Sisa Grey
To profit or to life?
Hannah Perez
In the sweltering heat, a long line of people stood along University Avenue. They were the national minorities who came for Lakbayan. Gathering in front of the University of the Philippines (UP) Diliman’s Quezon Hall, they came to protest against the injustices they experienced.
Against all the tarps and flags, words written on a tiny piece of cardboard caught my eye. “Tunay na reporma sa lupa ipaglaban.” The letters screamed in bright red.
I was taken back to last year when the Lumad came to the university. Lumad is a term that refers to non-Moro ethnic or indigenous groups living mostly in Southern Mindanao. They were driven away from their land to make way for mining and logging corporations.
The land they cared for; the land their ancestors took care of; the land they were born in was stripped from them. They were gunned and accused of having ties with the New People’s Army (NPA). Their schools were closed. Hundreds were displaced.
The root of all these problems is a question of ownership.
​
In the article Standing on Contentious Grounds: Land Grabbing, Philippine Style, Mary Ann Manahan, Jerik Cruz, and Danilo Carranza describe land grabbing as “a political issue that is also driven by economic objectives.”
To whom or to what should the land be allotted for? Our nation’s leaders have to decide whether to devote it to subdivision developers, mining operations, or agriculture. If our economists and politicians would base their judgment upon which of these would have greater and faster yield, then more shall be lost than gained.
​
Mining corporations and huge land developers
often leave a bigger carbon footprint. It contributes to air pollution and the loss of biodiversity.
What’s more, our natural resources are being exhausted to serve the greediness of the wealthy few. Corporates get richer, while the natives are robbed of their livelihood.
​
Some say urban development is needed to catch up to first world countries. These corporations guarantee exactly that. In fact, it is inevitable; but the costs are serious. Land grabbing undermines basic human rights. People have the right to life and to property, regardless of social or economic status; yet they are barred from acquiring these.
The Philippines should be an agricultural country, as there are abundant resources. It boggles my mind why it is not. Why not build up on what we already have? We risk losing our agricultural sector in the pursuit of imperialist idealism.
​
Despite the grim implications on the environment and the people, there are many instances when the State has allowed land grabbing to happen, not only in Mindanao.
​
Another significant case of land grabbing, according to When Disasters Clear the Land: Narratives of Post-Yolanda Land Contestations, involved victims of Typhoon Haiyan. Manahan said unclear policies from the government created forced evacuations from among the people living in disaster areas. One example of this was the case in Sicogon island, Iloilo.
​
According to the 2015 Global Hunger Index (GHI) the country scored 20.1, 6.8 points higher than the East and Southeast Asia average of 13.2. This year, it went down by 0.2 points. If the land were appropriated for agriculture — titles given to individual families — we would not only add to our food supply but we would also save lives.
When lands are fairly distributed, families will be fed, and their income will be added to the GDP. They will become more productive. They keep what they earn and spend for themselves. They will not be forced out of desperation to move to the city begging for scraps. It is not a loss, but rather a return to what we owe our farmers.
It has been a year since the displacement of hundreds of Lumads and yet upon their return to the campus their stories are still the same. They do not need megacities or dangerous mining operations. They want an end to militarization, they need land to live on, and to pass on to the next generations.
That is why minority groups from all over the country have come to the metro seeking change--just peace and genuine reform. When the people come together it can be a powerful force for change. However, if the law is not on their side it will prove to be a long and strenuous task.
The State is a main actor that would either allow or regulate the phenomenon through its policies, said the article. Our nation’s leaders need to choose between economic or public good. When they choose the people, as it should be in a democracy, they need to be firm in their resolve.
“Tunay na reporma,” not empty promises are what these people and many others who suffer the same consequences need; and we need them.
