Arcaina, Nicolene POS100 - B

100254 – BS Legal Management May 21, 2013

FINAL PAPER

A Study on the Aurora Pacific Economic Zone IssueA Sui Generis of other Land Issues in the Philippine Nation

***

I. Introduction

Land is definitely a major resource in any nation-state and has many functions indicative of the

people’s identity, their welfare, and the state’s economic development. Hence, it is an interesting

field to delve into when it comes to measuring and re-evaluating a nation’s status, especially in

terms of civic participation (especially from the members of the agricultural sector) and

involvement as part of the democratic process and in terms of the actual progress through its

laws and mandates as part of the developmental aspect of a nation.

To further understand the concept of the land as an integral part of the nation, we place it

in a particular context and a specific case at hand, which is that of the Aurora Pacific Economic

Zone Issue of the Philippines, and of other related cases.

II. Overview of the Aurora Pacific Economic Zone Issue

The Aurora Pacific Economic Zone, or more popularly known by its abbreviation,

APECO, has definitely created some room for speculation and re-investigation. Last December

2012, over a hundred farmers from Casiguran, Aurora marched to Manila to express their protest

against the alleged land grabbing and human rights violation of their co-farmers and fisher-folk

in favor of the promised social and economic development of Aurora.1 According to news, issues

1 “Casiguran locals march for their land”. Last accessed May 18, 2013, http://www.rappler.com/move-ph/16941-casiguran-locals-march-for-their-land

on displacement of the fishermen and farmers belonging to around 3000 families, non-

compliance to basic project standards, and even on failure to consult this development project

with the locals involved. The passing of RA 10083 or the APECO law of 2010 is henceforth put

into question with regard to its governing provisions and supposedly development-oriented

programs for the people of Aurora.

III. Scope and Methodology of Study

The study will discuss other land issues which involve both indigenous (or the minority)

and majority groups. These land issues would include that of the Hacienda Luisita in Tarlac,

Philippines and land rights conflicts originating from the Ibaloi of Baguio and from the

Mangyans of Mindoro to name a few. Recounting these cases’ key points will serve as the

grounds for comparison. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program will be revisited to

create a particular foregrounding for the discussion of the APECO and its related cases’

implications on the democratic and developmental aspects of the country.

This case study sought textbooks, journals, newspapers, and online media as references to

collect and gather data, feedback, and information on useful and applicable theories and models.

IV. Objectives

This case study aims to identify a recurring problem in a particular “system” that the state

has through the APECO issue and a comparison with similar matters in the past. It also aims to

determine what this identification implies with regard to the democratic and developmental

facets of the country and how it can seek improvement and progress in a nation that is

supposedly of, by, and for the people.

V. Land Distribution Issues in the Philippines: In Retrospect

This section will tackle and unravel similar land issues in the Philippines that made it to

news or have been documented in one way or another. These cases occurred prior to or are

occurring simultaneously with our main case at hand.

The Hacienda Luisita case is indeed a very popular one. Owned by the Cojuangcos of

Tarlac, the 6431-hectare Hacienda Luisita has been acquired in the late 1950’s through reported

political connections through the Cojuangcos who owned profitable group of businesses based

on sugar and through Ninoy Aquino. This Hacienda previously belonged to the Tabacalera who

expanded the cultivated land to more than 10,000 hectares and served more than 1,000 farmers.

Later on, the Cojuangcos together with Aquino had to acquire the Central Monetary Board’s

approval of their GSIS loan worth P 5,911,000 and foreign loan worth US$2,128,480. 9.6 million

went to the Tarlac Development Corporation to serve as a holding and management company for

Hacienda Luisita. However, to acquire this approval, the CMB mandated that the land must be

distributed to the tenants, specifically “small farmers” within 10 years of the acquisition. There

have been subsequent changes to provisions regarding this redistribution, creating some form of

sale between the current tenants and owners (and even more complications later on) hence

preventing the supposed distribution. The Cojuangcos have managed to preserve this Hacienda

until recent years through different legal manipulations and offering alternative bonds for the

farmers despite their protests in different periods of history to fight for their lands.

In other several and smaller parts of the country lie cases and experiences from

indigenous groups which share the same sentiment when it comes to their rights to their ancestral

lands and to livelihood opportunities rooted in these respective lands.

The book ”Asserting Land Rights” takes us to several journeys of different indigenous

people’s groups regarding their experiences of acquiring land and fighting for their rights over

their lands. First however, it is interesting to note that the Philippines has a rich bank of

customary laws among different indigenous peoples. The Talaandig of Mindoro had a traditional

treaty of peace through which indigenous territories were established which is called Tampuda

Hu Balagen2. To them, native title as a vested right is inherent to their culture and identity as a

people. The state needs not to impose a “new” title to give the Talaandig the rights to their lands.

The people of Sagada have their own socio-political and cultural institution called the dap-ay3

and the Subanen of Mindanao are guided by the belief that their laws were already instituted

when they were created by their Creator4. And most other indigenous people already have their

own ways to organize particular justice and governance.

Problems arose among the Talaandigs who were asserting their rights opposed CADT or

Certificates of Ancestral Domain Title (from the 1987 Constitution and the IPRA) applications.

They deem this application or the acquisition of such title is redundant since they are already

granted with such “right” to their lands given their customary law of right to their lands which is

a cultural and not a legal right. On the other hand, introduction of land tenure system of the

government through tax declarations created confusion among the people of Sagada. There has

been an overstatement in the total number of hectares covered by such tax declarations, a case

which is definitely questionable. The Subanen faced problems of land exploitation from a

Canadian Mining Firm which divided and impoverished the Subanen. The government actually

granted the application of the mining firm two months before the signing of the IPRA law in

2 Joji Carino, Ma. Elena Regpala, and Raymond de Chavez. Asserting Land Rights. (Baguio: Tebtebba Foundation, 2010). 29.3 Ibid., 304 Ibid., 34

19975. As mentioned earlier, the indigenous groups can apply for their CADT to secure their land

rights but a reported incidence proves that the securing process is no easy feat. Vicky Makay, an

Ibaloi elder tells us that she still hasn’t gotten this land right security after more than a decade

since application. According to her, her lack of resources (in form of money, and “square

meters” of land to share with those “willing to help” her) hindered her from consistent follow-

ups with Ancestral Domain Office or Land Registry Authority. The Mansaka of Compostela

Valley were subjected to logging (after 1964) and big-scale mining operations in 1994. The

Napnapan Mineral Resources Inc had applied for operations covering around 4,000 hectares in

the area and it was reported that this application was approved without free, and prior informed

consent of the locals. Plantation developments transformed more portions of their land in later

years and there have been assertions of customary laws while continuously dividing the Mansaka

people because the sponsoring companies “helped” them out through scholarships and similar

benefits. Similar experiences are accounted for with the Mandaya in Mindanao, Manobo of

Agusan del Sur, the Tagbanwa in Coron, Palawan and the Mangyan Tagabukid of Romblon

whose town mayer permitted logging operations across their thick forests. The Dumagats of

Aurora, Quezon have budget difficulties in transitioning and in processing their ancestral lands

even after being awarded with their CADTs in 2009.

VI. Aurora Pacific Economic Zone Issue Revisited

Notwithstanding popular news, let us take a look at several objectives and goals provided

for by Republic Act 10083, also known as the Aurora Pacific Economic Zone and Freeport Law

of 2010, an amendment of RA 9490 of 2007.

5 Ibid., 35

The Aurora Pacific Economic Zone and Freeport covers two parcels of land (parts of

which are highly agricultural and includes vast waters which are home to marine life and a

source of livelihood) as mandated by RA 10083 covering a total of 496 hectares for the first

parcel and 12, 427 hectares for the second across the barangays of Dibet and Esteves (for first

parcel), and San Ildefonso, Cozo, and Culat (for second parcel), Municipality of Casiguran,

Aurora, Quezon. This upscale in the land coverage as stated in Section 2 is a significant

amendment in RA 10083 from 9490. It displaces the previous Section 2 of RA 9490 which was

a preliminary reiteration of a government policy which is to “actively encourage, promote,

induce, and accelerate the sound and balanced industrial, economic, and social development of

the country in order to provide jobs to the people, especially to those in the rural areas... and

improve the level and quality of their living conditions through the establishment among

others...”6 The succeeding sections declare governing principles regarding the operations which

are inclined towards gaining foreign investments, establishments, facilities, tax systems, and

administrative matters under the APECO. It is also interesting to note Section 5 which declares

the powers and functions of the APECO, which includes: (b) “to register, regulate, supervise

the enterprises in the Aurora Ecozone in an efficient and decentralized manner, subject to

existing laws. Under the same section is a portion regarding preservation and protection of the

ecological balance within the Ecozone via establishing forest, marine, and wildlife reservations

in coordination with the DENR. Moreover, Section 7 declares the non-profit nature of the

APECO hence declaring it exempt from tax, duties, fees, imposts, charges, service fees in any

court or administrative proceedings in which it may be a party.

6 Section 2 of Republic Act 9490 (2007)

The issue at hand stems from a protest by Casiguran locals whose rights to some of the

12,000 hectares were violated due to lack of clear approval to a supposedly discussed

development program for the people of Aurora and a displacement of around 3,000 families in

pursuit of the said program. Resettlements were, according to some fishermen, still far from

their daily venues and avenues for livelihood, creating difficulty for them and other workers

who depended on the lands that they call home. This development program also endangers food

security as it will be built across agricultural and marine vicinities hence the low believability in

the mentioned promise of APECO regarding preservation of such lifelines for the locals under

Section 5. Protests from people outside these local and indigenous groups argue that APECO

also allows and legalizes land-grabbing and displacement of locals that depend on Aurora land

and waters for their livelihood without appropriate relocation, disregards the free, and prior

informed consent of the Agta Dumagats as defined in the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act

(IPRA)7, and violates the CARPer law as well.

Secretary Leila de Lima publishes a DOJ opinion sought by Secretary Virgilio Reyes of

the Department of Agrarian Reform regarding APECO. Secretary Reyes brings up the issue of

the CARP law (RA 6657, will be discussed further in this paper) and EO 448 with regard to a

particular land that belonged to Aurora State College of Technology and was reserved by

Proclamation 723 for a purpose exclusive to the establishment’s nature. The APECO covers

such land and Sec. Reyes asked whether there must be some conversion to be made to consider

7 “APECO answers critics anew”. Last accessed May 19, 2013, http://ph.news.yahoo.com/blogs/tinig-ng-botante/apeco-answers-critics-anew-014547050.html and “President Benigno Aquino III: Protect the land, waters, and people of Casiguran from APECO”, Last accessed May 19, 2013, http://www.change.org/petitions/president-benigno-s-aquino-iii-protect-the-lands-waters-and-people-of-casiguran-from-apeco-2.

the ASCOT land under the CARP rendering APECO’s inclusion of the land illegal. De Lima

advises8 that EO 448 states that only lands which are suitable for agricultural purposes and those

which are “no longer actually, directly, and exclusively used or necessary for the purpose for

which they have been reserved, as determined by the DAR in coordination with the government

agency or instrumentality concerned in whose favor the reservation has been established.” This

implies that if ASCOT continues to actually, directly, and exclusively operate according to

purposes its land has been reserved, it should be the one supervising over this parcel of land,

and should not be transferred to APECO or even DAR for conversion.

Moreover, according to news and interviews with then House of Representatives member

Sonny Angara, who sponsored the law with his father Sen. Edgardo Angara, confirms a failure of

disclosure and consultation with the locals regarding this development program. This interview

and confirmation were acquired long after the passing of RA 10083, and even after the protests

and marching of Casiguran farmers last December 2012. It somehow bypassed, possibly not

entirely, the participation and rights of the locals to whom this law is directed to.

VII. Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program

Constant clamor and protests from the people belonging to the aforementioned cases are

certainly part of a larger scheme of things, of a set of particular laws which are ideally present to

protect these allegedly violated rights. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law is one of the

many attempts of the government to normatively create a sphere of confidence and optimism for

landless farmers, farmworkers, and even fisher folk.

8 DOJ Public Opinion, August 26, 2011. Last accessed May 20, 2013, http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/8660

Section 2, Chapter 1 of Republic Act 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law

of 1988 exposes the general normative principles of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform

Program. The first paragraph states “priority to landless farmers and farmworkers for the highest

consideration to promote social justice and to move the nation towards sound rural development

and industrialization...” Together with this 10-year program which offers land redistribution to

farmers and basic support services in terms of cultivating their lands, is a mandate on owner-

tenant sharing in the production of crops which is also supposedly to pursue the interests of the

farmers themselves and not to further subject them to bonds with more able citizens who can

work around the loopholes of specific clauses of the CARL.

To supplement this section is section 9, on Ancestral Lands which states that, “For

purposes of this Act, ancestral lands of each indigenous cultural community shall include, but

not be limited to, lands in the actual, continuous and open possession and occupation of the

community and its members: provided, that the Torrens Systems shall be respected.

The right of these communities to their ancestral lands shall be protected to ensure their

economic, social and cultural well-being in line with the principles of self-determination and

autonomy, the systems of land ownership, land use, and the modes of settling land disputes of all

these communities must be recognized and respected.”

This is also governed by the 1987 Constitution as stated in Section 4 and 6 of Article XIII

on Social Justice and Human Rights: “The State, shall by law, undertake an agrarian reform

program founded on the right of the farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, to own

directly or collectively the lands they till, or in the case of other farmworkers, receive a just

share of the fruits, thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just

distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable extension limits as

the Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or equity

considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation” and “The State shall apply the

principles of agrarian reform, whenever applicable in accordance with law.”

Last 2003, an assessment of CARP’s impact and development has been made by the

Department of Agrarian Reform and from it came alarming and very few significant outcomes as

validated by a complementary study in 2008.

1,854 respondents were surveyed in 2003 in a study on the impact of CARP on rural

community households (micro-level) and CARP had, in general, a significant positive impact.9

However, CARP didn’t have much impact when it comes to the more quantitative indicators

such as in distribution of landholdings, and income. “Value added in agriculture at the macro

level had continuously declined.”10 The problems of share tenancy issues reflected decreasing

incidences (from 25%-16% in 10 years, from 1990-2000), but this 16% is still considered

significant. There has been decline in access to productive land, decreasing sizes in landholdings

considering that about 80% of the respondents fell below the three-hectare bracket11, and decline

in real total income. Moreover, and in more pertinent aspects to our study, the abovementioned

assessment studies show that only less than 50% of the total number of respondents was part of

people’s organizations and cooperatives. ARBs or Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries comprise 57%

of these groups and the rest were non-ARBs. An alarming statistic regarding the CARP can also

be noted. There was a very low level of awareness among farmers about the CARP which did not

9 Prudenciano U. Gordoncillo, Eva F. Escueta, Linda M. Penalba, Filomena A. Javier. “An Assessment of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program and its impact on rural communities: Household (micro) perspective” in vol. 2 of CARP Assessment Studies. (Diliman: Department of Agrarian Reform, 2003). 117.10 Ibid., 11811 Ibid., 119

significantly change in 10 years. About 33% of the respondents were not aware and around 35%

of those who are aware thought that CARP will not succeed.12

In the validation study in 2008, we are faced with CARP’s dilemma of not being able to

meet its target land distribution in 10 years, given that DAR was able to distribute only 60% of

its target and DENR, only less than 50%13. In this study comprised of 1,227 respondents, 18% of

these, who were part of DAR’s master list of beneficiaries responded that they haven’t received

their titles to lands they’re due, 10% of them still holding a Certificate of Land Transfer which is

an initial contract provided to agrarian reform beneficiaries of PD No. 27, and 14% replied that

they haven’t received the title which is supposed to be awarded to them, positively 85% of them

physically occupying the lands awarded to them, 82% indicated that they are still occupying and

in possession of the lands awarded to them, 17% said that they are neither occupying nor

possessing their awarded land due to reasons such as sale, pawning, lease or reacquisition of

former owner.14

VIII. Implications and Questions on Democracy and Development of the Philippines

According to Neher and Marlay, scholars believe that there is a clear and positive

relationship between democracy and development.15 They assert that a democratic government is

necessary for any economy to function effectively. There is a particular building-up of trust and

relationship between the government and its active constituents so these two parties move

towards a healthier and better economy. However, certain contexts must be taken into

12 Ibid., 12313 Joji Carino, Ma. Elena Regpala, and Raymond de Chavez. Asserting Land Rights. (Baguio: Tebtebba Foundation, 2010). 17.14 Ibid., 27-3615 Clark D. Neher and Ross Marlay. Democracy and Development in Southeast Asia. (Colorado: Westview Press, 1995). 191.

consideration when concluding our prior statement. We must look at different forces at work,

especially in cases like that of the Philippines where supposedly efforts for development create

greater gaps between the rich and the poor, worsening a perception of the state and its policies

which are supposedly instruments for democracy.

With land, as a great resource and ticket to identity for Filipinos at stake in this

undertaking, we can imply a few truths regarding the state’s current democracy and development

with respect to the APECO case and other cases that build around similar predicaments.

First, since there is difficulty in discerning several laws’ implementation and application,

there is much room for debate over whose interests these laws serve and for further amendments

which can divert the primary purposes set by the preliminary authors for the laws. The generic

clauses and unclear provisions which are very much open to misinterpretation and can be

considered as loopholes don’t entirely protect, if not entirely jeopardize, interests of the supposed

benefactors of these laws.

Rousseau talks about the “general will” in a developmental model of democracy, one that

is contrary to his private or selfish will and one that seeks not just economic equity but also

economic quality. “Grass-roots” democracy or the belief that political power should be exercised

at the lowest possible level is at the very heart of the developmental model of democracy16.

Given this model, there’s much pushing that the Philippine nation needs to do given the evident

and prominent pursuit of private will as seen in our unclear and questionable laws. In pursuit of a

positive correlation between democracy and development in the Philippine context, empowering

and enabling people who value their rights and their simple contributions to society can be a step

towards some form of grassroots democracy.

16 Andrew Heywood. “Democracy” in Politics 2nd ed. (Hampshire: Palgrave, 2002). 74-75.

Another implication, which is very much related to the first one, poses a nature of an

interrogation more than an implication. Albeit civic representation through the Congress and

party-lists, why do people clamor for the lack of “consultation” when it comes to passing bills

that oversee the rights they think they are due? And if even main legislators who push for laws

focused on masked development and progress programs admit to non-compliance to prior

mandate, how can this be concluded in a supposedly democratic state? There is still a prevalence

of an elite-run system – elites that aren’t necessarily learned and exactly qualified to run the state

efficiently but elites who have been there for decades, products of political dynasties that

sequester power and redirect the needs of the state making the laws they make appear as if they

address real problems in the country.

Gaetano Mosca enlightens us regarding the case of elitism and its seemingly reverse

relationship with democracy. Mosca’s fundamental principle presents democracy and elitism as

distinct but not opposite and mutually interdependent. It is formulated as follows: “In all

societies which have a government, those who control and exercise public power are always a

minority, whereas the majority never really participate in the government but are merely subject

to it.”17 Robert Dahl refines this and tells us that there isn’t a single minority who controls but

several minorities do. And according to Daniel Bell as he quotes Confucius’ The Analects, only

ethical and intellectual elites have a vocation to lead society, as the bulk of persons are not

thought capable of exercising such initiative.18 As a matter of fact, we can agree with both Mosca

and Dahl, but Confucius can be a bit too discriminating. However order and proper governance a

nation needs which can be delivered by the learned and well-educated, this work towards order 17 Maurice A. Finocchiaro. Beyond Right and Left: Democratic Elitism in Mosca and Gramsci. (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1999). 23.

18 Daniel A. Bell. Beyond Liberal Democracy: Political Thinking for an East Asian Context. (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2006). 153.

and governance is a joint one, and most especially not independent of the less privileged who

form the majority.

Third, there might be mistakes in asserting what kind of development the country actually

needs. We aren’t solving real problems. Some just think that ingenious solutions would solve

problems which aren’t even there, or conditions perceived with inaccurate lenses. How much is

the State, the legislative, overseers of the developmental sector in touch with the people a

democracy is ideally serving, provided a very significant pivotal point which is the land?

Fourth, a pattern of attempts in “development” in the so-called system that we have

especially with regard to land-related concerns is a sign of both real and ambiguous progress the

country can be undergoing. There seems to be some form of stagnancy in the programs set by the

government and backlogs which are overlooked hence more attempts of providing “solutions”.

This stagnancy mirrors a larger context which is a sluggish economic and political development

ever since the efforts of the State towards re-democratization during Corazon Aquino’s

administration.

IX. Recommendations

This section proposes several recommendations both specific to the APECO case and

generic to the other land cases at hand.

One of the first major steps a developing country like ours can take is re-examination of

its resources. This can be juxtaposed to the idea of SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses,

Opportunities, and Threats) analysis which is utilized as a fact-check tool in the business field. In

our case, the government has to know what Aurora has in terms of its natural resources, human

resources, and how well it can cultivate the relationship of these two in the context of Aurora.

After identifying what a particular region has and is capable of, it is also necessary to

identify its needs and concerns which require immediate addressing. A thorough knowledge of a

particular region enables and produces better legislators who are even better qualified to craft

laws which are evident of proper matching between a region’s needs and resources. This

empowers the most important resource of the nation which is the people themselves.

Cases like these also call for fixing information systems necessary for databases and

tracking concrete progress. Investment in technologies which allow this to happen can be

considered by the government.

For an agricultural-friendly type of nation that we have, the government can look into

developing sustainable methods of cultivating and empowering this sector as it definitely has so

much promise and potential.

X. Conclusion

The Aurora Pacific Economic Zone and Freeport Issue of 2012 is definitely a sui generis

of land-related cases in the Philippines. This is evident in their legalistic natures, ambivalent

legal bases and in the parties involved, which are comprised of indigenous people with ancestral

lands, farmers and farm workers seeking rights towards just production in a land they can call

their own, and of course, legislators and personalities who are members of different or similar

elite groups put into power by a supposedly democratic nation-state and ideally creating

opportunities for real development and protection of the people’s general will.

The performance of the CARP and the presence of RA 6657 to govern it seem to worsen

the wounds caused by RA 10083 or the APECO law. Instead of providing a clear-cut and

objective solution to protect the values Casiguran farmers stand for, it only opened for a

possibility of tolerance of continued oligarchy and redirection as to what could really matter to

the people who are in dire need of the government’s attention. It also continues to be a concrete

evidence of frustration in the development sector. We are further confronted with more attempts

towards “development” instead of even just meeting the minimum of a very ambitious program

that has its so-called social justice and equity all over it.

Albeit differences in the efforts of pushing for social justice and probably crops that they

produce, the people who fight for the rights they are due couldn’t be blamed for cynicism

towards a real system that they could fully trust and participate in. The Angaras and the rest of

the APECO board could harness and start establishing an active and productive people in

Aurora if they could focus on the current resources that they have through the people who know

very well what they need and what they are capable of doing, of contributing to a better nation.

If there’s real value we place in the general will and an appropriate system of checks and

balance which is a requisite for a democracy (Lipset), then conflict of interests among the

government, its arms, and different members of varying constituent groups could be lessened, if

not entirely eradicated, and could be efficiently reformed towards a constructive framework the

Philippines, as a striving and developing nation can use.

Bibliography

Daniel A. Bell. Beyond Liberal Democracy: Political Thinking for an East Asian Context. (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2006)

Joji Carino, Ma. Elena Regpala, and Raymond de Chavez. Asserting Land Rights. (Baguio: Tebtebba Foundation, 2010)

Maurice A. Finocchiaro. Beyond Right and Left: Democratic Elitism in Mosca and Gramsci. (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1999). 22-61, 114-143

Carmina B. Flores-Obanil. Validation Survey Results: Private Agricultural Land Distribution under CARP. (Diliman: Philippine Center for Rural Development Studies, 2008). 1-41

Prudenciano U. Gordoncillo, Eva F. Escueta, Linda M. Penalba, Filomena A. Javier. “An Assessment of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program and its impact on rural communities: Household (micro) perspective” in vol. 2 of CARP Assessment Studies. (Diliman: Department of Agrarian Reform, 2003). 1-11, 23-27, 39-51, 117-128

Carolina G.Hernandez. “Political Developments in the Philippines” in Democracy and Development in East Asia: Taiwan, South Korea, and the Philippines ed. Thomas Robinson. (Washington DC: The AEI Press).

Andrew Heywood. “Democracy” in Politics 2nd ed. (Hampshire: Palgrave, 2002)

Andrew Heywood. “Governments, Systems, and Regimes” in Politics 2nd ed. (Hampshire: Palgrave, 2002)

Seymour Martin Lipset. “The Social Requisites of Democracy Revisited 1993 Presidential Address” in vol. 59 of American Sociological Review. (1994)

Clark D. Neher and Ross Marlay. Democracy and Development in Southeast Asia. (Colorado: Westview Press, 1995). 2-10, 14-19, 71-73, 191-200.

Adam Przeworski. “A Better Democracy, A Better Economy” in Boston Review. (1996)

James Putzel. “Can Corporate Stock-Sharing Lead to Social Justice” in Saliksik: PPI Research Papers. (Quezon City: Philippine Peasant Institute, 1992).

***

“Agta, Farmers, Fishermen set March vs. APECO” Last accessed May 20, 2013, http://manilatimes.net/index/index.php/news/top-stories/47049-agtas-farmers-fishermen-set-march-vs-apeco

“APECO answers critics anew”. Last accessed May 19, 2013, http://ph.news.yahoo.com/blogs/tinig-ng-botante/apeco-answers-critics-anew-014547050.html

“Casiguran locals march for their land”. Last accessed May 18, 2013, http://www.rappler.com/move-ph/16941-casiguran-locals-march-for-their-land

“DOJ: School should give 105 hectare land to farmers”. Last accessed May 20, 2013. http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/305722/news/nation/doj-school-should-give-105-hectare-aurora-land-to-farmers

DOJ Public Opinion, August 26, 2011. Last accessed May 20, 2013, http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/home/document_view/8660

“Executive Order 448 of February 14, 1991.” Last accessed May 20, 2013. http://www.lawphil.net/executive/execord/eo1991/eo_448_1991.html

“Hacienda Luisita and the farce of Philippine land reform”. Last accessed May 20, 2013, http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/07/phil-j07.html

“President Benigno Aquino III: Protect the land, waters, and people of Casiguran from APECO”, Last accessed May 19, 2013, http://www.change.org/petitions/president-benigno-s-aquino-iii-protect-the-lands-waters-and-people-of-casiguran-from-apeco-2.

“Republic Act 6657 of June 10, 1988” Last accessed May 16, 2013. http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1988/ra_6657_1988.html

“Republic Act 9490 of June 29, 2007” Last accessed May 19, 2013. http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2007/ra_9490_2007.html

“Republic Act 10083 of July 27, 2009” Last accessed May 19, 2013. http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2010/ra_10083_2010.html

“1987 Philippine Constitution”. Last accessed May 20, 2013.http://www.lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html