UNIT IV – SOCIAL, POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL ISSUES IN

PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Learning Outcomes
At the end of this unit, the students will be able to:
 analyze social, political, economic, and cultural issues in the Philippines using the lens of
history;
 acknowledge that the problems of today are consequences of the decisions and events
that occurred in the past;
 comprehend several enduring issues in Philippine society through history; and
 recommend solutions or alternatives to present-day problems based on the understanding
of the past and in anticipation of the future through the study/work of history.

This unit is dedicated to the enduring issues in Philippine society, which history could
provide a hand in understanding and hopefully, proposing solutions or alternatives. These topics
or subject matters include the mandated discussion on the Philippine constitution, policies on
agrarian reform and taxation. It is being wished and hoped that these elaborations or discussions
will somehow give recommendations or solutions to present-day issues or problems based on our
understanding of their recurrence in the future of the Philippines.

THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION- AN OVERVIEW

 Emphatically, the constitution is defined as a set of fundamental principles or established
precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed. It is the basic and
paramount law to which all other laws must conform and to which all persons, including the
highest officials of the land, must defer or must follow.
In our study of the Philippine Constitution, specifically of the 1987 Constitution, we must
be guided by these two very important doctrines or principles. One is the doctrine of
constitutional supremacy and next to that is the doctrine of operative fact. Under the doctrine of
constitutional supremacy, if a law or contract violates any norm of the constitution, that law
or contract, whether promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch of the government
or entered into by private persons for private purposes, is null and void and without any force
and effect. Thus, since the constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the
nation, it is deemed written in every statute and contract. On the other hand, the doctrine of
operative fact recognizes the existence of the law or executive act prior to the determination of
its unconstitutionality as an operative fact that produced consequences that can not always be
erased, ignored or disregarded. In short, it nullifies the void law or executive act but sustains its
effects . It provides an exception to the general rule that a void or unconstitutional law produces
no effect. But its use must be subjected to great scrutiny and circumspection, and it can not be
invoked to validate an unconstitutional law or executive act, but is resorted to only as a matter of
equity and fair play.
There are various classifications of the constitution. It can either be written or unwritten.
When we say written, the precepts are embodied in one document or set of documents. Whereas,
an unwritten constitution consists of rules, which have not been integrated into a single, concrete
form but are scattered in various sources. Aside from that classification, the constitution can also
be enacted or conventional. It can also be evolved or cumulative. An enacted or conventional
constitution is formally struck off at a definite time and place following a conscious or deliberate
effort taken by a constituent body or ruler. In contrast to enacted or conventional constitution, an
evolved or cumulative constitution is the result of political evolution, not inaugurated at any
specific time but changing by accretion rather than by any systematic method. Let us also not
forget that the constitution can be rigid or flexible. A rigid constitution can be amended only by a
formal process. This process is usually tedious and difficult. On the other hand, a flexible
constitution can be changed by ordinary legislation. And with respect to our constitution, the
1987 Philippine Constitution, it is a written, an enacted and a rigid constitution at the same time.

Moreover, the very provisions of the constitution can either be self-executing or non-self executing.
A self-executing provision is complete in itself and becomes operative without the aid of any legislation
or enabling law. Whereas, a provision is non-self-executing when it merely indicates the principles
without laying down the rules that give them the force of law. That is when the provision itself merely
announces a policy and its language empowers the legislature to prescribe the means by which such
policy shall be carried into effect. Furthermore, the constitutional provisions can be interpreted in some
ways. These important ways are enshrined in some Latin maxims for their emphasis and significance.
First in the list is “Verba Legis”. It means that wherever possible, the words used in the Constitution must
be given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed. Another way is “Ratio Legis
est Anima”. Where there is ambiguity, the words of the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance
with the intent of the framers. Equally important also is the maxim “Ut Magis Valeat Quam Pereat”
which means that the constitution is to be interpreted as a whole for purposes of interpretation. In case of
doubt, the provisions of the constitution should be construed as self-executing; mandatory rather than
directory; and prospective rather than retroactive. Constitutional provisions are to be considered as self-
executing because if they are not treated as such, the legislature can ignore and can practically nullify the
direction of the fundamental law as one of the most salient features of our system of government, which is
democracy.
With respect to a written constitution, it has three essential parts. First, we have constitution of
sovereignty. This refers to the provisions pointing out the modes or procedures in accordance with which
formal changes in the constitution may be made. Constitution of sovereignty can be found under Article
XVII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which talks about amendments or revisions. Next, we have
constitution of liberty. It consists of the series of prescriptions setting forth the fundamental civil and
political rights of the citizens and those imposing limitations on the power of the government as a means
of securing the enjoyment of those rights. And we can find this part under Article III of the 1987
Constitution. The third and the last is the so-called constitution of government. It refers to the provisions
outlining the organization of the government, enumerating its powers, laying down certain rules relative
to its administration and defining the electorate. Constitution of government provides for a structure and
system of government to be observed in the country.

Consequently, the constitution, itself, has provided for some mechanisms if we want to
propose a change or changes to it. In particular, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution deals with
amendments or revisions. But what is an amendment? How about revision? If the people,
themselves, want to introduce a certain legislation or if they want to change, alter or modify a
particular constitutional provision, they can do so through amendment. An amendment, per se, is
an isolated or piecemeal change merely by adding, deleting or reducing without altering the basic
principles involved in the constitution as the paramount or supreme law. On the other hand, if the
Filipino people want to change our system of government; if they want a federal system to be
practiced in the country, then revision will be the means to realize it. Revision is the revamp or
the rewriting of the whole instrument altering the substantial entirety of the constitution. As a
constitutional right, amendment can be exercised through people’s initiative. This can be done upon a
petition of at least 12% of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be
represented by 3% of the registered voters therein as mandated by Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987
Constitution. No amendment under this provision shall be authorized within five years following the
ratification of this constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter. With respect to revision,
the 1987 Constitution has provided for two modes or procedures to exercise it. One is through the so-
called constituent assembly (CON ASS). This may be realized by Congress upon a vote of ¾ of all its
members acting as Constituent assembly. Note that the substance of the proposal to convene or transform
Congress into a constituent assembly is not subject to judicial review as its determination is left to the
wisdom of Congress acting as constituent assembly. On the other hand, the manner the proposals are
made is subject to judicial review. Since the constituent assembly (CON ASS) owes their existence to the
Constitution, the courts may determine whether the assembly has acted in accordance with the
Constitution. The second mode or procedure of revising the Constitution is through CONCON or
constitutional convention. Section 3, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution states that Congress may call
a Constitutional Convention by a vote of 2/3 of all its members or by a majority vote of all its members,
submit to the electorate the question of calling such a convention. With all these things in mind, let us not
forget that the Congress of the Philippines is bicameral in nature. It is composed by the Senate as the
Upper House and the House of Representatives as the lower house. It means that the two houses of
Congress shall have to vote separately on matters of revision in order to not transgress the fundamental
law.
 Finally, the constitution of the Philippines has undergone a lot of changes through the test of
times. As emphasized, we have now the 1987 Constitution as the governing fundamental, paramount and
supreme law of the republic. In ordaining and proclaiming the present Constitution of the Philippines, the
sovereign Filipino people have articulated the following general objectives/purposes:
1. To build a just and humane society;
2. To establish a government that shall
a. embody our ideals and aspirations
b. promote the common good
c. conserve and develop our patrimony
d. secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessing of independence and democracy under the
rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality and peace.
Note: This, in effect, is what the Preamble all about.
Corollarily, the 1987 Philippine Constitution has the ensuing content:
Preamble – Expressing the ideals of the nation
Article I – National Territory
Article II – Declaration of Principles and State Policies
Article III – Bill of Rights
Article IV – Citizenship
Article V – Suffrage
Article VI – Legislative Department
Article VII – Executive Department
Article VIII – Judicial Department
Article IX – Constitutional Commissions
Article X – Local Government
Article XI – Accountability of Public Officials
Article XII – National Economy and Patrimony
Article XIII – Social Justice and Human Rights
Article XIV – Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture, and Sports
Article XV – Family
Article XVI – General Provisions
Article XVII – Amendments or Revisions
Article XVIII – Transitory Provisions

EVOLUTION (HISTORY) OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION

The Constitution, the supreme, fundamental and paramount law of the Republic of the Philippines
has been in effect since 1987. Prior to this, there were only three other constitutions that have effectively
governed the country. These were the 1935 Commonwealth Constitution, the 1973 Constitution, and the
1986 Freedom Constitution. However, there were earlier constitutions attempted by Filipinos in the
struggle to break free from colonial yoke or domination.
1897: Constitution of Biak na Bato

The Constitution of Biak-na-Bato was the provisionary constitution of the Philippine Republic
during the Philippine Revolution. It was promulgated by the Philippine Revolutionary Government on
November 1, 1897. The authorship of the Biak-na-Bato Constitution is generally attributed to the lawyers
Felix Ferrer and Isabelo Artacho. As a matter of fact, however, the document was almost a carbon copy of
the Cuban Constitution of Jimaguayu. It, however, contained four articles not found in the Cuban model.
These articles were important because again they articulate Filipino aspirations for civil and political
rights at that time. They read:
Article XXII – Religious liberty, the right of association, the freedom of education, the freedom
of the press, as well as the freedom in the exercise of all classes of professions, arts, trades and industries
are established.
Article XXIII – Every Filipino shall have the right to direct petitions or present remonstrance of
any import whatsoever, in person or through his representative, to the Council of Government of the
Republic.
Article XXIV – No person, whatever may be his nationality, shall be imprisoned or held except
by virtue of an order issued by a competent court, provided that this shall not apply to crimes which
concern the Revolution, the government or the Army.
Article XXV – Neither can any individual be deprived of his property or his domicile, except by
virtue of judgment passed by a court of competent authority.

The organs of the government under this Constitution were: (1.) the Supreme Council, which was
vested with the power of the Republic, headed by the President and four department secretaries: the
interior, foreign affairs, treasury and war; (2.) the Consejo Supremo de Gracia Y Justicia (Supreme
Council of Grace and Justice), which was given the authority to make decisions and affirm or disapprove
the sentences rendered by other courts and to dictate rules for the administration of justice; and (3.) the
Asamblea de Representantes (Assembly of Representatives), which was to be convened after the
revolution to create a new Constitution and to elect a new Council of Government and Representatives of
the people.
 The Constitution of Biak-na-Bato was never fully implemented. Within two months of its
adoption, its life ended with the Pact of Biak-na-Bato, whereby in exchange for monetary indemnity for
the Filipino men in arms and for promised reforms, the Filipino revolutionary leaders agreed to cease
fighting and guaranteed peace for at least three years. In addition, General Emilio Aguinaldo, who had at
this time become the undisputed military leader after the death of the Katipunan’s Andres Bonifacio,
agreed to leave the Philippines together with other Filipino leaders. They left for Hongkong, not exactly
as tourists, on 27 December 1897.

Primary Source: Preamble of the Biak-na-Bato Constitution

The separation of the Philippines from the Spanish Monarchy and their formation into an
independent state with its own government called the Philippine Republic has been the end sought by the
Revolution in the existing war, begun on the 24th of August, 1896; and therefore, in its name and by the
power delegated by the Filipino people, interpreting faithfully their desires and ambitions, we the
representatives of the Revolution, in a meeting at Biak-na-Bato, November 1, 1897, unanimously adopted
the following articles for the constitution of the State.

1899: Malolos Constitution

Upon the defeat of the Spanish forces to the Americans in the Battle of Manila Bay on 1 May
1898, the United States Navy transported Aguinaldo back to the Philippines. The newly reformed
Philippine revolutionary forces reverted to the control of Aguinaldo, and the declaration of Philippine
independence was issued on June 12, 1898. Other than that, Emilio Aguinaldo issued a decree on July 18,
1898 asking for the election of delegates to the revolutionary congress. Five days later, another decree
was promulgated by Aguinaldo which declared holding elections is not practical at that time. In
consonance with these two decrees, Aguinaldo assembled the Revolutionary Congress at the Barasoain
Church in Malolos, Bulacan on September 15, 1898. After Aguinaldo had read his speech, congressional
elections were held among the delegates present. For purposes of drafting a new constitution, a
committee, headed by Felipe Calderon and aided by Cayetano Arellano was created. The document they
came up with, approved by the Congress on 29 November 1898, and promulgated by Aguinaldo on 21
January 1899 was titled “The Political Constitution of 1899 and was written in Spanish. It had 39 articles
which was divided into 14 titles, with eight articles of transitory provisions. The constitution was
patterned after the Spanish Constitution of 1812, with the influences from the charters of Belgium,
Mexico, Brazil, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Guatemala and the French Constitution of 1793. According to
Felipe Calderon, its principal author, the countries mentioned were studied because they shared similar
social, political, ethnological, and governance conditions with the Philippines. Prior constitutional
projects in the country also influenced the Malolos Constitution, namely, the Kartilya and the
Sangguniang-Hukuman, the charter of laws and morals of the Katipunan written by Emilio Jacinto in
1896; the Biak-na-Bato Constitution of 1897 conceptualized by Isabelo Artacho; Mabini’s Constitution
Program of the Philippine Republic of 1898; the provisional constitution of Mariano Ponce in 1898 that
followed the Spanish constitutions; and the autonomy projects of Pedro Paterno in 1898.
Primary Source: Preamble of the Political Constitution of 1899

We, the Representatives of the Filipino people, lawfully convened,

in order to establish justice, provide for common defense, promote
the general welfare and insure the benefits of liberty, imploring the
aid of the Supreme Legislator of the Universe for the attainment of
these ends, have voted, decreed, and sanctioned the following poli-
tical constitution.

Under the 1899 Malolos Constitution, the sovereignty was retroverted to the people, a legal
principle underlying the Philippine Revolution. The people delegated governmental functions to civil
servants while they retained actual sovereignty. The 27 articles of Title IV detail the natural rights and
popular sovereignty of Filipinos, the enumeration of which does not imply the prohibition of any other
rights not expressly stated. Title III, Article V also declares that the State recognizes the freedom and
equality of all beliefs, as well as the separation of Church and State. These are direct reactions to features
of the Spanish Government in the Philippines, where the friars were the dominant agents of the State.
Moreover, according to Title II, Article 4, the form of government is to be popular,
representative, alternative, and responsible, and shall exercise three distinct powers – legislative,
executive and judicial. The legislative power was vested in a unicameral body called the Assembly of
Representatives, members of which are elected for terms of four years. Secretaries of the government
were given seats in the Assembly, which met annually for a period of at least three months. Bills could be
introduced either by the president or by a member of the assembly. Some powers not legislative in nature
were also given to the body, such as the right to select its own officers, right of censure and interpellation,
and the right of impeaching the president, cabinet members, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, and
the solicitor-general. A permanent commission of seven, elected by the assembly, and granted specific
powers by the constitution, was to sit during the intervals between sessions of the assembly. Executive
power was vested in the president, and elected by a constituent assembly of the Assembly of
Representatives and special representatives. The president will serve a term of four years without re-
election. There was no vice president and in case of a vacancy, a president was to be elected by the
constituent assembly.
The 1899 Malolos Constitution was never enforced due to the ongoing war between the Filipino
revolutionary forces and the American imperial forces. Consequently, the Philippines effectively became
a territory of the United States upon the signing of the Treaty of Paris between Spain and the United
States, transferring sovereignty of the Philippines on 10 December 1898.
1935: The Commonwealth Constitution

Right after the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1898 that ceded the Philippines to the United
States in which the U. S. had to pay Spain 20 million dollars as stipulated and the eruption of the Filipino-
American War in 1899, the Philippines was placed under a military government until 1901 with the
passage of the Spooner amendment, putting an end to the military rule in the country and replacing it with
an insular or civil government with William Howard Taft as the first civil governor. The ratification of
the Philippine Bill of 1902, which called for the creation of a lower legislative branch composed of
elected Filipino legislators, and the Jones Law in August 1916 gave Filipinos the opportunity to govern
themselves better. The First Philippine Assembly, which convened on October 16, 1907, was composed
of educated Filipinos from illustrious clans such as Sergio Osmeña and Manuel L. Quezon, who revived
the issue of immediate independence for the Filipinos and this was expressed by sending political
missions to the U.S. Congress.
In the process, controversy divided the Philippine legislature with the debate on the acceptance or
rejection of the Hare – Hawes – Cutting Bill brought home by Osmeña-Roxas mission from the U. S.
Congress in 1931, which provided for a ten-year transition period before the granting of Philippine
independence. The deliberation on the independence bill eventually resulted in the splitting of the
Democrata Party and Nacionalista Party into two factions; the Pros and the Antis. Majority of the
members of the legislature at that time, led by Quezon and Recto rejected the said bill, thereby composing
the Antis, while the Pros became the Minority under Osmeña, Roxas and others. On October 17, 1933,
Quezon and others triumphed in this battle as the Philippine legislature rejected the bill. Quezon
eventually brought in from the United States the Tydings-Mc Duffie Act (Public Law 73-127) authored
by Sen. Millard Tydings and Rep. John Mc Duffie, a slightly amended version of the Hare – Hawes –
Cutting bill signed by President Franklin Roosevelt on March 24, 1934. The bill set July 4 after the tenth
year of the Commonwealth as the date of Philippine independence. This was accepted by the Philippine
Legislature on May 1, 1934.
The organization of constitutional convention that would draw-up the fundamental law of the
land based on the American model was one of the prominent provisions of the Tydings-Mc Duffie Act.
Delegates to the convention were subsequently elected in 1934. In the first meeting held on July 30 at the
session of the House of Representatives, Claro M. Recto was unanimously elected as its President.

The constitution was crafted to meet the approval of the United States government, and to ensure that
the United States would live up to its promise to grant independence to the Philippines.

Primary Source: Preamble of the 1935 Commonwealth

The Filipino people, imploring the aid of Divine Providence, in

order to establish a government that shall embody their ideals,
conserve and develop the patrimony of the nation, promote the
general welfare, and secure to themselves and their posterity the
blessings of independence under a regime of justice, liberty,
and democracy, do ordain and promulgate this constitution.

The 1935 constitution created the Commonwealth of the Philippines, an administrative body that
governed the Philippines from 1935 to 1946. It is a transitional administration to prepare the country
toward its full independence. It originally provided for a unicameral National Assembly with a president
and vice president elected to a six-year term without re-election. It was amended in 1940 to have a
bicameral congress composed of a Senate and a House of Representatives, as well as the creation of an
independent electoral commission, and limited the term of office of the president and vice president to
four years, with one re-election. Rights of suffrage were originally afforded to male citizens of the
Philippines who are twenty-one years of age or over and are able to read and write; this was later on
extended to women within two years after the adoption of the constitution.
While the dominant influence in the constitution was American, it also bears traces of the
Malolos Constitution, the German, Spanish, and Mexican Constitutions, constitutions of several South
American countries and the unwritten English Constitution.
The draft of the constitution was approved by the constitutional convention on 8 February 1935
and ratified by then U. S. President Franklin B. Roosevelt on 25 March 1935. Elections were held in
September 1935 and Manuel L. Quezon was elected President of the Commonwealth.
Unfortunately,the Commonwealth was briefly interrupted by the outbreak of the Second World
War, with the Japanese occupying the Philippines. Afterward, upon liberation, the Philippines was
declared an independent republic on 4 July 1946.
1943: Japanese – sponsored Constitution

When the events were gearing towards Philippine independence as promised by the United States,
the Japanese invasion and occupation bolstered in a surprise. Bataan was surrendered to the Japanese but
Quezon along with Osmeña fled to America. War ensued, and the Philippines was so devastated that the
declaration of its independence due 15 November 1945 had to be postponed.
A day after the bloody fall of Manila, the Japanese began to establish military authority in areas
they had already occupied. On January 3, 1942, Lt. Gen. Masaharu Homma, the commander of the
Japanese Imperial Forces in the Philippines, issued a proclamation declaring the U. S. sovereignty over
the Philippines had “completely disappeared.” Homma declared martial law under a Japanese military
administration.
The Japanese authorities invited prominent Filipino leaders to form a new government of the
Philippines, but under the supervision and control of the Japanese military high command. On January 23,
1942, the Japanese military authorities created the Executive Commission. It was composed of Jorge
Vargas as chairman, and six commissioners. Former National Assembly Speaker Jose Yulo was
designated as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Japanese advisers, however, were assigned into each
department of the Executive Commission. The Japanese authorities reorganized the local governments.
The provincial boards, city and municipal councils were transformed into advisory bodies to the
provincial governors and city and municipal mayors who assumed executive and legislative powers.
Several cities and provinces were abolished. Manila was expanded to include the neighboring towns and
renamed City of Greater Manila.
To facilitate their efforts to rally the Filipinos to their side and sway them against the Americans,
the Japanese promised independence to the Philippines. This promise was made by Japanese Premier
Hideki Tojo on January 21, 1942. To prepare the groundwork for Philippine independence, the Japanese
authorities ordered the creation of the Preparatory Commission for Philippine Independence. Jose P.
Laurel headed the Commission with Ramon Avancena and Benigno Aquino Sr. as first and second vice-
chairman respectively. It was given the task of framing a constitution for an independent Philippine
Republic. The constitution was drafted and signed by members of the Commission on September 4, 1943
and was ratified three days later by the members of the KALIBAPI (Kapisanan sa Paglilingkod sa
Bagong Pilipinas). The Japanese- sponsored constitution established the Republic of the Philippines with
three branches of government. The executive power was vested in the president of the Philippines. The
Unicameral National Assembly exercised legislative powers. The judicial power was vested in the
Supreme Court and other inferior courts.

Primary Source: The 1943 Constitution

The Filipino people, imploring the aid of Divine Providence and

desiring to lead a free national existence, do hereby proclaim their
independence, and in order to establish as government that shall
promote the general welfare, conserve and develop the patrimony of
the Nation, and contribute to the creation of a world order based
on peace, liberty and moral justice, do ordain this Constitution.

The Kalibapi chapters in the provinces and cities chose 54 delegates; one for each of the 46
provinces, and for the 8 chartered cities to the National Assembly (Japanese-sponsored legislative). On
September 25, 1943, the National Assembly unanimously chose Benigno Aquino Sr. as Speaker and Jose
P. Laurel as President of the Republic. On October 14, 1943 for the second time, the independence of the
Philippines was declared and a Philippine Republic was formally inaugurated.
Only Japan and her Axis allies (Italy and Germany), recognized the Philippine “Puppet”
Republic. Consequently, the Allied powers and the states at war with the axis continued to recognize the
government-in-exile of President Quezon which was based in the U. S. The New Republic, however, did
not mean much to the majority of the Filipinos, especially to the guerrilla fighters who continued with
their underground resistance. Many remained loyal to the commonwealth as their de-jure government.
After the liberation of the country from Japanese control in 1944, the Americans restored the
Commonwealth Government in the Philippines with Sergio Osmeña as President. Unfortunately, Quezon
died in the U. S. while in exile.

1973: CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITARIANISM (The Making of a Constitutional Dictator)

 In 1965, Ferdinand E. Marcos was elected president, and in 1967, the Philippine Congress passed
a resolution calling for a constitutional convention to change the 1935 Constitution. Marcos won the re-
election in 1969, in a bid boosted by campaign over spending and use of government funds. Elections of
the delegates to the constitutional convention were held on 20 November 1970, and the convention began
formally on 1 June 1971, with former President Carlos P. Garcia being elected as convention president.
Sadly, he died, and was succeeded by another former president, Diosdado Macapagal.
Before the convention finished its work, Martial Law was declared. Marcos cited a growing
communist insurgency as reason for the Martial Law, which was provided for in the 1935 Constitution.
Some delegates of the ongoing constitutional convention were placed behind bars and others went into
hiding or were voluntarily exiled. With Marcos as dictator, the direction of the convention turned, with
accounts that the president himself dictated some provisions of the constitution, manipulating the
document to be able to hold on to power for as long as he could. On 29 November 1972, the convention
approved its proposed constitution.
The 1973 Constitution was supposed to introduce a parliamentary-style government where
legislative power was vested in a unicameral National Assembly whose members were elected for a six-
year term. The President was ideally elected as the symbolic and purely ceremonial head of state chosen
from among the members of the National Assembly for a six-year term and could be re-elected to an
unlimited number of terms. Upon election, the President ceased to be a Member of the National
Assembly. During his term, the President was not allowed to be a member of a political party or hold any
other office.
Executive power was meant to be exercised by the Prime Minister who was also elected from
among the sitting assemblymen. The Prime Minister was to be the head of government and commander-
in-chief of the Armed Forces.
Historically, President Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 73 setting the date of the plebiscite
to ratify or reject the proposed constitution on 30 November 1972. This plebiscite was postponed later on
since Marcos was afraid that the public might vote to reject the constitution. Instead of a plebiscite,
Citizen Assemblies were held, from 10-15 January 1973, where the citizens coming together and voting
by hand (viva voce9 decided on whether to ratify the constitution, suspend the convening of the Interim
National Assembly, continue Martial Law, or place a moratorium on elections for a period of at least
several years. The President, on 17 January 1973, issued a proclamation announcing that the proposed
constitution had been ratified by an overwhelming vote of the members of the highly irregular Citizen
Assemblies.
The 1973 Constitution was amended several times. In 1976, Citizen Assemblies, once again,
decided to allow the continuation of Martial Law, as well as approved the amendments: an Interim
Batasang Pambansa to substitute for the Interim National Assembly; the President to also become the
Prime Minister and continue to exercise legislative powers until Martial Law was lifted and authorized
the President on his own on an emergency basis. An overwhelming majority would ratify further
amendments succeedingly. In 1981, the retirement age of members of the judiciary was extended to 70
years. In 1981, the parliamentary system was formally modified to a French-style, semi-presidential
system where executive power was restored to the president, who was, once again, to be directly elected;
an Executive Committee was to be created, composed of the Prime Minister and 14 others, that served as
the President’s Cabinet; and some electoral reforms were instituted. In 1984, the Executive Committee
was abolished and the position of the vice-president was restored.
 After all the amendments introduced, the 1973 Constitution was merely a way for the President to
keep executive powers, abolish the Senate, and by any means, never acted as a parliamentary system.
Instead, it functioned as an authoritarian presidential system, with all the real power concentrated in the
hands of the President, with all the backing and support of the Constitution.

1986: FREEDOM CONSTITUTION

Immediately following the 1986 People Power Revolution that ousted Marcos, President Corazon
C. Aquino issued Proclamation No. 3 as a provisional constitution. It adopted certain provisions from the
1973 Constitution while abolishing others. It granted the President broad powers to reorganize
government and remove officials, as well as mandating the president to appoint a commission to draft a
new, more formal Constitution. This was known as the Freedom Constitution, a transitional constitution
that lasted a year and came before the permanent constitution. It maintained many provisions of the 1973
Constitution, including in rewritten form the presidential right or prerogative to rule by decree.

1987: CONSTITUTION AFTER MARTIAL LAW

 Ruling by decree during the early months of her tenure as a president installed via the People
Power Revolution, President Corazon C. Aquino was granted three options: restore the 1935 Constitution,
retain and make reforms to the 1973 Constitution, or pass a new constitution. She decided to draft a new
constitution and issued Proclamation No.3 on March 25, 1986, abrogating many of the provisions of the
1973 Constitution adopted during the Marcos regime, including the unicameral legislature (the Batasang
Pambansa), the office of the Prime Minister, and provisions which gave the President legislative powers.
Often called the “Freedom Constitution”, this constitution was intended as a transitional constitution to
ensure democracy and the freedom of the people. The Freedom Constitution provided for an orderly
transfer of power while a Constitutional Commission was drafting a permanent constitution.
The Constitutional Commission was composed of forty-eight members appointed by Aquino
from varied backgrounds, including several former members of the House of Representatives, former
justices of the Supreme Court, a Roman Catholic bishop, and political activists against the Marcos
regime. The Commission was led by Cecilia Muñoz-Palma, a former Associate Justice of the Supreme
Court, as its president. Several issues were of particular contention during the Commission’s sessions,
including the form of government to adopt, the abolition of the death penalty, the retention of U. S.
military bases in Clark and Subic, and the integration of economic policies into the constitution. Lino
Brocka, a film director and political activist who was a member of the Commission, walked out before
the constitution completion, and two other delegates dissented from the final draft. The Commission
finished the final draft on October 12, 1986 and presented it to Aquino on October 15. The constitution
was ratified by a nationwide plebiscite on February 2, 1987.
The constitution provided for three governmental branches, the executive, legislative and the
judiciary. The executive branch is headed by the President and his appointed cabinet members. The
executive, same with the other two-equal branches has limited powers. This is to ensure that the country
will be “safeguarded” if martial law is to be declared. However, the president can still declare martial law,
but it expires within 60 days and Congress can either reject or extend it. As provided, the president may
declare Martial Law in cases of invasion or rebellion, when public safety requires it.
The legislative power resides in Congress divided into two Houses: the Senate and the House of
Representatives. The 24 senators are elected at large by popular vote and can serve not more than 2
consecutive six-year terms. The House is composed of district representatives representing a particular
geographic area and makes up around 80% of the total number of representatives. In addition, the 1987
Constitution has also created a party-list system to provide spaces for the participation of under-
represented and marginalized community sectors or groups. Party-list representatives may fill up not
more than 20% of the seats in the House. Aside from the exclusive power of legislation, Congress may
also declare war, through a two-thirds vote in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. The
power of legislation, however, is also subject to an executive check, as the president retains the power to
veto or stop a bill from becoming a law. Congress may only override this with a 2/3 vote in both houses.
The judiciary is vested with the power of supervising the Philippine Court system and is
composed of the Supreme Court and such lower courts as maybe created by law. The Supreme Court is a
15-member court appointed by the president without the need to be confirmed by Congress. The
appointment the president makes is limited to a list of nominees provided by a constitutionally created
Judicial and Bar Council. The Supreme Court justices may hear, on appeal, any cases dealing with the
constitutionality of any law, treaty, decree or cases where the questions of jurisdiction or judicial error are
at stake. The Supreme Court is also in charge of overseeing the function and administration of the lower
courts and their personnel.
 The 1987 Constitution also established three independent Commissions, namely, the Civil
Service Commission, a central agency in charge of government personnel; the Commission on Elections,
mandated to enforce and administer all election laws and regulations; and the Commission on Audit,
which examines all funds, transactions, and property accounts of the government and its agencies.
To further promote the ethical and lawful conduct in the government, the Office of the
Ombudsman was created to investigate complaints that pertains to public corruption, unlawful behavior
of public officials, and other public misconduct. The Ombudsman can charge public officials before the
Sandiganbayan, a special court created for this purpose.
Only the House of Representatives can initiate the impeachment of the president, members of the
Supreme Court, and other constitutionally protected public officials such as the Ombudsman. The Senate
will then try the impeachment case. This is another safeguard to promote moral and ethical conduct in the
government.

ATTEMPTS TO AMEND OR REVISE THE 1987 CONSTITUTION

There are three possible methods by which the Constitution can be changed: a Constituent
Assembly (CON-ASS), Constitutional Convention (CON-CON), or People’s Initiative. All three methods
require ratification by a majority vote in a national referendum. Following the administration of Corazon
Aquino, succeeding administrations made several tries or attempts to amend or revise the 1987
Constitution.
The first attempt was in 1995. A constitution was drafted by then Secretary of National Security
Council Jose Almonte, but was never completed because it was exposed to the media by different non-
government organizations. They saw through a potential change regarding the protection of the people’s
interest in the constitutional draft.
In 1997, the Pedrosa couple created a group called PIRMA followed with an attempt to change
the constitution through a People’s Initiative by way of gathering signatures from voters. Many prominent
figures opposed the proposition including Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, who brought the issue all
the way to the Supreme Court and eventually won the case. The Supreme Court stated that People’s
Initiative requires an enabling law for it to push through.
 During his presidency, Joseph Ejercito Estrada created a study commission for a possible charter
change or amendment regarding the economic and judicial provisions of the constitution. The attempt
never attained its purpose after various entities opposed it due apparently to the attempts serving the
personal interests of the initiators.
After the Estrada presidency, the administration of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo endorsed
constitutional changes via a Constituent Assembly, with then House Speaker Jose de Venecia leading the
way. However, due to political controversies surrounding Arroyo’s administration, including the
possibility of term extension, the proposal was shut down.
The next attempt was then coming from Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. during the administration
of Benigno Aquino III. Belmonte tried to introduce amendments to the Constitution focusing on
economic provisions aiming toward liberalization. The effort, however, did not succeed.
Under this new administration, President Duterte oversaw the possibility of implementing
federalism in the country. Following his ascension as president, he signed Executive Order 10 on
December 7, 2016, creating the Consultative Committee to review the 1987 Constitution.

Learning Activity:
Modified TRUE or FALSE

Determine whether or not the underlined word or group of words is true or false.
Write PASS if it is true. Write FAIL if it is false and rectify it to make the statement
true. (If false, answers shall be written in this manner… FAIL-HISTORY)

1. The Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must
conform and to which all persons, including the highest officials of the land
must defer or follow.
2. An evolved or cumulative constitution is formally struck off at a definite time and place
following a conscious and deliberate effort taken by a constituent body or ruler.
3. A self-executing provision is complete in itself and becomes operative without the aid of any
legislation or enabling law.
4. Constitution of sovereignty can be found under Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution which talks
about amendments or revisions.
5. Revision is the revamp or the rewriting of the whole instrument altering the substantial entirety
of the Constitution.
6. The Constitution of Biak-na-Bato was promulgated by the Philippine Revolutionary Government
on November 11, 1897.
7. The 1899 Malolos Constitution was never enforced due to the ongoing war between the Filipino
revolutionary forces and the American imperial forces.
8. The 1935 Constitution created the Commonwealth of the Philippines, a legislative body that
governed the Philippines from 1935 to 1946.
9. The 1973 Constitution was supposed to introduce a parliamentary-style government where
legislative power was vested in a unicameral National Assembly whose members were elected for
a six-year term.
10. The 1987 Constitution was ratified by a nationwide plebiscite on February 12, 1987.
POLICIES ON AGRARIAN REFORM
Agrarian Reform in the Philippines: A Conspectus

Agrarian reform can refer either, narrowly, to government-initiated or government-backed

redistribution of agricultural land or broadly, to an overall redirection of the agrarian system of the
country, which often includes land reform measures. Agrarian reform can include credit measures,
training, extension, land consolidations, etc. The World Bank evaluates agrarian reform using five
dimensions: (1) stocks and market liberalization, (2) land reform (including the development of land
markets), (3) agro-processing and input supply channels, (4) urban finance, (5) market institutions.
The United Nations thesaurus sees agrarian reform as a component of agricultural economics and
policy, with a specific impact on rural sociology, and broader than land reform, describing agrarian
reform as reforms covering all aspects of agrarian institutions, including land reform, production and
supporting services structure, public administration in rural areas, rural social welfare and educational
institutions, etc.
For purposes of discussion, people ask questions pertaining to the difference between land reform
and agrarian reform. Conversely, the former is concerned with rights in land, and their character, strength
and distribution, while the latter focuses not only on these but also on a broader set of issues: the class
character of the relations of production and distribution in farming and related enterprises, and how these
connect to the wider class structure. It is thus concerned economic and political power and the relations
between them.
Categorically speaking, under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (R.A. No.
6657), agrarian reform is defined as the “redistribution of lands, regardless of crops or fruits produced, to
farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, irrespective of tenurial arrangement, to include the
totality of factors and support services designed to lift the economic status of the beneficiaries and all
other arrangements alternative to the physical redistribution of lands, such as production or profit-sharing,
labor administration, and the distribution of shares of stock, which will allow beneficiaries to receive a
just share of the fruits of the lands they work. Agrarian reform is essentially the rectification of the whole
system of agriculture, an important aspect of the Philippine economy because nearly half of the
population is employed in the agricultural sector, and most citizens live in rural areas. Agrarian reform is
centered on the relationship between production and the distribution of land among farmers. It is also
focused on the political and economic class character of the relations of production and distribution in
farming and related enterprises, and how these connect to the wider class structure. Through genuine and
comprehensive agrarian reform, the Philippines would be able to gain more from its agricultural potential
and uplift the Filipinos in the agricultural sector, who have been, for the longest time, suffering from
poverty and discontent.

AGRARIAN (LAND) REFORM MEASURES RETRACED

Treaty of Paris (1898) – The initial step taken under the American regime was the confiscation of
friar lands. Lands confiscated were distributed among peasants by the independent government of
Malolos during the Philippine Revolution. Under the provisions of the Treaty of Paris which concluded
the Spanish-American war, the American administration launched a drive of purchasing friar estates in
order to protect the rights of monastic orders and to forestall further agrarian conflict between peasants
and Spanish friars who hold Spanish titles to these estates. The purchase of about 200,000 hectares for
$6.9 million was completed in 1905. Government purchase of private estates for redistribution among
smallholders was also undertaken during the Commonwealth period, though never implemented on a
large scale.
Philippine Bill (1902) – This bill limited private individual landholdings to 16 hectares, and
corporate landholdings to 1, 024 hectares. It also gave Americans to right to acquire agricultural lands.
Thus, it enabled American agricultural interests to control huge tracts of land for large-scale farming.
Land Registration Act (1902) – Landowners under this Act were required to register their
landholdings and acquire Torrens titles to land properties. Almost all land titles granted by the Court of
Land Registration up to 1910 were for large private landholdings. Small farmers who were either not
aware of the law or were too poor to pay for the documentation, failed to register their ownership of land.
As in the Spanish times, landgrabbing through fraudulent surveys was rampant.
Friar Lands Act (1903) – This Act instituted transfer of friar lands to the tenants to diffuse the
peasant unrest which found expression in the 1898 Revolution against Spain. The American government
purchased some of the 23 large friar estates covering 166,000 hectares for $7 million, which it resold to
60,000 tenants at full cost plus interest. The prices were beyond the reach of most tenants and some could
not understand why they had to buy back the land which had belonged to their parents. In fact, most of
the lands transferred as a result of this Act were those in which agrarian unrest was widespread. This Act
was later amended to allow the sale of friar lands (which were prime lands) not only to Filipino tillers but
to foreign nationals as well. In a short time, the Sugar Trust, an American corporation, purchased the San
Jose Estate.
Rice Share Tenancy Act (Public Act No. 4054) which was passed on February 27, 1933 by the
Philippine Legislature during the time of Governor-General Theodore Roosevelt, aimed at protecting
tenants against abuses of landlords. This Act provided for a 50-50 sharing of the crop, an interest rate
ceiling of 10 percent per crop year, and safeguards against arbitrary dismissal of tenants by landlords.
However, the law could go into effect “only in provinces where the majority of the municipal councils
shall, by resolution, petition for its application to the Governor-General.” With this provision, the law was
ineffective because members of the landed elite controlled the municipalities. Subsequent amendments to
make the law effective were also invalidated by landlord resistance.
Commonwealth Act. No. 278 of 1938 authorized the President (under the leadership of Pres.
Manuel L. Quezon) to buy farms and large estates for subletting to bona fide occupants who were entitled
to lease the lands for twenty-five years with an option to buy, thru the National Land Settlement
Administration (NLSA). This function of the NLSA was eventually taken over by the Rural Progress
Administration (RPA). Prior to World War II, however, only 6, 000 hectares had been purchased, and
disputes about tenant rights hindered the distribution of the 27, 000 hectare Buenavista Estate which the
government had purchased. (Land Reform Paradigm, p. 54, supra)
Sugar Cane Tenancy Contracts Act (Act No. 4113) – This law governed the relationship between
landowners and tenants in sugarlands which makes it a duty of the sugar central where the sugarcanes are
milled to exhibit to the tenant the receipts of the number of tons milled by the landowner thereat, upon
demand of the said tenant, which receipts shall be the basis of the computation of the tenant’s share from
the cane harvested.
Commonwealth Act No. 103 – This Act created the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) which
exercised jurisdiction over disputes arising from relationship between agricultural workers and
landowners especially concerning payment of wages and working hours.
Commonwealth Act No. 213 – An amendatory Act which deals with the right to form legitimate
labor orgnizations and to enter into collective bargaining agreements between management and labor.
Commonwealth Act No. 178, which improved the provisions of Act No. 4054 the Rice Share
Tenancy Act, followed by Act No. 461, and subsequently amended by Commonwealth Act No. 608, all of
which are improvements of Act No. 4054, giving more teeth and protection to the rights of tenants of
agricultural lands.
Republic Act No. 34 – This law which was passed during the incumbency of President Manuel
Roxas, amended certain Sections of the Rice Share Tenancy Act providing for a 70-30 crop-sharing
method. It further provides that in case the land is planted with rice on a second cropping or other
auxiliary crops, all expenses of production shall be shouldered by the tenant, but the sharing arrangement
shall be 80% for the tenant, and 20% for the landowner of the net harvest. Aside from the change in the
sharing system, this legislation also provided for a homelot for the tenant which is not less than 600
square meters.
 Republic Act No. 1160 – Another post-war piece of legislation, this law established the National
Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration (NARRA) which embarked on a large scale resettlement
of landless dissidents and other landless farmers. The government thru the NARRA made an all-time
record of acquiring two (2) landed estates from 1956 to 1957 involving 391 hectares that benefited some
569 landless farmers.
Republic Act No. 1199 – The Magsaysay reform programs were based on the enactment of this
law, otherwise known as the Agricultural Tenancy Act of 1954 which infused an added boost to the
tenurial rights of tenant-tillers and provided for the enforcement of fair tenancy practices. Under this law,
a tenant who supplies all requirements for production including labor, working animals, implements,
plowing, final harrowing and transplanting of rice crop, is entitled to 70% of the harvest. This Act is
implemented by a machinery called Agricultural Tenancy Commission created under Administrative
Order No. 67, series of 1954.
Land Reform Act (R. A. No. 1400, 1955) – In 1955, another law was passed, still under
Magsaysay administration. The Land Reform Act, also known as the “Land to the Landless” Program,
guaranteed the expropriation of all tenanted landed estates. It sets a retention limit of 300 hectares for
individually-owned estates, and 600 hectares for corporate-owned estates. The Act, similar to the Rice
Tenancy Act, was watered down in Congress which yielded to the lobbying landlords. It provided that
expropriation could only be started if majority of the tenants in the estates petitioned for it.
Republic Act No. 1267 – An Act Creating the Court of Agrarian Relations which has original and
exclusive jurisdiction to try and decide all matters, controversies and disputes arising from the
relationship of persons in the cultivation and use of agricultural lands; it has also concurrent jurisdiction
with the Court of First Instance over cases involving landlord and tenant.
Republic Act No. 3844 (The Agricultural Land Reform Code) – This Act marked the abolition of
share tenancy and/ or the system of sharing-cropping between landowner and tenant, and the automatic
conversion of share tenants into leaseholders. Passed during the administration of Diosdado Macapagal,
the law gave a break to tenants in improving their lot by the creation of the Land Bank of the Philippines
which provided for financial assistance. It also provided for a gradual conversion of the status of the
tenant-farmer from that of share tenant to leaseholder, from leasehold tenant to amortizing owner, and
finally from amortizing owner to owner cultivator. The defect of the law however, is that it operates only
in areas which were declared land reform areas by a machinery known as the National Land Reform
Council.

Republic Act No. 6389 (Code of Agrarian Reforms) – Designed as an improvement of R. A. No. 3844,
this amendatory Act featured the creation of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) which is now
vested with powers and duties to resolve all agrarian conflicts thru the exercise of its quasi-judicial
functions, under its functionary known as the Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board under the CARL.
Other main features of this Act are the right of the tenant on land converted to residential subdivisions to
demand a disturbance compensation equivalent to five (5) times the average gross harvest for the past
three agricultural years; increased financing for land reform programs, and the crediting of rentals in
favour of the tenant against just compensation that he is liable to pay where the land is expropriated by
the government for distribution to tenants.
 Agrarian Reform Special Fund Act (Rep. Act No. 6390) – Otherwise known as a companion
measure to R. A. No. 6389, this legislation provided for a special account and financial support for the
implementation of the Agrarian Reform Program of the government.
Presidential Decree No. 2 – Shortly after President Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law on
September 21, 1972, he issued P.D. No. 2 declaring the entire nation as a land reform area.
Presidential Decree No. 27 – One month after President Marcos declared the whole country as a
land reform area, he signed into law P.D. No. 27, “Decreeing the emancipation of the tenants from the
bondage of the soil, transferring to them the ownership of the land they till and providing the instruments
and mechanism therefore.” Under this Decree which took effect on October 21, 1972, all tenant-farmers
whether in land classified as landed estate or not shall be deemed owner of a portion constituting a
family-size farm of five (5) hectares if not irrigated, and three (3) hectares if irrigated. In all cases, the
landowner may retain an area of not more than seven (7) hectares if such landowner is cultivating such
area or will cultivate it. Despite the revolutionary effect of this decree, it still did not satisfy certain
agricultural sectors since it only applied to lands devoted to rice and corn, but exempted sugarcane lands,
coconut lands, citrus, fishponds, saltbeds, and lands principally planted to cacao, coffee, durian and other
permanent trees mentioned in Section 35 of R. A. No. 3844.
Proclamation No. 131 – Instituting a comprehensive agrarian reform program which covers,
regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands as
provided in the Constitution including, whenever applicable in accordance with law, other lands of the
public domain suitable to agriculture. The amount of P50,000, 000,000.00 was programmed as special
agrarian reform fund to carry out the implementation of the CARP.
Executive Order No. 228 – Declaring full landownership to qualified beneficiaries covered by
Presidential Decree No. 27, determining the value of remaining unvalued rice and corn lands, and
providing for the manner of payment by the farmer-beneficiaries and mode of compensation to the
landowner.
Executive Order No. 229 – Providing for the mechanisms for the implementation of the
comprehensive agrarian reform program, creating the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) as
highest policy-making body that formulates all policies, rules and regulations necessary to implement
each component of the CARP with the President as its Chairman. Practically all the provisions of this
executive order were adopted in R. A. No. 6657, which is at present the primary law on agrarian reform.
Executive Order No. 129-A – Modifying Executive Order No. 129, reorganizing and
strengthening the Department of Agrarian Reform and for other purposes. The DAR was organized under
R. A. No. 3844 as a government machinery for the implementation of the agrarian reform program and
activities. The special feature of this executive issuance is the creation of the Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board which has assumed the functions and powers formerly vested in the Courts of
Agrarian Relation with respect to the adjudication of agrarian reform cases in line with the DAR’s quasi-
judicial functions.
Rep. Act No. 6657 – Otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 . It
took effect on June 15, 1988. As a primary agrarian land reform measure in the country today, its
operation covers all public and private agricultural lands, regardless of tenurial arrangement and
commodity produced, including other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture.
 Republic Act no. 8532 – An Act Strengthening Further the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP), by Providing Augmentation Fund Therefore, Amending for the Purpose Section 63 of
Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as “The CARP Law of 1988.” Ramos signed R. A. 8532 to
amend R. A. 6657, which further strengthened the CARP by extending the program to another ten years.
He signed this law on 23 February 1998, a few months before the end of his term.
Republic Act No. 9700 – “An Act Strengthening the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP), Extending the Acquisition and Distribution of all Agricultural Lands, Instituting Necessary
Reforms, Amending for the Purpose Certain Provisions of R. A. No. 6657, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, as Amended, and Appropriating Funds Therefore”
- The law is otherwise known as Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program Extension with Reforms (CARPER). It is the amendatory law that extends again the deadline of
distributing agricultural lands to farmers for five years. It also amends other provisions stated in the
CARP.
- In December 2008, the budget for CARP expired and there
remained 1.2 million hectares of agricultural land waiting to be acquired and distributed to farmers.
CARPER was signed into law on August 7, 2009 by Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and was set to expire on
June 30, 2014. However, the program of distributing lands to farmer beneficiaries continued even after
June 2014. Section 30 of RA 9700 states that cases on the matter which are still pending shall be allowed
to proceed to its finality and be executed beyond such date.
R. A. No. 10000 – “An Act Providing for an Agriculture and Agrarian Reform Credit and
Financing System Through Banking Institution.”
- It is the policy of the state to promote productivity as key to
enhancing the quality of life of the people. To be able to achieve this, the government shall take actions to
encourage rural development by enhancing access of the agricultural sector to financial services and
programs.
- RA 10000, also known, as the Agri-Agra Reform Credit Act of 2009
was signed into law by then President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.
- The law stipulates that all banking institutions, whether government or
private, shall set aside at least 25% of their total loanable funds for agriculture and fisheries credit in
general, of which at least 10 % of the loanable funds shall be made available for agrarian reform
beneficiaries. The credit beneficiaries also include cooperatives and associations with good standing
regardless of capitalization (Section 5). The total loanable funds as used in the section shall refer to funds
generated from the date of effectivity of this Act. On the other hand, the 25% credit quota is subject to a
joint review by the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Agrarian Reform and the Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas after 3 years of implementation to determine whether the law has been effective in
accomplishing its goals and whether the modes of compliance reached the targeted sectors on agriculture,
fisheries and agrarian reform. The findings shall be submitted to Congress as mandated (Section 6).
R. A. No. 10878 – An Act Strengthening and Institutionalizing Direct Credit Support of the
Land Bank of the Philippines to Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries, Small Farmers and Fisherfolk, Further
Amending R. A. No. 3844, otherwise known as the Agricultural Land Reform Code, as Amended.
- Pursuant To R. A. No. 10878, the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP)
shall allocate at least 5% of its regular loan portfolio for socialized credit to qualified small farmers, small
fisherfolk and agrarian reform beneficiaries through qualified conducts. Further, the LBP may offer and
issue common and preferred shares of stocks to agrarian reform beneficiaries, small farmers and fishfolk
through their organizations, cooperatives; federations and cooperative banks; development partners and
strategic investors such as multilateral and bilateral institutions; and rural banks and their associations.

History of Land Ownership in the Philippines

Landownership during the Pre-colonial Period

During these times, land was commonly owned by the community known as the barangay. This is
a small unit of government consisting of 30 – 100 families administered by the chiefs called datu/s.
Everyone in the barangay regardless of status had access on the land and mutually shared resources and
the fruits of their labor. The people in the barangay believed in and practiced the concept of
“stewardship” where relationship between man and nature is important. Moreover, land cultivation was
done commonly by kaingin system or the slash and burn method wherein land was cleared by burning the
bushes before planting the crops or either land was plowed and harrowed before planting. In particular,
food production was intended for family consumption only. Later, neighboring communities where
engaged in a barter trade, exchanging their goods with others. Some even traded their agricultural
products with luxury items of some foreign traders like Chinese, Arabs and Europeans. On leasing and
selling of lands for instance, the Maragtas Code seems to be the only recorded transaction of land sale
during this time. This tells us about the selling of the Panay Island by the natives to the ten Bornean datus
in exchange of a golden salakot and a long gold necklace. On the other hand, although the Code of
Luwaran was one of the oldest of the Muslim society which contained provisions on the lease of
cultivated lands, there was no record how this lease arrangement was practiced.
Land Ownership During the Spanish Period
 During the early years of Spanish colonization in the Philippines, the colonial government
introduced the so-called pueblo agriculture, a system wherein native rural communities were organized
into pueblo and each Christianized family is given a four to five hectares of land to cultivate. The pueblo
agriculture practiced no share cropper class or landless class.
Consequently, the native families were merely landholders and not landowners. By law, the land
assigned to them was the property of the Spanish King where they paid their colonial tributes to the
Spanish authorities in the form of agricultural products they produced. Through the Laws of the Indies,
the Spanish crown awarded vast tracts of land to friars or monastic orders. Lands were also granted to the
Spanish military as a reward for their services. They were called the repartiamentos. Other than that, lands
were also given to Spaniards to manage and have the right to receive tributes from the natives tilling it.
They were the encomienderos. Eventually, natives within these areas became mere tillers working for the
share of crops. They did not even have any rights to the land. At the beginning of the 19 th century, the
Philippines as a colony of Spain, implemented policies that would mainstream the country into the world
of capitalism. The economy was opened to the world market as the Philippines became an exporter of raw
materials and importer of finished goods. The agricultural exports were mandated and hacienda system
was develop as a new form of ownership. As a result, more people lost their lands and were forced to
become tillers. Abusive encomienderos collected more tributes that became the land rentals from the
natives living in the area. A compras y vandalas system was practiced wherein tillers were made to
compulsory sell at a very low price or surrender their agricultural harvests to Spanish authorities where
encomienderos could resell it for a profit. Aside from that, the people of the encomiendas were also
required to render personal services on public and religious work and as a household help to the
encomienderos. As time passed by, the Spanish crown made a law in 1865 ordering landholders to
register their landholdings. Only those who were aware of these decrees benefited. Ancestral lands were
claimed and registered in other people’s names (Spanish officials, inquilinos and caciques or local
chieftains). As a result, many peasant families were driven out from the lands they have been cultivating
for centuries or were forced to become tillers.The Ley Hipotecaria or the Mortgage Law of 1893 provided
for the systematic registration of titles and deeds as well as ownership claims. This was mainly a law on
registration of properties rather than a mortgage law. In addition to that, the Maura Law or the Royal
Decree of 1894 was implemented. This was the last Spanish land law promulgated in the Philippines.
Under this law, farmers and landholders were given one year to register their agricultural to avoid
declaration of it as a state property. As more tillers were abused, exploited and deprived of their rights,
the revolution of peasants and farmers in 1897 articulated their aspirations for agrarian reform and for a
just society. Eventually, the revolutionary government under Aguinaldo confiscated the large landed
estates, especially the friar lands and declared these as properties of the government.
Landownership in the Philippines under the Americans
 The Americans were aware that the main cause of social unrest in the Philippines was
landlessness, and they attempted to put an end to the deplorable conditions of the tenant farmers by
passing several land policies to increase the small landholders and distribute ownership to a bigger
number of Filipino tenants and farmers. The Philippine Bill of 1902 provided regulations on the disposal
of public lands. A private individual may own 16 hectares of land while corporate landholders may have
1, 024 hectares. Americans were also given rights to own agricultural lands in the country. The
Philippine Commission also enacted Act No. 496 or the Land Registration Act, which introduced the
Torrens system to address the absence of earlier records of issued land titles and conduct accurate land
surveys. In 1903, the homestead program was introduced, allowing a tenant to enter into an agricultural
business by acquiring a farm of at least 16 hectares. This program, however, was limited to areas in
Northern Luzon and Mindanao, where colonial penetration had been difficult for Americans, a problem
they inherited from the Spaniards.
Landownership did not improve during the American period. In fact, it even worsened, because
there was no limit to the size of landholdings people could possess and the accessibility of possession was
limited to those who could afford to buy, register, and acquire fixed property titles. Not all friar land
acquired by the Americans were given to landless peasant farmers. Some lands were sold or leased to
American and Filipino business interest. This early land reform program was also implemented without
support mechanisms—if a landless peasant farmer received land, he only received land, nothing more.
Many were forced to return to tenancy and wealthy Filipino hacienderos purchased or forcefully took
over lands from farmers who could not afford to pay their debts. The system introduced by the Americans
enabled more lands to be placed under tenancy, which led to widespread peasant uprisings, such as the
Colorum and Sakdal Uprising in Luzon. Peasants and workers found refuge from millenarian movements
that gave them hope that change could still happen through militancy.
During the years of the Commonwealth government, the situation further worsened as peasant
uprisings increased and landlord-tenant relationship became more and more disparate. President Quezon
laid down a social justice program focused on the purchased of haciendas, which were to be divided and
sold to tenants. His administration also created the National Rice And Corn Corporation (NARIC) to
assign public defenders to assist peasants in court battle for their rights to the land, and the Court
Industrial Relations to exercise jurisdiction over disagreements arising from landowner-tenant
relationship. The homestead program also continued through the National Land Settlement
Administration (NLSA). Efforts toward agrarian reform by the Commonwealth failed because of many
problems such as budget allocation for the settlement program and widespread peasant uprisings. World
War II put a halt to all interventions to solve these problems as the Japanese occupied the country.
Post-War Interventions toward Agrarian Reform
 Rehabilitation and rebuilding after the war were focused on providing solutions to the problems
of the past. The administration of President Roxas passed Republic Act No. 34 to establish a 70-30
sharing arrangement between tenant and landlord, respectively, which reduced the interest of landowners
loans to tenants at six percent or less. The government also attempted to redistribute hacienda lands,
falling prey to the woes of similar attempts since no support was given to small farmers who were given
lands.
Under the term of President Elpidio Quirino, the Land Settlement Development Corporation
(LASEDECO) was established to accelerate and expand the resettlement program for peasants. This
agency later on became the National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration (NARRA) under
the administration of President Ramon Magsaysay.
Magsaysay saw the importance of pursuing genuine land reform program and convinced the
Congress, majority of which were landed elites, to pass legislation to improve the land reform situation.
Republic Act No. 1199 or the Agricultural Tenancy Act was passed to govern the relationship between
landholders and tenant farmers, protecting the tenurial rights of tenants and enforced tenancy practices.
Through this law, the Court of Agricultural Relations was created in 1955 to improve tenancy security,
fix by the land rentals of tenanted farms, and resolve land disputes filed by the landowners and peasant
organizations. The Agricultural Tenancy Commission was also established to administer problems
created by tenancy. The Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Administration (ACCFA) was
also created mainly to provide warehouse facilities and assist farmers in marketing their products. The
administration spearheaded the establishment of the Agricultural and Industrial Bank to provide easier
terms in applying for homestead and other farmlands.
NARRA accelerated the government’s resettlement program and distribution of agricultural lands
to landless tenants and farmers. It also aimed to convince members of the Huks, a movement of rebels in
Central Luzon, to resettle in areas where they could restart their lives as peaceful citizens.
Despite a more vigorous effort toward agrarian reform, the situation for the farmers remained dire
since the government lacked funds and provided inadequate support services for the programs. The
landed elite did not fully cooperate and they criticized the programs.
A major stride in land reform arrived during the term of President Diosdado Macapagal through
the Agricultural Land Reform Code (Republic Act No. 3844)

Primary Source: Declaration of Policy under RA No. 3844 or Agricultural Land Reform Code
Source: Section 2. Declaration of Policy – It is the policy of the State:
 (1) To establish owner-cultivatorship and the economic family-size
farm as the bases of Philippine agriculture and, as a consequence,
divert landlord capital in agriculture to industrial development;
(2) To achieve a dignified existence for the small farmers free from
pernicious institutional restraints and practices;
(3) To create a truly viable social and economic structure in agriculture
conducive to greater productivity and higher farm incomes;
(4) To apply all labor laws equally and without discrimination to both
industrial and agricultural wage earners;
(5) To provide a more vigorous and systematic land resettlement
program and public land distribution; and
(6) To make the small farmers more independent, self-reliant and
responsible citizens, and a source of genuine strength in our
democratic society.

This Code abolished share tenancy in the Philippines and prescribed a program to convert tenant-
farmers to lessees and later on to owner-cultivators. It also aimed to free tenants from tenancy and
emphasize owner-cultivatorship and farmer independence, equity, productivity improvement, and public
land distribution. Despite being one of the most comprehensive pieces of land reform legislation ever
passed in the Philippines, Congress did not make any effort to come up with a separate bill to fund its
implementation, despite the fact that it proved beneficial in provinces where it was pilot tested.

Agrarian Reform Efforts under Marcos

President Marcos declared Martial Law in 1972, enabling him to essentially wipe out the
landlord-dominated Congress. Through his “technocrats,” he was able to expand executive power to start
a “fundamental restructuring” of government, including its efforts in solving the deep structural problems
of the countryside. Presidential Decree No. 27 or the Code of Agrarian Reform of the Philippines became
the core of agrarian reform during Marcos regime.
Primary Source: Presidential Decree No. 27, 21 October 1972

This shall apply to tenant farmers of private agricultural lands primarily

devoted to rice and corn under a system of sharecrop or lease-tenancy,
whether classified as landed estate or not;
 The tenant farmer, whether in land classified as landed estate or not,
shall be deemed owner of a portion constituting a family-size farm of
five (5) hectares if not irrigated and three (3) hectares if irrigated;

In all cases, the landowner may retain an area of not more than seven
(7) hectares if such landowner is cultivating such area or will now
cultivate it;

For the purpose of determining the cost of the land to be transferred to

the tenant-farmer pursuant to this Decree, the value of the land shall
be equivalent to two and one-half (2 1/2) times the average harvest of
three normal crop years immediately preceding the promulgation of
this Decree;

The total cost of the land, including interest at the rate of six (6) per
centum per annum, shall be paid by the tenants in fifteen (15) years of
fifteen (15) equal annual amortizations;

In case of default, the amortization due shall be paid by the farmer’s

cooperative in which the defaulting tenant-farmer is a member, with
the cooperative having a right of recourse against him;

The government shall guaranty such amortizations with shares of stock

in government-owned and government-controlled corporations;

No title to the land owned by the tenant-farmers under this Decree shall be
actually issued to a tenant-farmer unless and until the tenant-farmer has
become a full-fledged member of a duly recognized farmer’s cooperative;

Title to land acquired pursuant to this Decree or the Land Reform

Program of the Government shall not be transferable except by
hereditary succession or the Government in accordance with the
provisions of this Decree, the Code of Agrarian Reforms and other
existing laws and regulations;

The Department of Agrarian Reform through its Secretary is hereby

empowered to promulgate rules and regulations for the implementation
of this Decree.

“Operation Land Transfer” on lands occupied by tenants of more than seven hectares on rice and
corn lands commenced, and through legal compulsion and an improved delivery of support services to
small farmers, agrarian reform seemed to be finally achievable. Under the rice self-sufficiency program
“Masagana ‘99” farmers were able to borrow from banks and purchase three-hectare plots of lands and
agricultural inputs. However, the landlord class still found ways to circumvent the law. Because only rice
lands were the focus of agrarian reform, some landlords only needed to change crops to be exempted
from the program, such as coconut and sugar lands. Lands worked by wage labor were also exempt from
the program, so the landed elite only had to evict their tenants and hired workers instead. Landlessness
increased, which made it all the more difficult for the program to succeed because landless peasants were
excluded from the program. Many other methods were employed by the elite to find a way to maintain
their power and dominance, which were worsened by the corruption of Marcos and his cronies who were
also involved in the agricultural sector.
Post-1986 Agrarian Reform

The overthrow of Marcos and the 1987 Constitution resulted in a renewed interest and attention
to agrarian reform as President Corazon Aquino envisioned agrarian reform to be the centerpiece of her
administration’s social legislation, which proved difficult because her background betrayed her-she came
from a family of a wealthy and landed clan that owned the Hacienda Luisita.
On 22 July 1987, Aquino issued Presidential Proclamation 131 and Executive Order 229, which
outlined her land reform program. In 1988, the Congress passed Republic Act No. 6657 or the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), which introduced the program with the same name
(Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program or CARP). It enabled the redistribution of agricultural lands
to tenant-farmers from landowners, who were paid in exchange by the government through just
compensation and allowed them to retain not more than five hectares. Corporate landowners were
however allowed under law to voluntarily divest a proportion of their capital stock, equity, or
participation in favour of their workers or other qualified beneficiaries instead of turning over their land
to the government.
CARP was limited because it accomplished very little during the administration of Aquino. It
only accomplished 22.5% of land distribution in six years owing to the fact that Congress, dominated by
the landed elite, was unwilling to fund the high compensation costs of the program. It was also mired in
controversy, since Aquino seemingly bowed down to the pressure of her relatives by allowing the stock
redistribution option. Hacienda Luisita reorganized itself into a corporation and distributed stocks to
farmers.
Under the term of President Ramos, CARP implementation was speeded in order to meet the ten-
year time frame, despite limitations and constraints in funding, logistics, and participation of involved
sectors. By 1996, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) distributed only 58.25% of the total area
target to be covered by the program. To address the lack of funding and the dwindling time for the
implementation of CARP, Ramos signed Republic Act No. 8532 in 1998 to amend CARL and extend the
program to another ten years.

CARPER and the Future of Agrarian Reform in the Philippines

 The new deadline of CARP expired in 2008, leaving 1.2 million farmer beneficiaries and 1.6
million hectares of agricultural land to be distributed to farmers. In 2009, President Arroyo signed
Republic Act No. 9700 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Extension with Reforms
(CARPER), the amendatory law that extended the deadline to five more years. Section 30 of the law also
mandates that any case and/or proceeding involving the implementation of the provisions of CARP, as
amended, which may remain pending on 30 June 2014 shall be allowed to proceed to its finality and
executed even beyond such date.
From 2009 to 2014, CARPER has distributed a total of 1 million hectares of land to 900,000
farmer beneficiaries. After 27 years of land reform and two Aquino administrations, 500,000 hectares of
lands remain undistributed. The DAR and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) are the government agencies mandated to fulfill CARP and CARPER, but even the combined
effort and resources of the two agencies have proved incapable of fully achieving the goal of agrarian
reform in the Philippines. The same problems have plagued its implementation: the powerful landed elite
and the ineffectual bureaucracy of the Philippine government. Until these two challenges are surmounted,
genuine agrarian reform in the Philippines remains but a dream to Filipino farmers who have been
fighting for their right to landownership for centuries.

Learning Activity:

Answer the following essay questions. Take note of the points given to each item.
Write legibly, clearly and concisely.
1. Define agrarian reform as articulated under Republic Act No. 6657. How does it differ from land
reform? (5 pts.)
2. What makes agrarian reform a very sensitive issue in the Philippines? How beneficial is it in the
lives of the Filipinos? (5 pts.)
 3. Is the comprehensive agrarian reform program (CARP) a failure or a success in the Philippines?
Support your answer. (5 pts.)

EVOLUTION OF PHILIPPINE TAXATION

In today’s world, taxation is a reality that all citizens must contend with for the primary reason
that governments raise revenue from the people they govern to be able to function fully. In exchange for
the taxes that people pay, the government does its best to improve the lives of its citizens through good
governance. Taxation, as a process or mechanism to raise funds, developed and evolved through time, and
in the context of the Philippines, we must understand that it came with our colonial experience
(Candelaria, 2018).

Taxation : An Overview

As defined, taxation is the inherent power of the sovereign exercised through the legislature to
impose burdens upon subjects and objects within its jurisdiction for the purpose of raising revenues to
carry out the legitimate objects of the government. Based on this definition, we can surmise the fact that
the nature of the State’s power to tax is two-fold. It is both an inherent and a legislative power. Why is
that so? The power to tax is considered inherent in a sovereign State because it is a necessary attribute of
sovereignty. Without this power, no sovereign state can exist nor endure. The power to tax proceeds from
the theory that the existence of the government is a necessity, belonging as a matter of right to every
independent State or government. No sovereign state can continue to exist without the means to pay
expenses; and that for those means it has the right to compel all citizens and property within its limits to
contribute, hence, the emergence of the power to tax. Consequently, the power to tax does not need
constitutional conferment. Constitutional provisions do not give rise to the power to tax but merely
impose limitations on what would otherwise be an invincible power. Moreover, the power to tax is
legislative in character since it involves the promulgation of laws. It is the legislature or law-making body
that determines the coverage, nature, object, extent and situs of the tax to be imposed. Such power is
exclusively vested in the legislature except where the fundamental law or constitution provides
otherwise.
Certainly, the State’s power to tax has been exercised for revenue and non-revenue or sumptuary
purposes. As emphasized, it has been practiced or primarily observed in order to raise funds or property to
enable the State to promote the general welfare and protection of the people. Other than that, the power to
tax has been used to regulate activities or industries. Taxation may be used as an implement of police
power to protect the citizens from activities or industries inimical to their well-being. It may also be
exercised by the State to reduce social inequality. Under this premise, a progressive system of taxation
prevents the undue concentration of wealth or resources in the hands of the few individuals. Progressivity
is based on the principle that those who are able to pay more should shoulder the portion of the tax
burden. Corollarily, the power to tax has also been carried out to encourage economic growth. The
government has granted incentives or exemptions to encourage business investment thereby stimulating
economic activity. Not only that, in cases of importation of foreign products, protective tariffs and
customs duties have been imposed to protect local industries from competition in the midst of
globalization. All these are what we call the non-revenue or sumptuary purposes of taxation.
In the implementation of this power to tax, governments or independent States for that matter
particularly in the Philippines, have conformed to those 3 basic principles to make the tax system sound.
These are the canons of taxation. One of them is fiscal adequacy. Under this principle, the revenue raised
by the government must be sufficient to meet government/public expenditures and other public needs.
Neither an excess nor a deficiency of revenue vis-à-vis the needs of the government would be in keeping
with the principles. Secondly, we have administrative feasibility. In the observance of this principle, the
tax system should be capable of being effectively administered and enforced with the least inconvenience
to the tax payer. The third and last principle is theoretical justice. This principle takes into consideration
the taxpayer’s ability to pay because the Constitution, as the fundamental law, mandates that the rule on
taxation must be uniform and equitable and that the State must evolve a progressive system of taxation.
Now, the question is this… Will the violation of these principles invalidate a tax law? It depends. Why?
A tax law will retain its validity even if it is not in consonance with the principles of fiscal adequacy and
administrative feasibility because the Constitution does not expressly require so. These two principles are
only designated or suggested to make our tax system sound. However, if a tax law runs contrary to the
principle of theoretical justice, such violation will render the law unconstitutional considering that under
the Constitution, the rule of taxation should be uniform and equitable and that the State must evolve a
progressive system of taxation.
Most significantly, the power of taxation has some limitations which are both inherent and
constitutional. With respect to the inherent limitations of taxation, it is being emphasized that taxation is
implemented for public purpose. A tax is considered for public purpose if it is for the welfare of the
nation and/or for the greater proportion of the population; if it affects the areas as a community rather
than as individuals. Hence, it is designed to support the services of the government for some of its
recognized objects. Other than that, the power to tax is exclusively vested in the law-making body. It is
inherently legislative in nature. Therefore, it may not be delegated except as otherwise provided for by
the Constitution. Additionally, taxation is an act of sovereignty which could only be exercised within a
country’s territorial limit or jurisdiction. Thus, taxation is territorial and jurisdictional in character.
Moreover, the Philippines, being a member of the international community, adheres to the principle of
international comity. In this sense, nations have accorded respect to each other because they are sovereign
equals. Ergo, the property or income of a foreign state may not be the subject of taxation by another State.
To tap it all, the government, in the exercise of this power, is exempt from paying taxes. But since
sovereignty is absolute and taxation is an act of high sovereignty, the State if so minded could tax itself
including its political subdivisions. Along this line, government entities, agencies or instrumentalities
may be exempted from paying taxes provided that they don’t involve themselves with some proprietary
functions. Otherwise, they shall be held liable to pay their tax obligations as mandated by law.
On the other hand, the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines constitutes some provisions dealing
with the power of the government to levy and collect taxes from its people. These constitutional
provisions, in a way, limit and serve as guide for the government on how to properly administer and
implement its power and authority to exact taxes. These provisions also highlight the importance of
taxation in the running of the government. They also enunciate the duties and responsibilities of every
Filipino citizen when it comes to paying taxes which serve as a mechanism towards economic growth and
development for the country. At the onset, let us talk about those constitutional provisions directly
affecting taxation. Section 20, Article III emphasizes that “no person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-
payment of a poll tax.” For emphasis, a poll tax is a fixed amount upon all persons, or upon all persons of
a certain class or residents within a specified territory, without regard to their property or occupation. It is
a tax imposed on a per head basis. The present poll tax is the community tax. Now, the provision talks
about the rule on non-payment of tax. And the general rule is that a person may be imprisoned for non-
payment of internal revenue taxes if expressly so provided by law. It means that a person can not be sent
to prison for failure to pay the community/poll tax. This is the exception to the general rule on non-
payment of taxes. Another provision that needs to be elucidated is Section 28, Article VI of the 1987
Constitution. It states that “the rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall evolve
a progressive system of taxation.” As articulated, the Constitution requires that taxes should be uniform
and equitable. Uniformity means that all articles or kinds of property of the same class shall be taxed at
the same rate. The taxing power or the government itself has the authority to make reasonable and natural
classifications for purposes of taxation. Equitability underscores the significance that the tax burden
should fall on those better able to pay. The provision also speaks about progressive taxation. Rationally,
taxation is progressive when the tax rate increases as the income of the taxpayer increases. The
constitutional provision is built on the principle of the taxpayer’s ability to pay and in the implementation
of the social justice principle that the more affluent should contribute more to the community’s benefit.
This is true to the saying that to whom much is given, much is required. Equally important also is the
provision of Section 28 (2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. “The Congress may, by law, authorize
the president to fix within specified limits and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may
impose tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues and other duties and imposts
within the framework of the national development program of the government. Actually, this provision is
an exception to the general rule that taxation is inherently legislative. In this case, the power to tax may
be delegated to the office of the president as may be prescribed by the Constitution. Another provision
that we need to discuss is Section 28 (3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. ”Charitable institutions,
churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries and all lands,
buildings and improvements, actually, directly and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or
educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation.” This so-called provision pertains to exemption from
real property tax only. Actually, directly and exclusively means “solely” and it is the use of the property
that determines exemptions, not the use of the income coming from such property. Moreover, Section
4(3), Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution states that “all revenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit
educational institutions used actually, directly and exclusively for educational purposes shall be exempt
from taxes and duties.” In such a case, incomes which are unrelated to school operations are taxable. It is
to be noted that the 1987 Constitution does not distinguish with respect to the sources or origin of the
income. The distinction is with respect to the use which should be actual, direct and exclusive for
educational purposes. Consequently, the provision of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, that a
non-stock and non-profit educational institution is exempt from taxation only in respect to income
received by them as such could not affect the constitutional tax exemptions. Where the constitution does
not distinguish with respect to the source or origin, tax code should not make distinctions. Other than that,
one provision also states that “no law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the
concurrence of a majority of all the members of Congress (Section 28 (4), Article VI). So, in granting tax
exemptions, the absolute majority rule of all the members of Congress is required. It means at least 50%
plus one of all the members voting separately because the sheer member of congressmen would dilute the
vote of the Senators. A relative majority or plurality of vote is sufficient that is, majority of a quorum is
the vote required for the withdrawal of such grant of tax exemption. In line with this, tax amnesties, tax
condonations, and tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions. Such being the case, a law granting tax
amnesties, tax condonations and tax refunds requires the vote of an absolute majority of the members of
congress. The intention of the legislature to grant tax exemptions must be expressed in clear and
unmistakable terms. It can never be implied from language, that will admit any other reasonable
construction. On the other hand, Section 29 (3), Article VI articulates that “all money collected on any
tax levied for a special purpose shall be treated as a special fund and paid out for such purpose only. If the
purpose for which a special fund has been fulfilled or abandoned the balance , if any, shall be transferred
to the general funds of the government.” For instance, if Congress wants to legislate a tax law in order to
levy and collect more taxes on petroleum products for the purpose of protecting the environment, the
Congress can do so because it’s their inherent function provided that the tax collected should be used for
its specific or intended purpose. The tax collected could not be used to some undertakings of the
government which are other than environmental protection otherwise it will render such governmental
action invalid or unconstitutional. Aside from those constitutional provisions, “the president shall have
the power to veto any particular item or items in an appropriation, revenue or tariff bill, but the veto shall
not affect the item or items to which he does not object”. This can be found under Section 27 (2), Article
VI of the 1987 Constitution. Let us not forget the fact that the president is the most powerful person in the
country. One of his powers is to veto a law or a bill that he doesn’t like. If that happens, the veto power
of the president may only be overridden by the 2/3 vote of Congress, voting separately as both legislative
houses may be independent from each other in some respect or undertaking. Furthermore, as mandated by
the Constitution, “the Supreme Court can review judgements or orders of lower courts in all cases
involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment or toll or any penalty imposed in relation thereto,
(Section 5 (2) b, Article VIII). Generally speaking, the court can not inquire into the wisdom of taxing act
except there is an allegation of violation of constitutional limitations or restrictions. Not to forget also is
Section 5, Article X of the 1987 Constitution. It enunciates the fact that “each local government unit shall
have power to create its own sources revenues and to levy taxes, fees and charges subject to such
guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide consistent with the basic policy of local
autonomy. Such taxes, fees and charges shall accrue exclusively to the local government.” This is another
case of delegation of the power to tax by Congress. Now, we also have Section 29 (2) of Article VI. It
states that “no public money shall be appropriated, applied, paid or employed directly or indirectly, for
the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution or system of religion,
or of any priest, preacher, minister or other religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such
priest, preacher, minister or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces or to any penal institution, or
government orphanage or leprosarium.” This provision emphasizes the separation of the church and the
State. Government funds should not be used for religious purposes except as otherwise provided. In
addition to all those provisions, we also have Section 24, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. It states that
“all appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing the increase of public debt, bills of local
application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives but the Senate
may propose or concur with amendments.” This provision talks about the original and exclusive function
of the House of Representatives. For instance, in matters of preparing the annual budget of the country,
the legislative proposal or the bill pertaining to such endeavour shall originate exclusively from the lower
house or house of representatives but the Senate may approve or concur with changes or amendments.
If there are constitutional provisions directly affecting taxation , we also have provisions
indirectly affecting it. Section 1, Article III emphasizes that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or
property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. In
relation to this, due process can be substantive or procedural. Objectively, in substantive due process, the
tax must be for public purpose. The tax must be imposed within the territorial jurisdiction of the taxing
authority. Conversely, when it comes to procedural due process, no arbitrariness or oppression either in
the assessment or collection. The provision also deals about equal protection of the law. This principle
suggests that all persons subjected to such legislation shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and
conditions, both in the priveleges conferred and in the liabilities imposed. The power to select subjects of
taxation and apportion the public burden among the citizens include the power to make classifications.
The inequalities which result in the singling out of one particular class for taxation or exemption infringe
no constitutional limitations. Another provision indirectly affecting taxation is Section 5, Article III of the
1987 Constitution. It states that “no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and
worship, without discrimination or preference shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required
for the exercise of civil and political rights.” Essentially, the provision itself supports the principle of
religious freedom. And, we also have Section 10, Article III which clearly explains our dealings when it
comes to business transactions. “No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.” In this
instance, a contract shall be respected by both parties as long as it does not violate public policy, moral
and the laws of the country.
Finally, taxes, as enforced contributions from citizens, are classified accordingly. As to object,
taxes are classified into personal/poll or capitalization tax, property tax and/or privilege/excise tax. A
personal/poll or capitalization tax is a fixed amount imposed upon all persons of a certain class, residents
within a specified territory, without regard to their property or occupation. Example of this kind of tax is
the community tax. Next, we have property tax which is imposed on property, whether real or personal, in
proportion either to its value or in accordance with some other reasonable method of apportionment. We
have real property tax as an example. Then, we have privilege/excise tax which is a charge upon the
performance of an act, the enjoyment of a privilege, or the engaging in an occupation. Income tax, estate
tax, donor’s tax and value-added tax are its examples. Taxes are also categorized as to burden or
incidence. In line with this, we have direct and indirect taxes. A direct tax is one that is demanded from
the person who also shoulders the burden of tax. We have income tax, estate tax and donor’s tax as
examples. On the other hand, an indirect tax is one in which the impact or liability for payment is shifted
by the taxpayer to someone else. We’ve got value-added tax and other percentage taxes as examples. As
to tax rates, taxes are categorized into specific, ad valorem and mixed. A specific tax is of a fixed amount
imposed by the head or number, or by some standard of weight or measurement. Excise taxes on cigar,
cigarettes and liquors are its examples. An ad valorem tax is based on the value of the property with
respect to which the tax is assessed. It requires the intervention of assessors or appraisers to estimate the
value of such property before the amount due can be determined. Real estate tax, income tax, donor’s tax
are its examples. When it comes to mixed, a choice between ad valorem and/or specific depending on the
condition attached shall be made. As to graduation, a tax can be progressive, regressive and proportionate.
A tax is progressive when a tax rate increases as the tax base or bracket increases. We have income tax
and donor’s tax as examples. A tax can also be regressive when the tax rate decreases as the tax base or
bracket increases. It is characterized by more indirect taxes being imposed. VAT is the classic example.
A tax can also be proportionate. It is a tax of a fixed percentage of amount of the base (value of the
property or amount of gross receipt, etc). Again, we have value-added tax (VAT) and other percentages
taxes as examples. Moreover, a tax can also be classified according to purpose. With that, a tax can be
general/fiscal or revenue and/or special/regulatory or sumptuary. When we say general/fiscal or revenue,
the tax imposed is solely for the general purpose of the government. Income tax and donor’s tax are
examples. Aside from that, a tax can be special, regulatory or sumptuary when it is levied for specific
purpose. For instance, in order to promote and protect local industries, tariffs and certain custom duties
are imposed on imported products. Furthermore, taxes are also categorized according to scope or
authority to impose. Under this classification, we have national and local taxes. National taxes are levied
and collected by the national government. Instances or examples of national taxes are income tax, value-
added tax, documentary stamp taxes and other percentage taxes. On the other hand, local taxes are levied
and collected by the local governments. And we have real estate tax and community tax as examples.

History of Philippine Taxation

I. Pre-colonial Era

During the time before the Spaniards came, the country had various kingdoms, called barangays,
which was ruled by the datus (or rajas in some areas) who offered protection to all its subordinates. Since
barter was the leading form of trade back then, tax (called buwis or handug, with the variant handog)
came in forms of crops or goods, which the people living under the datu share a portion of their harvest or
property, in exchange for security and protection.
Only the timawa (free men) paid taxes, since the maharlikas (nobility) and the datu offered the
protection, while the oripun or uripun (slaves) couldn’t offer anything since they lived to serve; thus the
highest and lowest of the castes were exempted from tax payment.
II. Spanish Era
 During the 17th and 18th centuries, the Contador de Resultas served as the Chief Royal Accountant
whose functions were similar to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. He was the Chief Arbitrator
whose decisions on financial matters were final except when revoked by the Council of Indies.
During these times, taxes that were collected from the inhabitants varied from tribute or head tax
of one gold maiz annually; tax on the value of jewelry and gold trinkets; indirect taxes on tobacco, wine,
cockpits, burlas, and powder. From 1521 to 1821, the Spanish treasury had to subsidize the Philippines in
the amount of P 250,000.00 per annum due to the poor financial condition of the country, which could be
primarily attributed to the poor revenue collection system.
Other forms of taxes from the Spanish Era is the tributo, which was originally between 8 to 10
reales. Forced labor, or polo y servicio, was also a network for tax payment. Eventually, with the cedula,
Spain replaced tributo with cedula, which allowed them to keep track of the people who could pay taxes.
The encomienda system, which is land ownership granted by the Crown to worthy peninsulares, was yet
another form of tax income from the Filipinos. The diezmos prediales is 1/10 of the produce of the
encomienda to be paid to the viceregal government, and the sanctorum was the tax paid to the local
church. Other local taxes were the vinta, tax paid by people in the provinces along the coast of Western
Luzon to defend the area against Muslim pirates common at the time, and the donativo de Zamboanga,
was taxed specifically used for the conquest of Jolo.
Listed below is a sample of a Filipino’s tax during the Spanish occupation:

Tributo (encomienda tax) : 10 reales

Diezmos prediales (government tax) : 1 real
Commission on Internal Revenue : 1 real
Sanctorum : 3 reales

III. American Era

 In the early American regime from the period 1898 to 1901, the country was ruled by American
military governors. In 1902, the first civil government was established under William H. Taft. However,
it was only during the term of second civil governor Luke E. Wright that the Bureau of Internal Revenue
(BIR) was created through the passage of Reorganization Act No. 1189 dated July 2, 1904.
On August 1, 1904, the BIR was formally organized and made operational under the Secretary Of
Finance, Henry Ide (author of the Internal Revenue Law of 1904), with John S. Hord as the first Collector
(Commissioner). The first organization started with 69 employees, which consisted of a Collector, Vice-
Collector, one Chief Clerk, one Law Clerk, one Records Clerk and three (3) Division Chiefs.
Following the tenure of John S. Hord were three (3) more American collectors, namely Ellis
Cromwell (1909-1912; William T. Holting (1912-1914); and James J. Rafferty (1914-1918). They were
all appointed by the Governor-General with the approval of the Philippine Commission and the US
President.
During the term of Collector Holting, the Bureau had its first reorganization on January 1, 1931
with the creation of eight (8) divisions, namely:
1) Accounting;
2) Cash;
3) Clerical;
4) Inspection;
5) Law;
6) Real Estate
7) License; and
8) Records

Collections by the Real Estate and License Divisions were confined to revenue accruing to the
City of Manila.
 In line with the Filipinization policy of then US President William McKinley, Filipino Collectors
were appointed. The first three (3) BIR Collectors were Wenceslao Trinidad (1918-1922); Juan Posadas,
Jr. (1922-1934); and Alfredo Yatao (1934-1938).
On May 1921, by the virtue of Act No. 299, the Real Estate, License and Cash Divisions were
abolished and their functions were transferred to the City of Manila. As a result of this transfer, the
Bureau was left with five (5) divisions, namely:
1) Administrative;
2) Law;
3) Accounting;
4) Income Tax; and
5) Inspection

Thereafter, the Bureau established the following:

1) The Examiner’s Division, formerly the Income Tax Examiner’s Section which was later
merged with the Income Tax Division; and
2) The Secret Service Section, which handled the detection and surveillance activities but was
later abolished on January 1, 1951.
Except for minor changes and the creation of the Miscellaneous Tax Division in 1939, the
Bureau’s organization remained the same from 1921 to 1941.
In 1937, the Secretary of Finance promulgated Regulation No. 95, reorganizing the Provincial
Inspection Districts and maintaining in each province an Internal Revenue Office supervised by a
Provincial Agent.

IV. Japanese Era

At the outbreak of World War II, under the Japanese regime (1942-1945), the Bureau was
combined with the Customs Office and was headed by a Director of Customs and Internal Revenue.
 V. Post-War Era

On July 4, 1946, when the Philippines gained its independence from the United States, the
Bureau was eventually re-established separately. This led to a reorganization on October 1, 1947 by virtue
of Executive Order No. 94, wherein the following were undertaken:
1) The Accounting Unit and the Revenue Accounts and Statistical Division were
merged into one;
2) All records in the Records Section under the Administrative Division were
consolidated; and
3) All legal works were centralized in the Law Division.

Revenue Regulations No. V-2 dated October 23, 1947, divided the country into 31 inspection units, each
of which was under a Provincial Revenue Agent (except in certain special units which were headed by a
City Revenue Agent or supervisors for distilleries and tobacco factories).

The second major reorganization of the Bureau took place on January 1, 1951 through the passage of
Executive Order No. 392. Three (3) new departments were created, namely:

1) Legal;
2) Assessment; and
3) Collection.
On the latter part of January of the same year, Memorandum Order No. V-188 created the
Withholding Tax Unit, which was placed under the Income Tax Division of the Assessment Department.
Simultaneously, the implementation of the withholding tax system was adopted by virtue of Republic Act
(RA) 690. This method of collecting income tax upon receipt of the income resulted in the collection of
approximately 25% of the total income tax collected during the said period.
The third major reorganization of the Bureau took effect on March 1, 1954 through Revenue
Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 41. This led to the creation of the following offices:
1) Specific Tax Division;
2) Litigation Section;
3) Processing Section; and the
4) Office of the City Revenue Examiner
By September 1, 1954, a Training Unit was created through RMO No. V-4-47.
As an initial step towards decentralization, the Bureau created its first 2 Regional Offices in Cebu
and Davao on July 20, 1955 per RMO No. V-536. Each Regional Office was headed by a Regional
Director, assisted by Chiefs of five (5) Branches, namely:
1) Tax Audit;
2) Collection;
3) Investigation;
4) Legal; and
5) Administrative.
The creation of the Regional Offices marked the division of the Philippine islands into three (3)
revenue regions.
The Bureau’s organizational set-up expanded beginning 1956 in line with the regionalization
scheme of the government. Consequently, the Bureau’s Regional Offices increased to (8) eight and later
into ten (10) in 1957. The Accounting Machine Branch was also created in each Regional Office.
In January 1957, the position title of the head of the Bureau was changed from Collector to
Commissioner. The last Collector and the first Commissioner of the BIR was Jose Aranas.
A significant step undertaken by the Bureau in 1958 was the establishment of the Tax Census
Unit for each Regional Office. This was done to consolidate all statements of assets, incomes, and
liabilities of all individual and resident corporations in the Philippines into a National Tax Census.
To strictly enforce the payment of taxes and to further discourage tax evasion, RA No. 233 or the
Rewards Law was passed on June 19, 1959 whereby informers were rewarded the 25% equivalent of the
revenue collected from the tax evader.
In 1964, the Philippines was re-divided anew into 15 regions and 72 inspection districts. The
Tobacco Inspection Board and Accountable Forms Committee were also created directly under the Office
of the Commissioner.

Marcos Administration
 The appointment of Misael Vera as Commissioner in 1965 led the Bureau to a “new direction” in
tax administration. The most notable programs implemented were the “Blue Master Program” and the
“Voluntary Tax Compliance Program”. The first program was adopted to curb the abuses of both the
taxpayers and BIR personnel, while the second program was designed to encourage professionals in the
private and government sectors to report their true income and to pay the correct amount of taxes.
It was also during Commissioner Vera’s administration that the country was further subdivided
into 20 Regional Offices and 90 Revenue District Offices, in addition to the creation of various offices
which included the Internal Audit Department (replacing the Inspection Department), Administrative
Service Department, International Tax Affairs Staff and Specific Tax Department.
Providing each taxpayer with a permanent Tax Account Number (TAN) in 1970 not only
facilitated the identification of taxpayers but also resulted to faster verification of tax records. Similarly,
the payment of taxes through banks (per Executive Order No. 206), as well as the implementation of the
package audit investigation by industry are considered to be important measures which contributed
significantly to the improved collection performance of the Bureau.
The proclamation of Martial Law on September 21, 1972 marked the advent of the New Society
and ushered in a new approach to the developmental efforts of the government. Several tax amnesty
decrees issued by the President were promulgated to enable erring taxpayers to start anew. Organization-
wise, the Bureau had also undergone several changes during the Martial Law period (1972-1980).
In 1976, under Commissioner Efren Plana’s administration, the Bureau’s National Office
transferred from the Finance Building in Manila to its own 12-story building in Quezon City, which was
inaugurated on June 3, 1977. It was also in the same year that President Marcos promulgated the National
Internal Revenue Code of 1977, which updtated the 1934 Tax Code. On August 1, 1980, the Bureau was
further reorganized under the administration of Ruben Ancheta. New offices were created and some
organizational units were relocated for the purpose of making the Bureau more responsive to the needs of
the taxpaying public.

Cory Aquino Administration

 After the People’s Revolution in February 1986, a renewed thrust towards an effective tax
administration was pursued by the Bureau. “Operation: Walang Lagay” was launched to promote the
efficient and honest collection of taxes.

On January 30, 1987, the Bureau was reorganized under the administration of Commissioner
Bienvenido Tan, Jr. pursuant to Executive Order (EO) No. 127. Under the said EO, two (2) major
functional groups headed and supervised by a Deputy Commissioner were created, and these were:
1) the Assessment and Collection Group; and
2) the Legal and Internal Administration Group.
With the advent of the value-added tax (VAT) in 1988, a massive campaign program airned to
promote and encourage compliance with the requirements of the VAT was launched. The adoption of the
VAT system was one of the structural reforms provided for in the 1986 Tax Reform Program, which was
designed to simplify tax administration and make the tax system more equitable. It was also in 1988 that
the Revenue Information Systems Services Inc. (RISSI) was abolished and transferred back to the BIR by
virtue of a Memorandum Order from the Office of the President dated May 24, 1988. This transfer had
implications on the delivery of the computerization requirements of the Bureau in relation to its functions
of tax assessment and collection.
The entry of Commissioner Jose Ong in 1989 saw the advent of the “Tax Administration
Program” which is the embodiment of the Bureau’s mission to improve tax collection and simplify tax
administration. The Program contained several tax reform and enhancement measures, which included the
use of the Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) and the adoption of the New Payment Control System
and Simplified Net Income Taxation Scheme.
Ramos Administration
 The year 1993 marked the entry into the Bureau of its first lady Commissioner, Liwayway
Vinzons-Chato. In order to attain the Bureau,s vision of transformation, a comprehensive and integrated
program known as the ACTS or Action-Centered Transformation Program was undertaken to realign and
direct the entire organization towards the fulfilment of its vision and mission.
It was during Commissioner Chato’s term that a five-year Tax Computerization Project (TCP)
was undertaken in 1994. This involved the establishment of a modern and computerized Integrated Tax
System and Internal Administration System.
Further streamlining of the BIR was approved on July 1997 through the passage of EO No. 430,
in order to support the implementation of the computerized Integrated Tax System. Highlights of the said
EO included the:
1) Creation of a fourth Revenue Group in the BIR, which is the Legal and
Enforcement Group (headed by a Deputy Commissioner); and
2) Creation of the Internal Affairs Service, Taxpayers Assistance Service,
Information Planning and Quality Service and the Revenue Data
Centers.
Estrada Administration

With the advent of President Estrada’s administration, a Deputy Commissioner of the BIR,
Beethoven Rualo, was appointed as Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Under his leadership, priority
reform measures were undertaken to enhance voluntary compliance and improve the Bureau’s
productivity. One of the significant reform measures was the implementation of the Economic Recovery
Assistance Payment (ERAP) Program, which granted immunity from audit and investigation to taxpayers
who have paid 20% more than the tax paid in 1997 for income tax, VAT and/or percentage taxes.
 In order to encourage and educate consumers/taxpayers to demand sales invoices and receipts, the
raffle promo “Humingi ng Resibo, Manalo ng Libo-Libo” was institutionalized in 1999. The Large
Taxpayers Monitoring System was also established under Commissioner Rualo’s administration to
closely monitor the tax compliance of the country’s large taxpayers.
The coming of the new millennium ushered in the changing of the guard in the BIR with
appointment of Dakila Fonacier as the new Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Under his administration,
measures that would enhance taxpayer compliance and deter tax violations were prioritized. The most
significant of these measures include:
Full utilization of tax computerization in the Bureau’s operations; Expansion of the use of electronic
Documentary Stamp Tax metering machine and establishment of tie-up with the national government
agencies and local government units for the prompt remittance of withholding taxes; and Implementation
of Compromise Settlement Program for Taxpayers with outstanding accounts receivable and disputed
assessments with the BIR.
Memoranda of Agreement were also forged with the league of local government units and several
private sectors and professional organizations (i.e. MAP, TMAP, PCCI, FFCCCI, etc.) to help the BIR
implement tax campaign initiatives.
On September 1, 2000, the Large Taxpayers Service (LTS) and the Excise Taxpayers Service
(ETS) were established under EO No. 175 to reinforce the tax administration and enforcement capabilities
of the BIR. Shortly after the establishment of said revenue services, a new organizational structure was
approved on October 31, 2001 under EO No. 306 which resulted in the integration of the functions of the
ETS and the LTS.
In line with the passage of the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000 on June 14, the Bureau
implemented a Full Integrated Tax System (ITS) Rollout Acceleration Program to facilitate the full
utilization of tax computerization in the Bureau’s operations. Under the Program, seven (7) ITS back-end
systems were released in stages in RR 8 – Makati City and the Large Taxpayers Service.
Gloria M. Arroyo Administration

Following the momentous events of EDSA II in January 2001, newly-installed President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo appointed a former Deputy Commissioner, Atty. Rene G. Bañez, as the new
Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
Under Commissioner Bañez administration, the BIR’s thrust was to transform the agency to make
it taxpayer-focused. This was undertaken through the implementation of change initiatives that were
directed to:
 1) Reform the tax system to make it simpler and suit the Philippine culture;
2) Reengineer the tax processes to make them simpler, more efficient and
transparent;
3) Restructure the BIR to give it financial and administrative flexibility; and

4) Redesign the human resource policies, systems, and procedures to transform

the workforce to be more responsive to taxpayer’s needs.
Measures to enhance the Bureau’s revenue-generating capability were also implemented, the
most notable of which were the implementation of the Voluntary Assessment Program and Compromise
Settlement Program and expansion of coverage of the creditable withholding tax system. A technology-
based system that promotes the paperless filing of tax returns and payment of taxes was also adopted
through the Electronic Filing and Payment System (eFPS).
With the resignation of Commissioner Bañez on August 19, 2002, Finance Undersecretary
Cornelio C. Gison was designated as interim BIR Commissioner. Eight days later (on August 27, 2002),
former Customs Commissioner, Guillermo L. Parayno, Jr. was appointed as the new Commissioner of
Internal Revenue (CIR). Barely a month since his assumption to duty as the new CIR, Commissioner
Parayno offered a Voluntary Assessment and Abatement Program (VAAP) to taxpayers with under-
declared sales/receipts/income. To enhance the collection performance of the BIR, Commissioner
Parayno adopted the use of new systems such as the Reconciliation of Listings for Enforcement or
RELIEF System to detect under-declarations of taxable income by taxpayers and the electronic
broadcasting system to enhance the security of tax payments. It was also under Commissioner Parayno’s
administration that the BIR expanded its electronic services to include the web-based TIN application and
processing; an electronic raffle of invoices/receipts; provision of e-payment gateways; e-substituted filing
tax returns and electronic submission of sales reports. The conduct of special operations on high profile
tax evaders, which resulted to the filing of tax cases under the Run After Tax Evaders (RATE) Program
marked Commissioner Parayno’s administration as well as the conduct of Tax Compliance Verification
Drives and accreditation and registration of cash register machines and point –of-sale machines. To
improve taxpayer service, the Bureau also established a BIR Contact Center in the National Office and
eLounges in Regional Offices.
On October 28, 2006, Deputy Commissioner for Legal and Inspection Group, Jose Mario C.
Buñag was appointed as full-fledged Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Under his administration, the
Bureau attained success in a number of key undertakings, which included the expansion of the RATE
Program to the Regional Offices; inclusion of new payment gateways, such as the Efficient Service
Machines and the G-Cash and SMART Money facilities; implementation of the Benchmarking Method
and installation of the Bureau’s e-Complaint System, a new e-Service that allows taxpayers to log their
complaints against erring revenuers through the BIR website. The Nationwide Rollout of Computerized
Systems (NRCS) was also undertaken to extend the use of the Bureau’s Integrated Tax System across its
non-computerized Revenue District Offices. In 2007, the National Program Support for Tax
Administration Reform (NPSTAR), a program funded by various international development agencies,
was launched to improve the BIR efficiency in various areas of tax administration (i.e. taxpayer
compliance, tax enforcement and control, etc.).
 On June 29, 2007, Commissioner Buñag relinquished the top post of the BIR and was replaced by
Deputy Commissioner for Operations Group, Lilian B. Hefti, making her the second lady Commissioner
of the BIR. Commissioner Hefti focused on the strengthening of the use of business intelligence by
embarking on data matching of income of withholding agents against the reported income of the
concerned recipients. Information sharing between the BIR and the Local Government Units (LGUs) was
also intensified through the LGU Revenue Assurance System, which aims to uncover fraud and non-
payment taxes. To enhance the Bureau’s audit capabilities, the use of Computer-Assisted Audit Tools and
Techniques (CAATTs) was also introduced in the BIR under her term.
With the resignation of Commissioner Hefti in October 2008, former BIR Deputy Commissioner
for Legal and Enforcement Group, Sixto S. Esquivias IV was appointed as the new Commissioner of
Internal Revenue. Commissioner Esquivas’ administration was marked with the conduct of nationwide
closure of erring business establishments under the “Oplan Kandado’ Program. A Taxpayer Feedback
Mechanism (through the eComplaint facility accessible via the BIR Website) was also established under
his term where complaints on erring BIR employees and taxpayers who do not pay taxes and do not issue
ORs/invoices can be reported. In 2009, the Bureau revived its “Handang Maglingkod” Project where the
best frontline offices were recognized for rendering effective taxpayer service.
When Commissioner Esquivas resigned in November 2009, Senior Deputy Commissioner Joel L.
Tan-Torres assumed the position of Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Under his administration,
Commissioner Tan-Torres pursued a high visibility public awareness campaign on the Bureau’s
enforcement and taxpayer’s service programs. He institutionalized several programs/projects to improve
revenue collections, and these include Project R.I.P. (Rest in Peace); intensified filing of tax evasion cases
under the re-invigorated RATE Program; conduct of Taxpayers Lifestyle Check and development of
Industry Champions. Linkages with various agencies (i.e. LTO, SEC, etc.) were also established through
the signing of several Memoranda of Agreement to improve specific areas of tax administration.
P-Noy Aquino Administration

Following the highly-acclaimed inauguration of President Benigno C. Aquino III on June 30,
2010, a former BIR Deputy Commissioner, Atty. Kim S. Jacinto-Henares, was appointed as the new
Commissioner of Internal Revenue. During her first few months in the BIR, Commissioner Henares
focused on the filing of tax evasion cases under the RATE Program, in compliance with the SONA
pronouncements of President Aquino.
Duterte Administration
 On December 19, 2017, President Rodrigo Duterte signed the Tax Reform for Acceleration and
Inclusion (TRAIN) Law, wherein it exempts all taxpayers, whose annual income is less than or equal to
Php 250, 000.00 to pay their taxes. As compensation, petroleum products and consumer goods with either
natural, artificial, or high-fructose syrup sweeteners will get an increase in its prices, with natural fruit
juices and milk being exempted from these increase.

Modified TRUE or FALSE

Determine whether or not the underlined word or group of words is true or false. Write
LOVE if it is true. Write HATE if it is false and rectify it to make the statement true. ( If false, answers
shall be written in this manner… HATE-HISTORY).
1. Taxation is the inherent power of the sovereign exercised through the legislature to impose
burdens upon subjects and objects within its jurisdiction for the purpose of raising revenues to
carry out the legitimate objects of the government.
2. A regressive system of taxation prevents the undue concentration of wealth in the hands of the
few individuals.
3. Under the principle of fiscal adequacy, the revenue raised by the government must be sufficient to
meet government or public expenditures and other public needs.
4. The Philippines, being a member of the international community, adheres to the principle of
international polity.
5. Uniformity means that all articles or kinds of property of the same class shall be taxed at the same
rate.
6. As to scope or authority to impose, a tax can either be direct or indirect.
7. During the pre-colonial era, only the timawa paid taxes, since the maharlikas and datu(s) offered
the protection, while the oripun couldn’t offer anything since they lived to serve.
8. From 1521-1821, the Spanish treasury had to subsidize the Philippines in the amount of
P350,000.00 per annum due to the poor financial condition of the country, which could primarily
be attributed to the poor revenue collection system.
 9. After the People’s Revolution in February 1986, a renewed thrust towards an effective tax
administration was pursued by the BIR. “Operation: Walang Lagay” was launched to promote the
efficient and honest collection of taxes.
10. On December 9, 2017, President Rodrigo Duterte signed the TRAIN Law, where it exempts all
taxpayers, whose annual income is less than or equal to P250,00.00, to pay their taxes.

UNIT 5

DOING HISTORY: A GUIDE FOR STUDENTS

Learning Objectives
At the end of this unit, the students will be able to:
● manifest interest in local history and cultural heritage;
● apply historiographical methods in writing the history of one’s locality or country;
● incorporate technology in the discipline of history;
● appreciate the value of doing history to the present day.
It is not enough that we know our history. We must also realize that as agents of social change,
we can contribute to the narrative of the nation by participating in writing about our past and our present.
This unit focuses on applying the skills we have learned in the previous units in writing history. Special
attention will be given to doing online research, library/archival research, biographies/life history, and
local/oral history. An additional discussion on interacting with history through historical shrines and
museums will also help us in appreciating the story of the past as it comes to life through our own
experiences in visiting and interacting with these learning spaces.

Doing Historical Research Online

 Let us start with the first tool that any student nowadays would use to do research—the Internet.
It has increasingly become the primary means by which anyone would find any information that they
need. With a single click, students are able to access tons and tons of available information. So much
information, in fact, that it would be easy to get lost in all the data available.
Cyberspace is a great resource for research if you know how to use it properly. Remember that
just because information is available does not mean you should just get it and use it right away –
appropriating something, such as an idea, as yours is considered plagiarism, which is one of the worst
crimes in the academe. Treat anything you find online as a source and use the same historical methods
you have learned to analyse the data you get online.
A simple skill that will get you far in doing historical research online is knowing where to look
and how to look. Search engine websites such as Yahoo! ( www.yahoo.com) or Google
(www.google.com) could lead you to a lot of sources with the right search strings. A search string is a
combination of words that you use to come up with relevant results and lead you to what you are looking
for. The more refined your search string is, the more definite and refined the results will be.
Google also provides its own customized platform for scholarly research, called Google Scholar
(www.scholar.google.com). You may use it to find electronic journal articles, materials from
institutional repositories, and book chapters from many different sources. It could be a good starting point
in building your research by providing you an overview of existing published material for your topic.
Google Books (www.books.google.com) also provides sources for scanned books, where you may be
able to read some chapters for free. This could be useful if you want to know if a certain book would be
useful to your research before going to a physical library to loan the book or photocopy pages of it.
Sometimes, a simple search online is all you need to find the data you need. And most often, one
of the first results that will come out will be pages from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is the biggest open source
encyclopedia in the whole of cyberspace. In 2017, it has 40 million articles in 293 languages. Being an
open source encyclopedia , anyone could contribute or edit articles in the site, which makes some of the
information in the site unreliable. Nonetheless, Wikipedia provides a useful launch pad to sources that
you may use for research. When you read from Wikipedia look at the linked citations in the articles,
which could lead you to a source you may use for your own research. However, exercise caution in using
this site, as many in the academe frown upon research that utilizes Wikipedia. As a practice, use
Wikipedia to gain a general overview of what you need to know so that you may be guided in looking for
credible and reliable sources that you need for your research.
 There are websites that you may use to legally download scanned copies of books and other
materials for free, especially those books with expired copyrights and are in public domain. Project
Gutenberg (www.gutenberg.org) is the oldest digital library in the world, founded in 1971. It has more
than 50,000 items in its collection, which include many works concerning the Philippines, such as the
Doctrina Cristiana (the first published book in the Philippines), the published travelogues of foreigners
who visited the Philippines such as Jagor, de Comyn, Virchow, Foreman, and Worcester; Austin Craig’s
biography of Rizal, and all volumes of Blair and Robertson’s The Philippine Islands: 1943-1898. Another
online archive you may use is Internet Archive (www.archive.org) , an online library that originally
sought to archive web history, but grew later on to provide digital versions of other works. The archive
contains 279 billion videos, one million images, and 100,000 software programs.

Philippine government websites (www.gov.ph) are starting to be enriched with sources that may
be used for historical research, especially on laws and other government issuances that may be useful
when doing topics of a more contemporary period. Websites of newspapers, magazines, broadcasting
stations, and other media outlets usually keep an archive of their articles from a particular date. For older
issues, you may have to find copies, either digitized or physical copies, in the library.

Doing Historical Research in Libraries and Archives

Research in libraries and archives is necessary in the study of history as these are repositories of
primary and secondary sources that allow us to create narratives of the past through accepted methods of
historical scholarship. It is imperative upon students to be able to develop an aptitude toward doing
research in these venues so as to further develop their skills in historical research.
Students of history are usually expected to write historical essays and/or historical research
papers, and this entails the collection of data through primary sources. There are available primary
sources on the Philippine history online, however, much remains to be digitized and made accessible to
the public. Libraries and archives still provide more variety of sources in different formats such as books,
journal articles, newspapers, magazines, photographs, and even audio and video recordings. But sifting
through all the materials available might prove to be a daunting task for the unacquainted.
Nowadays, libraries have forgone the tedious and antiquated card cataloguing system and have
been using the digital using version to catalog their holdings, called the Online Public Access Catalog
(OPAC), sometimes simply the Library Catalog. In this system, instead of going through each entry on
physical index cards, a simple search will yield the holdings of the library related to what you are
searching for. Searching by subject will give you a list of sources, primary and secondary, to aid you in
creating a preliminary biography that you may later on access physically in the holdings of the library.
A problem that could arise this way is when the search yields too many results---sifting through
these may need a more refined search string using more definite keywords to limit the results. For
example, “Philippine History” as a search string would result in hundreds, even thousands of materials.
Limit it to particular keywords that focus on your topic, such as “Philippine Revolution,” Emilio
Aguinaldo,” Declaration of Independence,” and other more defined strings.
The catalog lists down all kinds of materials available based on the subject used in the search.
These could be books, journals, maps, and other materials that fit what you might be looking for. Do not
limit yourself to using books and other published materials when you may be able to utilize other forms
of sources. Materials that may be too old to be physically handled may also be available in digital form
or microfilm.
The National Library of the Philippines in Ermita, Manila provides a rich treasure trove of
materials for the student-researcher interested in Philippine history, especially in their Filipiniana section.
It has a valuable Rizaliana collection, several sets of Blair and Robertson’s The Philippine Islands, 1493-
1898, rare Filipiniana books, Philippine Presidential Papers, and other materials that are accessible to the
public, especially to students.
Research in archives may be a lot more difficult and prove to be too advanced, but will provide
you with many sources not available in the usual libraries. The National Archives of the Philippines, also
in Manila, is an agency of the government mandated to collect, store, preserve, and make available
records of the government and other primary sources pertaining to the history and development of the
Philippines. Most of the materials here, especially for the years of Spanish colonialism, are in their
original language and may not be accessible to college students. But other materials may be useful, and it
would not hurt to ask assistance from the staff in the archives.
The libraries in the University of the Philippines in Diliman, Quezon City have holdings that
could also be useful in research. The collections particularly in the Main Library in Gonzales Hall are
rich in resources especially the Filipiniana section, serials, theses and dissertations.
Other university libraries are also accessible to the public. The Ateneo de Manila University in
Quezon City holds the American Historical Collection, a rich source for the American period in the
Philippines. The University of Santo Tomas in España, Manila also has collections from the sixteenth
century, owing to the fact that it is the oldest Catholic university in the country and is a historic site in
itself.
Private libraries and institutions also have archives that may be used for research. The Family
History Center at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is a generous resource for research on
genealogies. The Chinben See Memorial Library in Kaisa-Angelo King Heritage Center offers resources
on Chinese and Filipino-Chinese in the Philippines and in Southeast Asia. The Archdiocesan Archives of
Manila has immense Church data sources. Your city or town may have its own local archives, museum,
or public library where you may access primary source and other materials for your research.
Doing Life Histories and Biographical Research

Studying history is always focused on history of nations and different collectives. Studying the
life of an individual is often incidental to a greater event that has been significant to the life of a larger
unit that he or she happened to contribute to. Life history is an oft-neglected subdiscipline of history
because it is seen as trivial to larger narratives of nations, societies, and civilizations. However, students
of history should realize that the individual is a significant contributor to various historical breakthroughs
across periods of time. Individuals make up societies and individual actions can cause large-scale social
change.
Individuals’ influence can span centuries and generations. Individuals can also influence large
spaces and many places. For example, Jesus Christ as an individual, influenced the whole world. The
faith and religion that He started also launched wars, created civilizations, lasted for many centuries, and
persist up to the present. Jose Rizal, on the other hand, influenced many generations of Filipinos. His
novels inspired radical Filipinos to fight the colonizers, and his death was seen as the tipping point of the
revolution. However, his influence was limited to the Philippines.
These examples are cases of exceptional individuals. History has proven that their lives, their
exploits, and their legacies had a huge impact in the society where they belonged. Nevertheless, the
writing of life history should not be limited to great individuals like heroes, prophets, or world leaders.
Ordinary individuals should also be able to locate themselves in the pages of history. One should see
himself as a part of a larger history and not as a separate and remote entity unaffected by what is
happening around him. Doing life histories should be accompanied by locating the life of the individual in
the larger social life.
Indeed, people’s interest in history can be perked up once they realize that their lives can be
plotted alongside the trajectory of history of a larger nation, society, or even local community. There is
after all, a mutual constitution between history and biography. However, doing a life history is not an
easy task. The researcher should be able to identify different factors that affected the life of the person he
is trying to study. Some social scientists would lament that studying individuals tend to be more
complicated than studying societies. Individuals are distinct, unique and dynamic. The life historian or the
biographer should identify aspects of the individual’s life in order to properly historicize his life.
For example, studying the life of Jose Rizal does not only require looking at big events in his life
that affected the nascent nation, like the publication of his novels, his exile to Dapitan, or his execution in
Bagumbayan. A more thorough understanding of Rizal’s life necessitates looking at different aspects of
his life that affected his persona. Examples are his family, his education, his peers, his travels, and even
his affections. In relation to this, one should also look at the context where Rizal existed. It is worthwhile
to ask, for example, about Rizal’s hometown. What were the characteristics of Calamba, Laguna in the
nineteenth century? What was the most common livelihood in that town? Was it an agricultural locality?
These questions will give context to Rizal’s childhood and family.
Speaking of family, doing a life history of an individual will also lead to questions about his
family and genealogy. Indeed, family is an important aspect of an individual. It determines the person’s
socioeconomic status, religious belief, character, interests, and values. In the same example, getting to
know Rizal’s family and genealogy would tell us about Rizal’s socioeconomic status. Such will answer
other questions about Rizal, like how did he afford to study in good schools in Manila even though he
was an indio? What were his interests in the Calamba hacienda incident? Who instilled upon him the
value of education? Who was his greatest influence? And so on?
Institutions where the individual belonged should also be looked at in studying his life history. If
the family and the community where he belonged will give us clues about his early life, the latter stages
of his life can be understood with certain activities and learning that he had as he affiliated in different
institutions like schools, organizations, fraternity, church, and interest groups. In the case of Rizal, for
example, one can learn a lot about the development of his ideas by knowing the kind of education taught
at the Universidad de Santo Tomas and Ateneo Municipal. His political opinions and biases shaped his
work with the Propagandistas in Europe and in his stint in La Solidaridad. Institutions, indeed, are not
only shaped by individuals. Institutions also shape individuals.
Other aspects that may be studied in order to come up with a deeper life history are sector, ethnic
group, and culture. Zooming out to the national history of the country where that individual identifies
with is also helpful.
Understanding these seemingly mundane aspects of an individual’s life would provide historians
insightful information that will allow him, not just to simply state facts about the individual but also to
make sense of these facts and established connections about different aspects of the individual’s life in
order to understand the person that he has become.

Doing Local and Oral History

The history subjects and courses usually taught to students in schools are Philippine history,
world history, and history of Asia. The coverage is always expansive and taught in broad strokes of
historical periods, of large spaces, and of prominent personalities . Little is known about the
subdiscipline of local history. Local history is the study of the history of a particular community or a
smaller unit of geography. Debates, however, continuously persist on the definition of this subdiscipline,
particularly in the subject of its study. Does local history study local communities? Local institutions?
Local groups? Local heroes? In recent studies, local history tends to cover all of these topics. Local
historians study the history of local institutions like churches. They also study the local economies, local
heroes, and local events. Local history, thus, is also a broad and dynamic field of inquiry that aims to
have an in-depth understanding of a certain locale.
The most compelling question, however, is why study and do local history? In the first unit, we
discussed how history could serve as a repository of collective memory. Such memory is important in
forging of national unity through identification with a common collective past. Nevertheless,
nationalism, like other ideologies, when taken into extreme can produce the most horrendous of human
tragedies. The atrocities of the Second World War that killed six million Jewish people in Europe were
perpetrated by an extreme nationalist rhetoric propagated by Nazi Germany. Totalitarian states at present,
like the North Korea, also use nationalism in justifying the dictatorial and anti-democratic character of the
country. In these cases of extreme nationalism, history is being used by states in forms of official
national history to rally the people behind them.
Local history can serve as a balancer of these tendencies by showing the peculiarities in certain
locales in a particular nation, region, or continent. Studying local history can provide new and alternative
interpretations on the different aspects of a nation’s history. Local history also facilitates a historical
narrative emanating from the people. Historians call this the history from below. Ultimately, studying
local history shall provide new provisions and perspectives on the already established national history.
What used to be a generalizing narrative of the nation would start to recognize certain nuances and
uniqueness in the experience of people coming from different localities in the nation. Thus, local history
is not just aimed at opposing the discourse in the national histories but also a tool of enriching these
national narratives.
Doing local history, however, is not an easy task. Despite the seemingly smaller scope of study,
historians are often faced with challenges in locating sources for local and specific objects of study. For
example, it is much easier to study the life of national heroes than that of a local hero. Sources abound on
subjects of national importance but tend to be scarce on local subjects. Nevertheless, this limitation
should encourage historians to innovate and recreate local historical methodology. One important
historical methodology to local history is oral history.
Oral history is important in the midst of scarcity in the written sources, historical documents, and
other material evidences. This method uses oral accounts of historical subjects, witnesses, members of the
communities, and the like. Oral history primarily relies on memory. The subject or the informant will
recount his experience to researcher as he remembers it. In other instances, the informant will relay what
he learned from his ancestors or older members of the community to the historian. This nature and
definition of oral history caused positivist historians or those who subscribe to the belief that history
should be primarily based on written documents to criticize the methods of oral history. Memory is seen
as something that is faulty and inaccurate. At best, positivist historians see oral accounts as mere
supplement to the history written from written documents.
However, one cannot discount the importance of oral history in writing the history of
underprivileged sectors and communities like the urban poor or indigenous peoples. These groups are
usually left out on records. They were undocumented because of their status. In these instances, it is the
task of the historian to search for alternative methods that will capture the experience and collective pasts
of these communities. Oral history plays this role.
Local and oral history are important endeavors in the development and enrichment in the
discipline of history. These efforts fill the gaps in the discipline by highlighting alternative areas of study
and methodology toward a more holistic, inclusive, and progressive study of our past.

Interacting with History through Historical Shrines and Museums

We have been discussing ways to study the past through variety of sources available to us. While
research is a valuable tool to learn more about the experiences of the nation and our history, there exists
venues where we can experience history and these are through historical shrines and museums.
These venues for living history provide us a certain level of authority and trustworthiness that
could impact the way we view the past. Through interacting with artifacts such as a World War II rifle or
the clothes of a Filipino hero, we can better imagine the past beyond the mere letter and words we read
and painstakingly memorize. These tangible objects are reconstructions of the past; experiencing these
artifacts directly is the next best thing to actually being there when a particular event happened or a when
a historical personality lived. These firsthand experiences make historical events more real for us; and
research shows that learning by experiencing aids with retention of the learning later life.
Historical shrines and museums serve as portals to the past. But one must also take note that
visiting a museum entails preparation. In the course of your study, you are bound to visit one or two of
these sites. Once you know what you will be visiting, it is essential to do a background reading on the
place you will visit so that you may know what to expect and you can situate the importance of the place
you will be visiting in the national historical narrative. For example, a visit to the Rizal Shrine in
Calamba, Laguna, will be more enriching if you are able to do a little reading about Jose Rizal’s early
life.
Upon arriving in the historical shrine or museum, one thing that you can do is to look for the
historical marker. These markers put up by the National Historical Commission of the Philippines
(NHCP, of formerly National Historical Institute or NHI) provide the basic details on what makes a
certain site historical. These markers ensure that the site where it is located is indeed, of historical and
cultural value to the nation.
The instructor or professor, who handles your course and who will organize your visit to the
shrine or museum, should provide you with a handout or a worksheet to accomplish while in the site, and
maybe, he may assign you to write a reflection paper that should represent your own critical evaluation of
the site. That is why it is important to spend time reading the captions/texts accompanying the artifacts or
exhibits on display. Some museums and shrines allow mobile photography and may even encourage you
to take “selfies” while in the site. Take the opportunity to be able to retain more of the information being
presented by these sites so that you may be guided once you are to write the paper required by your
instructor or professor.
Shrines and museums are a lot more interactive now, aided by the available technology. Take the
chance and participate in these interactive opportunities to experience history firsthand. Watch the
videos, listen to the sounds, and enjoy the experience. This is also a great chance to analyse the artifacts
since artifacts are also texts that are open for reading, interpretation, criticism, and evaluation.

Learning Activity:

Answer the following essay questions. Take note of the points given to each item.
Write legibly, clearly and concisely.

1. What is research? How shall we do it? (5 pts.)

2. Distinguish local history from oral history. (5 pts.)
3. What are the things that we need to consider in writing the biography of a certain person? Explain
them. (5 pts.)