Uring Manggagawa, Hukbong Mapagpalaya!

Sosyalismo ang Lunas! Ibagsak ang mapang-api't masibang kapitalistang sistema! Manggagawa sa Lahat ng Bansa, Magkaisa!

Lunes, Oktubre 19, 2015

Welga sa Victoria


Mula sa mahabang talaan ng paglabag ng mga kapitalista sa batayang karapatan ng mga manggagawa, kaninang madaling araw (Oktubre 19, 2015) ay ipinutok na ng mga manggagawa ng Victoria Manufacturing Corp. ang kanilang welga. 

Ayon sa mga manggagawa ng VMCEU (Victoria Manufacturing Corp. Employees Union), ang isyu ay: shutdown to retrenchment, union busting, harassment, refusal to bargain, discrimination, violation ng CBA provision regarding LIPO (last in, first out). Nasa 80 manggagawang regular ang apektado. Tila may balak pa raw ang management (dahil nadulas umano ang dila ng isa rito) na kumuha ng maraming kontraktwal na manggagawa kapalit ng regular.

Ang kanilang welga ay naitayo na nila sa pabrika ng Victoria sa Ortigas Avenue, Pasig, malapit sa Ever. Kailangan nila ng suporta, mga kasama, sa kanilang laban. Maaari nyo silang puntahan sa kanilang welga. Maraming salamat po.

(Ulat ni Greg Bituin Jr.)

Biyernes, Oktubre 2, 2015

PR: Workers’ group slams PH govt’s climate change pledge as ‘empty promise’ and ‘hollow threat,’ demands that it ‘walks out’ from bad deal in Paris

2 October 2015

Workers’ group slams PH govt’s climate change pledge as ‘empty promise’ and ‘hollow threat,’ demands that it ‘walks out’ from bad deal in Paris

The Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino (Solidarity of Filipino Workers), a labor center composed of various unions and trade federations in the country, today strongly criticized the “intended nationally determined contribution” (INDC) that the Philippine government has submitted to the UN as part of efforts to reach a new climate agreement in Paris this December 2010.

Calling the said INDC as an “empty promise” and a “hollow threat” that primarily promotes the interests of Filipino elites, the workers’ group says the Philippine government is effectively condemning millions of Filipino workers to suffer from climate change by not effectively standing up for their interests in the international arena.

The Philippine government is “pledging" to reduce emissions by 70% by 2030 but is making this conditional on finance, technology, and resource transfers from developed countries.

“The so-called ‘intention’ to reduce emissions is an empty promise, if not an outright lie, because the government, as presently constituted, has no intention of immediately and unconditionally scrapping its plans to build more coal power plants in the country, to democratize control over the energy sector, and to steer the country away from the ‘profit-over-nature’ development model,” the group said.

While the labor group agreed with the demand that developed-country governments should provide more resources to developing country-governments, it scored the government’s persistent attempts to instrumentalize this demand to shield local ruling elites from owning up to and paying for their own “climate debts” to the Filipino people and to other people suffering from climate change in other countries.

“Making the ‘pledge’ to reduce emissions conditional on the transfer of resources by developed countries,” the group said, “is a way for our country’s elites and their foreign partners—those who profit from dirty energy and from the broader capitalist system which causes climate change—to justify building more coal power plants and more ecologically-destructive practices in the Philippines, and thus avoid their own ‘historical’ responsibility’ for causing climate change.”

“If the government really represents the interests of the Filipino working classes, then it should not only demand that developed-country governments do their fair share in fighting climate change,” the group said, “it should also ensure that our own elites also do their ‘fair share’ in fighting climate change. And that entails, among others, immediately ending coal-power, mining, deforestation, and other destructive projects, de-privatizing and democratising  the entire power sector, and scrapping all policies that put the interests of local and foreign corporations over the interests of people and the well-being of Mother Earth."

“And if the government is really sincere in its claim to be standing up to rich countries in the UN process, then it should now be threatening—and preparing—to walk away from what is likely going to be another bad new climate change agreement in Paris.”

“For the past twenty years now,” the group said, “the government has been claiming to be standing up to developing countries. But in fact, at the end of each negotiating session, the Philippines has always meekly and quietly accepted—instead of really fighting against—the unjust agreements that are condemning millions of Filipinos to suffer from climate change. It will make a lot of good rhetorical pronouncements but always bow down to the wishes of the US and other powerful countries when the chips are down. The result is that the Philippines—and other similar developing countries—actually wield no negotiating leverage because the other powerful countries know that they will always surrender in the end.”

“If the government really represents the interests of the Filipino people,” the group stressed, “then it should back its lofty rhetoric by actually threatening to walk out from a bad deal and putting real pressure on developed country-elites—and on Filipino elites--to repay their ecological debts." #

Biyernes, Setyembre 18, 2015

Why we need a more explicitly anti-capitalist and feminist ‘climate justice’

Why we need a more explicitly anti-capitalist and feminist ‘climate justice’
Reflections for the First National Congress of the Philippine Movement for Climate Justice 
By the Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino (BMP)

We at the BMP join the PMCJ in celebrating our National Congress. In the spirit of comradely discussion, we would like to share our reflections on how to further advance our struggle:

Since its beginnings, PMCJ has contributed to the struggle for climate justice by challenging the taken-for-granted terms of the national and global debates on climate change. Against the dominant discourse which reduces the climate crisis into a narrow and technical “environmental” problem, having to do with finding the most “efficient” ways to reduce carbon emissions, PMCJ re-defined the crisis as a broader moral political and social problem, having to do with finding the most egalitarian ways to organize our societies. 

Thanks in part to the efforts of PMCJ and other climate activists around the world, we hold our Congress in the context of a changed political and ideological terrain: To put things schematically, reformists, or those state managers, business executives, foundation officials, moderate NGO activists and other dominant-class intellectuals from both developed and developing countries who seek to ‘solve’ global ecological problems by subjecting capitalism to “global management” and by providing limited concessions to dominated groups—have essentially capitulated to the conservatives, or those elites from all countries who oppose even their mild reformist measures, by conceding to non-binding reductions “pledges” and by offering “flexibility” through market-based schemes such carbon trading.

On the one hand, this combination of conservative intransigence and reformist acquiescence significantly bolsters the ability of businesses from both developed and developing countries to push for even weaker, more unjust “solutions” to the problem. On the other hand, however, this also significantly discredits the ruling classes and demonstrates their inability to provide moral and intellectual leadership in the face of this global crisis. The world’s elites are struggling to secure hegemony or popular support for the system—a situation that paradoxically creates more conducive conditions for more effective and more just, because more radical, solutions to the climate crisis. 

Redefining climate justice

In this context, we at BMP think PMCJ could better advance the struggle by further clarifying and sharpening our vision of climate justice: that is, by more explicitly linking it to questions of class, gender, and other social antagonisms, and by more unambiguously using it to challenge capitalism and the patriarchal and other forms of domination with which it combines and which it reinforces.

“Climate justice” is of course one of those intrinsically contested terms and even among PMCJ members or supporters there is perhaps no single uniform definition that commands universal agreement. But it is possible to discern a dominant definition by examining the content of our discourse and practice. For the most part, PMCJ seems to have been using a predominantly ‘nationalist’ definition of “climate justice”: i.e. that those ‘most responsible’ for climate change are the developed countries and that they are obliged to pay their ‘ecological debts’ to the developing countries. The term “developed countries” here has been ambiguous: it is understood by some as shorthand only for developed-country governments, elites and/or corporations, but certain texts or pronouncements indicate that they refer to the entire population living in developed countries. The latter is what is suggested, for example, in one formula that some advocate as a concrete way to determine how climate justice could be operationalized: the amount of emissions reductions and financial and other transfers that countries are obliged to contribute (or receive) are calculated using the total emissions of entire population of countries, without breaking down or differentiating these emissions by class or other categories. Hence, for example, the “climate debt” of the United States is computed by adding up the emissions made by say, the Kochs, a conservative billionaire family, with the emissions made by an African-American working-class family. 

From a certain perspective, we can see how this nationalist conception of climate justice could be justified: “developed countries” have indeed been seeking to evade their responsibility in the negotiations and holding them “responsible” is useful for fostering unity among “developing countries” seeking to resist them, as well as for broadening the PMCJ’s constituency domestically. It justifies and enables PMCJ efforts to form a “united front” with Filipino and other Third World elites, middle classes, or with more moderate individuals who could also potentially benefit from the financial, technology, and other transfers demanded from “developed countries.” 

But we at BMP have also become increasingly concerned about the dangers of this dominant definition—and the underlying strategy it may be associated with—and we hope to have a broader conversation about its implications on our efforts to affect the social balance of forces today.

The dangers of ‘climate justice’ 

First, we fear that, intentionally or not, such a definition obscures—or does not do enough to highlight—the issue of class and gender  “responsibility.” In suggesting that entire populations are responsible or blameless, aren’t we being constrained from highlighting the fact that it is the dominant groups of these populations in both developed and developing countries that have actually been disproportionately contributing the most to “their” country’s total emissions? Aren’t we failing to counter the problematic view that the nineteenth-century African slave is just as liable as the American billionaire for causing climate change because both happen to be “Americans” or that the Ayalas are just as “blameless” as their construction workers because both happen to be “Filipinos”? Aren’t we unwittingly reinforcing an understanding that may pave the way for a different kind of climate injustice: the African-American working-class mother being made to pay for the “excesses” of the male Filipino CEO who flies around the world using his private jet?

Second, we fear that thinking of climate justice in terms of countries or populations obscures the systemic causes of climate change because it does not do enough to counter the interpretation that we are suffering from the problem because the population of particular countries were just “too greedy” or excessively “consumerist”—rather than because a particular class in all countries have been driven to foster consumerism and to over-produce due to the pressures of market competition, something unavoidable under a historically-contingent set of property relations which ties up with and reinforces patriarchal, racial, and other relations of domination. Aren’t we reinforcing the view that the problem has to do simply with individual morality or with people’s “lifestyles” rather than with the historically-specific way by which we organize production, one in which those who control the resources for production are forced to accumulate or maximize profits endlessly in order to survive market competition, thus driving them to intensify their exploitation of nature and create the socio-ecological conditions that ultimately lead to global environmental problems? Aren’t we being constrained, in short, from highlighting that it is capitalism and the other forms of domination that ultimately breeds climate injustice?

Third, we are concerned that conceiving of climate justice along nationalist lines obscures the real social divisions and antagonisms among the world’s peoples in the face of climate change: Doesn’t this understanding reinforce the notion that the “principal enemies” are still just the developed countries or developed-country elites or corporations and that, against these “principal enemies,” developing countries or developing-country elites or corporations can somehow be our “friends” or “allies”? Does this not impair our ability to underscore how our real allies are the working classes and other oppressed groups in developed countries: the African-American working-class mother rather than the male Filipino tycoon? And, as shown by the lack of support for, if not outright opposition to, demands for paying “climate debt” as they understand it (i.e. as resources that will go to governments) even among working peoples in the North, isn’t this putting up an unnecessary barrier that stands in the way of cross-border solidarity among workers everywhere?

Finally, we are concerned that our current conception of climate justice obscures certain courses of actions or strategies that could be more helpful in advancing our struggle. In putting all or most of the blame on “developed countries” rather than on dominant classes everywhere, are we not ending up focusing too much of our limited energies struggling with “external” forces and consequently directing less of our attention and resources on countering the “internal” forces (local elites and their corporations, including their ‘external’ partners from abroad) who are perpetrating forms of climate injustice concretely affecting working people in the country? Why, for example, have we as PMCJ not done more to connect the violence that people experience daily in our unjust public transport system to the question of climate change and climate justice? Why are we not at the forefront of the campaign for a more convenient and more dignified public transport system as a way of countering climate change and of achieving climate justice? There are no doubt many valid reasons, among them our resource constraints, but might it also be because we think “climate injustice” is something done to us from the “outside” by “developed countries” rather than here “inside” by Filipino and non-Filipino members of the global ruling class? 

Against cooptation

Perhaps our concerns above could be assuaged by assurances that demanding “climate justice” from developed countries at the global level does not necessarily stop us from demanding it from dominant classes or groups at the national level. “We need to stand with our government at the UN but we can and should fight with them at home” is an argument we have often heard, and indeed PMCJ has commendably stood at the forefront of challenging Filipino elites’ promotion of dirty energy, for example. But we still have apprehensions with this line of reasoning: Does this not impose an artificial division of our struggles at the “global level” and at the “national level”—as if the two levels can be separated in practice? Can there really be a harmony of interests between capitalists and workers at one “level” and conflict at another? Do Filipino workers really have no choice but to demand that reparations from the rich countries go to “their” government, knowing fully well that “their” government is systematically dominated by capitalists and is likely to mobilize all their power to keep those ‘reparations’ in their hands? And shouldn’t we be prioritizing “united fronts” with all oppressed groups in all countries before, or rather than, with our country’s elites? 

Besides, if what we really mean when we demand ‘climate justice’ is for reparations to end up in the hands of oppressed groups everywhere, then why don’t we just say so? Why, in short, do we not just articulate the principle and the demand in the following terms: ‘We demand that those most responsible—i.e. the dominant classes and groups in all countries—pay back their climate debts to those least responsible—i.e. the dominated classes and groups in all countries”?

From our perspective, this unambiguously internationalist definition of climate justice does a better job of helping us avoid some of the dangers we outlined above: First, it foregrounds the issue of class and gender responsibility in that it leaves absolutely no room for holding working-class and other oppressed groups in developed countries liable for climate change. Second, it promotes discussion on the systemic causes of climate justice in that it raises questions about why dominant classes and groups have been driven to engage in ‘over-production’ or encourage ‘over-consumption.’ Third, it highlights the fundamental division between the exploiters and the exploited in all countries and it stands a better chance of exciting and gaining the support of working peoples across the planet. Finally, it does a better job of drawing our attention to the many different ways by which climate injustice is being experienced by working people—in the lack of decent public transport, housing, health care, etc.—and alerts us to the kinds of locally-grounded grassroots struggles by which we can make “climate justice” less abstract to the people we seek to mobilize.

Why is this redefinition of climate justice so important today? How does using it to think about our strategy and to define our relations with others—such as the Philippine government and other NGOs and social movements—help us in our daily struggle? We think it is crucial because, at a time when more and more people are desperate for fresh and out-of-the-box solutions, the ideas we have been offering are increasingly being coopted by dominant groups in the service of failed, ineffective and unjust solutions to climate change: by reformists from all countries who support calls for inter-national redistribution but are averse to any discussion of the systemic causes of and the systemic solutions to climate change—those who only want to change the system in order to keep it the same—on one hand, as well as by conservatives from all countries who cynically instrumentalize the demand for climate justice to perpetuate the existing order. And for as long as we do not clarify what distinguishes us from these two more powerful camps, we only end up serving yet again as “warm bodies” to their mobilizations and as transmission belts of their ideologies, unable to offer alternatives and to attract people to our own autonomous camp. 

What would be the point of building ‘united fronts’ if, in order to do so, we have to dilute our message, fail to counter dominant ways of thinking, and therefore fail to foster anti-capitalist and feminist attitudes or subjectivities? What would be the point of our demonstrations, of our campaigns, and of our popular education efforts if we only end up echoing and unwittingly being used to support those determined to prop up the very system that causes climate change? 

Towards an anti-capitalist, feminist conception of climate justice

We at BMP believe that, with the more explicitly internationalist, radical, and feminist conception of climate justice we favor, with its sharper critique of class, gender, and other forms of domination, and with its clearer stance against capitalism and the patriarchal and other relations of domination it combines with and reinforces, our movement would be much less vulnerable to being hijacked in support of the very system we are struggling against—a system that is intrinsically driven to prioritize profitmaking over the welfare of people and the planet. 

By pointing to those ultimately responsible for causing climate change and for blocking just and effective solutions, by highlighting the systemic, patriarchal origins of climate injustice, and by pointing to unapologetically socialist, feminist, and radically democratic solutions to achieve climate justice, we might have a better chance of countering the dominant ideologies that prevent people from supporting our cause and, thus, of developing the kind of attitudes or subjectivities needed to forge a radical anti-capitalist, counter-hegemonic global mass movement: still the only social force that could counter the power of those who stand in the way of climate justice. 

Building such a movement is not as unrealistic as pessimists in the movement think. Indeed, thanks in part to PMCJ and others’ efforts to change the terms of the debate, this movement is already stirring. In Copenhagen in 2009, in Lima last year, in Paris this December, and in many other places around the world, more and more people are rallying behind the call: “System-change not climate change!” Further strengthening this movement is not something we can keep postponing. Faced with a planetary emergency, we simply have no time to waste being coopted in support of false solutions such as the idea that climate justice could be achieved by “greening” capitalism.# 

Huwebes, Hulyo 23, 2015

Agency Accused of Legalizing Contractualization

July 23, 2013

Agency Accused of Legalizing Contractualization

IN A run up to the last State of the Nation Address of President Noynoy Aquino, a labor group denounced a regulatory state agency of doing the exact opposite of its mandate to serve as an instrument of equity, social justice and economic development to which they claimed was similar to the declarations made by Aquino more than five years ago. 

The Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino (BMP) held a rally at the central office of the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA) along Aurora Boulevard in Quezon City, Friday to protest the agency for providing “legal cover for the vilest opportunists of modern times”. 

The group held that, “tax-evading, fly-by-night manpower contractors, without sufficient capital, often dummies of shady employers, and manpower suppliers of sweatshop owners taken refuge in the open-arms of the CDA”. 

“The CDA has systematically denied hundreds of thousands of workers who are also members of the labor service cooperatives of their right to security of tenure and robbed them of their just wages and benefits by legitimizing cooperatives engaged in labor-only contracting (LOC),” said BMP chair Leody de Guzman. 

LOC is illegal under the Article 106 of the Labor Code. 

“In addition to acquiring legal cover for their schemes, these scoundrels in suits have availed for themselves incentives such as tax exemptions and even enjoy tax deductions if they “reinvest” in socio-economic projects and donate to charity, as well as preferential rights,” he added. 

The militant leader likewise noted that, “Besides being liable of denying constitutionally-guaranteed rights, these manpower cooperatives still have the gall to call their victims “members” and “coop-reneurs” to disguise the dehumanization of their poor victims”. 

They insisted that the CDA “must end being used as a tool of labor contractors to skirt the rights and neglect general welfare of millions of impoverished workers whose only goal is to provide for their families. The noble principles of cooperativism have been tarnished”. 

De Guzman professed that, “The alarming number of labor service cooperatives engaging LOCs is so rampant that trade union organizers have encountered them in almost all industries all over the country, he . 

“Cases of LOCs among cooperatives have been piling up to the extent of consuming most of the time of labor arbiters even up to the Supreme Court,” he alleges. 

In order for these to be addressed, the rallyists demanded that the CDA investigate and dissolve all standing labor service cooperatives, infuse rigid verification mechanisms to check information submitted to them by applicants, impose a total ban on labor service cooperatives for its vulnerability to and extensive record of abuse. 

The BMP also pushed that the agency must also not be contended with dissolving abusive cooperatives but also the filing of appropriate civil and criminal charges for deceiving the agency and taxpayers who bore the incentives they wrongfully claim and for cheating the workers of their right to security of tenure and robbing them of their just wages and right benefits. 

Progressive groups are expected to raise the issue of rampant contractualization, and worsening working conditions as “undeniable testaments to Aquino’s flawed economic policies” in Monday’s SONA

Lunes, Hunyo 1, 2015

BMP book

BMP book, an account from facebook

Biyernes, Mayo 1, 2015

Thousands of workers “see red”: Militant labor marches to an anti-Noynoy, anti-elite,and anti-imperialist war drum

May 1, 2015
Thousands of workers “see red”:
Militant labor marches to an anti-Noynoy, anti-elite,
and anti-imperialist war drum

AROUND ten thousand workers – from both the formal and informal sectors, belonging to militant groups Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino (BMP), Partido Lakas ng Masa (PLM), SANLAKAS, and the socialist labor alliance Manggagawang Sosyalista (MASO) – wore red shirts today in a Labor Day march that calls for the ouster of Noynoy, the rejection of elite rule and foreign domination, and the establishment of a pro-worker and pro-people government.


In the Greater Manila area, the “red shirts” converged in front of the Manila City hall before proceeding to join the Nagkaisa broad labor coalition in Mendiola.

BMP President Leody de Guzman said, “In five years, the electoral slogan ‘kung walang korap, walang mahirap’ has waned. Not only because Noynoy’s supposed mandate has only targeted the elite opposition with the jailing of Revilla, Jinggoy and Enrile and has defended various forms of lump sum and discretionary budgeting such as the PDAF and DAP. More so, this administration has failed to lift the lives of the poor”.

“No amount of Noynoy’s political gimmickry could satisfy the hungry masses. Wages are at starvation levels. The NCR minimum wage of P481 is almost a third of the daily cost of living (P1,200). Jobs are not only scarce. They are also precarious due to contractual employment,” he added.


“The economic woes of the people fueled the major decrease in Noynoy’s trust ratings in the recent surveys. But the problem lies, not just with the current resident of the Malacanang Palace, but in elite rule, which is no other than the dictatorship of political dynasties under a system of elite democracy,” PLM chair Sonny Melencio clarified.

Melencio said, “The political consciousness of the electorate must be raised – from a mere disgust against the bungling Noynoy to a keen critique against the politics of the privileged few. If not, they would only be used as cannon-fodders by a rival faction of the elite in the 2016 elections”.

“Thus, we vow to organize a strong movement of wage-workers and the propertyless masses to lead the anti-Noynoy struggle into developing a platform not just for regime change but for a meaningful and substantial transformation of Philippine society. It is a working class movement that is independent of the interests of the elite and seeks not just the resignation of Aquino, which only serves the ascension of Binay as constitutional successor, but the ouster of Noynoy in order to establish a truly democratic government of the Filipino people,” he elucidated.


SANLAKAS president Manjette Lopez averred, “The Labor Day protests this year would be the spark of an anti-imperialist struggle against the recolonialization of the country by foreign powers, particularly by transnational corporations through the neoliberal policies of liberalization, deregulation, privatization, and labor flexibilization”.

“These were the same policies and programs that were proclaimed to usher our country to the global market when the country hosted the APEC Summit in 1996. After nineteen years, the ravage they caused to local industry and agriculture could not be denied. As the country would again open its doors to trade ministers, CEOs (chief executive officers) and economic leaders in November for another round of the APEC summit, the labor movement has taken the lead in the Filipino people’s struggle against imperialism, as can be ascertained not only in the Labor Day protests this year but also in the Noynoy’s last SONA in July,” she concluded.

The “red shirt” protest in Manila was participated in by trade unions, urban poor associations, rural and mining workers from the National Capital Region and nearby provinces. Similar protests were also scheduled in Bacolod, Cebu, and Tacloban. #

(Photos by Jhuly Panday)

Miyerkules, Pebrero 25, 2015

For a Government of the Masses, Not the Elite!

STATEMENT on the 29th anniversary of EDSA 1986
February 22, 2015
Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino (BMP), Partido Lakas ng Masa (PLM), Sanlakas

For a Government of the Masses, Not the Elite!

On the occasion of the 29th anniversary of the People Power uprising in 1986, the workers and the people - under the banner of BMP-PLM-Sanlakas express our unity and support to all forces calling for the ouster of Noynoy Aquino.

Noynoy deserves to be ousted - not just because of allegiations about his incapacity to hold the highest office in the land. More so, he symbolizes the interests of landlords and capitalists, whose greed for power and profit cause the misery and poverty of the Filipino majority.

He is the personification of neoliberal policies of liberalization, deregulation, privatization and labor contractualization that continue to wreck havoc on the lives and welfare of the people. More so, Noynoy is the manifestation of the tyranny of political clans, brought by the rotten and backward system of elite democracy.

The tragedy in Mamasapano that cost the lives of forty four (44) SAF troops, eighteen (18) Moro fighters and five (5) civilians, is but the latest evidence arguing for the ouster of Noynoy as president of the Republic of the Philippines and commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The said dastardly incident is an addition to the ever-growing list of unpresidential errors by the current Malacanang resident, which started at the Quirino Grandstand Bus Hostage Crisis.

Hence, the BMP-PLM-Sanlakas calls on all forces of the anti-Noynoy movement, the workers and the poor demand not just regime change but for meaningful changes in Philppine society. We have learned the bitter lessons of past EDSA upheavals.

We are, likewise, issuing this clarification to personalities and groups calling for the resignation of Noynoy: the mere expression of disgust over the incompetent president is not enough. "P-Noy resign" simply means the ascension of VP Binay as "constitutional successor", in the same way as GMA was sworn in as president during Edsa Dos to replace the ousted Erap Estrada in 2001.

The path to meaningful reforms lies in the extra-constitutional means of removing a president through the concerted action of the workers and the people. It is a crusade that does not limit itself with the parameters of the 1987 Constitution. Because the people's right to struggle against a tyrant is recognized in a Charter that is borne out of the anti-dictatorship and anti-Marcos struggle.

Millions of workers, including the majority who are unorganized, are ready to support a movement to unseat an elitist president, only if it also fights for meaningful reforms that would address their everyday problems.

To those who are calling for Noynoy's ouster, we are proposing a common agenda for living wage, regular jobs, decent housing, social services such as healthcare and education, freedom from political dynasties, etc. Oust Noynoy but his ouster is not enough! For a government of the masses, not the elite!" #

Itigil ang Tanggalan!

Itigil ang Tanggalan!
Disenteng Trabaho para sa Lahat!

kagutuman sa kabila ng kahirapan

kagutuman sa kabila ng kahirapan

Mga tagasunod

Slam Evil, Slam Apec

Slam Evil, Slam Apec
November 1996