THE SANGGUNIAN STAND AGAINST THE APECO LEGISLATION

In 2007, the Congress passed the Republic Act No. 9490 or the Aurora Special Economic Zone Act (ASEZA) through the efforts of Senator Edgardo Angara, Congressman Juan Edgardo Angara, and Governor Bellaflor Angara-Castillo. In 2010, this act was amended and renamed into the Aurora Pacific Economic Zone and Freeport Authority (APECO), expanding its geographical scope from 500 hectares to more than 12,000 hectares. The APECO aims to establish the Philippines first Pacific Coast-located economic center, seeking to promote tourism and rake in investments1 through measures that shall effectively attract legitimate and productive foreign investments while simultaneously advancing industrial, economic and social developments in the country by generating jobs, improving the quality of living conditions, and increasing individual and family income.2 This act brings to the fore a number of important concerns. Firstly, stakeholders assert that due consultative processes were not carried out. Numerous communities and local governments in Aurora were not democratically involved; even Representative Angara himself, in a meeting with stakeholders, admitted to the lack of consultation. Secondly, farmers, indigenous people, and other stakeholders within the geographical scope of the economic zone will be forced to give up their lands. This is not only an issue of removal from their areas of livelihood and relocation into housing settlements but also a national concern of food security as well. According to the research conducted by the Bataris Foundation Inc., the town of Casiguran would lose an annual average of 5,000 metric tons of palay and 12.4 million coconuts3 should the project be continued. Thirdly, this also is an issue of national patrimony. Foreign corporations are prioritized over domestic production, such that instead of initiating efforts to strengthen and aid the countrys agricultural sector, the pursuit of attracting foreign investors may accrue capital and infrastructure but it will be at the expense of our local producers. If there is any way that the port can be developed that still keeps the concerns of the local communities in mind, then it would be gladly welcomed but it would be unethical to hastily rush into developing this area without carefully taking into account the short- and long-term gains of this project.

APECO The Aurora Pacific Economic Zone and Freeport Authority. http://www.edangara.com/apeco/ (accessed October 1, 2012 2 Aurora Special Economic Zone Act of 2007. http://www.senate.gov.ph/republic_acts/ra%209490.pdf 3 Rouchelle Dinglasan, Groups Urge Supreme Court to Declare APECO Unconstitutional. GMA News, May 21, 2012 (accessed October 1, 2012)

The supporting interests of this specific project seem to be tied to the dominant, popularlyelected representatives of Aurora. As such, one must question the degree of national oversight and extent of research conducted prior to this projects approval. We, the Sanggunian, call into question the APECO initiative. We believe that although economic development is a noble aspiration that the Philippines should pursue as a nation, social justice must always be a central principle in every political endeavor. Nation-building requires not just generating capital but also keeping in mind the particular needs of the constituencies the government represents on a local and national level; therefore structures that promote social inequality must be offset by accountable governance. As such, we call for the rejection of the budget for APECO. If ever the Philippines should find itself in a future in which the zealous pursuit of affluence has eclipsed the need to produce food, let it be remembered that money is a poor remedy for empty stomachs and idle hands. Approved by the Central Board on September 21, 2012.