The Tension Points of Democratic Left Politics in Akbayans Alliance with the Aquino Administration Hansley A.

Juliano ABSTRACT: This study is a critique of past narratives and analyses of possibilities for the parliamentary Left in the Philippines, intending to provide a sufficient picture of a political party-cum-social movement that might be overextending itself. Akbayan Citizens' Action party's alliance with the Liberal Party, leading to its role as coalition partner of the administration of President Benigno "Noynoy" Aquino III, exhibits the limitations of formalizing coalition networks into a uniform and standing political party. The leadership of the party, which prioritizes winning electoral positions and getting their stalwarts appointed in bureaucratic offices, appears to deviate from the aforementioned intent of their allied social movements to address the socio-political issues they carry. The cases of the anti-administration stance of Akbayans labor ally, the Alliance of Progressive Labor and the bolting-out of their rural sector ally, the Pambansang Kilusan ng mga Samahang Magsasaka (PAKISAMA) from Akbayan's network are highly illustrative examples. The party leadership, their allied movements and their members vary in the priority they give to the importance of government-based tactics to address such issues. This, in turn, explain the dissonances and tensions between the network of Akbayan, and why other leftist parties in the country such as the National Democratic Fronts sectoral parties continue to pose real challenges to their efforts. These tensions could explain why, despite their seemingly-stabilized presence in national politics, Akbayans capacity to effect change remains challenged in the context of a dynamically-evolving status quo of patronage politics in the country to date. KEYWORDS: Akbayan, contested democracy, National Democratic Front, Philippine Left, Philippine politics, social movement theory

As of this writing, President Benigno Noynoy Aquino III is almost nearing three years of his incumbency since he was elected in the previous, emotionally-charged 2010 national elections. The election of Aquino, himself a child of the reformist-populist President Corazon Cojuangco-Aquino who came into power via the 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution, has been analyzed and (more often than not) eulogized in recent publications. By virtue of upholding this legacy of People Power, he promised a renewed phase of reform and institutional strengthening, if the motley network of social movements, non-government organizations and interest groups that assembled for his campaign in 2010, specifically to engage the middle class on [the] work on transformative politics (Rocamora 2010: 80) is any indication. Considering that political reform movements have been one of the long-standing and prided achievements of the post-authoritarian Philippine liberal democratic state since the 1990s (Tadem, ed., 2009: 2, 20; Abinales and Amoroso 2005: 237-242), their presence has become a large, if not persistent factor in

shaping and determining the direction of democratization in the country. Moreover, their presence, prerogatives and actions have contributed, for better or ill, in the political maturity and development of Philippine local and national politics, as well as the subsequent image it presents to the global politicoeconomic situation at large (Diamond 1999: 235; Hilhorst 2003: 232; Abinales and Amoroso 2005: 266-267). It is not unreasonable to think that the presence of such networks, varying in robustness and capacity, continues to leave their different marks in the continuing shifts of interests and priorities of political actors. I intend to highlight the tensions, negotiations and situations involved whenever such social movements consider entering institutional government/governance spaces. Other than the desire to expand and strengthen their position in effecting their political projects, these movements also have to contend with performing and participating in the very systems and dynamics they contest with for the larger duration of their existence (Encarnacion 2003: 30; Escobar and Alvarez, eds., 1992: 11; Keane 1998: 23). Justifying these transitions remains a point of concern and discussion within these movements, affecting the image they present to their political constituencies and their own short- and long-term prospects for political survival. For the purposes of my study, I find the presence of a self-avowed democratic socialist political party in the coalition network of the Aquino administration of particular importance. Claiming and performing the functions of a parliamentary leftist political party and socio-political movement, Akbayan Citizens Action Party appears to be the locus of intersection by which peoples movements, reformist political groups and civil society assemblages converge and participate. This network of movements claims to be the representation of new possibilities for a Philippine leftist politics independent of the struggles of the Communist Party of the Philippines or CPP (Quimpo 2008, 91; Aceron et. al., 2011: 116-117). The history involved in organizing this network of movements to their alliance with the current administration should point us to important insights. I intend to traverse existing questions on why and how the prospects of a mainstream, governing leftist presence in the Philippines (and other countries which foster political groups claiming to be leftist or at the left of the political spectrum) remains a muddy if not implausible reality as a whole. Furthermore, I intend to pursue the question of how do social movements conduct their politics in a political landscape increasingly integrated into the demands of global capitalism and

yet maintain its long-standing institutions of elite hegemony by both incremental and tremendous shifts in the practice of power. Akbayan claims to offer potential alternative to armed struggle and continuous extrainstitutional pressures through their simultaneous non-institutional struggles and reformist presences in government. This project, drafted and continuously re-imagined by the people and groups who take part in it, remains a source of tension, not only between them and their competitors, but more so within their ranks. While such competitions occurring could be explained as part of internal party discipline and democracy (Van Dyke 2003: 231-232; Przeworski 1985: 24-25), that such debates continue since the major 1992 split within the Philippine Left suggests that the participants may be missing some very vital questions and variables. In this study, we therefore ask: Why is Akbayans participation in the Aquino administration a continuing tension point not only between and among its leaders and members but also between the party and its allied social movements? What does this tension reveal about the nature and dynamics of participation of Leftist groups in Philippine electoral politics? While an integral view of democracy (Quimpo 2008) argues that participation in a liberal-democratic structure is an expected and viable direction for Leftist politics, Akbayan's experience puts this optimistic appraisal to question. Its self-framing as a party which is independent from the social movements fosters a level of detachment from the latters issues, which contribute largely to the internal and external tensions that members and allied networks have with the party leadership. These tensions involve alienation from an increasingly governance-centric political tactic, an unsettling comfort with taking part in bureaucratic concerns, and a perceived neglect of the issues of currently-marginalized sectors such as labor, agriculture, fisheries, indigenous peoples, environmental sustainability in the policy and advocacy level. I argue that Akbayan's political project in cultivating a political environment friendly to socialist and social-democratic identities remain problematic despite their position as a reformist political party with strong links to different social movements and reformist blocs in national Philippine politics to date. The leadership of the party, which prioritizes winning electoral positions and getting their stalwarts appointed in bureaucratic offices, appears to deviate from the aforementioned intent of their allied social movements to address the socio-political issues they carry. The party leadership, their allied movements and their members greatly vary in the priority they give to the importance of government-based tactics (which operate largely around national and Metro Manila politics) to address such issues. This, in

turn, explain the tensions between the network of Akbayan and could thus be used to explain why, despite their seemingly-stabilized presence in national politics, their capacity to effect change remains challenged in the context of a dynamically-evolving status quo of patronage politics in the country to date.

The Need for Hybridity: An Integrated Framework I will use an amalgam of the Goldstone-Desai framework of social movements-political party formation/maintenance (Desai 2003) and complementing their actions with Quimpos contested democracy framework (see Fig. 1). Illustrating how social movements act as political parties and vice-versa, the circular figures marked 1-4 denote the dynamics involved: 1. Cyclical institutional politics as a system that has its own rules which, nonetheless, could be affected; 2. Protest actions mobilized by social movements to affect institutional politics, while the state (which is the repository of institutional politics) can similarly deploy such tactics; 3. Associational actions like network-building and alliance-forging that affect the standing and capacity of both the state and social movements to maintain their institutional integrity as well as their capacity to enact their political projects; and 4. Any social movement involved, which in this case will be Akbayan Considering that social movements/political parties, by virtue of their fluid identities, can engage formal and institutional politics in a variety of ways, it is understood that Akbayan itself could conduct itself accordingly, all for their so-called purposes of enunciating integral democratic politics. This also applies for the member movements and agents within the reach of Akbayan (which I label broadly as sectoral groups issue-based groups and individuals), who in turn compose and, by virtue of their presence, shape the identity of the party. Taking from the above theoretical frameworks, my study will attempt to explain how the tensions inside the network of Akbayan occur. Insofar as the integral view of democracy is concerned, social movements struggling within liberal democratic systems is understandable and desirable behavior. But considering that historically-situated liberal democratic systems are precisely fraught with contradictions and issues, political prospects and aspirations that intend to depart or do away with liberal democratic systems remain a possibility. As such, Akbayan is similarly bound by its situation to either consider preserving integral tactics, or they may inevitably entertain instrumentalist options, as this study will illustrate later.

What puts the Party in tension with its affiliated movements and networks, however, is the fact that they themselves ARE social movements and, as indicated above, have the potential and capacity to wage their own notion of politics as well (or for that matter, build their own political parties to represent them in Congress). As the current situation would show, Akbayan was able to manage their intentions and projects to keep them in line with an integral appreciation for democracy. While Akbayans party leadership maintains their commitment to strengthening liberal democracy, the affiliate movements dissatisfaction with the issues the Aquino administration focuses on (thus, implicitly, what Akbayan also focuses on) leads them to clamor for extra-institutional political projects beyond the formal line of the party. Depending on how Akbayan is able to deal with transforming relationships to their allied movements and these movements perception of how political participation should be done in different kinds of administration, they might be able to maintain the status quo of their working alliances or experience potential key changes in turn. (See illustration of Fig. 1.) Akbayan, despite its evolving status as a political movement and electoral party, is not different in this aspect. While their presence and subsequent growth as a political party is well documented in periodicals and internal documents, there is a gap in the literature with regards to the internal politics and tensions which has characterized the networks which make up and support Akbayan. Such a gap, I surmise, inhibits the parliamentary Lefts appreciation of its precocious situation in Philippine politics, where their notion of activism, citizenship and waging reforms social change appears static despite the continuing evolution of elite hegemony and its accompanying environs as shaped by globalization and evolving capitalism. I precisely chose to use and build upon the contested democracy framework and the Goldstone-Desai framework due to key indispensable relations which they tackle, but more importantly with regards to what they lack individually. As it stands, the contested democracy framework has a particular respect and privileging of the current liberal democratic space and the role that the Philippine Leftist groups can play in it, yet is somewhat stunted by its classificatory biases and documentary appreciation of leftist politics. The GoldstoneDesai framework, by its capability of integrating peculiar situations, opportunities and shifts of power practice among actors and subjects allows us an appreciation of the complexities of Leftist participation in liberal democracy. My preference for the latter, moreover, is helped by the fact that, oddly enough, Akbayans

Fig. 1. Conceptual Framework integrating the Goldstone-Desai and Quimpo frameworks

direction and tactics exhibit organizing within the grassroots and various sectors while linked with civil society and mainstream reformists. Yet, their current presence in the Aquino administration has, in one way or another, reignited tensions and feelings of neglect among the sectors they were supposed to represent. A seeming disconnect of directions and priorities is apparent. Instead of being wholly characterized as an expected fragmentation, I suggest that it should be viewed in the context of a Philippine Left whose ideological underpinnings and options for waging struggles for social justice and change remain fluctuating and transforming. There is a seeming-acceptance of liberal democracy as the only possible reality in Philippine politics to date. Coming from this direction, I intend to

contribute to the expansion and reconfiguration of Philippine leftist discourses as well as its history that sorely needs to come to terms with the myriad realities and challenges it must face.

Coalition to Party to Coalition: Akbayans Development as a Democratic Leftist Movement Studying Akbayans history and directions is a continuing project, inasmuch as its very existence, identity and effort to position itself in the Philippine liberal democratic space remains in contest and fluid. As early as its formation, a conscious effort towards organizing a political movement that is alternative, more expansive, and more inclusive and friendlier to parliamentary politics than existing Communist movements is evident among the movements that would eventually form Akbayan. It is documented to have been initially composed of four political blocs (Quimpo 2008, 64-68; Dionisio et. al. 2010, 84): the Movement for Popular Democracy (MPD), Bukluran sa Ikauunlad ng Sosyalistang Isip at Gawa (BISIG), Pandayan para sa Sosyalistang Pilipinas (Pandayan), and Siglo ng Paglaya (Siglaya), another democratic bloc from the NDs which split from the CPP, eventually reorganizing under the Padayon bloc. At that time of the partys founding, Walden Bello, an academic from the University of the Philippines Department of Sociology and a transnational activist since the Martial Law period, was approached and subsequently given responsibilities as founding chairperson (Bello 2012). With its eventual expansion, Akbayan began forging relationships with sector-based organizations, which came to the decision to support Akbayan. While Akbayan continues to maintain an individual-based membership, these organizations became the main source of members and mass bases for the party. Key sectors that were marked as active supporters as recorded in 2001 include the Alliance of Progressive Labor (APL), the Pambansang Kilusan ng mga Samahang Magsasaka (PAKISAMA), Caucus of Independent Unions, later to be called Confederation of Independent Unions in the Public Sector (CIU), Kapisanan ng mga Kamag-Anak ng Migranteng Manggagawang Pilipino (KAKAMMPI), Lesbian and Gay Legislative Advocacy Network (LAGABLAB), and the youth organizations Movement for the Advancement of Student Power (MASP) and Student Council Alliance of the Philippines (SCAP) (Akbayan National Congress 2001a, 3).

This motley assembly of various and varying peoples organizations could be explained with a return to a historical background. We must recall that Akbayans emergence in 1998 is only one of the developments within Philippine civil society and social movements, coming from the supposed spaces opened by the 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution, the 1987 Constitution and the institutionalization of the party-list system in Congress. It is true that non-government organizations (NGOs) and peoples organizations (POs) were already being formed and organizing their respective bases/constituencies since the 1960s and 1970s. However, coming up with a cohesive and united front for political projects remained a challenge, as would be illustrated in the various coalition-building attempts against the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos and afterwards (Constantino-David 1998, 33-36). It is interesting to note that the political organizations, social movements, NGOs and POs share frameworks that are largely developmental and focusing on social justice issues, with slants to the left of the Philippine political spectrum. This perhaps is also attributable to the sociopolitical legacies of the activist movements of the 1970s, largely inspired by the organizing of allied movements from the National Democratic Front which focused on the acknowledgment of the rights of students and other marginalized sectors of society (Saracho 2012, 231). While acknowledging these, the debates during Akbayans founding emphasized that the then-nascent partys imminent priority is to contest political power via the elections and transform the concept of political power [via competency] in handling political power within our own ranks (Akbayan National Congress 1998a, 7). Of course, the partys efforts towards consolidating its forces, allies and resources have not been entirely smooth-sailing. As an assessment of party-mass movement relations written in 2005 would show, the party struggles with maintaining a social and political base at the grassroots level due to its inability to inspire wholesale organizational support (with social movements largely assigning membership and party support on an individual basis). Moreover, the study suggested that Akbayan needs to reframe party-mass movement relations into three-way party-mass movement-constituency relationships, if only to make the dynamics between party units, its component mass movements and members/allies more harmonious (Abao 2005, 4-5). The then-fledgling political party made waves when they began actively participating in the electoral process. Their most visible and extensive achievements in the national level, obviously, would be their

legislative work in the party-list system and advocacy for systemic reforms through legislative channels. Their representatives have championed, among other things, various issues on sectoral issues such as national sovereignty and territorial integrity, bills on womens rights, the defense of human rights and redress for human rights violations, social justice and asset reform, promotion of good governance and reform of political institutions, co-sponsored bills employment rights, foreign policy and international relations, bills seeking to criminalize discrimination against the LGBT community, mandatory human rights courses for military personnel, asking rightful compensation for human rights victims during the Martial Law period, a National Land Use Act and initiating the debates for legislation on reproductive health care. (Akbayan National Congress 2001b, 9-13; 2003b, 2-12). Most celebrated, however, was the passage of RA 9189 or the Absentee Voting Law, extending the right to vote for national government positions among Overseas Filipino Workers (Mercado 2006, 116-117). Eventually, their representatives will advocate public access to information, regulation policies for basic and natural resources, enabling laws for government bureaucracies, as well as building up and strengthening Akbayans relationships with sectoral organizations (especially allied ones) and other activist movements both local and international (Akbayan National Congress 2003c). What is notable about Akbayans political work is their willingness to participate on different issues that could be conceivably placed under the heading of advocating for social welfare, asset reform, strengthening democratic institutions and the advancement of the states institutional interests, even if these are not entirely defined by traditional leftist frameworks. Viewing it consistent with their promises of transforming politics, Akbayan has been comfortable with cooperating with congressmen from other political parties, be it from traditional elite political parties or so-called progressive parties, in creating and passing legislation, as they do up to this day. It was at this point that Akbayan would begin venturing into the possibilities of waging a national campaign, allying with another traditional political party: the Liberal Party. Having been among the engineers of elite liberal democracy as it exists today, the Liberal Party is not entirely expected to bring about transformative politics in the Philippines. In fact, it has similarly suffered from cyclical massive defections and subsequent returns by political clans and interest groups during and after elections, as determined by the victor of the presidential seat (Kasuya 2009: 34). Nevertheless, it has

consistently strived in reinventing itself as a reformist political party that genuinely addresses the need for political, social, electoral and economic reforms (Rodriguez 2009, 140). There is, therefore, significance in the very idea of this alliance between Akbayan and the Liberal Party. There is a sense of complementarity in the identity, directions and actions of the Liberal Party and Akbayan. Significantly, they both subscribe to what has been argued as a liberal tendency in political participation: reformist, constructive, consultative, and interested in incremental but enduring change the evolution of the status quo into something that at the very least is marginally better than that which came before (Quezon 2006, 25). As much as Akbayan continues to present a faade of independence from these traditions, their actions and direction show how they grapple with these ideological struggles even today. Looking at Akbayans alliance with the Aquino administration (and how they have maneuvered themselves into potential spaces of governance), it might be actually argued, in a sense, that the so-called mish-mash discourses of Akbayan are only recently being justified, identified and labeled as a consistent social democratic and democratic socialist program, insofar as it serves the current purposes of the party to reach a larger and national audience. The possibilities being open and inviting during the tail-end of the administration of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Akbayan took up the question of whether the party will be willing to take the opportunity of joining a national electoral campaign during their 4th Regular National Congress. Currently-serving Akbayan party-list representative Walden Bello related that questions on the possibilities of allying with acceptable traditional parties has been floating as early as 2007-2008 (Bello 2012). The political report presented during this Congress has assessed that while the party has benefited from their participation in the party-list system, the democratic opening provided by the party list elections had considerably narrowed (Akbayan National Congress 2009a, 3). During the same Congress, Akbayan passed a resolution proclaiming that former Representative Risa Hontiveros-Baraquels track record and advocacies recommend her very well to the general public as a senatorial candidate of Akbayan and being part of the LP senatorial slate (Ibid. 2009b). More important, however, was the debate on supporting a Presidential candidate. Recalling the talking points of the Congress during that debate, Bello mentioned how those supportive of the candidacy of Manuel Mar Roxas II (who was then a senator and President of the LP) were quite convinced of the

10

possibilities that his reformist campaign will be a boon to Akbayans electoral prospects. In turn, however, he recalled the more cautious elements in that Congress (led, among others, by Ricardo Reyes, a former official of the CPP and now serving as member of Akbayans Executive Committee, as well as president of the Freedom from Debt Coalition or FDC) arguing that the party be more circumspect in pushing forward this engagement (Bello 2012). The concerns generated and debated upon in the exchanges were recalled by another incumbent representative, Arlene Kaka Bag-ao (formerly a community lawyer affiliated with the Alternative Law Groups (ALG) and known as a campaigner for the issues of the rural sector, including farmers, fisher folk and indigenous peoples. She recalled how the general opinion of the Congress at that time believed that [Akbayan] should not remain as NGOs or sectoral groups engaging in governance: we should be part of a ruling coalition. If the issues we carry are important to [our potential allies], we think the alliance is plausible even if our political agendas and roots are dissimilar [Translation mine.] (Bag-ao 2012). When the Congress eventually came to the consensus of supporting Mar Roxas, the resolution they passed in August 16, 2009 proclaimed that AKBAYAN Citizens Action Party believes that Presidential candidate Mar Roxas supports our partys platform of political and economic reform that would create a climate of modernity and political pluralism which would be conducive to AKBAYANs expansion and growth (Akbayan National Congress 2009c). This support would be affected by the subsequent transformation of the Roxas campaign towards the candidacy of Benigno Noynoy Aquino III, following the death of his mother, former President Corazon Cojuangco-Aquino last August 1, 2009. Overall, the electoral campaign was viewed as a relative success, with Akbayans achievements in the 2010 elections somewhat satisfactory according to the partys leadership (Bello 2012). Aquino would be declared President after a final tally of 15,208,678 votes (SWS 2010); Akbayan, in turn, was able to garner 9,106,112 votes for Hontiveros-Baraquels senatorial candidacy, placing her on 13th place, which was insufficient to get her into the 12 allotted senatorial seats (COMELEC 2010a). The party also got 1,061,947 votes for party-list seats in the House of Representatives, allowing Bello and Bag-ao to participate in Congress (COMELEC 2010b). Their contribution to the LPs victory became their stepping stone in becoming government functionaries.

11

Institutionalizing Akbayan in Government Currently, Bello and Bag-ao represent Akbayan in the 15th Congress from 2010 to 2013. To systematize the partys legislative work, the party leadership has conceived a collaborative body called Akbayan in Congress. This body compartmentalizes the legislative agendas Akbayan currently holds and will attempt to participate in. Bello holds issues dealing with urban constituencies such as labor and urban poor, as well as overseas Filipino workers or OFWs. Bag-ao, in turn, prioritizes issues of the rural sector, specifically farmers, fisher folk and indigenous peoples, as well as womens rights and justice-related concerns. They themselves mentioned that this choice of prioritization reflects their former background as advocates from civil society and peoples organizations, facilitating the transition of their priorities for a comprehensive legislative agenda. Nonetheless, they support each others assignments (Bello 2012; Bag-ao 2012). These engagements and achievements have been a point of pride for both representatives, saying these contribute to their continued efforts of presenting Akbayan as a party that has supposedly maintained its high level of integrity despite being part of a governing coalition. Even if the party is now being tagged as the Presidents party list, Bello is quite confident that the Philippine electorate sees [Akbayan] as a new kind of Left, as willing to take responsibility, that it is practical and pragmatic [P]eople do see us working on Congress and the streets. [My sense] is that it is a good image (Bello 2012). Bag-ao, in turn, supports this assessment and says that Akbayan, by their assessment, is consistently seen as the reasonable, democratic Left compared to other Leftist parties in the country (Bag-ao 2012). Viewed as continuations of their legislative work, it is visible that Akbayan is indeed beginning to restructure its dynamics, opening itself for political opportunities while attempting to bring its constituencies in play. On the executive bureaucracy, key Akbayan leaders serve in various positions in government to date, they being appointed by the President (listed below). To systematize their interventions, the party also conceived a collaborative body specifically called Akbayan in Government (AIG). Coming from the party platforms the party has upheld over the past years, specific engagements in government sectors are consolidated in order to give Akbayan a better picture of engagements that could be maximized by the partys access to political power.

12

Name
1. Ronald Llamas 2. Loretta Ann Rosales 3. Joel Rocamora 4. Mario Aguja 5. Daniel Edralin 6. Percival Cendaa Sources:

Former Position in Akbayan Party President Chair Emeritus Party President 2nd Party-List Representative National ViceChairperson National Chairperson

Current Government Post Presidential Adviser Chairperson Secretary/Lead Convenor Member, Board of Trustees Member and Chairperson for Committee on OFWs Commissioner-at-Large

Office Office of Political Affairs (OPA) Commission on Human Rights (CHR) National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC) Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) Social Security System (SSS) National Youth Commission (NYC)

Presidential Communications Operations Office (http://www.pcoo.gov.ph/dir-op.htm); Commission on Human Rights (http://www.chr.gov.ph/MAIN%20PAGES/about%20 us/about_us.htm); National Anti-Poverty Commission (http://maps.napc.gov.ph/napcportal/index.php? option=com_content&view=article&id=94&Itemid=660) Government Service Insurance System (http://www.gsis.gov.ph/trustees.php) Social Security System (https://www.sss.gov.ph/sss/index2.jsp?secid=397 &cat=5&pg=null) National Youth Commission (http://www.nyc.gov.ph/about-national-youth-commission/nationalyouth-commission-officials/atty-percival-cendana) Fig. 2. Key Akbayan Leaders in the Aquino Administration The partys presence in government, of course, is not merely confined to the aforementioned leaders

above. Most of their staff and personnel have been long-standing Akbayan cadres, who are now introducing their experiences and modes of engagement into their respective offices. Their presence, none the less, is being maximized by Akbayan in order to present itself as not only fiscalizers or legislators, but more importantly public servants who could be expected to actualize and execute the partys various political positions and public policy propositions over the years. Inasmuch as Akbayan, as avowed by its leaders, remain adamant in effecting these policies and claiming them as victories of their political party, it remains a contention on whether these so-called gains are substantial to the partys future and to their aspiration of presenting an image of relative autonomy from the Aquino-LP alliance. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note that any current developments these offices are advancing are not entirely attributed to Akbayan, but still largely to the Aquino administrations entirety (with the Akbayan label remaining a minor functionary).

13

Akbayans alliance with the Aquino/LP campaign and their current capacity as part of a government coalition is supposed to contribute and strengthen this image and direction. This direction Akbayan takes in the current Aquino administration is presented to be consistent with the struggle for good governance and social welfare, even if they are working closely with well-established traditional political actors. Existing discourses inside the movement itself, however, show that this front is not as unified or consistent as it claims, and is only beginning to acknowledge this reality right now.

Limits to Akbayans Agency and Opportunities Demobilizing Threats Akbayans currently-amicable relationship with the Aquino administration has attracted its own share of supporters and detractors. While the party does find its newfound image as a potent governing element as a positive development, it would be inaccurate to say that the entire network of Akbayan (as well as its audience) believes the same way. Akbayans transition from mass movement organizing into governance spaces has caused the stimulation of tensions and frictions from its allies in civil society and mass movements. The departure of PAKISAMA from being a mass movement ally of Akbayan, as well as the Alliance of Progressive Labor (APL)s continuously-critical take on the Aquino administration, points to contradictions in the partys organizational corporeality and its avowed principles. On a wider note, Akbayans persisting struggles with a reticent National Democratic Front shows that the party has not entirely reconciled its socalled leftist identity with its governance directions and projects. The persistent subculture of negative identification within the party (herewith defined as publicly presenting Akbayan as not the NDs and building political capital from such identification) actually limits its capacity towards properly enunciating its own independent, stable and long-standing political program. Their position in the Aquino administration, rather than actually opening spaces for dialogue between such competing leftist parties, has actually exacerbated it. Akbayans relationship with the labor and agrarian reform movements suggest that the partys focus in winning national political posts is actually beginning to pose problems to their long-standing mass bases. The unpronounced-yet-visible shift of Akbayans electoral strategy from localized struggles towards a concerted campaign for a senatorial position (the candidacy of Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel) has been a source

14

of concern from their allied organizations. While these mass movements continuously consolidate on their own, their view of the partys alliance with the Aquino administration suggests visible ambiguities.

APL: Akbayans Radical Wing The Alliance of Progressive Labor was formally organized in November 1996 during its National Founding Congress, seeing itself as a national labor center that draw[s] into its fold various forms of labor organizations and not just trade unions, thus emphasizing its pluralistic origins and yet moving towards a union structure consolidated along industry and geographical lines. (Alliance of Progressive Labor 2006a, 1). The movement is one of the founding members of Akbayan as discussed earlier, even if their internal policy says that their membership in Akbayan is on an individual basis. Josua Mata, Secretary General of APL, related that they enforce such a policy in order to assure that there is autonomy between the party and the movements, while there is coordination between them (Ibid. 2012). Considering this arrangement between APL and Akbayan, it is thus remarkable for the former (and a point of pride for them) that despite backing and supporting the latter, they have been able to maintain their organizational autonomy and are capable of maintaining their own stances. As Mata would declare, we have always said and we have always believed that the party should be accountable to the mass movements; but the mass movements are not accountable to the party. It is accountable to mass membership, and because we are not accountable to the party, [APL] says what the mass movement would say (Ibid. 2012). With this level of autonomy, APL could formally say that, despite Akbayan being a coalition partner of the Aquino administration, they have never supported (and will not likely support, so far) the coalition government led by the Liberal Party, even since coalition talks began with Mar Roxas and the Akbayan leadership. APLs members figured in the debates of Akbayans 3rd National Congress where the issue of taking part in the LPs national campaign (allowing Hontiveros-Baraquel to become an LP senator and supporting Mar Roxas) became central. An APL member who requested anonymity recounted the proceedings, noting that while Akbayan leaders say that Mar Roxas is an inconsistent neoliberal that could be reasoned with to push for a more reform-oriented platform, they were unconvinced because Roxas was a

15

patronizing cacique who does not consult with the affected sectors of society (Ibid.). When the LP candidacy was transferred to Noynoy Aquino, APL decided to maintain its autonomy and organized a broader coalition of other labor movements called Sentro ng mga Progresibong Manggagawa (SENTRO), which created a labor proposal which was submitted to Aquino, upon which the possibility of endorsing him rested upon. However, the series of discussions apparently did not lead anywhere, the reason, as another anonymous APL official explained, why APL never endorsed the Liberal Party and I dont think we will (Ibid.). APL remained skeptical of the relationship Akbayan has with the President. They are also beginning to be concerned with how Akbayans links with the President actually has a demobilizing effect on the partys membership. APL notices the partys allegedly turning lukewarm in supporting social movement struggles, like the layoff of workers from Philippine Airlines affiliated with the workers union Philippine Airlines Employees Association (PALEA). The absence of a strong stance in the partys pronouncements and support of such concerns, as well as their similarly-ambivalent endorsement of the redistribution of the land comprising the Cojuangco familys Hacienda Luisita (the Presidents kin), has caused frustration among other blocs of Akbayan, even leading the Padayon bloc to actually consider bolting out of Akbayan, even if APL called for a more sober and dialogic approach to the inconsistencies of advocacies (Ibid.). APL traces this commitment to criticism to their view that, as their conduct of social movement unionism shows them, the Aquino administration has no capacity to enact long-term systemic overhauls or reforms: in fact, they believe that Aquinos administration is a government that was elected by the people, but essentially carries an elitist, pro-landlord, pro-capitalist interest (Ibid.). While Akbayan appears to share this view that it remains difficult to push for extended reforms and policies in their agenda, they nonetheless maintain simultaneous support and fiscalizing in the administration, believing that it makes [Akbayan] a serious, though minor player/ partner in this government (Akbayan National Council 2012, 2-3). This position, Mata surmises, is the reason behind what they see as the partys disjointed relationship with its longstanding mass bases and its access to government resources, with them even alleging that Akbayan puts too much primacy in the national electoral dynamic (APL 2012).

16

PAKISAMA: Friendly, but Not Really. This movement traces its beginnings from a series of consultations conducted by the Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources in Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA) immediately after the 1986 People Power Revolution (Putzel 1998, 88). The Pambansang Kilusan ng mga Samahang Magsasaka (National Confederation of Small Farmers and Fishers Organizations or PAKISAMA) was comprised and consolidated with organizations from around 70% of the provinces in the country and participated in by more than 10,000 peasant leaders. The national consultation held in August 1986 came to a consensus that a strong national alliance that will push for genuine agrarian and aquatic reform, rural development, and the protection of peasants rights is necessary and should be represented in government (PAKISAMA 2011a). Currently, PAKISAMA has also ventured into testing and launching agribusiness efforts, opening opportunities for higher incomes and productivity among its member farmers as well. They also continue to engage campaigns for policy reforms and similar legislative agendas in different capacities (Banzuela 2012). PAKISAMAs consolidation in 1986 was also facilitated by the optimism generated with the openings for political participation during the presidency of Corazon Cojuangco-Aquino. They emerged at a time when another peasant federation, the Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP) was represented in the 1987 Constitutional Commission. Despite KMP being known as heavily influenced by the CPPs national democratic orientation, PAKISAMA worked closely with them in its earlier years (Putzel 1998, 89). Current National Coordinator for PAKISAMA, Raul Socrates Banzuela, related that when the partylist law was approved in 1995, they were already participating in the consolidation of Akbayan, in the hope that there will also be avenues for participation in a party that professes to be composed of democratic leftist forces/movements. Akbayans subsequent victory and representation in Congress thus also became a foothold for PAKISAMAs political efforts. Even if CPARs campaigning for a substantive agrarian reform policy eventually gave birth to a watered down CARP (largely in part to the strong lobby of a landlorddominated post-Marcos Congress led by Rep. Hortencia Stark of Negros), PAKISAMA nonetheless saw this as an opportunity to distribute 10.3 million hectares out of the 30 million hectares of arable land under the governments jurisdiction (Kasuya 1995, 28; Banzuela 2012). Akbayan adopted CPARs (and by extension,

17

PAKISAMAs) policy proposals, incorporating it in its own agrarian reform platform. This is hallmarked by its "land to the tiller principle" where those who work to develop the land should own it, just compensation to the former landowners while granting affordable amortization for the land title grantees, and collective farming efforts to ensure maximum productivity among its farmers (Akbayan National Congress 2006a). Banzuela would echo the interest of PAKISAMAs members, saying that a majority of them subscribe to Akbayans platforms and its political programs. Their participation in Akbayan and its coalitional efforts from 1998 to 2009 were similarly motivated. For their part, PAKISAMA would also expand Akbayans linkages in the rural development sector on different levels (local, national and international levels). The federation also expanded organizationally, placing their member strength as of 2009 at around 66,692 (Banzuela 2012). As their federation expands, it has been very active in pushing for agendas involving the rights and concerns of farmers. Their most celebrated victory, also counted as a landmark policy development by the rural sector movements, would be the campaign of the Sumilao farmers of Bukidnon to win back their 144 hectares of ancestral and productive farming lands wrested away by the San Miguel Corporation (Ibid.). While Akbayan elements figured in the campaign in the presence of Kaka Bag-ao (then a lawyer and organizer for the Akbayan-allied BALAOD Mindanaw), the campaign was largely successful due more to the enterprising capacity of PAKISAMAs wider networks to broker the support of the Philippine Catholic Church. As recounted, convincing Church leaders (like Bishops Antonio Ledesma, Bishop Pacana and Cardinal Gaudencio Rosales) that such an issue was consistent with the Catholic Churchs desire to reemphasize its identity as a Church of the poor helped in bridging their interests to that of the rural development sector. The presence, activity and willingness of the Society of Jesus through the Simbahang Lingkod ng Bayan (SLB), long a friend of PAKISAMA, also helped assured that resources and access to audiences were readily available (Niemel 2009). The success of the Sumilao case, as well as Bag-aos capacity to push forward a policy agenda in formal spheres, was apparently the reason why she was chosen as the partys second representative in Congress (Bag-ao 2012). PAKISAMA, for their part, praise Bag-aos record, viewing her legislative work supporting the rural sectors highly satisfactory (Banzuela 2012). This long-standing partnership, however,

18

became complicated as of Akbayans 4th Regular National Congress, the same event that their alliance with the Liberal Party was inaugurated. While Akbayan confirmed the alliance with Roxas (as discussed in the previous chapter), PAKISAMA was represented in the debate, expressing their reservations about this alliance but saying all the same that supporting the LP is the most acceptable choice at advancing an agrarian reform agenda, which would eventually fall to Aquino (Ibid.). The publicized promise of Aquino during the formal launch of his campaign in February 9, 2010 to actually distribute Hacienda Luisita before June 2014 (Sisante 2010), apparently strengthened PAKISAMAs optimism. However, when they began lobbying Aquino even during the campaign period to begin distributing Luisitas lands, going so far as to talk with them about it in Aquinos campaign headquarters with their allied federations inside the hacienda, all they got were vague concessions, which are yet to be acted upon up to this day (Banzuela 2012). Despite this apparently-unifying campaign environment, the federation thought that these dynamics remained insufficient to prevent their eventual decision to bolt out of Akbayan. Banzuela recounts the deliberations they had at PAKISAMAs own Council Meeting in Aklan held sometime in September 2009: We found out that for the past 8-10 years, not a single representative of Akbayan came from the basic sectors. All the representatives were coming from the professional sector. We dont have any gripes with that, PAKISAMA sees that these people are excellent However, you will see how completing Akbayans slate has been a political process, with those leading the nomination for representatives chosen for winnability. And you will find that theres no affirmative action from the party to put anybody from the basic sectors among the 1st 3 nominees who will take up Akbayans seats (Ibid.). He also mentioned how it has been a difficult decision for the leaders and membership of PAKISAMA to leave Akbayan, considering that their views and opinions on political participation were not incongruous. What sealed their decision to become independent, however, was their acknowledgment of the fact that, for all intents and purposes, Akbayan was first and foremost a national political party that targets national electoral and governmental prominence. These set of priorities, Banzuela noted, seemed to PAKISAMAs leadership somewhat limiting to their long-term project of building up political clout so that the leaders of the rural sectors (farmers, fisher folk and indigenous communities) themselves could become the representatives and speakers of their own interests. Remaining in Akbayan, they believe, would maintain

19

the status quo of them being represented by professionals which, while admittedly efficient, runs counter to their independent aspirations (Ibid.). Banzuela related that plans are underway to consolidate PAKISAMA for the launching of their own party-list group in the future 2016 national elections, albeit firmly maintaining that their respect for Akbayan remains the same. The federation thinks that their planned forays into electoral contests, instead of being a source of concern for competition by Akbayan, should be viewed as their own independent contribution to the marginalized sectors efforts to reclaim their own voice in public (Ibid.).

Contradictions for A Party in the Corridors of Power APLs leaders and PAKISAMAs Banzuela consistently identified how the composition, priorities and ideological dispositions of the tight network of party leaders has affected and glossed over whatever differences and tensions the partys component blocs might have had over the years. While the party leaders suggest that this is a part of the partys consolidation and maturation as a political agency (Bag-ao 2012; Bello 2012), the movements think that this might be actually contributing to what they call bureaucratization or the partys professionalization and streamlining efforts beginning to have a life of its own, becoming less accountable to the comprising mass movements (APL 2012). They both point to the increasing primacy of former leaders from the BISIG bloc, led by Secretary Ronald Llamas, as the likely root of such recent developments. The former BISIG president, having brokered Akbayans alliance with the LP, has been officially hands-off from the party since his appointment to the Cabinet, and BISIG itself as a bloc is indistinguishable from Akbayans officers since at least 2008. It is interesting to note how the organizational composition of BISIG, which could be accurately considered as a rainbow coalition of different perspectives and ideological moorings, could well serve as a generalization of Akbayans current character. The choice of issues and priorities Akbayan seeks to popularize from 2010 up to the present are somewhat telling of these behavior and tendencies. These could be largely characterized as the usual concerns of liberal democratic governments, which is not exactly the kind of policies and issues parties that claim to be leftist are usually expected to espouse. While the leaders of both APL and PAKISAMA would concede that Akbayans posturing as a democratic leftist partner of the administration through its actions has its benefits,

20

they are beginning to have concerns on whether the party is still maintaining its integrity as a politico-social movement that is answerable to the leftist mass movements comprising it. APL Chairperson Daniel Edralin calls the partys problematic vagueness of positioning dikit-ism or the partys pandering to people in influential positions in government. Mata would add that it is beginning to disturb them that Akbayans cozy relationship with the Liberal Party is leading towards the party beginning to regulate criticism of the administration, with BISIG-affiliated leaders allegedly expressing displeasure at APLs highly-critical rhetoric against the administration (APL 2012). Such a conciliatory approach seeking to amass popular and mobilization support for the administration has largely characterized the partys non-formal networking in the Aquino administration. Once again, APL has expressed their misgivings of this practice, relating how efforts by Akbayans leadership to mobilize civil society support for the Aquino administration somewhat stimulated dissent from KAMAO (an independent urban poor mass movement allied with the party), saying that it is intruding in its constituencies and areas (Ibid.). Inasmuch as the party, in its legislative work and current governance activity claims to reflect the concerns of their constituency, party cultures and structures would still appear to favor certain blocs inside the party, in this case the leaders of BISIG. That its component social movements, APL and PAKISAMA, continue to find their identities as social movements-cum-peoples organizations an important counterbalance to Akbayans increasingly-transforming nature suggests that these organizations find something in the partys directions that no longer corresponds to their initial agreements, and that their identities as social movements with their own prerogatives and priorities should be asserted if not put paramount (illustrated in Fig. 4). That there has been a preference for professionals to represent the party (as is reflected in Bello and Bag-aos candidacies) instead of actually engaging and developing their sectoral members to become eloquent and trained political agents themselves (which is the main concern of APL and PAKISAMA), only highlights this further. It is appropriate to say that appraising leftist movements solely on rhetoric, acculturation to liberal democracy and choice of engagements (as per the instrumentalist-integral dichotomy of Quimpos contested democracy framework) remains insufficient, and should be further developed along more critical lines.

21

Fig. 4. Integrated Framework illustration of APL and PAKISAMAs relationship with Akbayan.

Our usage of the integrated Goldstone-Desai and Quimpo social movement frameworks turned out to be appropriate in highlighting the transitions the party is taking. Since Akbayans practice of contention in the political space has been well-sustained by its linkages, it is unsurprising the party still wants to benefit from it even if they are now in government. However, being inside state apparatuses that have its own institutional logic (coincidentally, that in tension with Akbayans own view of governance) yet still wanting to retain that position, their experiencing levels of tension and negotiation with affiliate and sympathetic social movements is expected. With Akbayans identity amorphous enough to still relate with social movements yet seeminglybenefit from access to governmental influence, it serves as a double-edged quality that has inspired the

22

appreciation of formalistic, process-oriented civil society groups, yet also stimulated resentment from sectors dissatisfied with the fact that Akbayan participates in the strengthening of this still-contentious status quo. While working to facilitate dtentes between government offices and select civil society groups, it nonetheless neglects other interests of other sectors of society whose relationship to governance remains problematic.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abao, Carmel V. Deepening Akbayan-Social Movement Relations towards Deepening Philippine Democracy. Discussion Paper for the Akbayan National Political Council, 2005. ____________. Dynamics among Political Blocs in the Formation of a Political Party, in Miriam CoronelFerrer, ed., Philippine Democracy Agenda: Civil Society Making Civil Society. Quezon City: Third World Studies Center, 1997. 271-288. Abinales, Patricio N. and Donna J. Amoroso. State and Society in the Philippines. Pasig City: Anvil, 2005. Aceron, Joy, Rafaela Mae David, Glenford Leonillo and Valerie Buenaventura. Infusing Reform in Elections: The Partisan Electoral Engagement of Reform Movements in Post-EDSA Philippines. Quezon City and Pasig City: Ateneo de Manila School of Government and Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Philippine Office, 2011. Active Citizenship Foundation. Round Table Discussion on Social Development. Minutes of the event at FERSAL-Malakas, Brgy. Central, Quezon City. 5 December 2011. 17 pp. Akbayan National Congress. Minutes of the Founding National Congress. Founding National Congress of Akbayan Citizens Action Party. 17-18 January 1998. 21 pp. _______________. Report of the Secretary-General to the First Regular National Congress. 1st Regular National Congress of Akbayan Citizens Action Party. 9-10 January 2001a. 9 pp. _______________. Report of the Office of Akbayan Representative Loretta Ann P. Rosales to the First Regular National Congress. 1st Regular National Congress of Akbayan Citizens Action Party. 9-10 January 2001b. 33 pp. _______________. Participatory Democracy, Participatory Socialism: The Akbayan Narrative. 2nd Regular National Congress of Akbayan Citizens Action Party. 30-31 July 2003a. 9 pp. _______________. Political Report. 4th Regular National Congress of Akbayan Citizens Action Party. 1516 August 2009a. 7 pp. _______________. Report of Representative Loretta Ann P. Rosales. 2nd Regular National Congress of Akbayan Citizens Action Party. 30-31 July 2003b. 16 pp. _______________. Report of Representative Mario Joyo Aguja. 2nd Regular National Congress of Akbayan Citizens Action Party. 30-31 July 2003c. 28 pp. _______________. Resolusyon sa Pagtatanghal kay Risa Hontiveros Bilang Kandidato sa Pagka-Senador sa Pambansang Halalan sa 2010. 4th Regular National Congress of Akbayan Citizens Action Party. 15-16 August 2009b. 1 p. _______________. Resolution Declaring Support for the Presidential Bid of Sen. Mar Roxas. 4th Regular National Congress of Akbayan Citizens Action Party. 15-16 August 2009c. 1 p.

23

Akbayan National Council. Political Report. Unpublished document. January 2012. 3 pp. Alliance of Progressive Labor. Focus Group Discussion with the Author. Workers House, 94 Sct. Delgado St., Quezon City. 22 September 2012 (cited as APL 2012). Bag-ao, Arlene J. Interview with the Author. Rm. N-616, North Wing, House of Representatives, Quezon City. 13 September 2012 (cited as Bag-ao 2012). Banzuela, Raul Socrates. Interview with the Author. Partnership Center, 59 C. Salvador Street, Varsity Hills, Barangay Loyola Heights, Diliman, Quezon City 1108. 18 September 2012 (cited as Banzuela 2012). Bello, Walden F. Interview with the Author. Rm. S-514, South Wing, House of Representatives, Quezon City. 17 September 2012 (cited as Bello 2012). Commission on Elections (COMELEC). 2010 National and Local Elections | Senatorial Results, 2010a. <http://www.comelec.gov.ph/?r=Elections/2010natloc/Results/ senalp>, accessed 13 August 2012. _______________. 2010 National and Local Elections | Party-List Results, 2010b. <http:// www.comelec.gov.ph/?r=Elections/2010natloc/Results/partyrpage1>, accessed 13 August 2012. Constantino-David, Karina. From the Present Looking Back: A History of Filipino NGOs in G. Sidney Silliman and Leia Garner Noble, eds. Organizing for Democracy: NGOs, Civil Society and the Philippine State. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1998. 26-48. Desai, Manali. "From Movement to Party to Government: Why Social Policies in Kerala and West Bengal are So Different," in Jack A. Goldstone, ed. States, Parties and Social Movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. 170-196 Diamond, Larry. Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999. Dionisio, Eleanor R. with Anna Marie A. Karaos and Jennifer Santiago-Oreta. Pandayan para sa Sosyalistang Pilipinas: Process and Paradox, in Benjamin T. Tolosa, Jr., ed., Socdem: Filipino Social Democracy in a Time of Turmoil and Transition, 1965-1995. Pasig City: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung-Manila, 2011. 83-186. Encarnacion, Omar G. The Myth of Civil Society: Social Capital and Democratic Consolidation in Spain and Brazil. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. Escobar, Arturo and Sonia E. Alvarez, eds. Introduction, Theory and Protest in Latin America Today, in The Making of Social Movements in Latin America: Identity, Strategy and Democracy. Colorado: Westview Press, 1992. 1-18. Goldstone, Jack A., ed. Introduction: Bridging Institutionalized and Non-Institutionalized Politics, in States, Parties and Social Movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. 1-24. Hilhorst, Dorothea. The Real World of NGOs: Discourses, Diversity and Development. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 2003. Kasuya, Yuko. Working Paper Series No. 194: The Failure of Agrarian Reform in Transitional Democracy. Quezon City: Institute of Social Studies, University of Tokyo. 1995. ___________. Presidential Bandwagon: Parties and Party Systems in the Philippines. Pasig City: Anvil, 2009. Keane, John. Democracy and Civil Society. London: Verso, 1998.

24

Mercado, Jaclaine N. The Politics of Congressional Policymaking: the Formulation of the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003 and the Role of Akbayan Party-List. MA Dissertation, School of Social Sciences, Ateneo de Manila University. 2006. Niemel, Lennart. Getting the Church onboard: Frame-bridging in an agrarian reform campaign in the Philippines, in Heidi Moksnes and Mia Melin, eds., Power to the People? (Con-)tested Civil Society in Search of Democracy. Uppsala: Uppsala Centre for Sustainable Development, 2010. 241-246. Przeworski, Adam. Capitalism and Social Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Putzel, James. Non-Governmental Organizations and Rural Poverty, in G. Sidney Silliman and Leia Garner Noble, eds. Organizing for Democracy: NGOs, Civil Society and the Philippine State. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1998. 77-112. Quezon, Manuel III. The Liberal Identity, in Jonathan E. Malaya and Florencio B. Abad, eds., Liberal chronicles: 60 years of the Liberal Party (1946-2006). Quezon City: LP 60th Anniversary Organizing Committee, 2006. 21-45. Quimpo, Nathan Gilbert. Contested Democracy and the Left in the Philippines After Marcos. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 2008. Rocamora, Joel. Partisanship and reform: The making of a presidential campaign, in Yuko Kasuya and Nathan Gilbert Quimpo, eds., The Politics of Change in the Philippines. Pasig City: Anvil, 2010. 73-89. Rodriguez, Agustin Martin G. Governing the Other: Exploring the Discourse of Democracy in a Multiverse of Reason. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 2009. Saracho, Joel. Afterword, in Ferdinand C. Llanes, ed. Tibak Rising: Activism in the Days of Martial Law. Pasig City: Anvil, 2012. 230-232. Sisante, Johanna Camille. Noynoy: Hacienda Luisita distributed to farmers by 2014, in GMANews, 9 February 2010. <http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/183493/news/nation/ noynoy-hacienda-luisitadistributed-to-farmers-by-2014>, accessed 1 October 2012. Social Weather Station (SWS). Only 0.4% separates the TV5-SWS Exit Poll from the final official tally, 8 July 2010. < http://www.sws.org.ph/pr20100608.htm>, accessed 10 May 2012. Tadem, Teresa S. Encarnacion, ed. Introduction: Examining Global Civil Society Movements in the Philippines in Localizing and Transnationalizing Contentious Politics: Global Civil Society Movements in the Philippines. Plymouth: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) and Rowman & Littlefield, 2009. 1-24. Van Dyke, Nella. Protest Cycles and Party Politics: The Effects of Elite Allies and Antagonists on Student Protest in the United States, 1930-1990, in Jack A. Goldstone, ed., States, Parties and Social Movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. 226-245.

25