American unemployment in Manila

Media

Part of The American Chamber of Commerce Journal

Title: American unemployment in Manila
Language: English
Year: 1949
Rights
Fulltext: It is now proposed to dispossess, and without compensation, a whole class of Philippine residents and tax-payers of property they have acquired under the laws of the land as universally understood before the Supreme Court decision; property they worked for and paid for, and which forms, in many cases, the very stuff of their lives. For this property consists of lands and the build ings anci improvements on them, and it is not that alien landholdings here are so extensive as to present serious economic and social problems; these lands con sist almost exclusively of small tracts on which places of business and homes have been erected. When this is understood and when it is recalled that every system of law from the earliest customary and common law to the most advanced modern codes, including Philippine law, holds the home, especially, as peculiarly sacrosanct and surrounds the possession, the security, and the tranquility of the home with the strongest legal safeguards, then, surely, the course proposed must outrage every decent human instinct. The Philippine Constitution plainly states that — “all agricultural, timber, and mineral lands of the public do main . . . belong to the State, and their disposition, exploita tion, development, or utilization shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens . . . ” This was illiberal enough, but was naturally not taken, — until the Supreme Court spoke, to apply to private lands or to lands utilized for industrial, busi ness, or residential purposes. The Supreme Court, after tortuous ratiocination, concluded that the phrase, “agricultural, timber, and mineral lands of the public domain,” really means, — using the class ification of public lands in the Land Law as an ana logy, all lands, public and private, for whatever use! However, lawyers have questioned that the deci sion can be accepted as final on this issue because the Constitution itself provides that decisions invol ving constitutionality must be concurred in by twothirds of all the members of the Court. The Court numbers eleven justices; the decision was one of six to four. The letter contained the results of the studies made by the solicitor general on the legal angles of any possible court action that should be taken towards enforcement of the constitutional provision and other pertinent pro visions of existing statutes against the transfer of land to aliens. Solicitor General Bautista disclosed that since the supreme court de cided in the celebrated Krivenko case that the phrase “agricultural lands” includes urban and residential land within the meaning of the constitutional prohibition against the transfer of private agricultural land ta foreigners, his office had begun considering future action towards the confiscation of all illegally acquired property now in thq possession of aliens. In sustaining his thesis that the state could confiscate private lands acquired by aliens, the solicitor general quoted pertinent portions of the Public Land Law, also known as Commonwealth Act 141. He said: “Section 124 declares prohibited conveyances in favor of aliens un lawful and null and void giving to such conveyances (transfers) the ef fect of annulling and cancelling the grant and of causing the reversion of the property and its improvements to the state." He asked, “In the event of such annulment and cancellation who else could claim title to the property except the original owner and grantor—the State ?” The solicitor general pointed out that reversion amounts to ■ forfeiture. He added that aS no provision is made for the payment of compensation, none can be demanded by present owners. “It may be noted that the alien holder himself has no right to com pensation, for under the terma of the statute he acquires no title," the solicitor general said in expanding his theory that land now in alien possession was illegally acquired. It was also pointed out in this connection that the state is barret! from paying compensation td present holders as to do this would “completely defeat the purpose of the Public Land Law.” In the event that reversion or escheat proceedings do not prosper in the courts, the solicitor general said, the government should resort to the annulment of prohibited transfers of land to aliens as a possible line of action. In urging immediate action, the solicitor general declared, “One uni fying purpose runs throughout the Public Land Act, und it is to con serve the natural resources of the Philippines for the use and benefit of —Manila Daily Bulletin, February 19, 1919 As far as Americans here are concerned, the de cision has been interpreted in official quarters as not affecting, for the time being and under the “parity principle,” their rights, but this is little comfort to any man with a sense of justice or with an under standing of the conditions which must reign in a prosperous and happy country. One of the learned justices of the Court advanced the idea that all lands are agricultural [or timber or mineral lands] because that is what is left when buildings are removed! So, presumably, all lands belong to the State because the State existed before the people (?). Why not go a little farther back, into those geo logic times when mighty earth-forces first raised Azoic rocks above the seas and which then, over eons of time, came to be inhabited by the first land-ani mals, — worms and crabs and primitive saurians? We should, perhaps, deed all our possessions over to them or their descendants, but they, oddly enough, in clude ourselves! So here we are, millions of years later, with a problem of elemental human justice still on our hands, badly muddled by our highest officers of justice. Though the Solicitor-General seems to be bliss fully unaware of it, it should be very clear that by applying the principle, if principle it can be called, of confiscation and forfeiture in this fundamental matter, or, in fact, carrying out at all this whole illi beral, unjust, undemocratic, and uneconomic land policy, we should forfeit the good opinion and respect of all civilized nations. The American Chamber of Commerce has for some time hadl to render what assistance it could to an in creasing number of Americans who American appealed for help. * The majority • Over 150 persons have asked the Chamber for help in finding em ployment during the past G months: over a third of this • number applied during the past month. Some 'JOc; of these persons are Americans, the Unemployment of them have been young men, some in Manila ex-servicemen who stayed on, others who came after the war expecting to be able to find good positions here. Our advise to both these classes of men generally is that they should go back to the United States be cause it is difficult for Americans and foreigners to obtain employment here except under circumstances of special demand and special fitness. We would ask chambers of commerce and other agencies in the United States which may be concern ed to encourage no one to come here except to fill some definite position of known tenure and at an adequate salary. Some of the young Americans who have appealed to the Chamber are in truly pitiable circumstances. Numbers of them have married Filipino women, now have one or two children, and have found that they can not make a decent) living here. The American Embassy and the Consulate can do little for them, much as the officials there would like to be able to help. Under present laws, the alien wives of Americans and their children born abroad no longer automatically become American citizens, and hence there is no provision for their help. Help is limited to American citizens, in such cases the husband and father alone. And help gen erally consists only of an assistance loan for repatria100 tion and subsistence.—subsistence up to the time of the first possible embarcation for the nearest Amer ican port. In effect this) means that if such a man is will ing to desert his family, — at least temporarily, he is aided to get out. Men who can not bring them selves to do that, can not be helped. It? must be emphasized that there is no prohibi tion against an American taking his foreign-born wife, and children home with him to the United States or sending for them later. If he is an American in good standing and he and his family are not likely to be come a public charge, he can obtain non-quota visas for his wife and children. But he himself must pay for their passage. American Embassy and Consulate officials have no choice in this matter. Only Congress, by special legislation, could make things different. Special ar rangement were made by the State and Army and Navy Departments to bring home the foreign wives of servicemen following the war. It is becoming time to consider the plight of American ex-servicemen in many foreign countries “who accepted discharge abroad through misapprehension as to the possibility of being gainfully employed”, — the ex-servicemen and their families. Philippine independence has made for a number of changes in respect to the possible dealings of American officials here with American nationals Thia now being foreign territory, American officials can no longer, for instance, deport American “un desirables”. Only the Philippine Government may do that. Americans sentenced to prison here can not be sent back to the United States, but must serve out their terms here. No such wholesale repatriation of “undesirable Americans” could be resorted to as were parried out here several years after the close of the Spanish-American War. Stranded American seamen must be returned to the United States by the shipping companies which em ployed them. The situation for any American here without a job and without funds is a desperate one and the time has already come when more fortunate Americans are called upon to deal privately with a problem which should tie of some concern to our Government at home as well as to our official representatives here. The Economic Development of the Far East By Myron M. Cowen United States Ambassador to the Philippines THE Commission has before it the report and re commendations on industrial development by the Working Party. While the major discussion of this report will take place in the committee to which it will be referred, it seems appropriate at this time to offer some general remarks on the character of the report and on the problems of economic development in the Far East. Need of Food Production While the United States delegation will wish to make some specific criticism of certain parts of the report when it comes up for committee consideration, in general we believe that the Working Party has made important progress in the past six months. Many of the recommendations are sound and useful. The United States delegation believes that emphasis on the broad phases of economic development is well placed, in particular on the articulation of agricul tural, transport, and raw material factors with indus trial growth. While the United States appreciates the importance to Asia and the Far East, of the develop ment of new industries and of increased manufactur ing output, it believes very strongly that economic development must be balanced, that as new indus tries are added raw material sources must be deve loped, transport improved, and agriculture modern ized. While the Working Party terms of reference have properly kept its consideration of agriculture to the problem of agriculture requisites, the role of improved food production in a balanced economic development of the ECAFE region cannot be over-emphasized. It is paradoxical that an area that is primarily agricul tural in nature should now be a net food importer. The text of an address made on' December 1, 1948. by Myron M. Cowen, then Ambassador to Australia and hend of the American delegation to the 'fourth conference of the ECAFE (Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East). Asia and the Far East must find a way to feed its growing population from its own resources so that its foreign exchange resources may become available for importation of capital goods and the whole range of commodities which the area requires for a higher standard of life. In planning for industrial develop ment it is not easy to find the proper point between excessive dependence on a few crops or products to procure all imported needs, and the other extreme, complete autonomy. On the one hand, the United States Government endorses the attempts of coun tries in the ECAFE region to increase diversification of their economies to give better balance and to en large the working opportunities of their growing po pulations. On the other hand, an attempt at complete self-sufficiency for its own sake will result in the creation of industries which can be maintained only by extreme protective measures and at the cost of sub-standard employment conditions. Resources would be wasted and the consequence would be a lower, ra ther than higher, standard of life for the people. In the opinion of the United States delegation, the Work ing Party shows an appreciation of this problem and the ne cessity for relating development, particularly of heavy indus tries, to the availability of raw materials. There are locations in the region favorable for an expansion of basic industry.... The economy of New Zealand is a prime example of a country which has achieved a very high standard of living — some estimate it to be the highest in the world — by concentrating its efforts upon agriculture and the processing of agricultural commodities. Need of Local Capital Formation The United States delegation also welcomes the Working Party report on the steps which the coun tries concerned can take to promote their own indus trial development. While outside assistance in the form of technical knowledge and capital goods can greatly assist the economic development of the 102