Facts & Figures


The Philippine Congress pushed anew efforts towards amending the 1987 Philippine Constitution… This call for changes in the Charter is the latest among many attempts, seeking to remove the Charter’s nationalist and other progressive economic provisions.

Widespread protests and outright resistance from various sectors however deterred legislators from pursuing the changes. Those who are opposed to the changes fear removing such provisions will undermine Philippine economic sovereignty and obliterate to foreign plunder whatever remaining resources the country has to develop towards achieving national industrialization. On the other hand, proponents of Charter Change (Chacha) insist removing such provisions will increase the flow of foreign direct investment (FDI) and promote national development.

The Philippines has long ago opened up strategic sectors to foreign ownership and control including public utilities and infrastructure. But the economy has yet to develop while millions of Filipinos are still poor and hungry. The country has even lagged behind its Asian neighbors whose policies on trade and investment are far more restrictive than the Philippines’.

Would amending the Charter bring promised national development? Or would it simply surrender the country’s sovereignty to foreign domination? – From Charter Change: Renewed blow to sovereignty. IBON Facts and Figures Special Release. 30 September 2012.

From www.vpsedillo.com

The proposed “Road to Rio” is not a departure from the general framework of the same greedy system that has pushed the planet to the precipice of destruction. It still looks at nature, people and their products as capital that must be used in the most efficient manner for profit accumulation and capitalist expansion. It has more dangerous twists and turns than before, however, as the commodification of nature becomes quite prominent by relying on getting prices right, eco-tax reforms, greening markets, and infrastructure investments. Private appropriation thus extends to nature, which eventually leads to resource grabs and privatization of the commons.

The proponents of green economy have diluted the whole progressive concept of sustainable development. First they emphasize that green economy does not replace sustainable development, which implicitly shows that indeed the concept of green economy is separate and not framed within sustainable development. Then they argue that achieving sustainability rests almost entirely on getting the economy right, but this was already the conclusion of Agenda 21 that obviously was not implemented right.

Then, they propose to green the economy, aim for growth and decouple growth from waste. But decoupling growth from increasing consumption of energy and resources by innovation of technology that raises efficiency is problematic for two obvious reasons: one, it continues to aim for growth rather than social welfare and people’s needs, and two, it ignores the current consumption pattern as a subset of the current growth pattern. The goal of growth thus will eventually only require more resources, more sinks, more waste. Growth is achievable but the green economy will not address the environmental and social objectives of sustainable development…

The road to Rio must be one that is dominated by the direct producers and grassroots sectors. The calls for the rejection of commodification and commercialization of nature, carbon trading, market-based solutions, TNC technology and biotechnology, and resource grabs should reverberate as the overarching framework to deal with the food crisis, prioritizing small-scale agriculture based on biodiversity and ecology and putting an end to the entire wasteful and unsustainable chain of corporate agriculture; promoting a consumption and lifestyle pattern that covers the basic food and water needs for everyone’s well-being; and supporting research for community conservation and management.

The aspiration for sustainable development brings humanity to basic reflections on society and economy. Both are embedded in the environment, and social and economic well-being is predicated on a healthy environment. The purpose of the economy should be to fulfill human needs and to advance human well-being and development. As such, human activity should be within ecological limits and economic production should be the correct application of human knowledge and technology that preserve ecological integrity and health – an application that takes in consideration cultural diversity as well. Without reflection on these basic principles, the Earth may still survive its worst catastrophe, but humanity will not. (Rio+20 and the Green Economy: More business than usual? – IBON Facts & Figures Special Release, April 15 & 30, 2012)


As International Workers’ Day approaches, many Filipino workers still endure poor quality jobs that lack benefits, are low-paying, insecure and under unfavorable working conditions. Those workers who attempt to assert their labor rights face repressive measures such as losing their jobs, violent strike dispersals, and other rights violations.

The Duterte administration’s pursuit and implementation of neoliberal policies, like the two-tiered wage system, compressed work week, and the executive order that does not end contractualization, have worsened the situation of workers.

Thus, Filipino workers and other marginalized sectors continue to fight for real measures that will not only end contractualization but advance a strategic plan for national industrialization. This is crucial in creating stable jobs for the Filipino people, and pushing genuine economic development. #LaborDay2018 #Facts&Figures2017


Government should play a central role in the telecoms industry through nationalization and reversal of privatization, deregulation, and liberalization of the sector. Basic principles may include but are not limited to ensuring telecoms services with affordable rates for the working people, including free Internet, and that serves the needs of national economic development; promoting public ownership and control through state corporations of telecoms service providers while maximizing private investments and know-how through joint ventures when necessary but under effective state regulation; and promoting the full and effective participation of consumers in planning and management of telecommunications services such as in the setting of rates and other matters related to service provision.– IBON Facts and Figures/ Dec 2017/ IBON Bookshop #BetterDigitalWorld


p9 homeless

“The problematic private sector-led housing program of government further undermines the meager housing budget. So-called low-cost socialized housing, for instance, now has a price ceiling of Php450,000, which was increased from its previous Php400,000 to encourage private developers to participate in the production of socialized housing units as well as reflect higher construction costs. Many informal settler families (ISFs), who are supposed beneficiaries of mass housing, could not afford the amortization of Php300 to Php500 a month, which in some cases even reach Php1,000…

“Supposed beneficiaries are questioning the program in light of the DAP controversy and Malacanang’s claim that it is benefitting the poor. Some of the relocation sites, for example, are reportedly prone to flooding (such as Kasiglahan Village in Rizal which was flooded during the heavy monsoon rains on 2012 and 2013) and thus defeats the purpose of resettling ISFs away from danger areas.” — 2015 National Budget: For patronage, corruption and big business? IBON Facts & Figures Special Release, 15 & 31 August 2014

Picture 24

“The circa 1970s Laiban dam has been recently revived supposedly to augment Metro Manila’s water supply that other dams cannot provide especially during dry months. Also, the last remaining hydro-electric government facility. Angat dam in Bulacan has been offered to bidders after the sale of Magat, Ambuklao-Binga and Pantabangan-Masiway to big private corporations in previous years.

“Large dams are touted by government as instruments of development by providing water supply, cheap energy, irrigation, and other functions for poor but water resources-rich countries like the Philippines. But the country’s experience with large dams has been damning, so to speak, as large dams have only benefited international financial institutions (IFIs), construction and power transnational corporations (TNCs), and even government bureaucrats.”

— Mega Dams/ Profiteering in Infrastructure/ 15 & 28 February 2010/ IBON Facts & Figures Special Release

Picture 20

There is a fundamental contradiction between the PPP pushed by APEC and the Aquino regime and public interests…

Sign In

Reset Your Password

This is a demo online bookshop for testing purposes — no orders shall be fulfilled.