HLI

Holding on: A Hacienda Luisita timeline from the Spanish to the Noynoy eras
08/18/2010 | 11:19 PM


Share88
Spanish Period

Hacienda Luisita was once owned by the “Compañía General de Tabacos de Filipinas," also known as "Tabacalera", founded in November 1881 by Don Antonio López y López, a Spaniard from Santander, Cantabria, Spain.

Lopez acquired the estate in 1882, a year before his death, and named it “Hacienda Luisita" after his wife, Luisa Bru y Lassús.

Lopez was considered a financial genius and the “most influential Spanish businessman of his generation." He counted the King of Spain as a personal friend.

Luisita was just one of his haciendas. Lopez also owned estates in other parts of the country: Hacienda Antonio (named after his eldest son), Hacienda San Fernando, and Hacienda Isabel (named after his eldest daughter).

Tabacalera’s incorporators included the Sociedad General de Crédito Inmobiliario Español, Banque de Paris (now Paribas), and Bank of the Netherlands (now ABN-AMRO). Luisita was a sugar and tobacco plantation.

American Period

During the American Occupation (1898 to 1946), the Tabacalera experienced prosperous times because of the legendary sweet tooth of the Americans.

As Cuba could not supply all of the sugar requirements of the United States, they turned to the Philippines. At one point, Hacienda Luisita supplied almost 20% of all sugar in the US.

Japanese Regime

During the Japanese occupation, Hacienda Luisita continued to operate, like all haciendas and tabacaleras in the Philippines, because the Japanese wanted to ensure that commodities such as sugar and rice were available to Filipinos.

Pepe Cojuangco Period

1957
Problems with Huk rebels led the Spanish owners of Tabacalera to sell Hacienda Luisita and the sugar mill Central Azucarera de Tarlac.

Philippine President Ramon Magsaysay blocked the sale of the plantation to the wealthy Lópezes of Iloilo, fearing that they might become too powerful as they already owned Meralco, Negros Navigation, Manila Chronicle, ABS-CBN, and various haciendas in Western Visayas

The late Senator Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" Aquino, Jr. discussed with the late President Ramon Magsaysay the possibility of his father-in-law, Jose Cojuanco Sr., acquiring Hacienda Luisita and Central Azucarera de Tarlac from their Spanish owners.

Magsaysay was a “ninong" (principal sponsor) at the wedding of Ninoy and the late President Corazon Cojuangco Aquino, parents of the incumbent President Benigno Simeon "Noynoy" Aquino III.

August 1957
The Philippine government facilitated the Cojuangcos' takeover of Hacienda Luisita and Central Azucarera de Tarlac by:

(1) Providing Central Bank (CB) support to help the Cojuangcos obtain a dollar loan from the Manufacturer's Trust Company (MTC) in New York for the purchase of the sugar mill (Central Azucarera de Tarlac). The CB had to deposit part of the country’s dollar reserves with MTC for MTC to release Cojuangco’s loan. The CB's intervention was done under the condition that Cojuangco would also acquire Hacienda Luisita, not just the sugar mill, "with a view to distributing the hacienda to small farmers".

(2) Granting the Cojuangcos a peso loan through the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) to purchase the hacienda

November 25, 1957
The GSIS approved another loan made by the Cojuangcos amounting to P5.9 million, on the condition that Hacienda Luisita would be “subdivided among the tenants who shall pay the cost thereof under reasonable terms and conditions."

However, four months later, Jose Cojuangco Sr. asked the GSIS to change the phrase to ...shall be sold at cost to tenants, "should there be any." This phrase would be cited later on as justification not to distribute the hacienda’s land.

April 8, 1958
Jose Cojuangco, Sr.’s company, the Tarlac Development Corporation (TADECO), became the new owner of Hacienda Luisita and Central Azucarera de Tarlac.

Ninoy Aquino, President Cory’s husband and President Noynoy’s father, was appointed the hacienda’s first administrator.

The Ferdinand Marcos presidency

1965
Ferdinand Edralin Marcos is elected president.

1967
The 10-year window given by the Philippine government for the Cojuangcos to distribute the land elapsed with no land distribution taking place. During this time, farmers began to organize into groups to push for land distribution.

The Cojuangcos, however, insisted that there were no tenants on the hacienda, hence no need to distribute land.

The government sent three letters to the Cojuangcos between the 1960s to the 1970s to follow up the issue of land distribution.

September 21, 1972
Marcos declared Martial Law. His most vocal critic, Ninoy Aquino, was among the first to be arrested.

May 7, 1980
The Marcos government filed a case before the Manila Regional Trial Court (MRTC) to prod the Cojuangco-owned TADECO to surrender Hacienda Luisita to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform so that the land could be distributed to the farmers at cost. The case was filed as Ninoy Aquino and his family were leaving for exile in the US.

January 10, 1981
The Cojuangcos responded to the government complaint by arguing that the land could not be distributed because the hacienda did not have tenants to begin with. They also argued that sugar lands were not covered by existing agrarian reform legislations. Anti-Marcos groups claimed that the government’s case was an act of harassment against Ninoy Aquino’s family

August 21, 1983
After living in exile for three years in Boston, Massachusetts, Ninoy Aquino returned to Manila. He was assassinated on the tarmac of the Manila International Airport.

December 2, 1985
The MRTC ordered TADECO to surrender Hacienda Luisita to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform. The Cojuangcos decried this as an act of harassment because Cory was set to run against Marcos in the February 1986 snap elections. The family later elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals.

December 3, 1985
On December 3, 1985, Cory Aquino officially filed her certificate of candidacy for President. Land reform was among the pillars of her campaign. She promised to give “land to the tiller" and to subject Hacienda Luisita to land reform.

February 1986
The February 7 snap election was marred by allegations of widespread fraud against Marcos. The anti-Marcos sentiments led to the “People Power Revolution," a series of nonviolent and prayerful mass street demonstrations that toppled the dictatorship and installed Cory Aquino to the presidency.

Cory Aquino presidency

January 22, 1987
Eleven months into the Cory Aquino presidency, thousands of frustrated farmers marched to Malacañang demanding land reform and the distribution of land at no cost to beneficiaries. In a violent dispersal, 13 protesters were killed in what has gone down in history as the “Mendiola Massacre".

July 22, 1987
Cory issues Presidential Proclamation 131 and Executive Order No. 229, outlining her agrarian reform program, which covers sugar and coconut lands. The outline also includes a provision for the Stock Distribution Option (SDO), a mode of complying with the land reform law that did not require actual transfer of the land to the tiller.

March 17, 1988
The government under Cory Aquino withdrew its case against the Cojuangcos. Cory's appointee, Solicitor General Frank Chavez, filed a motion for the Court of Appeals to dismiss the civil case the Marcos government filed and won at the Manila Regional Trial Court against the Cojuangcos. The Department of Agrarian Reform and the GSIS, now headed by Aquino appointees Philip Juico and Feliciano “Sonny" Belmonte, respectively, did not object to the motion to dismiss the case.

The Central Bank also did not object to dismissal of case as it assumed that Luisita would be distributed anyway through the upcoming Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).

May 18, 1988
The Court of Appeals dismissed the case filed by the Marcos government against the Cojuangco-owned TADECO. The government itself, under Cory, moved to withdraw the case that compelled TADECO to distribute land.

June 10, 1988
President Aquino signed into law Republic Act No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. A clause in the agrarian reform program included SDO, which allows landowners to give farmers shares of stock in a corporation instead of land.

August 23, 1988
Tarlac Development Co. (TADECO) established Hacienda Luisita Inc. (HLI) to implement the distribution of stocks to farmers in the hacienda.

1989
The Cojuangcos justified Luisita’s SDO by saying it was impractical to divide the hacienda’s 4,915.75 hectares of land among 6,296 farm workers because this would give farmers less than one hectare of land each (or 0.78 hectares of land per person).

May 9, 1989
Luisita’s farm workers were asked to choose between stocks or land in a referendum. The SDO won 92.9% of the vote. A second referendum and information campaign were held five months later, and the SDO won again, getting 96.75% of the vote.

Father Joaquin Bernas, a 1987 Constitutional Commission member, said Luisita’s SDO is inconsistent with the Constitution. “The [SDO] is a loophole because it does not support the Constitution’s desire that the right of farmers to become owners of the land they till should be promoted by government," Bernas said in his June 27, 1989 column in the Manila Chronicle.

May 11,1989
When the CARP was implemented in Hacienda Luisita in 1989, the farm workers’ ownership of the plantation was pegged at 33 percent, while the Cojuangcos retained 67 percent.

Luisita’s SDO agreement spelled out a 30-year schedule for transferring the stocks to the farm workers:

“At the end of each fiscal year, for a period of 30 years, the SECOND PARTY (HLI) shall arrange with the FIRST PARTY (TADECO) the acquisition and distribution to the THIRD PARTY (farm workers) on the basis of number of days worked and at no cost to them of one-thirtieth (1/30) of 118,391,976.85 shares of the capital stock of the SECOND PARTY (HLI) that are presently owned and held by the FIRST PARTY (TADECO), until such time as the entire block of 118,391,976.85 shares shall have been completely acquired and distributed to the THIRD PARTY (farm workers)."

November 21, 1989
Agrarian Reform Secretary and now Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, approved the SDO agreement of Luisita.

However, Santiago's tenure at the DAR only lasted two months. In 2005, Santiago, already a senator, said Cory allegedly removed her from the DAR because of a comment she made to the media—that Cory should inhibit herself from being the chairperson of the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC), which approves SDO agreements.

Fidel Ramos presidency

September 1, 1995
On September 1, 1995, the Sangguniang Bayan of Tarlac (Provincial Board of Tarlac) passed a resolution that reclassified 3,290 out of Luisita’s 4,915 hectares from agricultural to commercial, industrial, and residential. The governor of Tarlac province at that time was Margarita “Tingting" Cojuangco, wife of Jose “Peping" Cojuangco, Jr., brother of Cory Aquino.

Out of the 3,290 reclassified hectares, only 500 hectares were approved for conversion by the DAR.

August 14, 1996
The Department of Agrarian Reform approved for conversion 500 hectares of the Luisita land.

Gloria Arroyo presidency

2003
By this time, the farm workers’ daily wage flattened at P194.50 and work days were down to one per week. The hacienda workers then filed a petition with the DAR to have the SDO agreement revoked.

October 14, 2003
Workers from the HLI supervisory group petitioned the DAR to revoke the SDO, saying they were not receiving the dividends and other benefits earlier promised to them. Two months later, a petition to revoke the SDO bearing more than 5,300 signatures was filed by union officers at the DAR to revoke the SDO and stop land conversion in Luisita.

July 2004
The union tried to negotiate a wage increase to P225 per day. Workers also asked that the work days be 2 to 3 days per week, instead of just once a week. The management disagreed, claiming that the company was losing money.

October 1, 2004
Luisita management retrenched 327 farm workers, including union officers.

November 6, 2004
Almost all 5,000 members of the United Luisita Workers Union (ULWU) and 700 members of Central Azucarera de Tarlac Labor Union (CATLU) staged a protest against the mass retrenchment.

November 16, 2004
Violence erupted between the protesters, the police and military forces. At least seven people were killed, 121 were injured, 32 from gunshot wounds. This incident eventually became known as the “Luisita massacre."

The original petition the farm workers submitted lay dormant at the DAR since it was filed in December 2003, but began to move after the November 2004 massacre.

November 25, 2004 to February 22, 2005
The DAR's Task Force Luisita conducted an investigation and focus group discussions among the farm workers.

July 2005
The Arroyo-Aquino alliance broke up in July 2005, the same month Task Force Luisita submitted the findings and recommendations from its investigation, which became the government’s basis for revoking Luisita’s Stock Distribution Option (SDO) and ordering the distribution of the hacienda’s land to the farmers a few months later.

August 2005
A special legal team was formed by the DAR to review the report submitted by Task Force Luisita in July 2005. On September 23, 2005, the special legal team submitted its terminal report recommending the revocation of Luisita’s SDO agreement.

December 2004
In December 2004, a month after the Luisita massacre, picket lines were established around the hacienda. Soon after, eight people who supported the farmers’ cause or had evidence supporting their case were murdered one by one.

The killings began on December 8, 2004 with the death of Marcelino Beltran, a retired army officer turned peasant leader. Beltran was assassinated in his house just before he was to testify about bullet trajectories at the Senate and Congress on December 13 and 14, 2004.

September 22, 2005
Task Force Luisita recommended the revocation of the stock distribution agreement forged in May 1989, saying the SDO failed to fulfill the objectives of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law about promoting social justice and improving the lives of the farmers.

December 22, 2005
PARC issued Resolution No. 2005-32-01, ordering the revocation of Luisita’s SDO agreement and the distribution of the hacienda’s land to farmer beneficiaries.

February 1, 2006
HLI asked the Supreme Court to prevent the PARC from enforcing the resolution.

June 2006
The Supreme Court granted HLI's petition and issued a temporary restraining order, preventing the PARC from canceling the SDO agreement.

June 2007
Negotiations between the HLI management and some farmers began after representatives of AMBALA and the Supervisory group wrote to DAR that they are amenable to an out-of-court settlement.

Noynoy Aquino presidency

February 9, 2010
In Tarlac, then-Senator Noynoy Aquino said at the kick-off of his presidential campaign that Hacienda Luisita’s land would be distributed to farm workers by 2014.

June 30, 2010
Benigno Aquino III's takes oath as the 15th Philippine president.

August 6, 2010
HLI and factions of farmers' groups sign a compromise agreement giving the farmers the chance to remain as HLI stockholders, or receive their share of Hacienda Luisita land. Many voted to retain their stocks and receive cash from HLI, only to complain later that they got minuscule amounts.

August 11, 2010
HLI asked the Supreme Court to approve the compromise deal.

August 16, 2010
A faction of the farmers’ groups asked the SC to junk the compromise deal because it was signed even before the high court could rule on the validity of the stock distribution option (SD), one of the two choices offered by HLI to the farmers in the agreement. The other choice was land distribution. The farmers’ also questioned the authority of the signatories in the agreement who claimed that they were representatives of the plantation’s farmer-beneficiaries.

August 18, 2010
For the first time since the land dispute was brought to its doors four years ago, the SC holds oral arguments to hear the Hacienda Luisita case.

Compiled by Andreo Calonzo, Stephanie Dychiu, and Veronica Pulumbarit, GMANews.TV

SW 122 Seven Perspectives

Dear SW 122 Students:

Please read and study the following notes:


Notes on Philippine Realities and Social Welfare
Seven Perspectives

By Justin V. Nicolas
1st Semester SY 2010-2011
Department of Social Work
U. P. CSWCD

SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL PROBLEMS

Social problem – an alleged situation that is incompatible with the values of a significant number of people who agree that action is needed to alter the situation

Elements used in the discussion of social problems

Definition. Each perspective includes its own more specialized Definition of Social Problems

Causes. Each perspective includes its own causal imagery—that is, its own set of ideas about what types of factors produce social problems and how they do so.

Conditions. Each perspective also has something to say, implicitly or explicitly, about the conditions under which social problems emerge and develop. These are not the immediate causes of social problems. Rather, they are the more general background features out of which the causes of social problems develop.

Consequence. All seven perspectives view social problems as harmful. They differ, however, in terms of how the harmful effects of social problems are described.

Solutions. Each perspective includes its own implications about how we can solve social problems. The perspectives emerged at different points in the development of sociology. Thus, some are more explicitly concerned with social reform than others. Nonetheless, all seven perspectives have some implications for the solution of social problems, and the characteristics of each perspective determine whether the solutions focuses on expectations, violations, or reactions.


THE SEVEN PERSPECTIVES

I. SOCIAL PATHOLOGY

A. Definition. Desirable social conditions and arrangements are seen as healthy, while persons or situations that diverge from moral expectations are regarded as “sick”, therefore is bad. Thus, from the social pathology perspective, a social problem is a violation of moral expectations.

B. Causes. The ultimate cause of social problems is a failure in socialization. Society, through its socializing agents, has the responsibility of transmitting moral norms to each generation. Sometimes, however, the socialization effort is ineffective. An early classification of deviants from the social pathology perspective portrayed them as defective, dependent or delinquent. Defective cannot be taught; dependents are handicapped in receiving instruction; and delinquents reject the teachings. For later pathologists, social problems are a result of wrong values being learned. In this perspective’s “tender” mood, the people who contribute to the social problem are viewed as “sick”; in it “tough” mood, they are viewed as “criminal.” Behind both moods, however, is the notion that the person or situation is, at heart, “immoral.”

C. Conditions. The early social pathologists considered some people to be inherently defective. And, for the most part, the “defective”, dependent, and delinquent classes tended to perpetuate themselves through inbreeding. Later, however, social pathologists began to see the social environment as the important condition contributing to social pathology. Indeed, Smith himself wrote, “social diseases so prevalent as to create a social problem is rarely found without a bad environment of some sort or other, and so the social student is compelled to study the causes of social disease.” Whereas earlier pathologists tended to focus on the immoral properties of individuals, the recent pathologists have tended to focus on the immoral individuals, the recent pathologists have tended to focus on the immoral properties of societies and to see problems as developing from societal forces such as technology and population density.

D. Consequences. In th3e early pathology view, social disturbances increase the cost of maintaining a legitimate social order. The early pathologists did believe, however, that ultimately the healthiest would survive. The more recent pathologists, in contrast, are morally indignant about the defects of society and are less optimistic in their prognosis. The most indignant see societal pathology as total spreading, and likely to dehumanize the entire population.

E. Solutions. Both the early and the recent versions of the social pathology perspective suggest what form solutions to social problems might take. The early sociologists who dwelt on the troubles caused by “genetically” defective individuals, for example, turned to the eugenics movement as a solution. Other sociologists thought the solution to social problems lay in educating the troublemakers in middle-class morality. The recent variant, which tends to regard the society than its nonconforming members as “sick”, has its roots in the Rousseauean view of human nature. Individuals are good; their institutions, on the other hand, are bad. Yet, even the modern social pathologists see the remedy to “sick” institutions as a change in people’s values. Thus, according to this perspective, the only real solution to the social problem is moral education.

II. SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION

People who work with this perspective view society as a social system--- a complex, dynamic whole whose parts are coordinated. When events change one part of the system, there is a corresponding need for adjustment in other parts. “Social disorganization” refers to lack of adjustment, or poor adjustment, between the parts. The major elements of the social disorganization perspective are as follows:

A. Definition. Social disorganization is conceived of as a failure of rules. The major types of disorganization are normlessness, culture conflict, and breakdown. With normlessness, no rules exist on how to act. With culture conflict, at least two opposing sets of rules exist on how to act. In each situations, persons who act in terms of one set of expectations may in so doing violate another set of expectations. Breakdown is a variation on this same theme. Here rules exist, but conformity to them either fails to produce the promised rewards or yields punishments instead.

B. Causes. The root cause of social disorganization is , broadly speaking social change. As changes occur, the parts of the social system get out of tune with one another.

C. Conditions. The parts of a social system are never perfectly in tune. Nevertheless, there is usually a dynamic equilibrium. Any condition that upsets the equilibrium may precipitate social disorganization. Such conditions include technical, demographic, or cultural changes that generate social change (i.e. change in social relationships).

D. Consequences. The social disorganization perspective predicts outcomes for the system and for persons in it. For persons, social disorganization produces stress, which in turn produces “personal disorganization”---for example, mental illness, alcoholism. For the system, social disorganization may have three types of consequences. First, there can be change in the system (i.e. some response or adaptation may bring the various parts of the system back into equilibrium). Second, the system can continue to operate in a steady state (i.e., the disorganization may remain but the system continues to function anyway). Third, the system may break down (i.e. the disorganization may be so disruptive that it destroys the system.)

E. Solutions. Attempts to reduce social disorganization can be put into effect once the proper diagnosis has been made. Thus, parts of the system that are out of phase can be brought back into equilibrium---for example, technical changes can be slowed down.

III. VALUE CONFLICT

Value conflict, as a perspective, is considerably sharper in focus than the social pathology perspective, yet less complex than the social disorganization perspective. Its essential characteristics are as follows:

A. Definition. Social problems are social conditions tha are incompatible with the values of some group whose members succeed in publicizing a call for action.

B. Causes. The root causes of social problems are conflicts of values or interests. Various groups, because they have different interests, find themselves in opposition. One opposition crystallizes into conflict, a social problem is born.

C. Conditions. Background conditions affecting the appearance, frequency, duration, and outcome of social problems are competition and contact among groups. When two or more groups are in competition and in particular types of contact with one another, a conflict cannot be avoided. A number of kinds of social problems have risen under these conditions. And once the problem has arisen, the competing groups can also be in conflict over how to resolve the problem.

Numerous writers have pointed out that social problems consist of an objective condition and a subjective condition. The objective condition is contact and competition; the subjective definition reflects different ways of defining and evaluating contact, competition and distribution of goods and rights. The social problem, then, emerges out of the volatile mixture of objective condition and subjective definition.

D. Consequences. Conflicts can be abrasive and costly. Sometimes they result in the sacrifice of higher values on behalf of the lesser-ranked values. More often, they result in abortive stalemates or in loss by the weaker party in conflict. They also produce a tradition of “bad feeling” between the groups. In addition, however, as more liberal observers point out, conflicts can have the positive effect of helping groups clarify their values.

E. Solutions. The value conflict perspective suggests three ways in which social problems arising out of clashing interests and values may be resolved: consensus, trading, and naked power. If the parties can resolve the conflict on behalf of a set of higher values shared by both parties, then consensus wins the day. If the parties can bargain, then a trade of values---all in the spirit of democratic process---can take place. If neither consensus nor trading works, then the group with the most power gains control.

IV. DEVIANT BEHAVIOR

The key characteristics of the deviant behavior perspective are as follows:

A. Definition. Social problems reflect violations of normative expectations. Behavior or situations that depart from norms are deviant.

B. Causes. The cause of deviant behavior lies in inappropriate socialization—for example, when the learning of deviant ways is not outweighed by the learning of nondeviant ways. The socialization is viewed as taking place within the context of primary group relations.

C. Conditions. Restricted opportunities for learning so-called conventional ways, increased opportunities for learning deviant ways, restricted opportunities for achieving legitimate goals, a feeling of stress, and access to a deviant mode of relief are all important background conditions for the evolution of deviant patterns of behavior.

D. Consequences. The deviant behavior perspective postulates a variety of consequences. Many kinds of deviant behavior are costly to society. One outcome, for example, is the firm establishment of illegal social worlds. In addition, however, some observable deviant behavior is useful, if only because it established negative role models showing the kinds of behavior that will be punished.

E. Solutions. The principal solution of deviant behavior is resocialization, and the best way to resocialize is to increase meaningful primary group contact with legitimate patterns of behavior. At he same time, the opportunity structure must be opened in order to alleviate the strains that motivate people to behave in unacceptable ways. As legitimate opportunities increase, socially problematic behavior should decrease.

V. LABELING

Central to the labeling perspective is the notion that social problems and deviance exist in the eye of the beholder. The perspective seeks to study the process of and responses to social differentiation. The principal elements in the labeling perspective are as follows:

A. Definition. A social problem or social deviant is defined by social reactions to an alleged violation of rules or expectations. This perspective focuses on the conditions under which behaviors or situations come to be defined as problematic or deviant.

B. Causes. The cause of a social problem is ultimately the attention it receives from the public or from social control agents, for social reactions cannot occur until the alleged behavior or situation is recognized.

C. Conditions. When a person or situation is labeled problematic or deviant, the labeler is usually in a position to gain by affixing such a label. The labeler must have a negative label to apply and the power to make it stick. Very often, the labeling is done by someone whose job it is to apply labels (for example, social control agents, journalists), and assigning labels is often a mark of success in such jobs. Occasionally, people may label themselves, and in doing so they may gain some advantages (for example, people have reported that they are homosexual in order to be discharged from the military).

D. Consequences. The definition of a person or situation as socially problematic or deviant may lead to a reordering of human relations in a way that promotes further “deviance.” For example, after a person has been labeled “deviant,” most people expect him or her to continue violating norms of conventional behavior. This may limit the labeled person’s life changes and lead him or her to elaborate the deviant role; for example, an ex-convict may be unable to obtain employment in a conventional job and may thus return to crime in order to make a living. This elaboration of deviant roles because of other people’s reactions is called “secondary deviance”.

E. Solutions. The labeling perspective suggests two solutions: definitions can be changed, and the profit can be taken out of labeling. Changing definitions would mean becoming more tolerant, so that people stop labeling certain people and situations as problematic. Taking the profit out of labeling would presumably mean a consequent decrease both in people’s labeling of themselves and others as deviant, and in the problems that result from such labeling.

VI. CRITICAL PERSPECTIVE

Holism, a key assumption of the critical perspective, requires that analysis examine the whole social system, rather than any of its specific parts. Social problems are interrelated with a number of events, changes, and pressures operating on all social institutions. The main elements of the critical perspective are as follows:

A. Definition. A social problem is a situation that develops out of the exploitation of the working class.

B. Causes. In the broadest sense, the form of social organization that capitalist society produces causes a wide range of specific social problems. With regard to the social problem of crime, it is the system of class domination that creates and sustains it. For example, capitalists sustain poverty and make and enforce rules in their own interests.

C. Conditions. Important conditions of social problems are the extent and severity of class domination and conflict, working-class consciousness, and fluctuations in the business cycle. When domination and conflict are less visible or of less strength, if large segments of the working class are unaware of their common interests, and if there is an upturn in the business cycle, awareness of social problems will lag considerably behind their actual occurrence.

D. Consequences. Though capitalist societies go through cyclic periods, social problems are proportional to advances in the stages of the development of capitalism. Thus, writers using critical perspective predict, fro example, that crime rates will rise with advances in the development of capitalism.

E. Solutions. Only political activism can resolve the consequences of the capitalist system. Either through reform or revolution, the working-class movement must struggle to achieve a classless society, thereby eliminating the host of social problems that are endemic in a social system based on social inequality.

VII. SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM

To some degree, from the widened labeling perspective, Spector and Kitsuse argue that social problems are what people think they are. Objective conditions that may or may not exist and may in some ways give rise to the conception that a social problem exists are of no interest to them. Adopting a radically subjective position, they focus all attention of the problem-defining process, in who goes about defining a situation as a problem, what kind of a definition they formulate, how they present their arguments to others, how others respond to their complaints, and what the upshot of the interaction is between those who complain and those who respond.

A. Definition. The process itself whereby people define a condition, alleged or actual, as a social problem

B. Causes. The problem-defining activities people engage in as they seek a redress of grievances.

C. Conditions. The process involving interaction between complainants, as initiators, and old or new agencies, as responders to their demands for redress.

D. Consequences. There are, hypothetically, four stages on the natural history of social problems *(Please see Randall and Short), when examined from the point of view of social constructionism. But since these stages are hypothetical and contingent on such matters as clarity o definition, management and strategy of gaining and maintaining attention, the relative power of complainants, and the agencies from which they seek redress, only empirical research can offer tentative answers to the questions of consequences

E. Solutions. The constructionist perspective is silent on the question of solutions, deeming this matter to be settled by research on the life course of the defining process.


* A Power Resource Model of Social Problem Development (by Randall and Short according to Spector and Kitsuse)

Stage One: Social Problem Definition and Issue Creation

Stage Two: Official Recognition of the Problem

Stage Three: Group Dissatisfaction with Established Procedures

Stage Four: Rejection of Established Procedures

Reference:

Rubington E. and M.S. Weinberg. The Study of Social Problems: Seven Perspectives 5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995

Tentative Schedule for MEthods of Research BSS 3-1

PLease refer also to http://justintwistedworlds.blogspot.com

Dear BSS 3-1:

The following are the groupings by cluster which I called Teams and the tentative schedule of topics and the estimate date that they must be delivered.

Considering that you have your seminars and that February will be a month o disruptions, I am considering limiting our topics to nine topics and reserving the rest of the time to our mock defense.

For now, I will post all the topics but I will deltee some topics to accommodate more time for e the thessis proposals.

METHODS OF RESEARCH
SCHEDULE OF TOPIC ASSIGNMENT
BSS 3-1 SY 2009-20100

QUANTITATIVE

1. Experimental Research: Team IX - January 8, 2010
2. Survey Research (Subtopic: Constructing a Survey Questionnaire) :Team VII – Jan 12
3. Content Analysis :Team V – Jan 15
4. Existing Statistics/ Existing Documents/Secondary Analysis: Team III – Jan 19

QUALITATIVE
5. Field Research: Team I – Jan 22
6. Grounded Theory: Team VIII – Jan 26
7. Historical-Comparative: Team VI – Jan 29
8. Feminist Research: Team IV – Feb 2
9. Ethnic Research: Team II – Feb 5
10. Ethnomethodology Team IX – Feb 9

APPLIED RESEARCH
11. Formative Research: Team VIII – Feb 12
12. Summative Research: Team VII – Feb 16
13. Action Research: Team VI – Feb 23

METHODS
14. Case Study :Team V – Feb 26
15. Focus Group Discussion: Team IV – March 2
16. Using Video as Tool: Team III – March 5
17. Conducting an Interview (Sub topic: Constructing an Interview Schedule): Team II – March 9
18. Making Sense out of Narratives/Storytelling: Team I – March 12


1. Present the Features of the Type or Research or Method (15-20 minutes)
2. Show Step by Step how to conduct the research (15-20 minutes)
3. Present a sample research in class (15-20 minutes) If possible, finish the report in 30-45 minutes.
4. Provide hand outs on the important parts of your sample research
5. Provide hand outs of your report (Notes)
6. Submit a formal and written report of your topic with references.







TEAMS

A. Nicole Rebuse & Jemar Diolata
B. Kathryn D. Cay & Louella Marie Zacarias
C. Christian Karlo De Guzman/Jonnin Palma/Edgardo Salarzon Jr.
D. Arjay Barcelona/Brillan Karlo M. Datario
E. Allan Lipata & Brynille Bantayan
F. Bonifacio Abad Jr. & Marlon Angelo Villaluna
G. Jessica Cañete & Julia Monique Valdez
H. Shara Mae Mortos & Jonnah Marie Quizon
I. Merlita Moises & Eunice Bianca Mance
J. Joanna Bhabes Gaan & Rosemarie Bestal
K. Jane Ross Nokom & Jane Rioveros
L. Maria Victoria Manoloto & Diana Elcano
M. Aljhon B. Mercado & Cherryliv Hagada
N. Krista Carla Curioso & Mary Jane Mirandilla
O. Geraldine Bermio & Maria Senora Gonzales
P. Mary Catherine L Rodriguez & Mary Grace Barbosa
Q. Joan Namol & Zigrid Lee Pan
R. Katherine Kay Manuba & Camille Piol
S. Princess Ku/Ma. Cristina Camu/ Jonalyn Cruz
T. Bernadeth Ortega/Marielle Peñafiel/Cathie Enterina
U. Randolf Victor/Dindo Dimalaluan/Jose Solis
V. Marlon Ace Yalo
W. AC
X. Erickson Gamit & Aaron Castril
Y. Christy Papelleras
Z. Moises Santos
AA. Jundel Pancho

TEAM I (A-O-X );
TEAM II (B-P-I ) ;
TEAM III (C-Q-L )
TEAM IV (D-R-Y-W);
TEAM V (E-S-N );
TEAM VI(F-T-P);
TEAM VII (G-U-V );
TEAM VIII (H-Z-AA);
TEAM IX (J-K-M)

FFive Snakes by aurelio locsin salVacion

FFive Snakes
There were five snakes that paraded,
Crossed each others’ path
Seeking its sure ground in disarray.
Five snakes that went around,
White, yellow, green, orange, and blue,
And yet another one that appeared to be white.
Snakes went around
With the beat of the lyres
Of tired young minds
Who do not understand why they roam
with this multitude,
silently walking without purpose
asking if at the end of the circling around,
The snakes get to dance
and boast its color and air.
The other white snake not contented
with the chaotic display,
Chose to put itself in the way
Of which it left years back.
Who is responsible,
Who sowed confusion
In the silently unplanned march
That created those snakes that
do not play with each other.
In their minds
Of pompous cheer,
Of coat of arms that is
Queer or does jeer.
From above gods look down,
Laughing at their pawns,
Gathered in disarray,
Mirrored the beat
That the gods hide but know,
That this day
These snakes will crawl empty,
No song, no dance,
No word to say,
No story to boast,
Just pawns sharing,
Trying to make sense
Of the all-together meaningless march.
Of learned incompetence
The gods boast
The pawns learn well
And yet not so well,
Those who thought
And indeed deep, to what really is,
were nowhere near the five roaming snakes.
Like scales the pawns scat
Like of the bones of the gods rot,
Seeking the best way
to make sense of the day.

(February 9,2009
aurelio locsin salVacion)

Semester Paper Guide

Contemporary Social Problems
Semester Paper

Dear BS BSS 1-1 and Irreg. Students:

The following is the suggested outline for your semester paper. It is based on the usual outline used in Report writing. The difference with your paper, as it was, in the handling of this course, are the tools and perspectives that I taught you in analyzing social problems and with coming up with proposed solutions.

Suggested Outline:

I. Introduction Discussion of the problem and its context (Presentation of the national situation and/or local situation using indicators that the group identified such as poverty level, subsistence level, inflation, socio-cultural situation, and major indices such as the Human development index, millennium development goals, MTPDP, etc). Presentation of the research problem, objectives, hypothesis or assumptions (if applicable), scope and limitations, relevance of your study (to society, to PUP, and to your course as future engineers)

II. Discussion of the perspective that the group will use for analyzing the problem (Ex. Functionalist view, conflict perspective, constructivist, feminist, postmodern, including pathological, social disintegration, structural strain, etc). Discussion of the Tools for analysis that the group will use in presenting the arguments.

III. Review of Literature (related studies and literature/ foreign and local) Please do not copy and paste. If you are using direct quotation, acknowledge the author and use proper citation formats. Summarize each source, article or book. Just state the main points that the materials are saying and how is it related to your study.

IV. Methodology (how you obtained your data, what tools did you use, from whom, how did you choose your respondents/subjects, and how did you analyze)

V. Presentation of Data/Cases (Present the cases in narrative form. If quantitative, use tables and graphs)

VI. Analysis of Data (It is only at this point that you will present the content of your problem tree or fishbone analysis or whatever tool you chose). ALSO, use the thoery and perpsective chosen. Required: structual analysis, one of the Seven Perpsectives, and another tool.

VII. Conclusion and Recommendation (Your recommendation must include a short plan of action such as a campaign, an activity, a seminar, an amendment to a policy, a policy review, a program evaluation , etc. Provide a step by step plan on how to achieve this plan (pretend that you are already engineers.)

VIII. References (use proper format) For online resources, please get the URL and not the search engine. (ex. www.google.com is NOT acceptable)

IX. Annexes (copies of the questionnaire or interview schedule/ letters/statistics, pictures, etc.)

Reports will be short bond paper, double space, font 12. Each group will submit a book-bound copy of the report with an accompanying CD containing the soft copy of the report and a power point presentation. The leader will also provide a peer rating for the members of the group.

Submission will be on February 26, 2009. Please meet this date in order to allow some time for the computation of your grades.


Thank you.

Justin V. Nicolas
Subject facilitator

SOCI 1023 Midterm Exam

SO 110
Contemporary Social Problems
Make-up Midterm Examination
2nd Semester SY 2008-2009
Class of Justin V. Nicolas

Choose a sector and work on your non-thesis topic:
Children (Child labor, Street Children)
Women - Sexual Harassment; Commercial Sexual Exploitation
Farmers and Fisherfolks(Land Reform; Land Conversion)
Workers/ Labor (Unemployment; Unfair Labor Practices; OFW)
Indigenous People (Ancestral Domain; Mining)
Urban Poor (Squatting; Internal Migration)
Youth/ Students (Drugs; gangs; juvenile delinquency)

Research on data on the chosen topic and attach them as Annexes to your exam. Assign a file name for these annexes with your name (Ex. Mendoza_Jojo_Annexes).

Based on your data, provide a LOCAL SITUATION MATRIX reflecting Economic, Political, Socio-cultural and Environmental events and indicators relevant to your topic. Provide a general statement to summarize your analysis of your local situation.

Choose a sociological perspective and analyze the topic you chose according to the following:

Definition
Conditions
Causes
Consequences
Solutions

Chooses a tool (Fish bone, Problem tree, etc) and analyze your topic, showing the potential factors and effect (or causes and effects). Draw the diagram using Word Art and appropriate textboxes. Provide a general statement to summarize your analysis.

Email your answers to angsosyoklasrum@yahoo.com. Paste your answers on the text AND send an MSWORD (97-2003 Format) file as an attachment with your name as the filename. (Ex, Soriano_BSS1-1_Midterm.doc

Happy testing!

Justin V. Nicolas
Sociology, PUP

BSS 1-1 Midterm

Dear Students:

SuliraningPanlipunan midterm on Thrusday (Feb. 12, 2009) Please be in the room by 7:25 AM.
Bring all your data and materials for the first topic or issue you chose for your sector.

Please be advised that after the midterm, Group 1 will present their baby thesis. This means that all groups should have started with their baby thesis and that they should be done by the end of the week to be able to prepare for your presentations. Please prepare a power point presentation to be attached to the bookbound hardcopy of your report.

Thanks.

justin nicolas

Dear PUP COE 2-5 SY 2008-2008

Dear Students:

We will have our midterm examination on August 6, 2008.

Please bring your data for the first topic. This will be a group midterm.

Next week, August 13, 2008, the first two groups will present their thesis findings.

Thanks.

Justin

btw, a copy of the perspectives is available in the archives of this blog, thanks

Attention Class Officers (BSS 1-1, EE2-1, EE 2-2

Please email your complete classlist, alphabetically arranged with studnet numbers, to angsosyoklasrum@yahoo.com Also, please remind your classmates to complete their index cards with complete information and 1x1 id picture and also to complete the seatplan with 1x1 picture.

Thanks.

Maligayang Pasko sa lahat

Justin Nicolas