The KMP (peasant movement of the philippines) movement generation, activity, and continuity in philippine society 4 5

KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
133

CHAPTER IV
Philippine Peasant Movements and Organizations
And the KMP
Peasant politics thrives in the Philippine social landscape. The Elsonian
framework of the “disappearing peasantry” (Elson, 1997) is hardly applicable either
to the Philippine case or to various others, e.g. Thailand. And even if the Elsonian
argument could be stretched to speak for these countries, “the end of peasantry does
not mean the end of peasant politics” (Baker, 2001: 26). Rural or peasant movements
could emerge “involving people who may derive a majority of their income from the
urban economy, but who want to protect the rural base which still serves as their
social security and cultural anchor” (ibid.).
This chapter deals with peasant movements and organizations in the 1980s
and 1990s. Its organization revolves around two basic arguments. First, movement
emergence, activity, and continuity owes much to the persistence of significant
agrarian structures that are reflected in the goals and issues carried out by said
movements and organizations. Second, the emergence and development of the KMP
(Peasant Movement of the Philippines) demonstrates concrete political,
organizational, and ideological continuities while manifesting the comparable
conditions of movement emergence and collective action generation discussed in the
preceding chapter.
The first section describes the range of peasant actors in Philippine society. I
analyze the politics of these organizations and the environment that facilitated their
emergence and proliferation. Against this backdrop, I introduce the subject of study
by presenting a brief history of the KMP and examining its politics. Lastly, the
conclusion punctuates the chapter by linking the historical section (Chapter III) with
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
134

the present-day peasant politics and movement and underscore movement
continuities.
A. Present-day Peasant Movements and Organizations
The 1980s and 1990s witnessed a remarkable emergence of peasant
organizations and movements. A variety of factors and their convergence could be
pinpointed to have directly or indirectly made this phenomenon possible. In what
follows I analyze briefly the societal conditions between the 1980s and 1989s to
carve the environment in which movement emergence transpired and then discuss the
various peasant formations.
1. Facilitative Conditions
The structure of political opportunities significantly influences movement
emergence, activity, and continuity. In the last two decades several changes unfolded
in Philippine political environment. First, the Marcos government lifted martial law
in January 1981. The formal lifting of military rule directly and indirectly encouraged
social and political activists to go out into the open and express their dissent against
the Marcos dictatorship and aspirations for social change.
Second, the three-day EDSA uprising (24-26 February 1986) put an end to the
Marcos rule and the event created the so-called euphoria for political openness.
131

Formal democracy was restored through Aquino’s ascendancy as president via extra-
constitutional means. In 1987 and 1988, congressional and local elections were held
respectively. Interestingly, the communist left through the Partido ng Bayan (PnB,
People’s Party) fielded eight candidates in the national elections but lost. This
phenomenon reflected the widely held notion of the existence of a democratic space
and the openness of the new government. Nonetheless, several progressives were

131
EDSA stands for Epifanio De Los Santos Avenue.
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society

135

able to enter government through appointments and elections but they were
eventually “eased” out.
132

Third, the promulgation of the 1987 Freedom Constitution and the enactment
of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (R.A. 6657) on 10 June 1988
further uplifted the hopes of the agrarian population and pro-land reform advocates
for a significant and lasting social change. The pro-people stance of the Aquino
government enticed peasant organizations from different political poles. The years
1986 to 1987 were characterized by an arduous lobbying of peasant organizations and
alliances to pressure the Aquino government in implementing a genuine agrarian
reform. The laborious effort, of which KMP was a major participant, spawned a
broad-based peasant coalition, the Congress for Peoples’ Agrarian Reform (CPAR).
Several years after, the Local Government Code of 1991 was implemented and
further encouraged the participation of NGOs and POs in local government units.
Fourth, it was between the mid-1980s and early 1990s when NGOs gained
prominence and dominated Philippine civil society. Not a limited number of these
organizations engaged in agrarian reform and rural development advocacy and
implementing development projects for the rural sector. In short, the last two decades
witnessed an expansion of civil society.
133

Another factor that led to the proliferation not only of open peasant
movements and organizations but also NGOs points to the evolving character of the
CPP-NPA. The tactical blunder, as the CPP admitted in one of its documents, of
calling for a boycott in the 1986 snap presidential elections rekindled a 1979 debate

132

These were Butch Abad, Aquilino Pimental, and Augusto “Bobit” Sanchez (Personal
communications with social and popular democrats).
133
An expansive ‘positive’ literature on NGOs exists in the Philippines. See, among many others,
Aldaba, 1993; Clarke, 1994 & 1998; Ibana, 1994, Rocamora, 1994; Silliman and Noble, 1998, and
ESCCRT, 1997. On the other hand, refer to P.J. James (1995) for a strong critique of NGOs and their
real intent.
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
136

within the party of the same nature, that is, to participate or boycott the congressional
elections. The party implemented the non-participation policy. As for 1986, some of
the key people involved in this debate, like the late Mr. Filemon “Popoy” Lagman,
again disagreed vehemently with the policy.
134
And in early 1993, the Manila-Rizal
regional committee bolted from the CPP and rejected not only the leadership of Jose
Maria Sison but also the whole party. As such, they referred to themselves as ‘RJs’ or
the rejectionist faction.
135

As a result, top leading cadres and members of the party have disaligned
themselves from or quit the revolutionary movement. Today we can see them
working with NGOs, engaged in their own businesses, others have been appointed in
top government positions and joined think tanks, some have taken the path of being
partisan scholars, while others have just kept silent and went on with their ordinary
lives. This fall-out likewise contributed to the expansion of civil society, particularly
of NGOs.
The expansion of political opportunities, however, does not guarantee a re-
channeling of political participation toward institutional bounds. Contrary to the

belief of the majority of peasant-based organizations and movements, the KMP for
instance and other formations for that matter continue to engage the Philippine state
through extra-institutional means. Theirs is experiential and ideological. “Political
opportunities are” hence “relative and acquire meaning only in relation to a
movement’s social base and collective strategy” (Boudreau, 2001: 48).
2. Of Movements and Organizations
136

137


134
Interviews with former full-pledged CPP members, names withheld.
135
Personal communications with particip ants to the split, names withheld.
136
For the sake of brevity, I could not avoid but to use numerous abbreviations for the names of
movements and organizations. I also directly translated the Philippine names of these formations to the
English language.
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
137

The expansiveness of non-governmental organizations and movements in
Philippine society is reflected by three typologies that aim to grasp their character
and scope. First, David for instance presents a four-part categorization of Philippine
NGOs.
“The first category is comprised of academics, religious leaders, and other
professionals and they are termed as non-governmental individuals (NGIs). The
second one pertains to membership-based organizations that include professional,
academic, and civic organizations (PACOs) and grassroots people’s organizations

(POs). POs can be further subdivided into government run and initiated POs
(GRIPOs) and genuine, autonomous people’s or ganizations (GUAPOs). The
GUAPOs have organized themselves beyond the community and/or workplace
through sectoral and geographic alliances. The third pertains to ideological forces
namely national democrats, democratic socialists, social democrats, and liberal
democrats. Finally, there are those institutions or agencies that support grassroots
organizations or the NGOs. These NGOs are further classified as development,
justice, and advocacy NGOs (DJANGOs), traditional NGOs (TANGOs), funding
agency NGOs (FUNDANGOs), and mutant NGOs (MUNGOs) that are further
subdivided into GRINGOs, business-organized NGOs (BONGOs), and fly-by-
night entrepreneur organizations or COME N’GOs” (David 1998, pp. 26-48).

On the other hand, Ferrer also uses a four-part differentiation of civil society
groups:
“They can be distinguished as to the nature of organization, that is, its function or
role may be service-oriented, for advocacy, research or training, may be
ideological or political, organic (community) or indigenous or traditional (clan,
tribe); or be based on nature of composition (e.g. sectors, classes, ethnic groups,
gender); as to organizational level, that is, organizational membership may be as
individuals or groups; and scope of operation and/or membership may be at the
most basic territorial unit (e.g., neighborhood) or national and international; as to
organizational origin, that is, it may be initiated by government, interest groups,
or particular institutions (business, church, academe) or by individuals; and as to
perspectives / ideology, that is, their operational frameworks may be defined by
some ideology, philosophy, religion, or culture” (Ferrer 1997: 2, emphasis on the
original).

On a more specific plane, Franco categorizes the peasant struggle into three
political poles.
“The outright opposition (far left) is represented by KMP (Maoist -inspired, CPP-

influenced) that perceives CARP as inherently limited and implementation is
impossible. Thus, wittingly or unwittingly, sides with the anti-reform land-owning
elite and real estate developers in calling for the scrapping of CARP altogether.
Nonetheless, it acknowledges the continued importance of anti-reform resistance.
The second pole, uncritical collaboration (center -right) is exampled by AR Now!

137
I am gratefully indebted to Ms. Marge Ibañez of CODE-NGO who introduced me to Mr. Rolly B.
Ascuncion of PAKISAMA who in turn unselfishly shared his work on profiling peasant movements,
organizations, and coalitions. The contents of this section were largely derived from the document
“Situationer on the Peasant Movement in the Philippines: 1992 to 1998”, PHILINK, January 1999.
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
138

(which is of a pro -Ramos social democratic orientation) relies on formal-legal
means to move lands and lays exclusive emphasis on the state for implementation.
It also perceives CARP as inherently limited and little has been achieved. It is
nonetheless, pro-CARP and anti-Morales. And the third pole, critical engagement
(left -of-center radical reform pole), is represented by PARRDS
138
. It does not only
rely on formal-legal means to move lands but more importantly on organized
social pressure from above and below to drive land reform. This actor advances a
pragmatically neutralist pro-CARP stance and views that implementation is
possible but also acknowledges the continued importance of anti-reform
resistance” (Franco, 1999, pp. 1-4; 1997, pp. 2 -4).

The three typologies, with emphasis on the third, are by no means
insignificant in understanding the nature of peasant formations in Philippine society.
Their application, however, should be qualified so as to put into effect a

contextualized analysis. Instead of trying to establish or formulate a general pattern
or mode of analysis it would better to treat these organizations on an empirical level
and in a relational manner with government and agrarian reform and rural
development adversaries.
The CPAR for instance could not neatly be boxed along the categorizations
presented. It was rather a collective spontaneous reaction of agrarian reform
advocates to grab the opportunity of initiating a meaningful agrarian reform program.
The CPAR, formed on 21-23 May 1987, is thus far the biggest, broadest, and longest
coalition of peasant and peasant-based organizations, movements, and advocates. It
was comprised 93 organizations led by 12 national peasant and fisherfolk
organizations – AMA, AMIHAN, BMMLL, KABAPA, KMP, KAMMPIL, FFF,
LMP, LMMP, NFSW, PAKISAMA, and PAMALAKAYA (PPI 1998, p. 72).
139

Upon the implementation of CARP, CPAR criticized the program as basically not
comprehensive and ridden with many loopholes. On this note, the coalition called for

138
PARRDS stands for Partnership for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Services.
139
AMA stands for Association of Agricultural Workers, AMIHAN for National Federation of Peasant
Women, BMMLL for Association of Small Fisherfolks in Laguna Lake, KaBaPa for Movement of
New Filipina, KMP for Peasant Movement of the Philippines, KAMMPIL for Association of Small
CocoFarmers in the Philippines, FFF for Federation of Free Farmers, NFSW for National Federation
of Sugar Workers, PAKISAMA for National Federation of Peasant Organizations, and
PAMALAKAYA for National Federation of Fisherfolk.
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
139

a multi-sectoral conference that was participated by 600 sectoral representatives. In

this conference (25-26 June 1988), the People’s Agrarian Reform Code (PARCODE)
was formulated and approved to challenge CARP.
140

The CPAR, for six years, became a center of activities for agrarian reform
advocacy. Through lobbying, dialogues, mobilization, and electoral participation, the
coalition advocated for various issues that concern not only the rural sector but the
general population as well. These issues ranged from land conversion, fishery issues
and aquatic reforms, palay and rice prices, coconut levy, rights of peasant women,
food security, environmental destruction, natural calamities, skills training,
militarization, peace, the ousting of U.S. military bases, to the issue of foreign
debt.
141
In June 1993, however, CPAR imploded due to politico-ideological and other
differences between member organizations (PPI, 1998: 74).
Critical Collaboration with the Philippine state and its institutions has been a
defining characteristic of most peasant actors.
142
Like the FFF and the PRRM, an
overwhelming majority of peasant societies in the last three decades has resorted to
institutional means in struggling for agrarian concerns, nonetheless in varying
degrees. Their politics is rather primarily directed toward influencing the state and
other dominant social forces through formal-legal means and participation in the
implementation of government programs and policies and in the delivery of services
to the peasants.
143

In pushing for reforms and serving the interests of their constituents, these
peasant formations intermittently receive support from government in the

140
Mariano in LINANGAN IV 1990, p. 134; PPI 1998, p. 72.
141
For a more detailed account of CPAR’s experiences, refer to Goño 1995.
142
The term collaboration is used to describe the act of cooperating and working with government
agencies and other institutions of the state.
143
These organizations (for example PARRDS), however, claim that they also or equally rely on
“organized resistance from below” in pushing for reforms. See Borras, 1997.
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
140

implementation of NGO-PO-GO programs, hold planning workshops with DAR,
work hand in hand with certain government agencies and officials in formulating and
implementing agrarian-related policies. Examples of these are the AADC, dKMP,
KAMMPIL, KASAMA-FPO, and the PAKISAMA, and COIR (PHILINK, 1999). In
some cases, others have developed long-term working relationships with government,
e.g., the FFF, SANDUGUAN, PKSMMN, SCFO, and the AMA (ibid.).
Embarking from Franco’s typology, a concrete example of the critical
engagement grouping is PARRDS or the Partnership for Agrarian Reform and Rural
Development Services that was established in 1993. It is comprised of NGOs like
PEACE
144
, KAISAHAN
145
, KAMMPIL
146
, PPI
147

, PRRM, CARET, ELF, CFPI; of
former national democratic peasant groups, which are identified with CPP-initiated or
–controlled organizations like the dKMP
148
, PEACE, PPI, and Siglaya
149
; of popular
democrats like the PRRM and the MPD (Movement for Popular Democracy); and of
and independent socialist formations like the BISIG
150
and CARET.
On the other hand, AR Now! (The People’s Campaign for Agrarian Reform
Network, established in 1997) is constituted by formations like the AADC,

144
The Philippine Ecumenical Action for Community Empowerment Foundation is also of ND origins
and a research and advocacy format ion. It is currently involved in the struggle against the land
grabbing and conversion case in San Jose del Monte, Bulacan.
145
KAISAHAN (UNITY) together with SALIGAN (Alternative Legal Assistance Center), BMFI
(Balay Mindanao Foundation Inc., and SENTRA (Center for Genuine Agrarian Reform) are para-legal
support groups for peasants. KAISAHAN, SALIGAN, and BMFI provide support to a broad array of
peasant groups including dKMP, PAKISAMA, and KASAMA-FPO.
146
Established in 1991, KAMMPIL (Association of Small CocoFarmers in the Philippines) was a
founding member of the COIR (Coconut Industry Reform Movement).
147
The PPI or Philippine Peasant Institute is an advocacy and research support organization that
severed ties with the KMP in 1993.
148

dKMP (Democratic Peasant Movement of the Philippines) was established in 1993 when it severed
ties with KMP. Its leader, Jimmy Tadeo (the expelled leader of KMP) is currently a board member of
the Land Bank of the Philippines.
149
A faction that bolted from the CPP -NPA in 1993.
150
Bukluran sa Ikauunlad ng Soyalistang Isip at Gawa or Unity for the Advancement of Socialist
Thought and Action.
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
141

PAKISAMA, KAMMMPI, and the KASAMA-FPO
151
and member NGOs (ANGOC,
BMFI, CARRD
152
, ICSI, PASCRES, PARFUND, PDAP
153
, PhilDHRAA
154
,
SALIGAN, and WAND). The political attitude of these two groupings toward
government and state projects is likewise carried by other organizations and networks
such as the AMA
155
, MORE-AR
156
, SANDUGUAN
157
, PKSMMN

158
, and the
SCFO
159
. (PHILINK, 1999: 50)
The PAKISAMA was spawned by a series of grassroots consultations in 1986
after the EDSA uprising. It is affiliated with other several coalitions and formations
like the NPC, Green Forum Philippines, PHILINK, PKSMNN, COIR, and the

151
The KASAMA-FPO or the Federation of People’s Organizations is a multi-sectoral formation
whose main membership is comprised by farmers and farmw orkers also includes small vendors,
jeepney drivers, and small fisherfolks.
152
The Campaign for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development or CARRD together with ICSI
(Institute of Church and Social Issues) and PASCRES (People’s Alternative Study Center for Research
and Education in Social Development) are research and advocacy centers.
153
Established in 1986 and basically remains a partnership of six Philippine NGO networks and a
number of Canadian NGOs. It has focused on estate/site development (post-land trans fer in 10 pilot
areas through its PPSE (Promoting Participation in Sustainable Enterprises) program and sustainable
agriculture.
154
The PhilDHRAA together with ANGOC (Asian NGO Coalition), PDAP (Philippine Development
Assistance Program), Tambuyog, CERD, and SIKAT (involved in community-based coastal resource
management), and ATI (Appropriate Technology International), PhilNET -RDI (Philippine Network –
Rural Development Institutions), and COIR are peasant support organizations for the development or
adaptation of appropriate technologies and sustainable agriculture and fisheries.
155
AMA (Alliance of Workers in Agriculture) was established in 1976 and was formerly known as

MASAKA (Association of Free Farmers) that is identified with the underground armed movement of
PKP (Baltazar 1998, cited in PHILINK 1999). Its network organizations are SAMAMA (Association
of Small Fisherfolks), KMM (Small Farmers’ Association), UMA (Agricultural Workers’ Union),
KMB (Farmers’ Association in the Hinterlands), KMT (Association of Sugarcane Farmers), BMA
(Salt Workers’ Association), UMN (Coconut Workers’ Union), MALAYA (a women’s organization),
and KaBaPa (Society of New Filipina).
156
The Movement to Oppose and Resist Exemptions to Agrarian Reform is an issue-based coalition
formed in 1995 and is comprised by the FFF, dKMP, KASAMA-FPO, and PAKISAMA.
157
SANDUGUAN (“Unity in Blood”), a federation formed in 1987, is primarily concerned with
organizing and strengthening cooperative rural banks.
158
The PKSMMN (National Coalition of Organizations of Coconut Farmers and Farmworkers) is a
broad coalition formed with the support of Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA) officials. Among
others, its network organizations include AMA, AMMANI, ARBA, ASTKK, APKN, BUKLOD,
COFFRA, DLPI, D-JPAT, FAITH, FFF. F:RF, KAMMPIL, KASAMA-FPO, KAMMMPI,
KAMALAYAN, KOMMMPAK, LMP, MARANAO, NAMAHAMIN, NFSCFO, PAKISAMA,
PASALEY, SIPAG, SCFO-Q, TASK, and UGMA, most of which were established during and after
the martial law period (PKSMMN Brochure, nd.).
159
The SCFO or Sm all Coconut Farmers Organization was organized by the PCA in the late 1980s.
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
142

PNPC.
160
PAKISAMA has a total of 42 affiliate peasant organizations federated at
the provincial and municipal levels and are located in 32 provinces throughout the
country. It is also in the process of building two sectoral organizations namely

LAKAMBINI for peasant women groups and MAMAMYAN for fisherfolks
(PAKISAMA Brochure, nd.).
Formed in November 1995, the AADC or the Agri-Aqua Development
Coalition is said to have a sphere of influence in 22 municipalities in the five
provinces of Regions 9, 10, 11, and 12. Its other network organizations are the
Mindanao Environment Forum (MEF), Mindanao Coalition of Development NGO
Networks (MINCODE), the National Peace Conference (NPC), KAMMMPI or the
Federation of Small Fisherfolks in the Philippines that was established in 1997 and a
board member of the AADC in Mindanao,
Another basic characteristic of the majority of these members is their
overriding focus on specific agrarian issues such as cooperatives, coco levy, fisheries
code, liberalization of agricultural trade, agricultural prices, rice cartels, food
security, productivity and technology
161
, leasehold implementation, agrarian reform
fund, etc. On the other hand, they fail to or do not link these important problems to
the more general issue of landlessness and agrarian reform and the political-economic
orientation and system of Philippine society. Consequently, there is an imminent
danger of overlooking land reform and the impa rtial implementation of agrarian
reform. Moreover, others would tend to focus only tactical issues that can muster
maximum media projection.

160
NPC stands for National Peace Conference, PHILINK for Philippine NGOs for International
Concerns, and the PNPC for Philippine National Peasant Caucus.
161
In February 1999, I had the chance to sit in on one of the assessment meetings of a PhilDHRAA
chapter in Davao. The group’s concern was primarily focused on the improvement of productivity and
technology in a rubber plantation. Nothing was mentioned or discussed with the farmworkers
regarding the CARP implementation and when I secretly asked one of its staff, he just replied to me by

saying “bear with us, we avoid politics”.
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
143

On the other hand, a range of these organizations also employ extra-
parliamentary means but in a limited sense. They likewise participate in mass
campaigns and demonstrations, rallies, and vigils. To a limited extent also they
engage in grassroots organizing and mobilization. These organizations are the CO-
TRAIN (Community Organizing, Research, and Advocacy Institute, established in
1993) and PHILCOS (Philippine Community Organizers’ Society, established in
1994), which is supported by the former. Moreover, most of these organizations are
well endowed and can afford air-conditioned offices and buildings, state-of-the art
computers, and salaried staff, and possess funding for their daily operations.
Interestingly, challenger peasant societies or KMP in particular does not have
resources such as these.
The collaborational politics of these peasant formations can further be
dissected theoretically and pragmatically. There are those who work with government
because they believe that it is best way to advance the interests of their members and
constituents and society in general. On the other hand, there are those who
collaborate with government because they are staunch defenders of the status quo and
abhor extra-legal and non-legal practices. Third, there are those who work with
government to counter radically oppositional peasant organizations and compete for
mass support. Fourth, there are those who have become disillusioned with the
national democratic movement and opted to explore the rules of the game set by the
state and change government from within. Fifth, there are those who cooperate with
government for the simple reason of survival. Sixth, there are those who profit from
government projects and deals and are either constrained to do so or are willing
collaborators. These, nonetheless, overlap with another.
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
144

Interestingly, a critical segment within the abovementioned Philippine peasant
formations stands apart in terms of organization, goals, and strategy. Infamously
dubbed as militant and uncompromising, I now proceed to introduce the subject of
the study, that is, the KMP.
B. The KMP: A Political Historical Description
The KMP is but just a small voice if located within the expansive range of
social and political formations that aim to advance agrarian reform and rural
development in the Philippines. Its radical oppositional political practices, however,
bring into consideration various theories and perspectives on social movement
emergence, activity, and continuity. In what follows, I take into account the
emergence of KMP and the factors tat contributed to its establishment and then
present the nature of its politics in terms of orientation, organizational structure and
dynamics, agenda, and program and strategies of action.
1. Historical Brief
The social political turmoil and activism in the 1980s midwifed one of the
largest and most militant peasant movements in the Philippines. Social movement
theories and perspectives in general alternately point to structural conditions,
grievances, organization, the structure of political opportunities, resources, and
identity as interrelated factors to movement emergence. Aside from peasant
grievances emanating from structural conditions and the agrarian crisis, which I have
discussed elaborately in the preceding chapters, the emergence of KMP could also be
attributed to the convergence of the following factors – mixed political opportunities,
existence of formal protest organizations, and the participation of middle forces.
a. Naissance of KMP
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
145

Central Luzon is one of the many regions in the country that possesses a
tradition of peasant political activity – the 1745 agrarian revolts, the Palaris uprising

in 1762, the Katipunan Revolution of 1896, the Sta. Iglesia movement in 1903, the
emergence of peasant organizations in the first two decades of the 1900s, the
establishment of the PKP in 1930 and HUKBALAHAP/HMB and the PKM in the
1940s, the MASAKA in 1964, the CPP-NPA in the late 1960s, and the AMA in the
1970s. The tradition continued remarkably in the 1980s and the agrarian concerns
were not different basically from past grievances.
In 1981 another wave of peasant reorganization brewed in Central Luzon.
‘Old and new’ peasant activists and leaders, and revolutionary cadres conducted a
conference-type meeting on 14 November to discuss the peasant situation and the
need for organization.
162
A committee was formed and this regional body served as
the preparatory step in the formation of a region-wide alliance, the Alliance of
Central Luzon Farmers (ACLF). It outlined a set of issue-based demands ranging
from irrigation, flood control, usury, low level of production to access to credit
(Interview with AMGL Leaders; PPI, 1998: 69).
The peasants, through the ACLF, launched a petition addressed to the FPA
that was later forwarded to the MoA (Ministry of Agriculture). The petition making
was facilitated by host of organizations and institutions like the Bulacan Social
Action Center (BUSAC), Luzon Secretariat for Social Action (LUSSA), and the
Office for Continuing Education of the University of the Philippines Institute for
Social Work and Community Development (OCE-UP-ISWCD) (Tadem, 1985: 64-
65). And on 9 December, a 3,000-strong delegation of Central Luzon peasants and

162
It could not be ascertained as to what organizations these cadres came from but it would be safe to
assum e that the organizations involved both open and secret and old and new peasant formations and
people’s organizations.
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
146

supporters staged a demonstration in front of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture to
protest the high cost of fertilizers and pesticides (ibid.; Interview with current AMGL
Leaders, 10 December 2000; PPI, 1998: 69). The failure of the petition to produce
concrete results caused frustration among peasant organizations and made them
realize the importance of organization (Tadem, 1985: 65).
Interestingly, there was an attempt to form a more comprehensive program
vis-à-vis the issue-based program of the ACLF that would eventually lead to the
establishment of a regionwide organization (Interview with AMGL Leaders). The
organizing efforts were, however, almost paralyzed when 5 organizers were killed by
military troops during a raid in their meeting place in Pulilan, Bulacan on 21 June
1982. Official reports identified them (4 men and 1 woman) as members of the NPA
who were killed in an encounter. For two years, the event silenced the ACLF and its
political activities (Tadem, 1985: 65-66).
The year 1983 was also characterized by major political events and peasant
activities. In May, twenty-five peasant organizations joined forces and formed the
National Consultative Assembly of Peasant Organizations (NCAPO). On the 20
th
of
July, protesting sugar workers numbering around 10,000 in Escalante, Negros
Occidental were brutally dispersed by the CHDF taking the lives of 27 protesters.
163

The assassination of opposition leader Benigno Aquino Jr. on 21 August exacerbated
the political crisis under the Marcos dictatorship. Peasant conditions and struggles on
the other hand received significant attention from the alternative press. In Mindanao,
the peasantry launched a large-scale mobilization to condemn land grabbing and
eventually led to the formation of the Mindanao Alliance Against Land Monopoly, a

163

CHDF stands for Civilian Home Defense Force, a notorious para-military group established under
Marcos to aid the military and police in their counter-insurgency campaign.
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
147

regional multi-sectoral alliance advocating for a genuine agrarian reform. (PPI, 1998:
69-70)
By mid-1984 the fertilizer issue was rekindled when its priced soared by 120
per cent. From this concern gravitated other agrarian issues such as “the writing off
of all Masagana 99 debts, the institution of a new small farmer credit scheme,
stabilization of palay prices, the lowering of the price of gasoline, and the
implementation of a genuine land reform and nationalist industrialization program”
(Tadem, 1985: 67).
The resurgence of the fertilizer issue served as the impetus to the abated
attempt to organize. The whole reorganization effort finally culminated in the
esta blishment of the AMGL (Central Luzon Peasant Alliance) that held its first
congress on 14 October 1984. Subsequently, its provincial chapters likewise
launched their formal assemblies and founding – the AMC (Capampangan Peasants’
Association) on 24 October, the AMB (Bulacan Peasant Alliance) on 18 November,
and the ALMABA (Bataan Peasant Alliance) on 29 December. In the same year, the
ad hoc of MAKAMAZA (Zambales Farmers’ Independent Unity) and AMT (Tarlac
Peasant Alliance) were also formed while the AMGL-NE (Nueva Ecija chapter) was
formally launched in 1985.
164

The year 1985 proves to be a critical juncture in the history of peasant
movements in the Philippines. On 4 February, an 800,000-strong peasant
mobilization from Central Luzon traveled to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform (MAR)
demanding for price subsidies on fertilizers. Dubbed as the first Lakbayan/Sakbayan
(People’s Journey/Caravan) in the history of the peasant movement, the Caravan

164
Interviews with Mr. Loreng Tiongson and Mr. Rod Tuazon, General secretary and President, of
AMGL (10 December 2000). These provincial chapters, particularly the AMC and AMB preceded the
formation of AMGL.
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
148

became an annual undertaking.
165
The activity culminated in a 3-day kampong bayan
(people’s camp-out) in front of the MAR to demand an increase in the price of palay
but was violently dispersed by the police.
166

The peasant caravan and the people’s camp-out culminated in the
establishment of the KMP. The NCAPO and other orga nizations from Luzon,
Visayas, and Mindanao convened a national congress of farmers’ organizations on
24-27 July 1985 at the Claret School in Quezon City. Jimmy Tadeo of Bulacan was
elected as National Chairman and Rafael Mariano of Nueva Ecija as Secretary-
General. To punctuate the activity, the newly formed KMP led a 3,000-strong
demonstration in Plaza Miranda and declared its “Statement of Principles” (PPI,
1998: 70, Tadem, 1985: 70; Interviews with AMGL Leaders).
From the point of view of identity formation, the first five years of the 1980s
could be perceived where class identity among the Philippine peasantry reached
another climax. From a Marxist perspective, the long-standing “class-in-itself”
consciousness of a significant segment of the peasant population could be perceived
to have undergone a transformation. However, a “class-for-itself” consciousness
among the peasants could only be possible if there were concrete collective venues
through which actions and grievances could be channeled, that is, organizations

(McNall, 1991).
b. Importance of Organizations
The importance of formal or established organizations was manifest in the
establishment of the KMP. At the grassroots base, the founding members were

165
Lakbayan stands for Lakad ng Bayan or People’s Journey while SAKBAYAN stands for Pagsakay
ng Bayan or People’s Caravan. The purpose of this means of mass mobilization is to demonstrate the
long procession of a people coming mainly from the grassroots sector to protest against the (policies
of) government. The activity is a multi-sectoral in character with the grassroots sectors comprising the
majority of the participants.
166
PPI 1998, p. 70; Tadem, 1985: 68-70; Personal recollections where the author was able to shake the
hands of Jimmy Tadeo, then president of the AMGL.
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
149

comprised of 38 people’s organizations located all over the archipelago.
167
Of the 38
organizations, only 1 was still in its preparatory or ad hoc stage and the rest were
established and open mass organizations. To date, these organizations exist under
new names and formations, the changes of which could be attributed to political and
security reasons.
168
(Interviews with KMP Leader Rafael Mariano, December 14, 21,
and 22, 2000)
The following organizations were represented in the founding congress:
169

Luzon – Northeastern Luzon Farmers Movement (Cagayan Valley), Central
Luzon Peasant Alliance (AMGL), Bulacan Peasant Movement (AMB),
Capampangan Peasant Movement (AMC), AMGL Nueva Ecija, Assembly of
Peasant Organizations Against Poverty (KASAMAK), Bataan Peasant Alliance
(ALMA-BA), Aurora Farmers’ Association (AKMA), Silang Farmers’ Alliance
(ALMAS, 1983), Quezon Farmers’ Association (QFA), Banahaw Peasant
Movement (KMB), Union of Peasant Organizations of Real, Infanta, and Nakar
(KASAMA-RIN), Bicol Coconut Planters Association, Inc. (BCPAI), Camarines
Sur, Albay, Sorsogon Farmers Association, Camarines Norte, and Masbate.

Visaayas – Association of Farmers in Panay Island (KAMI-PA, 1984), Small
Farmers Association of Negros (SFAN, 1985), Unity for the Welfare of Small
Farmers in Negros Oriental (KAUGMAON), Bohol Farmers Association
(HUMABOL, 1984), Alliance of Samar Farmers Association (ALSA -MASA,
1984), and the Farmers Unity of Sta. Fe, Leyte (NAKAMAS).

Mindanao – United Farmers of Zamboanga del Norte (MAZANAG), United
Farmers Alliance of Zamboanga del Sure (ALMANAZ), United Farmers
(MAGNA) of Misamis Occidental, Misamis Oriental United Farmers
(KAMONA-MAG-UUMA), Farmers Association of Lanao (HOMLAN), Agusan
del Norte Farmers Union (UMAN), Farmers Association of Agusan del Sur
(KAMAS), United Farmers of Surigao del Norte (NAMASUN), Surigao del Sur
Farmers Association (KAMASS), Nagpakabana Davao Farmers Association
(HUMANDA), Davao Farmers Association (DAFA, 1980), South Cotabato
Farmers Association (SOCOFA), Sultan Kudarat Farmers Association
(SUKUFA), and the Ad H oc Bukidnon.

On the other hand, the said organizations and the national KMP were
supported by peasant institutions like the Philippine Assistance for Rural
Development (PARUD), Philippine Ecumenical Action on Community

Enlightenment (PEACE), Forum for Rural Concerns (FRC), Farmers’ Assistance

167
A limited list of founding members could also be found in Tadem, 1985: 71.
168
The exact year or date of the establishment of the other organizations could not be ascertained.
169
KMP Founding Congress Proceedings, 24-27 July 1985.
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
150

Board (FAB), Luzon Secretariat of Social Action (LUSSA, CBCP), and the
Philippine Peasant Institute (PPI).
Advocacy of peasant issues and critical researches of emerging and existing
agrarian conditions were the main contribution of these institutions. They also
participated in mass demonstrations and provide technical help in launching related
activities. They likewise engage directly in organizing and mobilizing constituent
peasants. But most importantly, they provided a discursive venue for alternative
solution to agrarian problems and state-initiated agrarian reform and rural
development.
It should also be noted that by participating in larger movement networks,
wherein the Philippine left is could be perceived as a major social movement industry
(McCarthy and Zald, 1973; see also Boudreau, 2001), the KMP was able to broaden
its network and deepen its politics.
170
The CPAR undertaking gave the nascent
movement a first hand experience in dealing with other peasant formations with
different political standpoints. Another endeavor was the movement’s participation in
1987 Congressional elections through the umbrella organization of the Partido ng
Bayan (People’s Party, PnB). Its president, Mr. Jaime Tadeo, ran for a senatorial

position. The legal left, for the first time since 1946, engaged in the electoral struggle
under the Alliance for New Politics or ANP (Timberman, 1991: 207). On the other
hand, KMP’s early and continued involvement with the New Patriotic Alliance
(BAYAN) strengthened its ties with like-minded national democratic organizations.
c. Participation of Middle Forces
The term “middle forces”, a Maoist nomenclature, basically pertains to the
forces located at the middle of a political spectrum, that is, between the left and right.

170
In Chapter VI (A.4.), I discuss in detail the network of organizations that KMP engages with in
launching oppositional politics at the national level.
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
151

It particularly pertains to people coming from the middle and upper classes, e.g.,
students and small businessmen, who possess democratic aspirations and beliefs and/
or do not have any party affiliation. Their participation in revolutions or social
movement activities is critical in that they could decide a sudden swing in the balance
of power (Laswell, 1950: 15; Snow, 1957: 22; Bowie, 1962: 150; Floyd, 1964: 408;
Timberman, 1991: 134).
The turbulent years between 1983 and 1986 witnessed a peculiar
configuration of political forces. As Timberman (1991: 134 cf Diliman Review,
1986: 7) notes, in 1983, a “very highly organized left and a very highly organized
right in the dictatorship and a highly unorganized, fragmented middle forces” could
be observed in the Philippines. In 1985, however, a “more organized middle group”
could be seen that was visible in 1983.
From this insight, the active participation of the middle forces in Philippine
politics is manifest. It was also in this context tha t KMP engaged particular
personalities from this sector as a political and practical tactical move (sse also
Tadem, 1985: 75). In a situation where a desperate government was doing all means

to preserve its power and the status quo and block social change, a radically
oppositional movement like the KMP needed a buffer or a neutralizer vis -à-vis the
intensified militarization (Interviews with KMP President Rafael Mariano, December
14, 21 and 22, 2000).
Specifically, these elected officials were Ben Granada as National Vice
Chairman of KMP, a politician from Mindanao who once ran for the Davao
governorship; Sister Clemente Flora as the National Treasurer, a Catholic nun; and
Jose Feliciano as a National Council member, former Secretary of Agriculture of the
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
152

Macapagal administration (Interviews with KMP President; Tadem, 1985: 75). Other
figures involved were Memong Patayan and Andong Hilario.
Tadem (ibid.) was quite critical of a perceived “KMP’s dependence on middle
class elements and the need to strike deeper roots in the countryside”. In a similar
perspective, it would really be odd for a grassroots class-based movement to have
national leaders belonging to the middle class and/or middle forces. The movement,
however, “started to replace the middle forces with grassroots leaders anchored on a
conscious effort to mold both men and women peasant leaders. For instance, Imelda
Lopez was elected as the National Vice Chairman and assumed the position since the
2
nd
Congress (1987). It could also be observed that there is a significant participation
of women in provincial and regional chapters” (Interviews with KMP President).
d. Mixed Political Opportunities
The relevance of the emergence of KMP during a cataclysmic period in
Philippine politics in social movement theory is instructive in that movement
generation and activity could solely be confined within the domain of a perceived
existence of a favorable structure of political opportunities. A government could
always give concessions to expand political space for the purpose of misleading,

neutralizing, or pacifying social dissent or a brewing revolution.
In the preceding section, I discussed the favorable political opportunities that
contributed to the emergence and proliferation of peasant or rural organizations.
There were, however, major undercurrents to these perceived positive changes in the
political environment. First, when martial law was lifted salvaging became rampant
and the frequent victims were activists.
171
Second, the essence of the much-vaunted

171
Salvaging is the popular or colloquial term of summarily liquidating or killing suspected
subversives or criminals without due process of law. This was allegedly perpetrated by the “secret
police” or “death squads” of the Marcos regime.
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
153

EDSA “revolution” should be grasped based on its immediate and long-term impact
on Philippine society. As Rivera puts it, “In EDSA, one can speak of a political
revolution but certainly not a social revolution. An authoritarian regime gave way to
a democratic regime but the rules of engagement and governance of this formally
democratic order continue to favour the few in a society suffering from gross
economic and social inequalities” (Rivera 1996, p. 20, emphasis added).
Third, the people especially the peasantry started to look for concrete policies
that would implement social, economic and political reforms in the first six months
of Aquino’s presidency. On 22 January 1987, different peasant organizations rallied
in front of Malacañang to remind the Aquino government of its promise of agrarian
reform.
172
However, they were violently dispersed leaving 13 peasants dead and the
massacre became the rallying point of succeeding peasant mobilizations.

Fourth, in the middle of 1987 the government finally revealed its political
character vis-à-vis the progressive forces and the revolutionary movement. The low
intensity conflict (LIC/Gradual Constriction)
173
, with again the “assistance” of the
CIA, was launched to crush the progressive, nationalist, and leftist forces, specifically
the CPP and NPA. With an endorsement from the Catholic Church, vigilante groups
were formed throughout the archipelago.
174
Moreover, the late 1980s witnessed the
“assassination of opposition leaders – labor leaders, anti-bases activists, and human
rights lawyers”, student leaders, priests, and peasant activists.
175
These events

172
During her political campaign, Aquino espoused the infamous slogan of libreng pamamahagi ng
lupa (free land distribution).
173
LIC represents the Total War policy of the Aquino government.
174
The government revived the defunct Civilian Home Defense Force (CHDF) by establishing the
Citizen’s Armed Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU). These groups served as reinforcements and
military buffer for the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). Rabidly anti-communist in orientation,
the vigilantes and CAFGUs and AFP persecuted the movement’s members and sympathizers including
their relatives causing countless human rights abuses particularly in the countryside.
175
Schirmer and Shalom 1987, p. 420, cited from Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, Vigilantes in
the Philippines: A Threat to Democratic Rule, New York: 1988, pp. x-xvii.
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society

154

transpired under the “Freedom Constitution” that contains the longest bill of rights in
Philippine history.
The abovementioned conditions are important factors that significantly
contributed to the organizational slump of the KMP between 1987 and 1990. There
were, however, other factors to be considered and they point to the internal dynamics
of the movement. Mr. Rafael Mariano exclaimed that these were economism and
reformism, the perception of a peasant insurrection, and organizational schism.
Together with Mr. Daning Ramos (Vice-President), they explained these as follows:
“The first factor was economism. It refers to the act of being content with or
prioritizing the material benefits that peasants could gain from collective actions.
Reformism is the tendency or practice of confining the peasant struggle within the
legal provisions of the CARP and achieving piecemeal solutions to the problem of
peasants. Second was the perception of a peasant insurrection. There was a ‘small’
but influential group within the movement who aimed to engage the peasants
toward an insurrectionary path. This was manifest in the style of their work
characterized by sweeping and fast track organizing. Third was the attempt to
incorporate the KMP. From an organization whose policies and principles are
determined by member grassroots chapters, the movement would be directed by of
board members and it would lose its mass character. (Interviews with Rafael
Mariano and Daning Ramos, December 14, 2000)

The aforesaid external and internal conditions posit two critical insights on
the relevance of political opportunities to movement growth and activity. First,
political opportunities are almost always characterized by positive and negative
dimensions. The KMP, hence, thrived through what could be called as mixed
opportunities. It emerged under both favorable and unfavorable circumstances and
developed under the same conditions. Second, the advantages that a political
opportunity offers greatly rely on internal social movement dynamics. On one hand,

favorable conditions may not be capitalized if certain aspects of an organization of a
national character do not permit so, e.g., cohesion. On the other hand, unfavorable
conditions may be translated into favorable opportunities based on the strong
commitment of an organization to its principles and constituents.
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
155

2. The Politics of KMP
176

The oppositional character of KMP could be grasped by analyzing its political
orientation, organizational structure and dynamics, agenda, and strategies and
program of action. By examining these aspects, I highlight the movement’s peculiar
characteristics vis-à-vis the majority of peasant movement and organizations in
Philippine society.
a. Political orientation
Established on 24 July 1985, the political pedigree of KMP has so far been
influenced by five historical junctures in the history of peasant movements in the
Philippines: the Katipunan Revolution of 1896; the establishment of the KPMP in the
1920s (the first class-based peasant organization), the PKP in 1930, and the
HUKBALAHAP/HMB and PKM days in the 1940s and 1950s; the founding of the
CPP and NPA in the late 1960s; the establishment of the AMGL (Central Luzon
Peasant Alliance) and its provincial chapters in the early 1980s; and the splits in the
1990s within the CPP and NPA that reverberated throughout the peasant movement,
NGO, and PO communities. This peasant movement is said to have an effective
leadership over a total of 800,000 rural people comprising roughly 9% of the
Philippines agricultural labor force with 55 provincial and 6 regional chapters
nationwide.
177

This political historical heritage explains why KMP in its almost 15 years of
active participation in the peasant struggle has acquired several “labels” from the
different sectors of society. These labels, whatever their political underpinnings are,
could be best contextualized by understanding this challenger society as a national

176
This general introduction of the politics KMP was derived from the movement’s brochure (no date)
and from interviews with Rafael Mariano (General Secretary), Danilo Ramos (Chairman), and Lu
Roque-Bailosis (International Relations Officer), December 2000.
177
As of the 4
th
National Congress in 1993 (KMP Brochure, nd.).
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
156

democratic (ND) organization. As an ND organization, it believes that “imperialism,
bureaucrat-capitalism, and feudalism are the triumvirate reasons for Philippine
underdevelopment and subservience to foreign interests, especially the U.S Under
such political orientation, KMP envisions national freedom and democracy as the
starting stage
178
that will rid Philippine society of these social maladies
179
”.
Another principle that distinguishes the KMP from other member peasant
formations is the application of class analysis in society.
180
NDs believe that
Philippine society is in a state of prolonged semi-feudalism and semi-colonialism

while the others perceive such diagnosis as anachronistic.
181
A third contentious issue
that separates KMP from the rest is its political standpoint on revolutionary armed
struggle. It openly respects armed struggle as the primary and most effective means
of achieving agrarian reform and societal transformation.
182
This means is also
perceived as the “embodiment of a high commitment and strong principle in
advancing the peasant struggle and societal transformation as a whole”.
183

Following the lead of Ellingson (1995: 100-144), KMP integrates its peasant
discourse within the larger discourse of national liberation. The belief system of the
movement owes much to the political movements that espouse socialism and
communism. Its leaders at the local and national level emphasize the need for a
broader consciousness and ideology with the aim of providing a class perspective to

178
National democrats can be further disaggregated into two political lines – those who believe in the
basic principles of national democracy and those who advance a socialist perspective.
179
Interviews with KMP leaders.
180
It should be noted that this distinction also applies to nat-dems (national democrats) vis-a-vis the
soc-dems (social democrats), pop-dems (popular democrats), and the RJs (rejectionists)
181
For political-economic analysis of feudal, semi-feudal, semi-capital, and capitalist exploitation, see
Santos, 1990. For capitalist penetration in agriculture, see Ofreneo, 1980.
182

One, however, does not need to be a ND, socialist, or a communist to respect and even promote
armed struggle. Walden Bello, for instance, in his article in the Philippine Daily Inquirer (June 2001),
stated that armed struggle is necessary to implement a genuine agrarian reform in the Philippines.
Moreover, not all CPP-NPA-NDF members are socialists and communists per se.
183
Interview with Danilo Ramos (KMP President).
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
157

peasant struggles.
184
It would then be logical to assume that through this ideology
that movement members and leaders alike undergo “cognitive liberation” (McAdam,
1982: 48-51) and acquire an “insurgent consciousness” (Smith, 1991: 62).
b. Organizational structure and dynamics
The National Congress is the highest policy-making body of KMP. It elects
from the various local chapters the members of the National Council and officers of
the National Executive Committee which function as the leadership bodies of the
federation. The KMP national office is staffed by a secretariat working in various
departments implementing the organization’s goals, programs and services – mass
struggles, public information, education and training, economic welfare, organizing,
international affairs, projects and special programs, and administration and finance.
On the other hand, chapters at the regional, provincial, municipal, district, and barrio
levels have respective administrative bodies and particular programs working along
the general policies and programs of action of KMP.
185

The KMP’s organizational dynamics, however, is far more complicated than
its structure. It is claimed that in its first five years of existence KMP as an
organization functioned without a body. “Until around 1990, the KMP existed only

as a nominal national structure; i.e., there was a set of structures at the head of which
were officeholders, but its membership was not active in the organization itself”
(Weekley 2001, p. 200). The emergence of the KMP, however, could not have been
possible if it were not for the active participation of established open peasant
organizations in 1985 and the intervention of supporting middle forces. To reconcile
this contradiction, it should be noted that between 1986 and 1990 the Philippine

184
Interviews with Gemo Bautista, Nardo Sevilla, and Philip de Guzman (UMALPAS-KA Leaders),
Gigi Mendoza, Albert Custodio, and Lino Santos (SAMBAT and KASAMA-TK Leaders), and Rafael
Mariano and Danilo Ramos (KMP National Leaders).
185
KMP 1993 Constitution.