Once hailed as “Asia’s Tiger,” the Philippine economy has regressed to a state that resembles a “kitten,” far from its former promise.
In the 1960s, the nation’s agricultural sector was trending towards its potential peak. However, a deliberate decision to adopt a neoliberal economic model and logic has led to the decline of its agriculture. Its deterioration is now further exacerbated by the current fuel price shock resulting from the US-Israel unprovoked war against Iran, a blatant violation of international law, disrupting the global economy, especially in countries with little capacity to withstand this crisis.
It is a bitter irony that a country with vast, fertile land and surrounded by water has become dependent on neighboring countries for agricultural and aquatic food supplies, such as vegetables and the staple rice, and even on meat as far away as Brazil.
The Plight of the Vulnerable: Neoliberal Logic and the Marginalization of Farmers
Agriculture in the Philippines has long been neglected by the government. Research conducted by the IBON Foundation (Economic Think Tank of the Philippines) underscores the agricultural sector’s decline for decades, resulting from the sustained structural disregard. This neglect is striking given that the Philippines is fundamentally an agricultural country.
The neglect is apparent when we look into the policy direction the Philippines has taken. The espousal of neoliberal policies and, by extension, its logic, characterized by market-oriented land use, trade liberalization, and fuel deregulation, has brutally deteriorated the country’s productive capacity. While some have justified adopting such a policy, considering it necessary to propel efficiency and healthy global competition, this has failed due to a disregard for the existing unequal conditions under which Filipino farmers operate. As a result, this has contributed to widespread food inadequacy and, for many, food insecurity due to poverty, especially among those in the agricultural sector. With a population of approximately 117M, a survey conducted in the latter part of 2025 indicates that 51% of Filipinos say they consider themselves poor. This survey reflects not only disproportionate distribution of wealth but structural injustice.
One of the most significant policies enacted by the Philippine government that has affected our agriculture is the Republic Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act of 1997 (AFMA). Some supporters claim that this will improve land productivity. However, in reality, this leads to a reduction of agricultural land nationwide to maximize economic profit, allowing real estate developers to buy and convert farmland into residential areas or commercial centers, such as large shopping malls.
This reclassification raises land values but displaces and dispossesses farmers, fisherfolk, and indigenous communities. In fact, this conflicts with the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), enacted in 1988 under the late President Corazon Aquino, which aims to redistribute land to small farmers. However, it has rarely been fully implemented because the Department of Agriculture (DA) has often colluded with powerful landowners and entrenched elite interests, using AFMA to bypass agrarian reform. As a result, many farmers remain landless.
The structural injustice embedded and integrated in the neoliberal economic model is reflected in recent poverty incidence data. Agricultural workers, for instance, are among the lowest paid, earning an average of Php365.57 (approximately USD6), which is substantially below the national average wage for farmers.
Unsurprisingly, many of the next generation farming families are opting out of agriculture; most of whom are even discouraged by their own parents, who are farmers themselves.
Rice Tariffication Law and Glaring Inequality
The country’s accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) further intensified these challenges by effectively removing domestic protection for local farmers. A critical policy from this integration is the Rice Tariffication Law (RTL) of 2019, which sealed the country’s commitment to the WTO, which liberalized rice imports.
The argument is that the RTL can stabilize supply and lower consumer prices, which, in the long-run, low-income households are seen to benefit from this. But such a justification has overlooked the asymmetrical competition. Local farmers are unable to compete given that governments in other Asian countries, such as Vietnam and China, provide subsidies to farmers, while in the Philippines, the weight of the expenses is mostly left to the farmers themselves. The RTL has facilitated unequal competition, where Filipino farmers will continue to struggle, knowing well that they are an essential workforce that sustains the population.
Forcing farmers into a competition that they are structurally unequipped for, where asymmetries are embedded in RTL. This is because they are confronted with precarity, stemming from landlessness facilitated by state policies, inadequate government support, and increasing vulnerability due to intensified typhoons. Compounding this is the lack of crop insurance, as insurance companies consider agriculture risky and with a high risk of loss. Add to this the recent fuel price hikes that further diminished farmers’ already meager and unsustainable income. From the perspective of the preferential option for the poor, it has already disproportionately harmed them and incurred losses. In addition, the said policy facilitated unequal conditions that position the farmer in economic disadvantage, which is unethical.
The Spillover of the Fuel Crisis: From Farmers to Transport Workers and Beyond
The adverse effects of the US-Israel war on Iran extend beyond geopolitics into the everyday lives of ordinary Filipinos. Fuel price in the country is costliest among its ASEAN neighbors due to the deregulation law, and now the fuel hikes are further impacting agricultural supply and costs. For instance, cabbage harvested in Northern Philippines is sold at a loss, from Php50 to Php10 per kilo (approximately from USD0.82 to 0.16 cents), pressured by traders due to increased transport/fuel costs. However, the spill over is not borne by farmers alone; it extends across the poorest sectors in our country. To “soften” the shock of high fuel prices, the government provided a one-time cash aid, a temporary relief of Php3000 (USD49.49) for farmers and fisherfolk, who are the most affected sector. A significant population of farmers and fisherfolk has decided to stop fishing and halt harvesting because of the skyrocketing prices of fuel. Fisherfolk cannot go too far, hence they only catch up to 5-10 kilos of fish.
Transport workers, particularly jeepney drivers, are among the severely affected. They requested an increase in the minimum jeepney fare by Php1, to the current fare of Php13, yet this was denied. Similarly, daily wage earners clamour for a wage increase, but this was also denied. This response of the government to the most vulnerable in our society underscores the disconnect with their plight. This is because, mostly, those in positions of power, belonging to the top 1% economic elite who control Php17.9 trillion of wealth, remain insulated from the hardships of everyday life to survive that ordinary Filipinos face. One case illustrates this starkly: a jeepney driver, also a stroke survivor, now sleeps inside the jeepney to reduce living expenses. He returns home to his family only on weekends to save money. Like many drivers, he does not own the jeepney he operates and must pay a daily “boundary” fee of around Php700 to the vehicle owner. On one particular day, driving the jeepney for 12-15 hours, after covering all expenses, he was left with only Php50 (less than USD1). Such a condition is not only unfortunate, but it is also blatantly unjust.
For transport workers nationwide, of approximately 2.2 million, only a maximum of 360,000 are expected to receive this one-time fuel subsidy of Php5000 (approx. USD82.37). Recently, this April, the government announced that transport workers will pay Php10 less/liter of fuel for the next 3 months, beginning the second week of April. This being said, all the subsidies provided by the government fail to address the structural nature of the crises.
From the perspective of the Catholic Social Thought of preferential option for the poor and most vulnerable, the moral test of a society is seen in how it treats the most vulnerable members. By this standard, the government falls short. The burden of crisis is borne by the least equipped to carry it.
If the government truly cares for the most vulnerable in society, to live out a sense of malasakit to its people, there are laws in place, such as the Price Act of 1992, under which they can obligate companies in these trying times, to freeze the prices of essential commodities, including fuel.
Malasakit: A Filipino Indigenous Way of Ethical-Political Obligation
Judith Butler’s account of vulnerability as relational suggests that we are fundamentally dependent on social relations for support. To be vulnerable is to be exposed to others, not only to harm, but more importantly, to care. In the face of structural neglect, Filipinos turn to one another. This reflects a deeper ethical orientation of Filipinos captured in the affective response or disposition of malasakit. This affective orientation – malasakit, can be seen as an ethical attunement to shared exposure or experience of struggle, of pain. It embodies a responsiveness to the suffering or the pain/plight (sakit) of another that compels us to act.
From the perspective of the Catholic social thought of option for the poor and most vulnerable, this calls us to reorder individual and social priorities towards a commitment to the least in society. In this sense, malasakit is an ethical obligation grounded on the recognition of our interdependence and interconnectedness.
This is evident in small acts of malasakit, for instance, a jeepney passenger, upon reaching his destination, paid Php200, which far exceeded his fare. Today, many passengers, of their own volition, do not ask for their fare change; they let drivers keep it. This is our response to the condition of scarcity, which can sustain life even momentarily. Similarly, the resurgence of community pantries reflects a collective ethic of care. Originating during the pandemic, these pantries operate on a simple principle: “give what you can, take what you need.” They embody a disciplined, communal response to scarcity. Local governance also offers glimpses of alternative possibilities. Pasig City’s mayor has initiated the deployment of electric minibuses to serve commuters for free. While limited in scope, such initiatives demonstrate how governance propelled by malasakit can alleviate suffering; malasakit is an affect, a moral intuition that refuses indifference.
However, confined to interpersonal acts, malasakit risks being absorbed into a narrative of reliance that leaves unjust structures unchallenged. Indeed, it can be a way to manage, an immediate response to suffering. But malasakit calls us to form solidarity, one that calls for accountability, particularly those in power, to demand structural change.
Malasakit is a cultural affective value, but it is also an ethical-political practice, where the plight of the poor and most vulnerable is a shared responsibility that demands collective action through policy changes. Propelled by malasakit, the government can create structural change that will benefit the most vulnerable in society.
Beyond Resilience: A Path Toward Collective Resistance
Filipinos know all too well what it means to struggle in life. There is sporadic kindness that goes around here. Indeed, mere kindness cannot be a substitute for systemic change. Nonetheless, we opt to share whatever and whenever we can for the very reason that many of us know how it feels like not having enough, and we opt to ease the struggle of our kapwa (roughly translated as fellow citizen), even for a moment. [1]
This being said, Filipinos celebrate resilience; it is admirable, but it can also obscure the necessity for structural and systemic change. Encouragingly, Filipinos have now learned to assert their rights, to resist, to voice their complaint, and demonstrate righteous indignation towards a government that seems to ignore them. Transport strikes were joined by other marginal sectors to clamp down and amplify anger that this is not what the people deserve.
There are so many ways to alleviate the economic condition of the least in society; it can be done if the government is resolute towards a country where all its people experience flourishing and well-being. The path forward requires more than temporary aid. We demand that the government change its economic policies that will strengthen local industries, particularly agriculture and energy, to reduce dependency on external markets. It requires political courage, compelled by malasakit sa kapwa (ethical care to its citizens/fellow), to challenge entrenched interests and to center the needs of the most vulnerable. Ultimately, the question is not whether solutions exist, but whether there is a commitment to pursue them.
One thing is certain: Filipinos resist a mediocre response from the government. We are determined to act, to voice out, and to demand what is rightfully theirs. This is the ethical obligation owed to one another and to the generation ahead of us.
References
Kapwa is a Filipino indigenous value that points to the willingness of the self to share a space or to be in union with the one whom they consider no longer an outsider, but one with the self. An intimate reading of kapwa could be that the person accepts a deeper sense of responsibility for one’s fellow, who is not different from me.
Piedad, Maricar. “Agriculture, the crisis the government won’t talk about.” IBON Foundation, February 27, 2026. https://www.ibon.org/agriculture-crisis-govt-wont-talk-about/.
Guzman, Rosario. “Rice and Imperialism: At a risky crossroads.” IBON Foundation, March 19, 2026. https://www.ibon.org/rice-crossroads/
Africa, Jose Enrique. “PH oil troubles: By the numbers.” IBON Foundation, March 13, 2026. https://www.ibon.org/ph-oil-troubles/.
Docena, Herbie. “How Ayala Took Land Away from Poor Iloilo Fisherfolk to Build a High-End Resort.” Rights Report Philippines, April 13, 2026. https://rightsreport.org/2026/04/13/sicogon-ayala.