TRACK RECORD: Tracking the Treachery and Recording the Deceit of Akbayan

ANAKBAYAN SPECIAL FEATURE

In 2007, Akbayan joined progressive partylist groups in calling for the disqualification of partylist groups created, funded, and backed by the Palace. It claimed that such ‘Palace fronts’ “makes a mockery of the law and the reasons for which the system was created in the first place.”

But in 2012, Akbayan is now the one backed by the Palace. Many of its officials, former representatives, and nominees for 2013, are heads of government agencies: the Office of the Presidential Advisor for Political Affairs, National Anti-Poverty Commission, Commission on Human Rights, National Youth Commission, Social Security Service, and the Government Service Insurance System.

Despite its obvious bias for the Aquino regime and against the Filipino people, Akbayan seeks to defend itself by saying that we should “look into their track record.”

Indeed, Akbayan’s track record will indeed show whether it represents the marginalized and underrepresented of Philippine society, or not.

On Cybercrime Law

Akbayan supported the Cybercrime Law until the very last minute.

The partylist group defended the Law, saying it was only ‘partially repressive’. Instead of joining calls by other groups and civil society to junk it, Akbayan called on the public to ‘participate in the drafting of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)’. As stated by legal experts however, an IRR could not make any significant changes in any law. Participation in creating the IRR would have only served to create an image of public support for the Cybercrime Law.

Akbayan did not join any of the protests, nor even hold any protest activity of its own. None of the 15 Supreme Court petitions filed against the Law came from the group. It only issued a public statement against the Cybercrime Law after the Supreme Court issued a TRO. Their statements after the TRO only reflect the hypocrisy they needed to utilize in order to avoid being “irrelevant”.

Akbayan consistently shielded the Palace from any accountability regarding the Cybercrime Law while not making any significant effort to junk the law.

On the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Extension with Reforms Bill (CARPER)

Akbayan pushed for a fake land reform program in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Extension with Reforms (CARPER) in 2008.

CARPER still contained the loopholes in the old CARP which allowed landlords to prevent their haciendas and other landed estates from being distributed to farmers and peasants.

One such loophole is the ‘Stock Distribution Option’ (SDO) which was used in President Aquino’s Hacienda to Luisita. Instead of actually distributing the land, shares of stocks in the corporation ‘managing’ the estate were given to the farmers. In the case of Luisita, many received less than a hundred pesos in exchange for those stocks.

Another loophole is the ‘Voluntary Offer to Sell’ (VOS), a method of transferring the land from landlord to farmer. In such a method, landlords get to choose when they will give up their lands, and which of their lands will be given up. In addition, the VOS allows landlords to further inflate the price of their lands, and the payments which the farmers have to make.

As of present, even government data shows that CARPER has failed. With only two out of the six years allotted to the program remaining, only around 1/3 of all lands targeted for distribution have actually been distributed. This does not even take into account the huge number of cases where landlords managed to take back their holdings because the farmers were unable to pay.

Aquino’s reluctance to land reform, such as that of his predecessors, to implement genuine land reform has also become clear, owing much to his haciendero background and his political ties to groups like Akbayan who reinforce position of executing bogus land reform.

These, and other provisions of the CARPER, proved that the law that Akbayan boasts is anti-farmer and anti-poor. It has made farmers’ lives much harder amidst gross land-grabbing and exploitation in the countryside. Making them suffer for land that they have cultivated at the hands of hacienderos.

On Students’ Rights and Welfare (STRAW) Bill

Akbayan Youth brags that they represent the interests of the youth. But the STRAW Bill they’ve been pushing in Congress for years has several loopholes that legalizes more repression inside campus.

The bill in general gives the school administration vast control in organization and establishment of student councils, school organizations, and campus publications, and the power to meddle with students and their institutions’ right to freedom of expression.

The bill also has no provision banning the presence of the military, paramilitary, police and even intelligence units inside campuses. This makes campuses prone to militarization.

On education budget cuts

Page 1 of 2 | Next page