Bernardo M. Villegas

Manila Bulletin Business

November 12, 2024

Pope Francis’ Advice to Political Leaders (Part 2)

            Another very relevant social principle of the Church to current issues faced by Philippine political leaders at the national, regional and local levels is the universal destination of goods.  The Pope writes:   “God meant the goods of the earth for all.  Private property is a right, but its use and regulation need to keep in mind this key principle.  The goods of life—land, lodging and labor—should be made available to all.  This is not altruism, or goodwill; it is what love demands.  The early Church fathers made clear that giving to the poor is just giving back to them what is theirs, for God intended the goods of the earth for all, without excluding anyone.” 

            Far from being a support of the Communist manifesto that denies the right to private property and the right to free enterprise, the universal destination of goods is presumed by the principle of subsidiarity which states that the common good of society is safeguarded if what can be achieved  effectively and efficiently by individuals, families and small groups should not be taken over by higher groups, least of all by an all-powerful State.  This principle of subsidiary requires that individuals, families and small groups should be able to own some portion of the goods of this world.  Otherwise, they would be at the mercy of an all-powerful, absolutist State.  The Pope specifically referred to “land, lodging and labor.”  For example, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) that was passed during the Administration of President Cory Aquino was in the right direction.  It was against the principle of the universal destination of goods that a few individuals or institutions, especially friars, monopolized the ownership of thousands of hectares of land.  There was nothing wrong with the fragmentation of the ownership of agricultural lands when they were transferred in portions of 2 or 3 hectares each to small farmers.  What went terribly wrong was the inability of an incompetent and inefficient State to provide the agrarian reform beneficiaries with farm-to-market roads, irrigation systems, post-harvest facilities, agricultural extension services, credit and other necessary inputs to help them make their small farms productive.  This failure of the Philippine State stands in stark contrast with the success stories of countries like Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam who also implemented agrarian reform programs but followed through with all the assistances needed by the small farmers.

            What must be done now, without crying over spilled milk, is to help the millions of small rice, corn, vegetable, livestock and other farmers in which small-scale farming can be reasonably profitable with existing technology.  The most important assistance is still found in providing these small farmers with the necessary infrastructures (roads, irrigation, post-harvest facilities, etc.) to enable them to make a decent living from farming.  Here, there is an important role for civil society to supplement the efforts of the Government by organizing farmers’ and credit cooperatives and skills training programs.  There should, however, be a keen realization by everyone that all these necessary efforts are primarily aimed at poverty reduction.  Helping millions of small farmers to earn a decent living from farming can reduce our poverty incidence to single-digit levels but will not necessarily provide us with food security.  Only large-scale commercial farming, using the latest technology—including digitalization—will help us attain food security.  This means that we have to reconsolidate some millions of hectares of small farms through farmers’ cooperatives, the nucleus estate model perfected by the Malaysians in the palm oil and rubber plantations and the conversion of already denuded forests into commercial farms, especially of high-value crops like coffee, cacao, mangoes, avocado, bamboo, durian, and pili nuts.  Through the first two approaches, the small farmer need not give up ownership of his small farm.

            Then the Pope speaks of the principle of solidarity, the other side of the coin to subsidiarity.  The Pope writes: “Solidarity acknowledges our interconnectedness:  we are creatures in relationship, with duties toward each other, and all are called to participate in society.  That means welcoming the stranger, forgiving debts, giving home to the disabled, and allowing other people’s dreams and hopes for a better life to become our own.”  Since we are interconnected with one another, each of us must always consider how our individual actions affect the lives of the others, making sure not only that we do them no harm but that we contribute to their good to the extent we can.  In business, for example, the entrepreneur must make sure that his search for profit takes into account the welfare of each of the so-called stakeholders of his organization, especially the consumers of his  or her product or service, his rank-and-file workers and their respective families, the immediate environment in which the business operates and the public at large through the legitimate taxes paid by the business. 

            The Pope also reminds us that subsidiarity ensures that we do not distort the idea of solidarity, which involves recognizing and respecting the autonomy of others as subjects of their own destiny.  We cannot condescending to the poor.  They are not the objects of our good intentions but the subjects of change.  We must make sure that the poor are pro-active in solving their own problems.  We do not act for the poor but with them. We have to avoid as much as possible helping the poor with just dole outs.  They must be encouraged to use their own initiative to address their problems.  Once they are helped to reach a minimum level of human comfort and decency through direct donations of goods and services, they must be encouraged and motivated to participate actively with their work in uplifting themselves and families from dire poverty.

            There is also the reference of the Pope to “lodging.”  People have a human right to decent housing.  In the same way that the Government plays the major role in providing all citizens with free basic education (K to 12), the State has an obligation to make sure that every family has access to housing.  The Philippine State is still performing very poorly in building the one million housing units a year to meet the backlog.  After public education and public health, public housing should have priority in the annual budgeting process of the Government.  There is no need to provide the poorest of the poor with socialized housing units they can own.  It is enough that they be provided with units that they can lease at the lowest rentals possible.  As public transport is improved, these socialized housing projects can be built outside the Metro Manila area, such as in areas in Southern and Central Luzon that are not yet highly urbanized.  It is unrealistic to build these socialized housing units in the middle of Metro Manila (as is being proposed by some housing officials).  Vertical housing for the poor does not work, as demonstrated by the housing settlements constructed along the railway stations during the martial law years. It takes discipline and a certain type of culture, which the poor do not have through no fault of their own, to live in condominium units.   To be continued.