishment of a rule of law which goes beyond the rules of the market place and protects the poor and the weak.
17. Work at the international level for the reduction or even cancellation of external debts in accord with the Jubilee norms of Leviticus.
18. Finally a deep and participatory assessment of and investigation into the type or model of development the government wants to pursue should be conducted, particularly as it impacts on the poor. This includes, in particular, economic policies on liberalization and deregulation, relationships with the WTO, IMF, and World Bank. The efforts of various NGOs in search of a more caring development model should be encouraged and supported.

Conclusion

The message that we wish to give in this critical look at our economy is this: only when economic relationships, policies,  programs, and structures are thoroughly infused with moral principles that put the face of God and the many faces of the poor into the picture,  only when we as a nation shall do away with greed, selfishness,  unhealthy competition, and the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of the few  will true economic development take place. This should be development with a human face.

For this to be realized, solidarity must be forged among ourselves, but especially with the poor. Such solidarity must likewise be international, among First World and Third World countries. We need to recognize what globalization with solidarity ultimately means, namely, the unity under God of the one human family where there should be no exploitation,  no impoverishment, and no injustice; where the goods of the earth and the benefits of development are fairly distributed. This vision is nurtured by Christian hope, which assures us that in the end good will triumph over evil, life over death, love over hatred, generosity over greed.

It is also Christian hope that convinces us that, though the years ahead will be years of the Cross, years of struggle and sacrifice, with the grace of God the Filipino shall prevail.

For the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines:
+OSCAR V. CRUZ, D.D.
Archbishop of Lingayen-Dagupan
President

12 July 1998

Pastoral Exhortation
on the Philippine Economy

Introduction

1. To prepare for the 2000th anniversary of our Lord’s Birth, we the Bishops of the Philippines issued last year (1997) a pastoral exhortation on Philippine Politics. The letter was meant to help renew politics, the practice of which has so degenerated as to become a main cause of our many problems as a people and as a nation.
2. This year, 1998, we wish to reflect on our economic problems. We are aware of the different contrasting economic analyses of experts. Some draw a generally positive picture, while others do not. We wish to reflect on the same realities from an alternative angle.
3. As Bishops our task is to use the light of our Christian faith and the social teachings of the Church in reflecting upon the economic realities and to see them, as much as is possible, from the viewpoint of the poor. Our close contact with them confirms our conviction that they are the ones who are suffering most from the economic developments of today. Our viewpoint then will be moral rather than economic, pastoral rather than theoretical.
4. This reflection in the light of Christian faith is seriously needed. The economic problem is a human problem. It is also, therefore, an ethical problem affecting the moral and religious lives of people. Economics has to be governed by personal and social morality, if it is to work for the common good.
5. With the fall of the value of the peso a year ago, a cloud of anxiety has descended upon our land – a cloud made darker by a lack of serious debate on issues that characterized the recent elections and the grim social and economic  uncertainties that our newly elected officials face. Nevertheless the inception of a new administration, coupled with the centenary of Philippine independence, should give us hope for a new beginning.
6. This hope is strengthened by the anticipation of the Great Jubilee of the Son of God’s entrance into our history, a Jubilee that recalls the Hebrew practice of Jubilee by which every fifty years slaves were set free and ancestral land returned to its hereditary owners (Lev. 25:8-17).
7. Thus the current economic crisis offers an opportunity for rethinking, abandoning our self-assurance, and returning to fundamentals – especially fundamentals of the moral order. Too often in the past when the nation and the economy have been in crisis, the whole effort has been purely of a political and economic nature – to get the economy “back on track”. It may be time to ask whether the tracks themselves have been poorly laid – and lead in the wrong direction.

PART I: THE ECONOMIC SITUATION

The Asian Economic Crisis

1. We begin our reflection on the Asian economic crisis, the broad horizon against which we view our country’s economics. The economic turmoil that swept East Asia and Southeast Asia in 1997-98 has raised many questions about Asian economies and particularly about our own. Not the least of these is the question of morality. We begin with an analysis provided by reputable economic experts.
2. In the beginning, some specialists explained that the crisis of 1997-98 revolved around the financial sector alone. However, it has become apparent that the credit crunch is affecting all firms, whether indebted or not. Moreover, behind the financial crisis, precipitated by the weakening of the Thai currency in July 1997 and leading to attacks on other currencies of the region, lie unhealthy banking systems that could not manage massive inflows of capital from abroad as the economies liberalized.
3. Some wealthy individuals and corporations went on spending and borrowing sprees, spending on homes and consumer durable products, and bidding up land values in particular to unrealistic levels. As the crisis spread to Malaysia and Indonesia, with signs of serious problems in Japan and South Korea, many investors became concerned about the possible failure of major banks and other financial institutions. They lost their nerve and withdrew their investments in dollars. The value of local currencies collapsed and the serving of foreign debts and importing raw materials suddenly became prohibitively expensive.  Today in Japan economic recession has definitely set in, with increased possibilities of even greater negative impact on the rest of Asia.
4. What is very disturbing is the knowledge that signs of economic slowdown were already evident all over East Asia since 1996. In retrospect, the occurrence of the crisis is not surprising and the impact of the crisis is disproportionately against the poor. That is a major moral aspect of the economic crisis. There is a human cost to the crisis which will be borne by the many even if the purely “financial” aspects are resolved, such as cases of unemployment, loss of incomes and diminished provisions of public services.
5. The government has to consider seriously the criticisms of many reputable economists who say that its approach to the problem is exacerbating the human cost. Tight money policy, they say, causes high interest rates and leads to lower employment rates. High lending rates, supported by the Central Bank’s non-interventionist stance, will aggravate indebtedness causing firms to close shop and increase unemployment. Tight fiscal surplus targets cut back on social services. The much vaunted “exit” from the IMF is cosmetic, particularly during a crisis crippling all of East Asia.  However, from one angle it is a blessing in disguise that the Philippines is not as exposed to massive development assistance and cutthroat capital investments as Korea, Malaysia and Indonesia.
6. But in all these, the poor and the marginalized are the last to be attended to. Our economy does not seem to have a human face. Let us reflect a bit more on this as we learn further about the pluses and minuses of our economy.

Reviewing the Philippine Economy 1

A Period of Moderate and Weak Growth

1. From 1992 to 1996 the energy crisis was resolved and much needed infrastructure was put in place. Economic growth was sustained and moderate between 1993 and 1996, averaging 4.2 percent in GNP annually. Exports grew in dollar terms by an average of 15.4 percent annually in the period 1992-96. Inflation was under 10 percent and coming down. The investment rate rose over the same period and was improving. Per capita income passed $1,000 and the increase in durable sales suggested a growing middle class. Thus it seems that government policy had succeeded in promoting business activity and that this was reflected in a moderate reduction in the percentage of the population living below the poverty line, roughly from 39 to 35 percent by 1996.
2. Yet there were weaknesses even then in “fundamentals and policies.” The GNP 4.2 percent average growth rate was well below the average for developing countries (6.3 percent) during the same period and more so for Asian developing countries (8.6 percent). This growth was not sufficient to permit people to recover their average incomes of 1981, the highest for the last two decades. Exports were becoming more concentrated in sectors that incorporate only limited domestic value added (raw materials and skills) and were being outpaced by the rising tide of imports. Saving, at 20.5 percent of GNP, was the lowest among the ASEAN member nations where the average was 30 percent or more. The manufacturing sector failed to take off. Its share in GDP had fallen from an average of 40 percent in 1980-85 to 35.7 percent in 1996 and its share of employment was down from 10.9 percent in 1980 to 10.2 percent in 1995. Moreover the short term foreign debts of the private sector had risen dramatically, amounting in June 1997 to 45 percent of total foreign liabilities. Finally, liberalized entry of foreign owned funds into our banking system made them vulnerable to capital flight.  There has been no reported hard and fast data on capital flight.  But we can reasonably presume that what has happened in other troubled Asian countries has also happened in the Philippines, aggravating the economic crisis even more.
3. A 1998 U.S. State Department Report recognizes the disparity between the objectives of the government’s economic programs and its real effect on people’s lives. The report states:

   The Government is implementing a far-reaching economic program, Philippines 2000,’ to convert its agrarian-based economy into an industrial,market-driven one and attract investment. The Government has succeeded in liberalizing the investment, trade, and foreign exchange regimes. Garments and electronics make up more than half of the merchandise export receipts and are significantly complemented by overseas workers remittances totaling over $4 billion in 1997. Gross domestic product grew at approximately 5 percent. While the government has accelerated market reforms, poverty and inequitable income distribution remain, and the Government’s ‘social reform agenda’ has made little progress. About 36 percent of the population of 70 million have difficulty meeting basic nutritional and other needs, while the richest 20 percent of families received incomes over 10 times that of the lowest 20 percent. Annual per capita national income was estimated at $1,142 for the first nine months of 1997″ (U.S. State Department, Report on Human Rights for the Philippines, 1997, January 30, 1998, p. 2).

4. Meanwhile Government spending on the Human Priority Concerns such as basic education, basic health care and low-cost water supply averaged 10 percent of the National Budget in 1987-94, which is only half the level recommended by the United Nations Development Program (Philippine Human Development Report, 1997, pp. 45-46). Moreover, government social spending in general was both low by international standards and poorly targeted. An example would be the emphasis on college-level education while neglecting basic education. Another would be the subsidies for the price of rice, which are wasteful and do not target those most in need. Even the 20 provinces chosen for the Social Reform Agenda are not the most needy (see World Bank, A Strategy to Fight Poverty: Philippines, pp. 45-46, 57).
5. At the same time, there has been “development aggression”` in the form of continuing destruction of our environment. Our forests are virtually gone. And now, international firms are concentrating on our mineral resources. Despite the lessons of Boac and Calancan Bay in Marinduque, the Mining Act of 1995 facilitates this aggression and is an added threat to the ancestral domain and cultures of indigenous peoples. The new Fisheries Act revises the Local Government Code by limiting even more the area available to small fisherfolk and expanding the area for big scale fishing. Such policies reinforce a widening belief that our national patrimony and sovereignty are being sold out to foreign interests. Further, we have yet to assess the full impact of the destructive El Niño phenomenon.

External Debt, OFW Remittances, and Corruption

1. There is no doubt that one factor aggravating the financial crisis is our foreign debt. Our foreign debt in March 1997 stood at $42.6 billion – and rising2. The private sector accounted for the increase in borrowing, encouraged by the liberalization of rules in borrowing from abroad and the policy – misguided, some noted economists tell us – of fixing the nominal exchange rate. The debt service burden of U.S. $1.4 billion during the second quarter of 1997 increased by 67 percent in peso terms because of the peso devaluation. The whole idea of exiting from the IMF becomes an illusion and brings mixed blessings because of the need for emergency financing, especially during an economic crisis. Such a need ties the government’s hand vis-à-vis monetary and fiscal policies.
2. Over the last few years, the country’s balance of payments registered a surplus but the surplus in current account has been largely due to OFW (Overseas Filipino Workers) remittances, dollar loans and speculative investments. Indeed ironic is the fact that OFW remittances, the fruit of the lack of employment opportunities in the country, would relatively provide the government with a rosy picture of the economic situation. But this is actually a symptom of a deeper economic weakness. Government has failed to provide jobs domestically and has failed to raise domestic savings, hence the foreign borrowing and the dependence on OFW remittances. The vagaries of OFW remittances, especially in the light of actual and possible loss of such revenue in the face of the Asian economic crisis, should not in any case serve as part of any permanent solution.
3. We must also speak about the clearly moral problem of corruption. Some 11 years ago, we wrote a statement on this specific issue. We called corruption by its real name and entitled the statement: “Thou Shalt Not Steal.”
4. Corruption is endemic. Corruption has weakened the path to economic growth. Let us take just one example of corruption. Vast amounts went to “pork barrel funding” of projects. Senators, congressmen and congresswomen chose projects often at the expense of national priorities and over-all planning. Records show that 55-56 percent of the Countryside Development Fund in 1993 and 1994 went to “economic services” such as roads and other infrastructure projects that are notoriously subject to kickbacks. Only 17-27% went to social services that directly benefit the poor.
5. Every year mass media comes out with a listing of government offices most prone to corruption. The list does not seem to change year in and year out. Billions of pesos every year are lost through corruption.  This is especially so when the terrible vice of gambling is considered.  In its various forms, gambling fleeces the poor of hard earned money, erodes ethical values and corrupts government officials.
6. Compounding the problem of corruption is the flagrant violation by legislators of the norms of conflict of interest and their membership on committees that deal with their own personal or family business interests. Distorted economic legislation thus weakens the whole system.
7. Pope John Paul II himself has spoken about the evil of corruption. It undermines social and political development. It infiltrates many sectors of society and ignores the rules of justice and truth. “Courage is needed to denounce it. To eliminate it, together with the resolute determination of Authorities, the generous support of all citizens is needed, sustained by a firm moral conscience…. The fraudulent use of public monies penalizes above all the poor, who are the first to be deprived of the basic services essential for personal development” (World Day of Peace Message, January 1, 1998, no. 5).

Liberalization and Deregulation

1. Critics of government have often played up serious objections to APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation), GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) and the WTO (World Trade Organization). As Bishops, we are not unaware of the ideological premises of the different sides of the debate and we tread carefully. We do not take sides on the basis of ideology. We make our critique in the light of our faith.
2. Clearly the government has aggressively promoted neo-liberal capitalism in order that Philippine products could compete at a “world class level.” Cautiously we acknowledge the economic gains of liberalization. But seeing the disparities that it brings about we must seriously question the haste with which it has been embraced as dogma and implemented as policy. The Philippines as a developing country has very little leverage against powerful economies and economic institutions such as the IMF (International Monetary Fund), WB (World Bank), and WTO. The inability of the country to play as an equal on a highly unequal economic field underscores the immediate and unfair advantage that developed countries possess, especially in the agricultural field. The imbalance of exports and imports downplay the chances of leveling the field of play.
3. We, therefore, ask the inevitable question: have not the hasty drive towards industrialization and the liberalized entry of foreign developers and investments into the country, compounded by the liberal infusion of vast amounts of borrowed foreign funds into our developing economy exacerbated, rather than eased, the economic situation? We ask this because some economists believe that the root of the present economic crisis goes back to 1992 when capital liberalization by the government encouraged foreign borrowing as speculative inflows. They state that Government did not distinguish types of investments nor did it select the areas of liberalization that provided development opportunities while protecting the rights of the poor or providing social safety nets. The policy has resulted in an even more shabby treatment of the poor.

Globalization

1. Liberalization, deregulation, and privatization are instruments of the phenomenon of globalization. Obviously it is yet in the process of unfolding. We see many beneficial effects in the social, economic, and cultural fields. And yet we already see likewise the very dire consequences on a developing and battered country like ours. It is true that globalization widens “international flows of trade, finance and information in a single integrated market.” Its requirement is “to liberalize national and global markets in the belief that the free flows of trade, finance and information will produce the best outcome for growth and human welfare.” Globalization “is presented with an air of inevitability and overwhelming conviction. Not since the heyday of free trade in the 19th century has economic theory elicited such widespread certainty” (United Nations Development Program, Human Development Report, 1997 [UNDP HDR], p. 82).
2. The United Nations Development Program reported that the rules of international trade are biased against poor countries. They do not level the economic playing field. “The Uruguay Round hardly changed the picture. Developing countries, with three quarters of the world’s people, will get only a quarter to a third of the income gains generated – hardly an equitable distribution – and most of that will go to a few powerful exporters in Asia and Latin America” (UNDP HDR, p. 85). The free flow of cheap labor has also become a product of globalization. The dire consequences of globalization impelled Pope John Paul II to call for “globalization in solidarity, a globalization without marginalization. This is a clear duty in justice…” (World Day of Peace Message, ibid. no. 3).
3. Widening free flows of exchange and negotiations and the free forces of the market system do not automatically result in equality of distribution or quality of growth. While inequality may not be inherent in globalization, still poor and developing countries and poor people too often find their interests neglected in such overarching systems. As one example: “Since investment flows are usually tied up with transfers of technology, this means huge regions of the world being left out of the technological advance” (Ibid. p. 84).
4. Ordinary people marvel at one truly dramatic dimension of globalization, namely, the information revolution. Unfortunately, information does not automatically translate into equality of opportunity and choices. The information highway is simply beyond the reach of the poor. Nagging questions of social inequality remain.

A Question of Development Models?

1. Economic recovery will be slow and more painful than is yet popularly perceived. Not only is this a currency and banking crisis or a property bubble that must be weathered. More profoundly, the present economic situation, replicated in many other parts of Asia, has raised serious questions about the viability of development models. Already in 1995 questions were raised in Malaysia about a so-called “Asian” development model that has as core elements high economic growth sustained indefinitely, managed and/or guided by omnipresent government officials, financed by foreign debt and implemented by cheap labor. Moreover, Westerners denounced “Asian” values that they associate today with crony capitalism, widespread corruption, banking irregularities, and lack of transparency.
2. On the other hand, the dominant “Western” model emphasizes free trade and encourages competition, especially under the umbrella of globalization. The idea is to produce higher and better quality returns than one’s competitors, to be open to foreign investments, protect property rights, liberalize regulations, privatize government business corporations and have minimal government intervention. Unfortunately, those countries that had rushed to embrace this model have suffered most in the crisis.
3. Yet it is clear that the best examples of the Asian model, Hong Kong and Singapore, topped the world in the 1997 Index of Economic Freedom by the Heritage Foundation and Wall Street. There is indeed an “East Asian miracle” which got the “basics” right. These include low inflation, high levels of domestic saving, heavy investment in education and openness to foreign technology. Experts tell us that East Asian economies have been mixing the formula of Asian values and market capitalism and have been reaping considerable success.
4. Still, many economists claim that development models be they Western or Asian, with their variants and combinations, tend to produce the same inequality of income, growth disproportionately against the poor, persistence of poverty and increased possibilities of social conflict. “Trickle down economics”, another name for “growth economics” inevitably creates inequality of income and wealth. We have yet to see a version of what some economists call “trickle up economics” where the fruits of economic growth are universally and equally shared. In the final analysis present development models are based on a vision of society that remains materialistic if not consumerist.

PART II: TOWARD DEVELOPMENT WITH A HUMAN FACE –
THE SOCIAL TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH

1. Can there be economic development with a human face? One that takes the plight of the poor as a primary consideration, ensures that the benefits are shared equitably by all, and removes the economic gaps and imbalances of society, so that social justice may be genuinely achieved?
2. As Bishops we cannot provide a blueprint as an answer to this overriding question. Nor can we provide technical solutions to the many complex problems of the economy. Those are not our tasks. Our task is to provide the moral principles that should be used as a framework of reflection on economic issues. These moral principles consist of the social teachings of the Church. Emerging from the Sacred Scriptures, from the religious traditions of the Church, and from the interplay of moral theological reflection and social situations, the social teachings of the Church provide “principles of reflection, criteria of judgment, and directives for action” in the social order [Paul VI, Octogesima Adveniens (1971); John Paul II, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 8 (1987)]. They guide us towards moral conduct.
3. We, therefore, wish to present and apply the main elements that guide moral reflection on the economic situation.

The Centrality of the Human Person and Human Solidarity

1. The subject as well as the aim of development is the human person, an individual as well as a social being, characterized by freedom, responsibility, and human rights.  The human person is “the subject of rights which no one may violate – no individual, group, class, nation or state” (Centesimus Annus [CA], no. 44). Born into a family and innately related to society, the person is in need: of personal development, of many “common goods” (peace and order, the rule of law, educational and cultural resources, an efficient economy, a clean environment, etc.). Neither the individual nor the family can unaided provide such goods for themselves. Society and community are supportive, subsidiary entities for the individual and the family, not the arenas for struggle of all against all.
2. What are some of the concrete implications of this moral principle regarding the centrality of the human person in economic development? In our present situation, the principle would certainly be one moral basis to denounce the threat to persons and to whole communities posed by mining explorations, dams, hydroelectric and geothermal plants, and other development projects. These are admittedly meant for the good of the people but so many cases from the experience of poor peoples inform us that only lip service is given to environmental protection and security of lands and domiciles. Invariably, the right of people to participate, or at least to be consulted, in decisions that affect their homes and their land – in sum, their lives – is ignored.
3. On the other hand, solidarity is the key social virtue, based on human dignity and the interdependence among individuals and social groups, including nations. It is a positive answer to the question posed by Cain in the Book of Genesis, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Through solidarity, it is possible to recognize one’s neighbor not only as “a human being with his or her own rights and a fundamental equality with everyone else.” One’s neighbor “becomes the living image of God the Father, redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ, and placed under the permanent action of the Holy Spirit” (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis [SRS], no. 40). Solidarity “is not a feeling of vague compassion or shallow distress at the misfortunes of so many people, both near and far. On the contrary, it is a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good; that is to say to the good of all and of each individual, because we are all really responsible for all ” (SRS, no. 38). Pope John Paul applies the virtue of solidarity to the relationships between individuals, between communities, and between nations. He also applies it to the responsibility of the more powerful to assist the weaker.
4. We extend this responsible solidarity to gender awareness.  The lack of gender awareness in development policies and in political processes means that men and women must live in an unequal world.  Society does not necessarily nor spontaneously provide equal opportunities for men and women to make choices.  The challenge is to foster gender equality and shared partnership between women and men as agents and beneficiaries of development (Philippine Human Development Report 1997). Commitment to the common good means women and men are equally responsible for their development and solidarity applies to relationships between men and women.  It is our contention that the development process will dramatically change for the better when women and men are equally represented and responsible for the common good of society.
5. What are some concrete implications of this principle on our present situation?
   1. Because of the principle of solidarity any economic development that would widen rather than reduce the gap between rich and poor would have to be denounced.
   2. We would have to reject any form of economic “imperialism” and “neo-colonialism” by which rich and powerful countries (democratic, socialist, or totalitarian) or transnational corporations can dominate or exploit the economies of developing countries and leave them in abject dependency.
   3. The principle would call various sectors of society to respond in united solidarity action to any social, political, cultural, or economic evil.
   4. Women ought to participate more and be given equal roles in the economic and political processes.

Option for the Poor

1. Option for the poor is one specific form of solidarity. In the Old Testament, it is manifested in the way God loved and defended the poor. It is most eminently demonstrated in the New Testament in the example of our Lord Jesus Christ, who became poor so that we might become rich with his grace and his life. In Jesus’ compassion for the poor, in announcing the Good News to them, in his life and actions for the poor, this preferential love for the poor is clearly manifest. He demands it of all his disciples. “Whatever you do to the least of my brethren, you do it to me.”
2. Many are the concrete implications of this moral principle on our present situation.
   1. Action for the victims of drought, typhoons, earthquakes and other national disaster, active concern for the unskilled and the unlearned, creation of job opportunities for the unemployed, investments with orientation to the poor even at some sacrifice regarding profit, more liberal loan and repayment conditionalities for poor countries and poor peoples – such are some examples.
   2. An even more immediate and concrete example is option for the poor as one of the moral principles governing the issue of allowing and determining price increases of oil and basic commodities. This would mean reducing profits derived from basic commodities for the sake of the poor.
   3. In the light of the principles of human dignity, human solidarity and option for the poor, we condemn the greater marginalization of the poor those results from the phenomenon of globalization.
   4. In the case of OFWs , the same ethical principles enjoin more prosperous nations to welcome and protect foreigners in search of security and  livelihood which they cannot find in their poor countries.  Our own government would have to create safety nets due to real threats of massive job retrenchment abroad. In the meantime a more serious effort would have to be made so as to reduce or altogether prevent abuses against and exploitation of OFWs abroad.

The Universal Purpose of Created Goods and Private Property

1. The first basic principle of property is the biblical truth that God created the earth and its natural resources for the good of all, to be fairly shared and enjoyed by all. This is the fundamental reason why the right to private property, as a natural right and an extension of human freedom, has a basic social orientation. The Church teaches that there is a “social mortgage” on property, that ownership rights are not absolute but subject to the common good (Gaudium et Spes [GS], nos. 69-71; SRS, no. 45; CA, no. 30).
2. From this common purpose stem other principles like equitable distribution, the use of productive property for the common good, the duty to preserve the environment and responsibly use the natural resources with which the Lord has endowed us (CA., no. 37).
   1. In our Philippine situation such principles would certainly reject situations like the continuing concentration of economic power in the hands of a few, particularly oligopolies; the pervading presence of absolute poverty; the flight of financial capital especially in times of national crisis; and legislation that sacrifices the good of the many in order to preserve the vested interests of the few.
   2. The same principles would mandate the ethical directions that businesses and investments should take: Create jobs in the local market, open to the public ownership of corporations, especially those related to our natural resources, and invest in the rural and poor areas for the sake of the poor, even when profits are less.

Work, Productivity, and Productive Efficiency

1. The human person has received from God the vocation to work. Through human work the person shares in God’s productive activity, makes of the world a true home for humanity. By work the person aims at perfection and becomes “more a human being” (Laborem Exercens [LE], no. 9). Work includes today the “ability to foresee both the needs of others and the combinations of productive factors most adapted to satisfying these needs” (Centesimus Annus [CA], no. 32).
2. This means know-how, technology and skills. On the possession of knowledge, technology and skill, productive efficiency depends. Modern economies are based much more on these than material resources3.
3. Precisely because of the nature of work, a new kind of poverty has emerged: the lack of know-how, technology and skill, including entrepreneurial skills. As Pope John Paul II has observed:

   The fact is that many people, perhaps the majority today, do not have the means which would enable them to take their place in an effective and humanly dignified way within a productive system in which work is truly central. They have no possibility of acquiring the basic knowledge that would enable them to express their creativity and develop their potential. They have no way of entering the network of knowledge and intercommunication that would enable them to see their qualities appreciated and utilized. Thus, if not actually exploited, they are to a great extent marginalized; economic development takes place over their heads. They are unable to compete against the goods which are produced in ways which are new and which properly respond to need, needs which they had previously been accustomed to meeting through traditional forms of organizations (CA, no. 33).

4. At this point, we need to highlight and denounce the exploitation of children in the labor field.  Forced by poverty to abandon schooling, they are pressured to help support their families through various forms of work, in workshops and on the streets, work that is beyond their years, exploits them for cheap labor and inhibits their normal growth as persons.
5. These observations on work, production and productive efficiency have significant implications on development priorities. Three clear examples arise.
   1. Budgets for education should not be sacrificed for other services. The government must help struggling private non-stock and non-profit educational entities that are rendering good education. Based on an integral understanding of reality, education should emphasize a personal development that is functional and relevant to the increasing demands of know-how, technology and skills.
   2. On the other hand, rural development must not be sacrificed for nor play second fiddle to industrial development. We have yet to see a government that will balance the urban and rural development scheme.
   3. The laws on the rights of children and on child labor must be improved and forcefully implemented.

Land and Agrarian Reform

1. It is often said that agrarian reform is the centerpiece of the government’s development plan. Such intent commendably conforms to the social teachings of the church on land and agrarian reform. While in industrializing countries, the ownership of knowledge, technology and skill is becoming more important than land, for most of the developing countries land is still central. Unfortunately, in many cases “those who cultivate it are excluded from ownership and are reduced to a state of quasi-servitude” (CA, no. 33).
2. The fundamental principles governing land are the principles of the universal purpose of created goods and the right to private property, understood especially in its social dimension. The church strongly criticizes the two-tiered system of land distribution that prevails in many developing countries, with a “small number of large landowners possessing most of the arable land, while vast numbers of very small owners, tenants and settlers farm the remaining land, which is often of inferior quality” (Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, “Toward a Better Distribution of Land”, Rome, 1997, no. 4; the same document goes on to analyze both the dynamics that have crated this situation and its negative impact on development efforts, nos. 6-21).
3. In the Philippines, it is most unfortunate that the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) has been watered down from the beginning, e.g., as to retention limits and exemptions, because government, dominated as it is by landowners, lacked the political will to pass a law that would be truly meaningful to tenants long in bondage. The recent amendments to the Agrarian Reform Program reflects the slowness to implement even the watered down version because of landowners’ resistance. The interests and welfare of the poor continue to take the last seat.
   1. The above moral principles lead us to denounce the concentration of land ownership in the hands of a few and the ownership of excessively large estates.
   2. We also strongly urge and support a more genuine redistribution of land and a truly comprehensive reform program with the necessary support services for new farmer owners.
   3. We support all NGOs and farmers’ groups that press the government for a more genuine agrarian reform in accord with the Church’s social teachings.

Priority of Labor over Capital, Workers Rights over Profit.

1. Pope John Paul II emphasized one of the most significant social teachings of the Church in his 1981 social encyclical, Laborem Exercens:

   “…we must first of all recall a principle that has always been taught by the Church: the principle of the priority of labor over capital. This principle directly concerns the process of production: in this process labor is always a primary efficient cause, while capital, the whole collection of means of production, remains a mere instrument or instrumental cause. This principle is an evident truth that emerges from the whole of man’s historical experience” (LE, 12).

2. Capital then is only an instrument in the hand of the person who works. As an instrument it must serve the common good. The great “workbench” that we call capital is itself the product of the natural resources created by God and given for the use of all and transformed by human labor. The worker receives a double inheritance: from the Creator and from workers who have gone before. Capital is the heritage of all who work; hence neither the master of “labor” nor its opponent but its servant (see LE, 13).
3. A necessary corollary to this social teaching is the truth that the means of production “cannot be possessed against labor.” The “only legitimate title” to the private and collective possession of the means of production is “that they should serve labor.” By serving labor, the means of production would thus comply with the first principle on the universal destination of goods and the right to the common use of them” (LE, no. 14).
4. As a consequence, maximum profit must not be the chief motive of the economic enterprise. The legitimate role of profit is recognized; it is a sign of the health of a business. But it is not the only sign. “It is possible for the financial account to be in order and yet for the people – who make up the firm’s most valuable asset – to be humiliated and their dignity offended.” In fact the purpose of the firm is not simply to make a profit but to serve the community of persons that it should be and serve the whole of society (CA, no. 35). Further, the respect for the objective rights of workers “must constitute the adequate and fundamental criterion for shaping the whole economy” (LE, no. 17). This is why “in every case, a just wage is the concrete means of verifying the justice of the whole socioeconomic system and, in any case, of checking that it is functioning justly” (LE, no. 19).
5. In the light of the above, serious questions have to be raised on the basic attitudes of businesses regarding labor unions, collective bargaining and just wages in terms of “family living wage,” working conditions and retrenchment of workers, to name a few. The first community of persons that the firm must serve should be its own workers – from its executives down to the line production laborers. If so, then why must the just wage be so sensitive an issue? Like company executives, are not laborers entitled to wages commensurate to their work that includes benefits for those with families?
6. It has been a consistent teaching of the Church that workers should share in the profits of the corporation where they work and be given opportunities for participation in ownership. This is so because they work towards the accumulation of more capital for the corporation. Hence, they need to share in the profit of the firm as owners themselves. The sad part is that foreigners with their capital in the form of cash outlays or borrowings are entitled to ownership while the Filipino laborers with their human labor at hand and the cash they receive in wages are relegated to cheap labor.
   1. In the light of the above principles, labor and capital must work in solidarity toward creating a real “community of persons” rather than be adversaries in the achievement of their respective welfare and of the common good.
   2. We reiterate what we have already said often in the past that it is a fundamental and serious injustice for management to stifle the right of workers to organize themselves into unions. On the other hand, unions should not simply be inward looking, defending their own interests even at the expense of the common good.
   3. We urge business firms to implement some form of profit sharing with their workers. Members of the Bishops-Businessmen’s Conference should take a leading part in implementing this social teaching of the Church.
   4. Likewise our own church institutions must ensure that church workers receive just wages.

The Market System and Some Specific Tasks of the State

1. After the collapse of socialism in Eastern Europe many began to believe that the capitalism of the West with its free market system has finally emerged totally victorious. This is not the thought of the Church. The Church continues to speak of the dangers of a “radical capitalist ideology” that is “unconcerned about marginalization and the exploitation of the weak” (CA, no. 42). Pope John Paul II speaks of situations in the developing nations “in which the rules of the earliest period of capitalism still flourish in conditions of ‘ruthlessness’ in no way inferior to the darkest moments of the first phase of industrialization” (CA, no.33; interestingly, see in this regard, UNDP, HDR 1997, p. 8).
2. The truth is that the Pope’s words regarding the free market are cautious: “It would appear that, on the level of individual nations and of international relations, the free market is the most efficient instrument for utilizing resources and effectively responding to needs” (CA, no. 34). Yet he goes on to say: “But there are many human needs that find no place on the market. It is a strict duty of justice and truth not to allow fundamental human needs to remain unsatisfied and not to allow those burdened by such needs to perish (Loc. cit.).
3. The social teaching on the inadequacies and limits of the free market calls into question the imposition of a predominant neo-liberal capitalism on the countries of the world in the name of globalization. Developing countries like the Philippines do not have much choice but to give in hastily to liberalization and deregulation when faced by possible sanctions from economic superpowers. But precisely in such situations is the role of the State so necessary. As Pope John Paul II has pointed out: Capitalism must be “circumscribed with a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious” (CA, no. 45). The Pope refers particularly to the marginalization and exploitation of the poor that result from the unbridled operations of the free market.
4. In our present situation, the following tasks of the State are urgent:
   1. To guarantee individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. The absence of such stability as well as the corruption of public officials and the possibility of easy profits from illegal and purely speculative activities are major obstacles to development;
   2. To sustain business activity by creating conditions that will ensure job opportunities, without regulating all of economic life and restricting human freedom and initiative unduly;
   3. To intervene when particular monopolies create delays or obstacles to development and to take over, temporarily, activities that the private sector is not yet ready to handle competently, as the principle of subsidiarity would enjoin;
   4. To act with special consideration for the poor by placing certain limits on the autonomy of the parties who determine working conditions and by ensuring in every case the necessary minimum support for the unemployed worker (see CA, no. 15).
5. The clamor today for the government to dismantle all kinds of cartel, to prevent price increases, to enact laws that are truly for the common good, to establish safety nets, to create job opportunities, to set up safeguards for OFWs, to stabilize the currency and act against currency speculators are clear signs of public perception that the government may not be doing its job well in overseeing the processes of liberalization and deregulation.

The Role of International Agencies

1. The UNDP Human Development Report of 1997 has indicated that the marginalization of poor nations because of the increased internationalization of the economy has taken place. The economic benefits promised to the poor by globalization are real in many instances. But the Report observed that liberalization “has been accompanied by greater inequality, with a falling share of income for the poorest 20 percent as in several Latin American countries” (UNDP HDR, p. 89). Further, the Report states: “Even less certain than globalization’s benefits for poor countries are its benefits for poor people within countries” (ibid., p. 87).
2. While the immediate responsibility to prevent catastrophe from taking place in the Philippines rests with the government, international agencies must play an effective and significant role. In many circles of the developing world, the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and World Trade Organization are increasingly being criticized as instruments of economic domination by superpowers. While not all criticisms may be valid, the dominant influence of such international agencies not only in the economic but also in the political order should require them to level the playing field for all and guarantee fairness and equity in the rules of the game, with option for the poor as a deciding factor. At present this is not the case. Already in 1991, Pope John Paul II recommended that:
   1. The interests of the whole human family be represented in international agencies that oversee and direct the economy to the common good;
   2. “It is also necessary that in evaluating the consequences of their decisions, these agencies always give sufficient consideration to peoples and countries that have little weight in the international market but which are burdened by the most acute and desperate needs and are thus more dependent on support for their development” (CA, no. 58).
3. It is in the light of the above and in the light of the Asian economic crisis that we likewise need to re-examine the role of ASEAN and APEC, as they impact on the lives of the poor.

The Prophetic Role of the Church vis-à-vis Globalization

1. It has always been the role of the Church to be a prophet, announcing and teaching the message of God, a message that is primarily religious and ethical, but with profound cultural, political, social and economic implications.
2. When Pope John Paul II spoke in 1991 of a “radical capitalist ideology,” unconcerned about marginalization and exploitation of the weak, he could well have been anticipating the current situation in the Third World and in the Philippines.
3. The realization of the Pope’s prophetic words is found in the UNDP Human Development Report of 1996. It speaks of: jobless growth, without new opportunities for employment; ruthless growth, benefiting mainly the wealthy; voiceless growth, without extension of democracy or empowerment; rootless growth that causes cultural identities to wither; futureless growth that destroys the environment. All of this quite contrary to the experience of countries which have rapidly reduced the percentage of poor in their population by focusing on improving the health and skills of the poor and promoting a type of development which utilizes their most abundant asset, i.e., their labor, and this particularly in the rural areas where most of the poor are, and at the same time reduces inequality of income (see UNDP HDR, 1996, pp. 6-7).
4. The prophetic call of the Church is: “Globalization without marginalization; globalization in solidarity” (cf. Pope John Paul II, Message on World Day of Peace, January 1, 1998). It is a call for the defense of the weak in the Third World in the face of a global process, seemingly unrestrained by any other rules than those of the market, and attracting unscrupulous devastating speculative attacks on weak currencies in the name of profit. With the WTO acting as worldwide extension of “free market” we are presently witnessing the uncontrolled power of the multinational corporations, the fund managers, the global market and stock exchanges. It is reported that daily foreign exchange flows amount to around one trillion dollars . These do not have much relationship to services or investments. In fact the global market has become a global arena for unconscionable currency speculation, whose destructive effects the Philippines is now suffering. Sadly, governments profess relative inability to control these movements.
5. In a word, freedom in the economic sector is not, in our experience “circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality…” (CA, no. 42). Neither is the principle respected that private property is secondary to the universal destiny of created goods, and surely not the priority of labor over capital, or of workers’ rights over profits. Even less considered is the virtue of solidarity with special preference for the poor. Our concern for NIC-hood has been allowed to override all other considerations.
6. At a deeper level, we see a problem that seems to be inherent in globalization. Globalization is essentially an economic ideology with a set of policies and practices that intends to create global economic interdependence. At the present time its direction seems to be unadulterated laissez-faire capitalism, with the underpinning principle, rather deterministic, that market forces if left to themselves will automatically work for the good of humanity. In practice the concrete implication and result are a reversal of the ethical order of reality, the subjection and subordination of the human person to market forces and objectives. This we must prophetically denounce in the light of the social teachings of the Church.
7. Hence the Church must play a prophetic role in the economic order. The Church must not be unaware of the vast potential for good that a redirected globalization carries, but not blind either to its ideological materialistic underpinnings and its dire consequences on peoples and their cultures.

A Caring Economy – Development with a Human Face

1. For the Church, socialism and capitalism are not the only alternatives. In the struggle against an economic system understood as “a method of upholding the absolute predominance of capital, the possession of the means of production and of the land in contrast to the free and personal nature of human work,” the church offers a vision of “a society of free work, of enterprise and of participation.” Such a society “demands that the market be appropriately controlled by the forces of society and by the State so as to guarantee that the basic needs of the whole society are satisfied” (CA, no. 35).
2. Admittedly this vision is not at all a concrete economic model. It is simply the ideal orientation expressed in the Church’s social teachings for the reconstruction of the social order (CA, no. 43). We might call the economy and the development that such a vision requires as a caring economy and development with a human face.
3. Does this vision, based on the social teachings of the Church, point to an alternative model of development? Certainly it does, since present models of development, be it socialist or capitalist, are materialistic. Some alternative directions would be the following: both access to and ownership of economic capital and production have to be dispersed and should not entirely remain in favor of the owners of monetary institutions, well-established landlords and politicians. A key concern is to be responsible for the natural resources and economic means of production and to have the leadership qualities to exercise this responsibility. Ownership of land and other means of production would have to be a shared responsibility for the common good. Such an idea is nothing else but what the church calls responsible stewardship of the goods God himself has given.
4. This thinking on an alternative model has already been brought forward through such instruments as the Human Development Index of the United Nations Development Program. The focus is on meeting basic needs and having human measurements and standards as a basis of judging growth. The human person – the subject and aim of development – really becomes central in such reckoning. Fortunately NGOs in the Philippines such as the Philippine Human Development Network (PHDN) are rethinking development models along the same lines. Other NGOs have helped develop an alternative development program, “The Philippine Agenda of Development for the 21st Century.” Such efforts towards “a caring economy and development with a human face” should be encouraged and supported by other members of civil society as well as by the government.

The Prophetic Role of the Laity in the Economic Order

1. While the entire Church (clergy, religious, and laity) has the mission to renew every aspect of human life in accordance with the Gospel, it is the specific vocation of lay people to renew the temporal order, including economics. “By reason of their special vocation it belongs to the laity to seek the kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and directing them to God’s will…” (Lumen Gentium , no. 31). Hence they have to renew economic life with the values of the Gospel and of the Kingdom of God, which are authentically human values, such as integrity, justice, equity, service, preferential option for the poor, responsible stewardship.
2. They fulfill their vocation best by assuming a prophetic role in word and deed. In word, for example by encouraging business leaders to adhere to the principles that truly promote the economic good of all (such as those that we have explained above); in deed, by faithfully practicing in their own business life those same principles, courageously resisting the pressures of an unbalanced economic structure to succumb to its evil demands.
3. Most business people, politicians, landlords and other power-wielders are Christians, even Catholics. Some breast-beating is necessary for all of us to acknowledge our own failures in bringing our economy down to what it is today with all its “structures of injustice.” But we do have the power of our faith to help renew not only our own economic life but also the structures that we have built. Once again, lay people have the all-important task of leading society and the Church in this mission of renewal.
4. We emphasize the fact that the prophetic word of the Church to the economic order is not merely about economic production or juridical or social organization. It is about solutions that call for “ethical and religious values, as well as changes of mentality, behavior, and structures” (see CA, no. 60).

PART III: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONFRONTING THE SITUATION

1. The analysis that we presented in Part I indicated that the current crisis has its roots in our financial institutions, whence it has spread to other aspects of the economy. At the same time, it indicated that the economy as a whole had long suffered from orientations and policies that enhanced the welfare of the wealthy at the expense of the poor.
2. While leaving the technical solutions and the management of the financial crisis to experts, we as Bishops call for a reorientation of general economic policy in favor of the poor, in other words that we do more than get the economy back onto the same old tracks. Despite the defects of our political system, experience indicates that it is permeable; when civil society and public opinion carefully work out their proposals and push them with persistence, they can effectively influence government policies. We, therefore, emphasize here some of the doables.
   1. We reiterate one of the important decrees of the second Plenary Council of the Philippines. It is the task of social action to “set up special programs to address such crucial issues as peace and economy, agrarian and industrialization concerns, the exploitation of women and minors and overseas workers, children and youth, and intensify the organization of the grassroots people or empowerment and self-reliance through cooperatives and livelihood programs and projects” (PCP-II, Art. 23, #1).
   2. We should facilitate domestic saving and increase access to credit by supporting the microsaving and microfinance activities of the poor and by linking them to formal savings and credit institutions (see World Bank, SFPP, Annex B, “Microfinance in the Philippines,” pp. 62-65).  Such access to credit by the poor should be facilitated by interest rates within their reach.
   3. In the light of the principle of subsidiarity, the government should support, rather than penalize, the informal economy of small independent producers and sellers; this is the real safety net of the poor. It not only provides livelihood but also contributes substantially to the GDP.
   4. Safety nets should be well targeted on the most vulnerable groups; likewise the Social Reform Agenda must be better targeted.
   5. Increase rather than reduce investment in human development – health and education; evaluate the privatization of health and welfare services before going further; focus on public education resources on improving grade-school education, rather than on turning out more law and commerce graduates.
   6. Rural development and food security must be ensured as further industrialization is promoted. Genuine cooperativism and the establishment of cooperatives among the poor should be encouraged and supported without any political patronage so that efficiency, productivity, and self-reliance at the grassroots level could be achieved.  Agrarian Reform must be pushed forward resolutely, decisively, and rapidly.
   7. In line with the example of the early Christian communities, widespread sharing of resources must be practiced, as in the program of Alay Kapwa, in small communities, and at the level of parishes and dioceses.
   8. As a sign of goodwill, legislators must give up their Countryside Development Funds and their membership in legislative committees that involve conflict of interest on their part.
   9. Monopolies and control of business through franchises and control of choke points should be eliminated.
   10. Revise the tax system, particularly the assessment of land taxes. Low taxes on land, particularly underdeveloped land, encourage speculation and push prices out of the reach of the poor. Check the discretion of land assessors and eliminate alleged corruption in the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
   11. Restore people’s confidence in the system by greater transparency.
   12. Equal opportunities, responsibilities and participation in development must be given to women.
   13. R.A. 8042 on OFWs should be fully implemented; the government should create a fast and effective mechanism for OFWs to invest in the Philippines, thus generating more development for the country and creating domestic alternatives to migration.
   14. Encourage a culture and work ethic that prizes competence, efficiency, and production as the key to success, and support this with appropriate reward structures.
   15. Partnerships for change among all agents of society should be established – trade unions, the media, community groups, private companies, political parties, academic institutions, professional associations – the groups which Catholic social thought has long insisted on as “intermediary groups” (e.g., CA, no. 13). Pope John Paul II called for a “social pact” among such groups (Message to the Philippine Ambassador to the Holy See, 1990). Finally, the UNDP HDR, 1997, points to the need for ” an enabling and responsive state” which will promote participation and encourage public-private partnerships while itself being transparent and accountable and resisting pressures from the economically powerful (HDR, p. 94).
   16. Work at the international level for the establishment of a rule of law there which goes beyond the rules of the market place and protects the poor and the weak – as progressive nations have already done with their domestic economies.
   17. Work at the international level for the reduction or even cancellation of external debts in accord with the Jubilee norms of Leviticus, as suggested by the Apostolic Letter of Pope John Paul II, Tertio Millennio Adveniente, no. 51; this idea is also being followed up at the international level by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Rome.
   18. Finally a deep and participatory assessment of and investigation into the type or model of development the government wants to pursue should be conducted, particularly as it impacts on the poor. This includes, in particular, economic policies on liberalization and deregulation, relationships with the WTO, IMF, and World Bank. The efforts of various NGOs in search of a more caring development model should be encouraged and supported.

Conclusion

1. Economically the next few years will still be very rough for countries like the Philippines. There does not seem to be any economic miracle in sight. Even now the more the powerful Asian economies, like Japan and China, are faltering – with dire consequences for our country. The time for economic austerity is long overdue. The celebration this year of the centennial of our political independence from Spain surely means for us more than just a patriotic look at the past. It must impel us to have a vision of the future, a vision of genuine political and economic independence, even in an economic global village.
2. The message that we wish to give in this critical look at our economy is this: only when economic relationships, policies,  programs, and structures are thoroughly infused with moral principles that put the face of God and the many faces of the poor into the picture,  only when we as a nation shall do away with greed, selfishness,  unhealthy competition, and the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of the few  will true economic development take place. This should be development with a human face.
3. For this to be realized, solidarity must be forged among ourselves, but especially with the poor. Such solidarity must likewise be international, among First World and Third World countries. We need to recognize what globalization with solidarity ultimately means, namely, the unity under God of the one human family where there should be no exploitation,  no impoverishment, and no injustice; where the goods of the earth and the benefits of development are fairly distributed. This vision is nurtured by Christian hope, which assures us that in the end good will triumph over evil, life over death, love over hatred, generosity over greed.
4. It is also Christian hope that convinces us that, though the years ahead will be years of the Cross, years of struggle and sacrifice, with the grace of God the Filipino shall prevail.

For the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines:
+Oscar V. Cruz, D.D.
President

July 10, 1998

PASTORAL EXHORTATION ADDRESSED TO THE PEOPLE OF GOD ON THE PHILIPPINE CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION

“I have witnessed the affliction of my people in Egypt and have heard their cry of complaint against their slave drivers, so I know well what they are suffering.  Therefore I have come down to rescue them…  and lead them out into a good and spacious land.” (Exod 3:7b-8a)

For this year, our country celebrates the Centenary of our political independence.  For all of us, this has profound significance in the past, at present and for the future.

Proclaimed a hundred years ago at Kawit, Cavite, the Declaration of Philippine Independence signaled the development of Filipino consciousness and marked the culmination of years of struggle for Filipino nationhood.  In that struggle, thousands of Filipino heroines and heroes, such as Fathers Gomez, Burgos and Zamora (GOMBURZA), the Fathers of Nationalism, participated to gain freedom from colonial domination.

At present, the Centennial celebration is a great occasion for us to thank our sisters and brothers who dedicated their lives, even to the point of dying, to preserve the heritage of freedom.  It also stands as a reminder to examine ourselves how far we have been worthy of that heritage, and how far we have contributed in sustaining it.  For our part as an institution, we apologize for the ambiguous stand some Church people held during the revolution, which partly explains the rise of the religious revolution.  It is with pride to recall the EDSA defined what struggle for freedom means to a nation “colonized” by its own leaders.

For the years ahead, the Centenary serves as an inspiration to confront and shape the future of our nation vis-à-vis the political values which its defenders of freedom stood for, and as a vehicle to reawaken the spirit of nationalism and love of country.

Aware of its multifaceted significance, we, the Filipino bishops, join our people in this centennial celebration of independence.  In the light of faith, we view this event as a milestone.  Freedom from external domination is consistent with God’s will for us.  The Lord, after all, is a God of freedom who liberates his people from hegenomy (Micah 6:4).  In fact, he raises up leaders to bring them freedom (Judg 6:14), because he witnesses how much they suffer and hears their cry (Exod 3:7; Judg 4:3).

But we also wish to point out that true freedom cannot be limited to merely political independence.  Truth to tell, we are still in the process of liberating ourselves.  Today, our liberty is eroded not so much by foreign invaders, as by among the few, inequality and lack of participation, injustice and exploitation, deficient cultural values and mindset, destruction of the ecosystem, and deterioration of peace and order, to mention a few.  True freedom demands that we, especially the poor and the disadvantaged, are liberated from these evils (cf Gal 3:25-28).  It requires profound changes in our socio-economic and political structures, revolution of the heart (cf Jas 4:1), and, most important, liberation from sin (2 Chr 7:14; Rom 6:18; 1 Tim 1:15).  It dictates that we ourselves shape our history.

We wish to stress that true independence is synonymous not so much with the status of a newly-industrialized country (NIC), as with integral freedom (cf Mark 2:1-12):  “human dignity and solidarity are respected and promoted, moral principles prevail in socio-economic life and structures, justice, love and solidarity are the inner driving forces of development”  (PCP II, 253).  If we wish to rekindle as well as to remain faithful to the spirit of 1898 in the light of faith, we must continue to struggle toward total human development and liberation, going beyond the commemorative celebration.  In particular, we must change the way we practice politics, which is “the biggest bane in our life as a nation, and the most pernicious obstacle to our achieving full human development”  (CBCP, Exhortation on Philippine Politics).

It is with this spirit that we invite the people of God to participate in the celebration of the Philippine Centennial which reaches it summit on June 12th, but continues until December, 1998.  For the present limited purpose, however, such participation could be realized through the following sample agenda:  National: knowing Philippine history, displaying of the Philippine flag, buying Filipino products, living the Filipino bayanihan spirit, and preserving Filipino culture;  Cultural:  protection of unborn children, respect for the old and respect for indigenous people’s culture;  Sociological :  attending to the handicapped, helping the poor, arranging medical services, and visiting prisoners;  Religious:  ecumenical encounters for prayer and unity, interreligious dialogue, centennial eucharistic celebration, and church bell ringing on centennial day (June 12th).

These sample agenda could be attended to, within the purview of fidelity to history, through talks, conferences, seminars, workshops, programs and activities.

We wish to encourage the parish priests, the parish pastoral councils, the basic ecclesial communities (BECs), other communities of faith, and the families to celebrate this event either as a parish affair, as a small community activity, or in coordination and collaboration with the civil government in the respective localities.

May the Virgin Mary who watches with maternal care over our country obtain from her Son the grace we need to make the centennial celebration memorable and meaningful.

For the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines:
+OSCAR V. CRUZ, D.D.
Archbishop of Lingayen-Dagupan
President, CBCP

March 16, 1998