“Adequate food is not a matter of charity, but of legal entitlement” (Explanatory Notes, House Bills on The Right to Adequate Food).
The 2015 Social Weather Stations (SWS) survey disclosed that approximately 13.4 percent of Filipino households reported themselves as having suffered or are suffering involuntary hunger.
This is slightly better than the 2013 SWS figures, which showed average hunger rate was 19.5 percent, with 18.1 percent, or an estimated 3.90 million families, experiencing involuntary hunger at least once in the past three months (http//www.sws.org.ph). In the midst of political bickering, escalating distrust among the various branches of government, fake news, threats of destabilization, impending nationwide martial law, perceived attacks on institutions, violent extremism, unabated killings, growing societal unrest—the core problem of our people, which is hunger and poverty, has been sidelined. The state is mandated to break the cycle of poverty through policies that would “provide adequate social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living and an improved quality of life for all” (Section 9, Article II, 1987 Constitution). Quality of life includes the right to adequate food.
Both the Senate and Lower House recognize the need for a comprehensive legal framework harmonizing scattered laws on the right to adequate food. Indeed, a number of international instruments signed by the Philippines, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and numerous pieces of local legislation like Republic Act (RA) 9700 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Extension with Reforms, which adopted the policies in RA 6657), RA 8435 (Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act), RA 8550 (Philippine Fisheries Code), RA 7607 (Magna Carta for Small Farmers), RA 7884 (National Dairy Act), RA 7990 (High Value Crops Act), RA 8178 (Agricultural Tariffication Act), RA 7308 (Seed
Industry Development Act), RA 9168 (Plant Variety Protection Act), RA 7581 (Price Act), RA 71 (price tag law), Executive Order 51 (Milk Code), and RA 8976 (Philippine Food Fortification Act of 2000), have the overall, arching objective of guaranteeing the right of Filipino citizens to adequate food (Explanatory Notes, Ibid).
In the Lower House, the “zero-hunger” bills propose the creation of a Commission on the Right to Adequate Food (composed of a chairman and two members) attached to the Office of the President, which shall be the primary policy-making and coordinating body to guarantee the exercise of the right to adequate food. The zero hunger bills provide that every person has the right to live in condition that will enable the person:
(a) Either to:
(1) Feed directly from productive land or other natural resources; or
(2) Rely on well-functioning food distribution, processing and market systems, or
(3) Both;
(b) To be financially able, not only to acquire a sufficient quantity and quality of food, but also to satisfy her or his other basic needs;
(c) To be safe from the risk of losing access to food, as a consequence of sudden shocks, like an economic or climatic crisis, or brought about by internal displacements of people, or cyclical events, such as seasonal food insecurity;
(d) To have the opportunity of good food utilization, through access to an adequate diet, clear water, sanitation and health care, to reach a state of nutritional well-being, where all physiological needs are met; and
(e) To access foods or diets that are most appropriate under given circumstances, in terms of their nutritional value and cultural acceptability. xxx” (House Bills 61, 3938, 256; Senate Bills 111, 903).
The proposed bills seek to eliminate hunger progressively, reducing the evidence of hunger by 25 percent within two-and-a-half years from its enactment, by another 25 percent in seven years, and ultimately achieving a zero-hunger state in 10 years. The bills also provide that the state shall ensure that in 10 years, land devoted to food production will be increased to 50 percent of all prime agricultural land in every region, with periodic reviews to be undertaken to ensure compliance with set targets. Various policies in the areas of health care, education, employment and social protection, agriculture and rural development need to be coordinated. Synergies among programs that fall under the responsibility of different departments, such as school-feeding programs that source from local small-scale producers, or food-for-work programs that improve rural infrastructure must be identified.
Cynics will say that there is no need to legislate more laws on hunger and alleviation of poverty. What is needed is to bridge the chasm between laws and policies and its implementation. There is the unresolved issue of corruption and misappropriation of public funds, which end up in private pockets. What has happened to the P728-million Fertilizer Scam, the P5-billion Swine Scam, the P3.1-billion Irrigation Scam, the P120-million Ginintuang Masaganang Ani Fund? Has any perpetrator of these scams been arrested, convicted and jailed? Then there is the “Kidapawan Incident” on the issue of food security where, for three days from March 30, 2016, thousands of farmers and their supporters made a blockade along the Davao-Cotabato Highway—which ended violently with deaths and injuries on the side of the protesters and police.
Hunger cannot be solved by more laws or a stopgap measure of doling out food to the hungry. It needs political will of our leaders. Concrete and decisive steps aimed at ensuring the sustainability and productivity of our agricultural sector is drastically needed. Perhaps by addressing the problem of hunger, food security and poverty, we will be striking at the core of our intensifying drug problem.
The State should shift from bullets to food. Our mantra perhaps should be “don’t kill the addicts, feed them instead!”