[Re]Creating the Lived Experiences of Women in a Struggle for Agrarian Reform in Hacienda Luisita

5

The Philippine Journal of Development CommunicationVol. 5 January-December 2013

Articles

An Actantial Analysis of Selected Narratives of Participatory Development Communication in Community-Based Natural Resource Management Lynette B. Carpio-Serrano

[Re]Creating the Lived Experiences of Women in a Struggle for Agrarian Reform in Hacienda LuisitaLodigario A. Rigor Jr. & Romel A. Daya

Training in Participatory Program Development: The Case of Researcher-Broadcasters in Radyo DZLB in Los Baños, Laguna, PhilippinesAiza Marcos-Balinos and Serlie Barroga-Jamias

The ‘Like’ Advocacy: Facebook Environmental Campaigns and Page Followers’ Behavior in Environmental InitiativesMinji Na

Beyond Science Literacy: (Re)reading Science Communication from a Development Communication PerspectiveGarry Jay S. Montemayor

Research Note

Romel Daya

Highlight

Philippine Journal of Development Communication6 7

The Philippine Journal

of Development Communication

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Editorial OfficeCollege of Development CommunicationUniversity of the Philippines Los BañosCollege, Laguna 4031Phone: (63) (049) 536-2511 loc 214 (63) (049) 536-3356Fax: (63) (049) 536-3697E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.devcom.edu.ph

Permission InformationParts of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise with proper citation and with prior permission from the College of Development Communication, UP Los Baños.

The Philippine Journal of Development Communication is a journal of communication published twice a year by the College of Development Communication (CDC) University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB).

EDITORIAL BOARD

Ma. Theresa H. Velasco, PhD, Dean, CDC, UPLBChairperson

Rosa Pilipinas F. Francisco, MSc, Chair, Department of Development Journalism, CDC, UPLBMa. Teresita B. Osalla, MSc, Chair, Department of Development Broadcasting and Telecommunication, CDC, UPLBRomel A. Daya, MSc, Chair, Department of Educational Communication, CDC, UPLB Garry Jay S. Montemayor, MSc, Department of Science Communication, CDC, UPLBMembers

Pamela A. Custodio, PhD, Department of Development Journalism, CDC, UPLBIssue Editor

Antonio G. Moran, PhD., UP MindanaoLourdes M. Portus, PhD., UP DilimanJunel SJ. Labor, Letran-ManilaRotacio S. Gravoso, PhD., Visayas State UniversityEditha G. Cagasan, PhD., Visayas State UniversityIssue Reviewers

Elmer Harold O. Grande, Cover DesignJoyce Marie S. Maloles, CopyeditorBernabe M. Remoquillo, Layout ArtistMyra C. Almodiel, Database ManagerJuvy N. Gopela, CirculationRomeo C. Estimado, Production AssistantProduction Committee

1

22

49

78

103

An Actantial Analysis of Selected Narratives of Participatory Development Communication in Community-Based Natural Resource Management Lynette B. Carpio-Serrano

[Re]Creating the Lived Experiences of Women in a Struggle for Agrarian Reform in Hacienda LuisitaLodigario A. Rigor Jr. & Romel A. Daya

Training in Participatory Program Development: The Case of Researcher-Broadcasters in Radyo DZLB in Los Baños, Laguna, PhilippinesAiza Marcos-Balinos and Serlie Barroga-Jamias

The ‘Like’ Advocacy: Facebook Environmental Campaigns and Page Followers’ Behavior in Environmental InitiativesMinji Na

Beyond Science Literacy: (Re)reading Science Communication from a Development Communication PerspectiveGarry Jay S. Montemayor

Romel Daya

Highlight


[rE]CrEATiNg ThE LivEd ExPEriENCES OF WOmEN iN A STruggLE FOr AgrAriAN rEFOrm iN hACiENdA LuiSiTA

Lodigario A. Rigor Jr. & Romel A. Daya

ABSTrACT

The life of women in agrarian reform community (ARC) is one of the development issues less explored by scholars of development communication (DevCom) in the Philippines. This research was a scholarly attempt to understand agrarian reform struggle as a lived experience of women in Hacienda Luisita, an ARC widely reported in the Philippine media. It tried to situate DevCom in a politically charged environment of development in ARCs. Its epistemological and methodological groundwork was classical phenomenology, which underscores disciplined experience of the other’s world through dialogue and reflection without bringing one’s own categories in the process. Five women from one agrarian reform organization in the hacienda were purposefully chosen as participants of the study. This paper discusses their understanding of a struggle that was shaped by various constitutive forces they experienced in their fight for land. Sacrifice was considered as the essence of the struggle.

Key words: women’s struggle, agrarian reform, phenomenology, lived experience

iNTrOduCTiON

Reflections on agrarian reform and development communication

Agrarian reform is a major issue of development in the Philippines, but it has not been explored much as an issue of development communication as field of study.

Our interest in pursuing a study on agrarian reform also sprang from the first author’s personal encounter with protesting farmers in my home province of Tarlac specifically the immediate aftermath of a violent dispersal of farmworkers who were demanding higher wages and better working conditions in one of the most frequently reported agrarian reform communities (ARC) in the Philippines – Hacienda Luisita. On that day, seven people were killed and hundreds more were wounded in the hacienda, which was owned by a clan that has produced two Philippine presidents, Corazon Cojuangco Aquino and Benigno Simeon Cojuangco Aquino III.

This lived experience had been etched in my young mind for many years, prompting me at times to ask myself why many farmworkers had to fight hard, some of them even losing their lives, for pieces of land they could call their own one day. Until my college years, I had always thought land reform was an enormous struggle for resource-poor Filipino farmworkers.

Students of the BS Development Communication (DevCom) program of the University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB), learned genuine land reform and capacity building of farmers were just some of the many development issues that DevCom scholars were concerned with. Many researches and extension projects of the UPLB College of Development Communication (CDC) in the previous decades focused on analyzing and improving communication in the context of agricultural production and development (Cuevas, 2007).

A few studies at CDC dealt specifically with ARCs, exploring

The Philippine Journal of Development CommunicationVol. 5 January - December 2013

Romel Daya

Highlight


communication systems and approaches of development projects in those areas (Fadri, 2002; Daya, 2001). However, none yet explored the more basic question of how farmers understand their plight as individuals and as community members. More specifically, there was no study on the meanings that farmworkers attached to their plight in highly politicized ARCs.

Reflecting on Quebral’s (2012) definition of DevCom, we asked: What has DevCom done, in its 40 years of scholarship and practice, to help ARCs like Hacienda Luisita “transition from poverty in all its forms to a dynamic, overall growth”? Was there a DevCom initiative to facilitate the “unfolding of potential” of farmworkers in ARCs? On second thought, there was a more fundamental question to ask: What has DevCom done to understand the meanings that farmworkers in ARCs attach to their lived experience? As we were always reminded by our DevCom professors, it was an absolute must to “know our audience” or “understand our learners,” or better yet, “understand our development partners through how they see their lives” first before starting a DevCom initiative in a community.

For years, we wondered how it felt to live as a farmworker in Hacienta Luisita, a place notoriously known nationwide for agrarian reform (or the lack of it). More importantly, we wanted to understand how it felt to be a person, more so, a woman fighting for a piece of land in the hacienda. Looking for some answers would probably be the significant start of a DevCom scholar’s relevant involvement in development issues faced by farmworkers in ARCs. After all, agrarian reform was argued to have significant contributions to development (Reyes, 2002; Balisacan & SEARCA, 2007).

Motivated by our learnings from DevCom, we pursued this study as a scholarly attempt to understand why women fight for a land they hope they can call their own and situate DevCom in a politically charged environment of development in ARCs. It also endeavored to give some face and voice to women of ARCs whose relevance to the agriculture sector is often reduced to supporting roles. As the Food First Information and Action Network

(FIAN) International (2002) reported, women were generally regarded as “invisible” workers in agricultural societies. But, “when women control land assets, we see a rise in women’s cash incomes, spending on food, children’s health and education and household welfare in general,” the United Nations Human Settlements Programme or UN-HABITAT (2008) reported.

Research questions and delimitations

The topic initially considered for the research was Hacienda Luisita women farmers’ understanding of agrarian reform. However, the scope was narrowed down to focus more on less salient and less explored features after my initial meeting with some leaders of a farmers’ organization in the hacienda. The meeting revealed that farmers were engaged in a struggle for genuine agrarian reform and that women were actively engaged in this struggle.

The overarching question of the study was: What is an agrarian reform struggle as a lived experience by Hacienda Luisita women? The following specific objectives provided directions on what could be known in the study: 1) determine what constituted the Hacienda Luisita women’s meanings of their agrarian reform struggle; 2) discuss the Hacienda Luisita women’s understanding of agrarian reform struggle; and 3) explain the core meanings of agrarian reform struggle surfaced from the participants’ accounts.

The search for meanings in this study was done in collaboration with five purposefully selected women of Hacienda Luisita, which was the site chosen for two main reasons. First, it was relevant to the national agrarian reform movement. As renowned economist Sixto K. Roxas put it (as cited by Claudio, 2011), “[A]grarian reform is the centerpiece of the [government] program. But Hacienda Luisita is the centerpiece of agrarian reform.” Second, it was where my childhood encounter with ARC-related protest happened.

All the women who participated in this study were members of the Farmworkers’ Agrarian Reform Movement (FARM) of


Hacienda Luisita or FARM-Luisita, specifically its subgroup FARM-Kababaihan (women). FARM-Luisita was only one of the several people’s organizations of farmworkers struggling for agrarian reform in the hacienda. It was the organization that assured the researcher of his safety and security in conducting the study in the politically volatile area.

The meanings generated by the research do not intend to generalize about women’s understanding of socio-political realities in ARCs or predict women’s behavior in these communities. At the least, it is hoped that the core meanings surfaced in this research could help shape views about the place of women in development and challenge DevCom scholars to start gender-sensitive community projects with how people understand their situations.

Situationer: The Case of Agrarian Reform in Hacienda Luisita

The main legal backbone that supported the call for agrarian reform in Hacienda Luisita was Republic Act (R.A.) 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), which was enacted by Philippine Congress on June 10, 1988 (Reyes, 2002).

In the case of Cojuangco-controlled Hacienda Luisita, the most controversial provision that the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) implemented was the Stock Distribution Option (SDO). Under this provision, landlords had the option of making the land tillers stockholders of a shared company instead of distributing land to them right away (Claudio, 2011). Critics pointed out that SDO was the only approach under CARL that did not make farmer beneficiaries as actual owners of the land.

In 2004, due to worsening labor conditions and massive retrenchment, farmworkers and sugar mill workers picketed in front of the gates of the Central Azucarera de Tarlac. They would later be dispersed by 700 policemen, 17 truckloads of soldiers in battle gear, two tanks, and four fire trucks with water cannons. Seven people were killed and 121 injured, including women and children in what would eventually be called the Hacienda Luisita massacre (Dychiu, 2010).

The succeeding months and years would be focused on the legal battles on the right of ownership of the lands, ending only on November 22, 2011 when the Supreme Court of the Philippines voted 14-0 for distribution of 4,195 hectares of the hacienda to 6,296 farmworker-beneficiaries (Philippine Daily Inquirer, 2012).

It was under these prevailing conditions when I entered the scene and conducted the fieldwork of my study.

EPiSTEmOLOgiCAL ANd mEThOdOLOgiCAL guidE: PhENOmENOLOgy

Phenomenology

We came from a family that owned some land and CDC helped expose me to agrarian problems. However, we were never residents of an ARC, so our understanding of agrarian reform lacked the depth and breadth that a lived experience could give. Hence, we chose phenomenology as the main theoretical and methodological framework of this study. We may have not lived a life in an ARC, but the lived experiences of others could help me understand what it was to fight for a piece of land in such community.

Specifically, we were guided by the tenets and assumptions of classical or transcendental phenomenology associated with Edward Husserl. This strand of phenomenology posits that “we can experience the world without us bringing our own categories to bear on the process” (Littlejohn & Foss, 2008). It was thus our duty as a phenomenological researcher to enter the subjects’ lifeworlds, see how they experienced the phenomenon of struggling, and explicate through writing the participants’ unique experiences and the meanings they attached to such experiences.


Methodology

As a classical phenomenological study, this study used empirical and reflective methods of inquiry – two unique but intersecting processes. Empirical methods are data collection procedures to gather examples and varieties of lived experiences usually in the form of anecdotes, narratives, stories, and other accounts (Van Manen, 2011). These lived experiences are borrowed through in-depth interviewing, eliciting written responses, participant observations, and other methods. Reflective methods aim to interpret the aspects of meaning or meaningfulness associated with lived experiences.

In this study, the empirical methods included dialoguing with participants, writing field notes, and transcribing recorded dialogues with participants. Meanwhile, the reflective methods were as follows: 1) hermeneutic reduction through pre- and post-dialogue “bracketing” (Gearing, 2008) to recognize and suspend my personal biases, expectations and assumptions as researcher; 2) pre-data interpretation bracketing to check how my personal views affected how we see the data; 3) data construction through three levels of coding; 4) hermeneutic interview reflection (Van Manen, 2011) with the participants to discuss with them and reflect on the initial themes surfaced from the previous dialogues with them; and 5) data construction through eidetic reduction to look into the essence of the research participants’ lived experience (Van Manen,2011). In addition, we engaged in lengthy reflexive discussions regarding my interpretations of the data, and our reflections on these discussions partly shaped how we would write the research report.

The act of “experiencing the other” in this study was made possible through dialogue (Griffin, 2004). As the research instrument, I was guided by a methodological principle that dialogues become genuine when the “the other” is experienced not as an object that needs to be deciphered by the subject but as a dialogical partner (Griffin, 2004). Three batches of researcher-participant dialogues were conducted with the five

selected women of Hacienda Luisita in three separate schedules – November 2012, January 2013, and March 2013. Each batch of dialogue, we conducted in their own residences in Luisita.

The first batch served as the pakilanlan (getting-to-know) dialogues where the participants’ talk centered mostly on their personal experiences growing up, working, and settling in the hacienda. Their participation in their agrarian reform organization was also touched. The second batch was pagpapalalim (deepening) dialogues where we talked about the salient points they raised in the previous interviews such as the roles they play in the organization and in their homes. The third one served as the hermeneutic interview reflection, in which we tried to understand the deeper meanings of the preliminary themes surfaced from their previous stories by asking the question: “Is this what the experience really like?” Done after my initial draft of results of the study, this last batch of dialogues served as a confirmation, clarification, and reflection of my interpretations of their stories.

Pre- and post-dialogue “bracketing” (Gearing, 2008) was done through writing of reflexive essays and diary entries. Field notes were written as well to allow me to revisit the site of the phenomenon.

Data were constructed through the grounded methodology coding technique, using three levels of coding, namely: open coding; axial coding; and selective coding. After surfacing the main categories, the final research question was addressed by “finding” the essence of the struggle through eidetic reduction (Van Mannen, 2011). The essence is the “central underlying meaning of the experience” (Cresswell, 1998). Put simply, it is that “something” that makes a phenomenon uniquely what it is and without which, the phenomenon becomes a completely different thing (Alvarez, 2008).

To “find the essence of the phenomenon,” eidetic reduction which involved the step called “variation in imagination” (Van Mannen, 2011) was done. To do this, I came up with several essential candidates based again on the interview texts gathered. We then subjected these candidates to the constant line of questioning:


Was this candidate what made their experience uniquely what it was? Without this candidate essence, would the experience still be considered as the same experience? In the end, we were able to identify three candidates and choose among them the single essence of the experience.

The research participants were five women of Hacienda Luisita who were chosen through purposeful sampling, specifically criterion sampling. The primary criteria used to select the participants were the following: 1) women involved in an organization fighting for land distribution in the hacienda; 2) women living in Hacienda Luisita for at least 10 years; and 3) women with different residency backgrounds in the hacienda. Differences in position and degree of involvement in the organization, age, number of children, and educational attainment were also considered in the hope of getting divergent views from the research participants.

FiNdiNgS ANd ANALySiS

The Research Participants: Women in Struggle

Five women involved in an organization struggling for agrarian reform in Hacienda Luisita were considered as the phenomenological “others” in this study. Entering their lifeworlds meant understanding who they were in their own contexts so it would only be fitting to introduce them first. In this report, they were given different names – Rose, Julie, Anne, Nora, and Emily. The first participant was Rose, 44 years old. She grew up in Hacienda Luisita, married another native of the hacienda, and brought forth four children. Orphaned at a young age, she and her siblings worked in the hacienda’s sugarcane plantations for many years. She stopped formal schooling after completing elementary education. She considered herself passive during meetings of FARM-Luisita members.

The second participant was Julie, 42 years old, a mother of four and a high school graduate. She was born and raised in Hacienda Luisita. Julie was the vice-president of FARM-Kababaihan (women) and wife of one of the leaders of FARM-Luisita. Her knowledge of the history of their struggle was rich. Aside from working voluntarily for FARM-Luisita, she helped her husband earn money for the family by selling corn in their village in the hacienda.

The third participant was Anne, 48 years old and a widow. She finished a two-year vocational course in stenography. Her province of origin was La Union. She moved to Hacienda Luisita in 1985 only after marrying her husband who was a native of the estate. Their union produced seven children. Anne’s husband died of liver cancer in 2009. He was considered ineligible for land distribution because he did not qualify as agrarian reform beneficiary. He was not among those who voted in the 1989 referendum in Hacienda Luisita because he was dropped from work as a farm guard of the estate. The list of voters in referendum served as the main basis of DAR for identifying the agrarian reform beneficiaries in Hacienda Luisita. Anne, however, strongly believed her husband deserved a piece of land in the hacienda.

The fourth participant was Nora, 52 years old and a mother of two very young children. She finished Grade IV of basic education and admitted that she had low literacy skills. She qualified as agrarian reform beneficiary in Hacienda Luisita since she worked in the estate for more than 30 years. However, her husband would not get a piece of land though he worked in the hacienda for more than 30 years as well. Like Anne’s spouse, he was not able to vote in the 1989 referendum. To feed their children, Nora helped her husband earn money as part-time house helper or laundrywoman. She was active in FARM-Luisita and often joined mobilizations and dialogues of the organization in Metro Manila.

The last participant was Emily, 32 years old and with three children. Unlike the other participants, she had no prior experience working in the fields of Hacienda Luisita although she grew up in the hacienda. She married her husband after graduation and did not have the chance to pursue her dream


college degree computer science. At first, she hesitated to join the organization because of the violent images of activists she had been seeing on TV. She was convinced by her husband to join FARM-Luisita but she said she was not a very active member because she had to prioritize taking care of their children.

Constitution of meaning: Tracing the roots of the Struggle of FArm Women

The first research question dealt closely with the prevailing conditions in the day-to-day lives of the farmworkers of Hacienda Luisita. Six categories were surfaced from the data to answer this question and these were considered as the constitutive forces that shaped the research participants’ understanding of their agrarian reform struggle.

Issues on landlord’s labor policies

All the participants of the study shared the same view that life in the Hacienda before the strike of 2004 was already difficult. They revealed that: 1) their income for a day’s work in the plantation was too small to buy food; 2) they experienced automatic deductions on their wages; 3) they worked in a limited, seasonal basis; and 4) they were displaced by mechanization schemes adopted by the management.

Before the strike, farmworkers were paid Php 190 pesos a day. They would receive their pay every Saturday if they were given work for one or more days in a week. The hacienda management automatically deducted certain amount of money from the farm worker’s pay slip for their social security, education, and health benefits. Rose added that unfavorable weather conditions also made things more difficult for them. She lamented:

We sometimes worked only once a week in the hacienda [before the strike]; hence, we would earn only nine pesos and fifty centavos in a week because the management had already deducted our debts from the pay slip. How could we survive with such amount of money? Even if we

combine our earnings, my husband and I would earn only nineteen pesos. When my husband didn’t have a second job, we would not have anything to eat. Jobs (sources of income) were scarce, especially during rainy days.

To Nora, the mechanization scheme adopted by the Hacienda Luisita management exacerbated their already dire social and economic predicaments, resulting to further reduction of work days or displacement of some of them from jobs in the hacienda. Anne was the most critical of the Cojuangcos. She echoed her husband’s opinion of their Hacienda Luisita landlords whom they thought were “abnormal” for denying others the opportunity to eat, especially that they had seven children to raise. Anne complained:

Wasn’t it an abnormal act? We had a lot of mouths to feed but they were only giving us very low wage. How could we survive?

These conditions pushed thousands of farmworkers to stage a strike in Gate 1 of the estate’s sugar refinery. As mentioned above, the strike ended violently. All the research participants revealed, however, that they did not participate in the strike out of fear for their lives and their family. Nora justified that their non-participation in the strike was due to fear not only for their lives but also for their children’s sake.

Negative critical juncture

The strike of 2004 was regarded as one of the major defining moments in the participants’ lives. It was the point when the situation in Hacienda Luisita changed from bad to worse. Borrowing Collier and Collier’s (1991) term, it was their “negative critical juncture,” which set for them a direction difficult to reverse. They lost their longtime livelihood. It became more difficult to earn money, eat a decent meal a day, and afford medicine and school. Some even tried working in other towns and provinces. Nora, who worked for the longest time in the hacienda among the participants, shared:


It was in 1973 when I was included in the Cojuangco’s master list. That was when I started to work [in the Hacienda]. I worked there continuously. When the strike happened, the jobs were gone. It was because people became rowdy.

Julie agreed that life was somehow better before the fateful strike. Farmworkers earned Php 190 per day if they incurred no debts that would be deducted from their take-home pay. She also revealed that farmworkers even had a 13th month pay and some acceptable policies back then. After the strike, they had to seek jobs outside the hacienda. Julie related:

We did not have to leave the hacienda for work back then. Now that we do not have any jobs here, we sometimes work as house helpers in other towns and cities. We earn two thousand pesos a month which is not enough.

Rose felt bad about the verbal and physical abuses she experienced as a house helper from hostile employers. On her part, Nora talked more of how she and her children suffered emotionally when she temporarily left the hacienda for work after the strike:

I worked as house helper in Manila from May to August. My husband told me that our children stopped attending school and just collected garbage items for money so I decided to come back home.

Emily tried applying for work overseas but her application was denied. Her husband was suffering from hernia but they could not afford his medical treatment. Like the other four women, Emily could hardly find means to feed her children and could not support their formal schooling.

It was in this socio-political landscape that FARM-Luisita was formed in 2006 when some members of United Luisita Workers Union (ULWU) and Alyansa ng Manggagawangbukid ng Asyenda Luisita (AMBALA) felt the necessity to break away from the organizations and form a separate one. FARM-Luisita formed a

subgroup of its women members and called it FARM-Kababaihan.

Rivalry with competing organizations

Members of the newly-organized FARM-Luisita broke away from the two big organizations of farmworkers in Hacienda Luisita due to ideological and policy differences. Julie described this distinction very succinctly:

Their fight included calls for the ouster of [President] Gloria. We just focused on calls for the management to distribute the land.

Since FARM-Luisita’s breakaway from the more dominant organizations in the hacienda, some of its members had been subjected to intimidation by their former comrades. In one instance, Julie said, more than a hundred members of rival organizations tried to overturn their jeepney when they were inside the DAR compound in Quezon City.

Anne saw the violent tendencies of some members of other organizations. She said:

They were scary. They were fearless and defiant, and would even lie on the street. They would throw stones and destroy things. To me, it’s not good because it’s the same as instigating a riot.

Given its antagonistic encounters with rival organizations, FARM-Luisita was officially registered in SEC to get a legal identity as well as protect its members. Julie explained that they also talked with a bishop and some department secretaries to get them to recognize FARM-Luisita as a legitimate organization of Hacienda Luisita farmworkers.

Inefficient government system

The women’s struggle was apparently a response to government’s inefficiency, lack of support, and suspicious decisions. Julie was many times frustrated with the government’s slow and time-consuming bureaucracy, especially DAR’s:


The [Department of Agrarian Reform] secretary promised to finish distribution by May. We asked, ‘Why did you say before that you’d finish it by March?’ What he promised before was broken.

The primary complaint of Anne had to do with the government’s unfair and exclusivist rules on land distribution since her husband was excluded from the master list of agrarian reform beneficiaries in Hacienda Luisita. She thought that DAR’s policy of making the 1989 referendum as basis for the master list was unfair.

Julie was also unhappy about DAR’s lack of clarity when it came to processing distribution documents. On her part, Nora underscored the government’s lack of financial support for ARC farmers to harness the land that they would own in the future.

Varied drivers for and hindrances to participation

The motivations of the five women in joining the movement for agrarian reform were widely varied. Emily and Julie acknowledged that their involvement in FARM-Luisita was negotiated by their husbands who later urged them to form the subgroup FARM-Kababaihan. Emily initially thought that fighting against the Cojuangcos or the government for agrarian reform was an act of violence. Her stance changed after her husband persuaded her to join FARM-Luisita activities in Pampanga and Quezon City.

Nora and Anne were recruited in the movement through orientation seminars that dwelled on glaring issues in the hacienda. To Anne, participating in the struggle to fight for land was not only a means to survive but also a means to honor her husband’s only lasting legacy to them. “With people getting hungry, even if they could die, they’d still fight for land. That’s how important it is,” she explained.

Participation in FARM-Luisita activities, however, was not optimized by most of the women because it took some of their time for work and household duties. Julie admitted that it was

difficult at times to mobilize the organization’s members:

You can’t really force them since they also have to work especially if they have children in school. I myself work as a house helper during the rainy season.

In addition, the nature of their struggle was also perceived to be needs-based. This was explained by Julie who observed that members were very active at the height of protest actions calling for land distribution but their participation dwindled after the Supreme Court handed down its decision in their favor.

In her honest opinion, Anne reasoned that some members were discouraged from participating in organizational activities by rumors of dishonesty and corruption in the organization. She argued that it was necessary to speak about perceived wrongdoings especially if she believed that she was right.

understanding the struggle: exploring the women’s webs of meaningThe second research question probed into the five women’s understanding of their agrarian reform struggle. The five categories derived from the participants’ accounts were considered as the constituted meanings formed from the constitutive forces discussed in the previous section of the paper.

The struggle was for survival and quality life through land ownership

The research participants believed that land was a means towards survival and quality life, so they would fight for it. For instance, Anne strongly preferred land over the money distributed under the SDO scheme. She was clear about the immediate use value of land for their family:

Of course, money can easily be spent away, but land is just there. If you want to eat, you can get food from your farm. It’s unlike money, which you can easily spend for


appliances, for instance.

Anne said she had a lot of children to help her cultivate a parcel of farm land. “Even if it’s just a hectare, if the government will help us, we can improve our livelihood,” she explained with optimism.

Land also provides the participants some sense of security or permanence. Aside from the economic value of land, Anne and Rose thought of land as something that can be bequeathed to their descendants as a form of legacy. Rose explained:

I think it would be better if we own the land. People here may differ in our preferences but I really want land for my children. When my husband and I are already gone, our children will inherit the title.

The struggle addresses pre- and post-distribution issues

Different opportunities came with being members of an agrarian reform organization with a lot of organizational ties. The participants identified several of these opportunities, as follows: access to organizational resources like distributed goats and numerous skills trainings from different external support groups; group effort for collective bargaining; venue for mediation in forwarding their grievances to the authorities; and possible startup capital after land is distributed to farmers.

Julie was grateful for the training they had attended as members of FARM-Luisita:

At first, we were trained on making veggie noodles, tocino, and now, there is another – how mushroom is grown in rice hull. It’s a big income opportunity. The trainings were from DTI and DA.

Anne was thankful that the organization helped her negotiate with DAR on the case of her husband’s non-inclusion in the master list of agrarian reform beneficiaries in Hacienda Luisita. In the eyes of Julie, grievances like Anne’s were forwarded to the concerned agencies more easily through FARM-Luisita, which often played the role of a mediator or supporter. Moreover, she was expecting that the organization would play vital roles once

they already own farmlands. Julie surmised:

The organization can possibly borrow money from the bank on behalf of its members so they will have startup capital. It may not use land titles as collateral. The organization itself can be the collateral.

The struggle was an extension of household roles

One salient point raised in the dialogues with the research participants was the recognition of women as crucial partners or supporters of men in many activities of an organization in struggle. With this, most of them meant that their organizational duties could be treated as extension of their household duties because their husbands’ struggle was theirs too as partners.

Julie, Nora and Anne often joined in protest actions, helped their male counterparts generate income for the organization, and cooked for their comrades while they were rallying in the streets and offices of Metro Manila or when entertaining local and foreign guests visiting their barangay. The other two acknowledged that they were not very active members, but they frequently attended meetings of the organization in the hacienda. Emily often prioritized taking care of her young children but sometimes joined in dialogues in Metro Manila. Rose was averse to traveling long distances.

As a very active member, Nora shared:

When the activities extend until noon or afternoon, we usually help in food preparation so that visitors can be fed when they arrive. Others fetch water. We go to the public market, cook here, then feed guests who visit our place.

Anne went a step further in looking at their roles as partners of men in their struggle for agrarian reform. When asked about what women could contribute to the organization, she replied: “Being more honest. Plus, fighting for what’s right is not exclusively for men. We ourselves must also exercise our right to voice out our opinion. We also fight.”


Their struggle was unique

The participants found a clear-cut distinction between FARM-Luisita and other organizations advocating land reform. FARM-Luisita preferred individual distribution rather than collectivized land schemes espoused by other organizations. As Julie put it:

If it’s individual [ownership], meaning everyone has their own land title, you have control of your land. If what they want happens – that is, collective ownership, it would just be like the Cojuangcos, but only with new bosses.

Emily explicated that collective ownership equates to their subjugation under a single entity. To her, fiscal autonomy and prosperity would be more likely if they are independent and not reliant on a single person or entity that may swindle them in the end. She thus shared Julie’s sentiment:

If only one entity will hold the titles, what will happen to the individual farmers? The interest of the single entity [holding all the titles] will be followed. If individuals get their own titles, they can decide on what they want.

The participants also put premium on alternative activism and critical engagement in forwarding their demands rather than creating adversarial relationships with government and Cojuangco officials. By alternative activism, Anne explained:

Unlike other organizations, we peacefully engage in dialogues... Unless we have permit to rally, we will not do so. We are not very aggressive as well. A rally should always be peaceful. The important thing is to be able to convey what people feel.

Julie added that in their own brand of struggle, they “consistently fight mainly for one thing on the local and national levels – individual distribution of land, and not about other political issues like the ouster of a president.”

Moreover, they engaged in collaborative work be it with competing organizations in the estate or with foreign

organizations offering help. Anne viewed it as critical engagement when they forwarded a non-violent stance and avoided cultivating hostile relationships with their so-called rival organizations and even with the government. Julie also thought that it was important for FARM-Luisita to engage with different groups extending help that would benefit its members, regardless of the political color of these groups.

The organization in struggle had internal problems

The participants thought that their organization faced the problems of defection of some members to other organizations and passivity of a number of them in participating in meetings, dialogues, mobilizations, and other activities. Julie explained:

FARM Kababaihan…seems like it no longer functions. There are just a few of us left. Sometimes, it’s only I who goes [to the mobilizations]. The President of [Barangay] Mutriko quit already. She joined another group.

Anne and Emily admitted that some officials and members of FARM-Luisita defected to other groups due to perceived wrongdoings committed by some leaders of the organization. On Rose’s part, she was looking for more concrete opportunities such as livelihood projects from FARM-Luisita.

Understanding the Core Meanings of the Struggle

In integrating further the categories surfaced in answering the first two research questions, the research came up with four distinct themes and determined the essence of the phenomenon of women struggling for agrarian reform. This part presents the core meanings that summarize the struggle of the research participants.

Struggle sparked by contextual issues

The struggle being waged particularly by FARM-Luisita was borne as a response to the strike of 2004 and the subsequent negative effects of it to their jobs, their access to health care and education, and their emotional health, among others. These


issues hounded the five participants ever since, and to varying degrees, pushed them to engage in a struggle even without the absolute certainty that they would ever succeed.

Struggle valued women participation

Women were considered as partners in the struggle. While considered as extension of their household roles, the tasks that women performed in protest actions in the streets of Manila, negotiations with government officials concerned, meetings and gathering in the hacienda, and other activities were never downplayed. It was Julie and Nora who were explicit about women being considered co-equals in the struggle. As for Anne, not only men should speak their minds.

Struggle addressed needs

The struggle was waged for several reasons. First, there was a felt need to differ from the way other farmers’ organizations in the area conducted their fight for land reform. Nora and Emily were firm in their belief that a struggle need not be violent or aggressive. Second, there was a need to address pre- and post-distribution issues such as lack of livelihood opportunities in the area, non-inclusion in the master list of beneficiaries, and lack of capital to harness the lands. In Anne’s case, she was fighting hard for her husband’s right to land. Third, there was a prevailing view that land ownership would help farmworkers survive and live a quality life in the long run. Land was valued not only for its economic worth but also for its social significance as parents’ gift or legacy to their children. Julie believed that each farmer should be given the chance to decide what to do with his or her own land once it is awarded to him or her.

Struggle fought on different fronts

The struggle was fought on several frontlines of battle. First and foremost, it was pursued as a response to the landowner’s denial of their right to own lands. Second, it was also waged against the government’s inefficient system in implementing agrarian

reform. Third, it was also fought against rival organizations with different ideology, stance on land distribution, and way of fighting for land reform. Lastly, it was internal as some members defected to other organizations while some became passive participants in the organization’s activities.

Hunting for the essence

After surfacing the four themes above, we then proceeded with hunting for the essence of the participants’ experiences in their struggle for agrarian reform. After considering several candidates like gender roles and defiance, it became clear that the essence of their struggle was sacrifice. Would the struggle be a struggle without sacrifice? The answer was “no.” Sacrifice gave the whole idea of struggle with a heart for their family, fellow farmworkers, and organization’s aspirations. Without a heart that came with sacrifice, the struggle would not have existed in the first place. Without the essential core that is sacrifice, a struggle was not a struggle. As Anne put it:

Each time they would call us to join an activity, I would come, especially if it was about land. My family had to take care of themselves when I was out. I would just leave them some food that I prepared. We needed to sacrifice.

CONCLuSiON

We came up with my four conclusions on how Hacienda Luisita women understood their agrarian reform struggle. These set of conclusions is an integration of all the themes we surfaced in the study as well as my reflections on the said themes.

First, the struggle was a necessary undertaking. A main point highlighted all throughout the interviews was the research participants’ involvement in the struggle as a way to respond to the problematic status quo that they were experiencing as farmworkers supposedly entitled to own land under government’s agrarian reform program. For them, the struggle


became a purposeful undertaking that arose from the need to address their issues and concern about land reform vis-à-vis their survival. Their sacrifices in the struggle were crucial to this undertaking.

Second, women were vital counterparts in the struggle. Most of the research participants talked about their various contributions in the struggle as extension of their household roles. They were already swamped with responsibilities managing their households and working for a living, but they still devoted part of their time joining protests and helping FARM-Luisita in different ways. They believed that their comrades acknowledged their sacrifices for their organization as partners in the struggle.

Third, the struggle was externally and internally divided. As a breakaway group, FARM-Luisita had rival organizations. From time to time, it experienced acts of intimidations from the latter. Inside FARM-Luisita, there were issues and disagreements that led to the defections and passivity of some members. Those who stuck it out with FARM-Luisita made some sacrifices as they had to endure intimidations, extend their patience, and work harder for the organization. At times, FARM-Luisita also had to agree to strike a compromise with rival organizations to achieve goals favorable to all Hacienda Luisita farmworkers.

Fourth, the future was uncertain but hope was not lost. Although the Supreme Court already ruled in favor of immediate land distribution, the participants still thought their future was uncertain, especially that they lacked financial capital to cultivate the land that they would own. However, they were still hopeful that FARM-Luisita could help them face their fears. Through sacrifices, they had partially won the struggle with FARM-Luisita and they would eventually own land. This win had also given them hope that with more sacrifices, they could win other struggles in an agrarian reform.

What do these conclusions mean for us and DevCom? My experience in doing this research has made it clearer to me that DevCom practitioners who want to “start with what the people

know and build on what they have,” as Lao Tzu put it, must engage in genuine dialogue with them first (Cadiz, 1994). We do not want to complicate the situations of people struggling with poverty by pretending to know that we understand the meanings of their context and aspirations after only a series of consultations or meetings.

To the five women of Hacienda Luisita who participated in this research, land and sacrifice give them meaningful reasons to live and provide them hope for a better life. DevCom initiatives in ARCs like Haciena Luisita, therefore, may start with this understanding in taking steps towards more dialogues, actions and reflections for development. These steps should see women as strongly capable beings who could work hand in hand with men in any undertakings that address their concerns about living a better life.

rECOmmENdATiON

The research recommends a greater involvement of DevCom scholars and practitioners in socio-political issues of agrarian reform since the root of most of the development concerns raised by the participants was landlessness or lack of power of different sorts over land. Development communication projects become meaningful when they address community problems and challenges using the people’s understanding of what and how they are, what they need, and where they want to go. In the end, DevCom scholars and practitioners must keep in mind that communication is for understanding; dialogue is communication for emphatic understanding; and DevCom is communication for social change with in-depth understanding of how people see their own realities and how they want to make change.


LiTErATurE CiTEd

Alvarez, J. E. (2008). [Re]Creating development communication realities through reflective interviews on shared OJT experiences. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, University of the Philippines, Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines.

Balisacan, A.M. & Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture. (2007). Agrarian Reform and Poverty Reduction in the Philippines.Policy Dialogue on Agrarian Reform Issues in Rural Development and Poverty Alleviation.

Claudio, L. (2011). Movements and post-authoritarian mnemonics: Populist narratives and the commemoration of people power in contemporary Philippines. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Melbourne, Australia.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Collier, R. B., & Collier, D. (1991). Shaping the Political Arena: Critical Junctures, the Labor Movement, and Regime Dynamics in Latin America. Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Daya, R. A. (2001). Communication system in the farmer-scientist training program in Nabunturan ARC, Compostella Valley, Philippines. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of the Philippines, Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines.

Dychiu, S. (2010). How a workers' strike became the Luisita massacre. Retrieved from http://www.gmanetwork.com/ news/story/182515/news/specialreports/how-a-workers-strike-became-the-luisita-massacre (14 August 2012)

Fadri, R. (2002). Influence of Communication Networks on the Level of Empowerment of CARP Beneficiaries: The Case of ARC Capulaan in Villasis, Pangasinan. Unpublished undergraduate thesis. University of Philippines Los Baños.

FIAN International. (2002). Land in the hands of women? – Agrarian Reform, Land Markets and Gender. FIAN (Food First Information and Action Network): For the Human Right to Feed Oneself. http://www.fian.org/resources/documents/others/land-in-the-hands-of-womenagrarian-reform-land-markets-and-gender/pdf (23 Oct 2012)

Gearing, R. (2008). Bracketing. In L.M. Given (ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (1st ed), Volume 1 & 2. USA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Griffin, E. (2004). A first look at communication theory (5th ed). New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2008). Theories of human communication (9th ed). Belmont, California: Thomson and Wadsworth.

UN-HABITAT. (2008). Gendering Land Tools: Achieving Secure Tenure for Women and Men, Nairobi, Kenya. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Human Settlements Programme.

Philippine Daily Inquirer. (2012). Hacienda Luisita timeline. Retrieved from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/182081/ hacienda-luisita-timeline (24 October 2012).

Quebral, N. C. (2012). Development communication primer. Malaysia: Southbound, Sdn., Bhd.

Reyes, C. M. (2002). Impact of agrarian reform on poverty. Philippine Journal of Development (54), Volume (2).

Van Manen, M. (2011). Inquiry. Retrieved from http://www.phenomenologyonline.com/inquiry (24 October 2012).


College of Development CommunicationUniversity of the Philippines Los BañosCollege, Laguna 4031Phone: (63) (049) 536-2511 loc 405 (63) (049) 536-3356Fax: (63) (049) 536-3697E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.devcom.edu.ph

The Philippine Journal for Development Communication A Journal of communication for development and social change

Information for Authors

The Philippine Journal of Development Communication is a refereed biannual journal published by the University of the Philippines Los Ba–os’ College of Development Communication (UPLB-SDC). Original or unpublished articles may highlight the role of communication and media for development and social change. Research abstracts of relevant research projects; literature synthesis and meta analysis; project reports; reviews and critiques of books in development communication and related fields; and reflections from (essays, narratives, anecdotes, interviews, and experiences in the field) may also be submitted.

Specifically, the Philippine Journal of Development Communication aims to: 1) contribute to the building of knowledge in development communication (devcom); 2) make new devcom knowledge available to practitioners and other users; 3) serve as a medium for the exchange of ideas and knowledge on the theories and practice of devcom; and 4) enhance the recognition of devcom as a discipline.

All articles should have high degree of scholarship and results of original work written by the researcher/s himself/themselves. In addition, articles should not have been published yet in other journals, nor have been simultaneously submitted to other journals or publications. The articles will have to be approved by the assigned issue editor and by the selected referees with expertise on the subject matter.

Both quantitative and qualitative researches are accepted. Basically, the parts may include the title, abstract (150-200 words), introduction or rationale, theoretical. Conceptual or analytical framework or assumptions, methodology, results and discussion, summary and conclusions, literature cited (using APA style), and abbreviations is any. Accompanying pictures, artworks, graphics, and other similar materials must have high resolution of at least 200 dpi.

Articles must have upto 5,000 words, while reviews must have upto 1,500 words. They should be typed, double-space in 12-point Arial font.

All articles should indicate the senior author and, when applicable, all the co-authors. In student research, senior authorship will be granted to the student with his/her adviser(s) serving as co-authors. Articles should also indicate the complete and updated contact details of all the authors.

Please submit all manuscripts and disks to the:

Office of the Dean, Development Communication, University of the Philippines Los Ba–os, Laguna, 4031; Phones: (63) (049) 536–2511 loc 405; (63)(049) 536–3356; Fax (63) (049) 536–3697; Email: [email protected]

For further information, call (63) (049) 536-3356 or email Dr. Ma. Theresa H. Velasco (CDC Dean) at [email protected]

[Re]Creating the Lived Experiences of Women in a Struggle for Agrarian Reform in Hacienda Luisita

Documents

Transcript of [Re]Creating the Lived Experiences of Women in a Struggle for Agrarian Reform in Hacienda Luisita