"No" vote to House Bill No. 4077

Rep. Teddy Casiño's Explanation of "No" vote
to the CARP Extension Bill (House Bill No. 4077)

June 03, 2009

Twenty years ago, our distinguished colleague in the 8th Congress, the late Rep. Bonifacio Gillego, the main author and staunchest proponent of agrarian reform at that time, declared the comprehensive agrarian reform program (CARP) a corpse.

"My task," he said in explaining his negative vote on Hose Bill No. 400, which eventually became Republic Act No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, "is to deliver a funeral oration on CARP." His point being that the 8th Congress had watered down and mangled agrarian reform beyond recognition and removed it of its heart and soul.

Mr. Speaker, my dear colleagues, by extending the life of the zombie of an agrarian reform program that is RA6657, even with token amendments which we did tonight, we are repeating the very same sin of the 8th Congress of crafting a defective and anti-farmer agrarian reform law.

How can I support such a program when the Honorable sponsor Edcel Lagman admitted during interpellation that HB 4077 will not correct what he called the "congenital defects" of RA 6657? These include the following major flaws: (1) the exclusion of vast tracts of CARP-able land due to technical classifications, land use conversions and retention limits; (2) the provisions for alternative modes of compliance which denies the farmer beneficiaries full ownership and control of the land; (3) a payment scheme that keeps farmers in a continued life of debt and servitude to the landlord or the Land Bank. In fact I learned from the Land Bank in a hearing this morning that 62% of the CARP beneficiaries can not pay the annual amortization; (4) a valuation and compensation scheme that provides vast opportunities for graft and corruption and the connivance of DAR officials and landlords in milking billions of taxpayers' money; and (5) voluntary land sale and transfer schemes that is corruption-prone and gives landlords the upper hand over their erstwhile tenants.

Ang mga kahinaang ito na nasa batas mismo ang pangunahing dahilan kung bakit umabot na nang 20 taon ang CARP pero walang makabuluhang resulta. Ang hindi nagawa ng 20 taon hindi matatapos sa loob ng limang taon na extension ng CARP.

Kung kasumpa-sumpa ang ginawa ng 8th Congress sa pagpasa ng isang walang puso at walang kaluluwang agrarian reform law, mas kasumpa-sumpa ang ang ginagawa nating pagpapahaba ng programa na alam na nating palpak at hindi nagsilbi sa pagpapalaya at pagpapaunlad ng ating mga magsasaka sa loob ng 20 taon. Hindi matatanggap ng aking konsensya na sumuporta sa isang batas na magpapatuloy sa ganitong panlilinlang, pagsasamantala at pagpapahirap sa ating mga magsasaka.

Ang sabi ng iba, well meaning friends have told me: "Pagbigyan na natin ito. Ito lang ang maibibigay ng Kongreso, tanggapin na natin." I'm sorry, my dear colleagues, but as far as agrarian reform is concerned, I don't subscribe to the idea that something is better than nothing. Or that beggars can't be choosers. Our farmers are not beggars. They deserve more than the crumbs CARP and HB 4077 offers.

There are times when we have to draw the line. When we should reject compromise when it is already a sellout. I believe this is the time. I am here in Congress to protect the rights and interests of the farmers, and I will do so without compromise, especially if there is a sellout.

In any case, may pagkakataon pa tayong gumawa ng isang mas matino at maka-magsasakang batas para sa repormang agraryo. Isang batas na tunay na sasalamin sa interes ng karamihan ng ating mga kababayan - ang mga magsasakang nagpapakain sa ating bansa.

I am for a new and better agrarian reform law. Therefore I vote no to House Bill No. 4077.

Maraming salamat po.###

"NO" Vote to the Approval of 2009 General Appropriations Act

Explanation of 'NO' Vote to the Approval of 2009 General Appropriations Act

By Rep. Teodoro A. Casiño
November 11, 2008

Mr. Speaker, when we started the plenary debates on the budget, I remember that we spent at least five hours debating on the macroeconomic provision. And the reason for that, Mr. Speaker, is that, the budget was formulated without considering the global crisis that exploded around September of this year. And because of that, we wanted –we needed to debate the macroeconomic provisions because we needed to rework the budget to make the budget more responsive to the global crisis; to reduce the budget or if that was not possible, then, to rechannel the budget to the items that needed it, that needed increases in this budget given the impending crisis in the Philippines economy brought about by external developments.

After more tan five hours, Mr. Speaker, it appears that the committee did not take into consideration these very urgent points. And we still have the budget as it is, basically, originally proposed, more than P1.4 trillion in budget.

Mr. Speaker, specially, we wanted a reduction in debt service, specifically on unjust or illegitimate debt because a fourth of the budget or more than half of all expenditures, if we include the principal, went to this budget alone.

We wanted a reduction in the discretionary funds, otherwise know as the pork barrel, both the presidential and the legislative kind; and it was already mentioned like the Kilos Asenso program, Kalayaan sa Barangay, the two-billion Reforestation program. These are discretionary funds which are basically political in nature-political finds.

We wanted a reduction in intelligence and confidential funds, including the 650-million peso intelligence funds under the Office of the President, reduction in defense spending. On the other hand, we wanted increases, significant, substantial increases in the budgets of education, health, housing, social services. Increases in the budgets economic services and a reprioritization of infrastructure projects, not only as pump priming, but more importantly infrastructure to spur national industrialization, food security, and modernization in the agricultural sector.

We wanted an increase in the budget of Public Attorney’s Office, for example, in order to implement the law that we passed last Congress.

Sadly, Mr. Speaker, political considerations have once again hijacked the budget. Sinabi na namin noon na iyong P1.4 trillion budget is unrealistic, hindi ito nag-re-reflect ng tunay na kakayanan ng economy. This will result in a bigger debt burden years from now. And the budget- this kind of a budget, in this kind of a crisis situation, will be used basically to fund the political interest of the Arroyo administration for the 2010 elections.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I vote no to this budget. Thank You.

Explanation of NO Vote to the Motion to Declare the Position of Speaker Vacant

Bayan Muna Rep. Teddy A. Casiño
February 4, 2008

Mr. Speaker,

The motion to declare the position of the Speaker vacant is being made because the Speaker’s son decided to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the anomalous ZTE-NBN contract. He is being replaced unceremoniously because the Arroyo bloc in the House which includes 3 congresspersons, and the President herself wants to discard a loyal lieutenant whose hands they suspect to have dipped itself into the cookie jar once too often, and whose differences with the President and personal ambitions cause Malacañang and the First Family sleepless nights.

Let us call a spade a spade. Magpakatotoo po tayo. Ang pagpapatalsik kay Speaker de Venecia ay pakana ng Malacañang para higit pang kontrolin ang Kamara. Anumang reporma o pagbabago daw na itinutulak ng mga kakampi ng Presidente ay pagbabago para sa kapakanan ng administrasyon, para sa kapakanan ng Presidente. Ayaw ng Malacañang ng congressional investigations, ayaw ng Palasyo ng impeachment, ayaw ng Unang Pamilya ng kaagaw sa mga kontrata mula Tsina. Kaya ayaw na nila kay Speaker de Venecia.

Mr. Speaker, hindi po lamang simpleng away o grudge fight ito sa pagitan ng mga Arroyo at de Venecia, although that’s what it initially appears to be. This is a fight for control in the House. Malacañang wants to control the House even more than it did under Speaker de Venecia’s leadership.

Gusto ng Malacañang na kontrolin ang Kamara nang higit pa sa kontrol nila ilalim ng liderato ni Speaker de Venecia. Bakit? Alam nyo nang lahat kung bakit.

To get away with murder and all the other crimes committed by this administration. Yan po ang tunay na issue rito. Ano ba ang pakinabang ng karaniwang tao sa usaping ito? Wala.

Iisa lang ang sigurado, mas malaki ang magiging utang na loob sa Malacañang ang papalit kay Speaker de Venecia.

In this light, I vote no to the motion not because I want a de Venecia leadership – and the records will show we have opposed him all the way – but to oppose a plot that would make Congress not only Malacañang’s rubber stamp, but its partner in crime.

I have always believed that Congress should be independent from the Executive and serve as a check and balance against its abuses. Today we bury the House’s integrity as a separate branch of government. That is why I’m wearing my black barong, Mr. Speaker, to mourn for this House.

Again I vote NO to the motion.