This contribution was part of FFPS’ webinar “Land is Life!” of October 11, which included discussions about how the peasants defend their land amidst heavy state repression, advance their aspirations for genuine change step by step, and the NDFP’s revolutionary vision on land reform through Agrarian Revolution.Download the full contribution as PDF below.
General situation and struggle of Filipino revolutionary peasants amid intensifying state terrorism
Pambansang Katipunan ng Magbubukid (PKM)
October 2025
A discussion paper for the Friends of the Filipino People in Struggle (FFPS) webinar “Land is Life!”
Red greetings to our comrades in the FPPS and we are sincerely grateful for the opportunity to present the situation of the Filipino peasants and analysis of the revolutionary peasant organization Pambansang Katipunan ng Magbubukid (PKM). However, we request for forbearance as this presentation is limited from divulging specific information or the so-called tactical information, thus the word “General” in the title, as adherence to the present strategic defense stage of the people’s protracted war. Still, this would attempt to present the proportional objective conditions of the sector, as well as their fulfillment of being the primary force of the people’s democratic revolution.
The general situation
As initial formulation to the situation of revolutionary peasants in the country, it is objective to declare that local chapters are standing, at the stage of recovering, active and resolute to advancing particularly the agrarian revolution, base-building and armed struggle. Nevertheless, it would be subjective not to seriously consider the impact of intensified state terrorism that initially besieged the legal peasant organizations, especially their leaders, then the brutal militarization of peasant communities, highlighted at present by the criminal act of aerial strikes or indiscriminate bombings and the desperate focused military operations. Chapters are yet to assemble in whole the total damages of counter-insurgency operations, but particular anti-fascist mass campaigns were able to be coordinated in the regional and national level. As the CPP’s rectification messages always restate to live by revolutionary optimism, and there is always the fertile ground in waging the people’s democratic revolution.
At the ground, the potential for recovery is objective, as mass members who were left for a period of time, always say to organizers and leaders, “ang tagal ninyong nawala, buti nakabalik kayo,” (it’s good you’re back, you took too long) that simply means, that amid the onslaught of state terrorism, peasants in the mass base never wither and constantly waiting for the leadership of CPP, and eager to recover the affected chapters of the PKM, support the New People’s Army and recover and expand guerrilla fronts in the country. As concretization, a peasant mass base of sub-village (sitio) with 80 to 100 active mass members, materially have a potential of expanding to 300 poor peasants including those from nearby sub-village within the administrative village (barangay). Another case is of a district area, that organizers could consolidate 500 poor peasants and farm workers, all due to their openness to the national democratic propaganda, as they are immersed to the chronic economic crisis as brought about by the semi-feudal and semi-colonial system. Moreover, 400 to 600 poor peasants and farmworkers from a cluster of villages being recovered reaffirm their readiness to actively participate in the advancement of their rights to land and in mass mobilizations. These massive potential of recovery-expansion-consolidation, is at the attainable reach of the revolutionary peasant movement, and subject to the effective understanding of organizers and leaders to the theory and practice of solid organizing or “mass work in the countryside,” and upholding of the “susing kawing,” (key link), which is land to the landless Filipino peasants.
The revolutionary peasants clearly understand that the main enemy is US imperialism. The age-old problem of feudalism or landlessness, is nothing but its social base, and US imperialist forces during the colonial period, brutally repressed the attempts of Filipinos for national sovereignty and peasants defense of their rights to land. US colonialism made the landlord and illustrado class as their lackeys in preserving the feudal system, highlighted by increased land rent, concentration of lands to US corporations, haciendas of traitors of the Philippine revolution, and intensified export-orientation of agriculture. Since then, peasant struggle for land rights were suppressed by the mercenary Philippine constabulary, and it has been the model of succeeding counter-insurgency programs of its puppet regimes.
Since the installation of puppet regimes to the present, the revolutionary peasants were learned that all land reform programs implemented by seasonal puppet presidents of US imperialism were all sham, propaganda, part of counter-insurgency, and aimed in further plundering land resources and displacing poor peasants. From Magsaysay’s psywar resettlement program, Macapagal’s Agricultural Land Reform Code, Marcos’ notorious Presidential Decree 27, Cory Aquino’s self-serving Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program and its extension, to the present Marcos Jr.’s National Agrarian Emancipation Act, they all never changed the present situation of landlessness of the Filipino peasants. In 2022, the reactionary government statistics even bared that only 4.3 million or 21.8% of the agricultural population (above 18 years old) have secured rights of their land. Worse, this was broken down as fully owned which is only 10% of the total agricultural population, and owner-like possession 7.7%. It deceivingly classified as with secured rights, those with CLOA, CADT, CBFMA, IFMA (certificates of reactionary programs), tenancy, lease and other tenure status, or 5% of the total, when in reality these could be canceled effortlessly by bureaucrat capitalists. Generally, a huge section 15.2 million of the total 19.6 million or 77.3%. This is worse than the last recorded tenancy rate quoted by Professor Jose Maria Sison in the Philippine Society and Revolution that 7 out of 10 peasants did not own the land they tilled.
As expressed by revolutionary peasants across the country, that under a semi-feudal and semi-colonial system, the recognition of the bourgeois-democratic right to land remains a fantasy, that even the reactionary, psywar statistics of the puppet state could not even conceal — feudalism or massive landlessness among Filipino peasants remained an objective condition — a fertile ground for the people’s democratic revolution.
Obviously, the Filipino peasant is dreary poor. There should be no falling victim to the puppet regime’s propaganda of the country approaching the middle-income status, when the reactionary statistics could not even cover up the data in 2023 of average family income of the Filipino family per day to P968 — below the family living wage computed by a progressive institution at P1,186 per day (December 2023). Based on the family income statistics alone, the supermajority 80% (P1,140 and below) of the total 27.5 million Filipino families lived below the family living wage. With the reactionary statistics setting the rural population at 52% in 2023, coincidingly, the poorest half of the families outside the NCR had a daily average of P647 per day. Below this amount were in 12 of 17 administrative regions, including Mindanao regions, MIMAROPA (IV-A), Eastern Visayas (VIII), Negros Island, CARAGA, Bicol (V) and Davao. As manifestation of the semi-feudal and semi-colonial system, inhumane poverty of poor peasants is mainly brought about by landlessness, suppression of the struggle for genuine land reform, puppet regimes’ abandonment of agriculture as subservience to neoliberal policies, and the chronic economic crises. This concrete reality is actively dismissed and concealed by the puppet regime, but obviously an undisputed basis for the revolution not just for the peasant class but of other oppressed and exploited classes and sectors.
Land rent remained systematic. A worse form was reported to be at 90-10 in favor of the landlord, or the tenant, already being transformed as mere farm worker or “caretaker.” This was recorded in Nueva Ecija as “sistemang barok,” usually a condition desperately accepted by tenants who are being ejected, just to remain on the lands. In areas where peasants are yet to be organized, they fall victims to “50-50” rent of the gross harvests, usually in coconut farm areas, but peasants shoulder the cost of production. There is also “tersyong baligtad” or “1/3-2/3,” (inverse of “tersyo,” lower 1/3 or 33% rent is for the landlord) still peasants shoulder the cost. In some recovery areas, rent is at fixed rent of 13-22 cavans (a unit of measurement for agricultural products, ranging from around 25 to 30 kilograms for rice) no matter the volume of gross harvest, or around 13-22% of the gross harvest of rice lands capable of producing 100 cavans of rice. But the impact of this fixed rent system is when the harvest is affected by calamity such as in Laguna where the harvest was only at 54 cavans (22 cavans as fixed rent), thus, the rent was actually at 40% of the gross harvest. The reactionary statistics pegged land rent at 7-8% of the gross harvest, usually gathered by the reactionary government from 10 rich peasants of each barangay of 81 rice-producing provinces.
It should always be highlighted, that though some areas have lower land rent, this remained parasitic and exploitative as it never contributed any value to the agricultural production. The surplus product extracted by this class-based exploitation could be reinvested in the improvement of agricultural production, uplift the socio-economic standing of peasant household and contribute to the amalgamated value of production in the countryside. Moreover, we always clarify to peasant mass members, that these reduced land rent is not a result of the benevolence of landlords or “market-orientation,” “law of supply and demand,” and other reactionary concepts, but as a fruit result of the decades-long peasant struggle directed by the Revolutionary Guide to Land Reform.
Other semi-feudal forms of exploitation such as usury is prevalent. A worse form was, for every P1,000 loan, the interest is 1 cavan of rice for the cropping season. Peasants who were unable to pay loans usually pawn their lands or “rights” (position) on land, subsequently if still were unable pay back, the end up selling their lands or “rights.” This is common to peasants whose crops were destroyed by strong typhoons or severe drought, as their capital for an hectare of rice lands usually amount to P50,000 or more. “5-6” or 20% interest is also rampant in the villages, but a highlight is the surge of microfinance credit firms, who usually keeps 10% as compulsory deposit, charges a 30% annual compound interest. There were many instances of rural poor who were unable to pay timely installments falling to debt traps, that even the agents of this firms would forcibly take “talbos” (sweet potato shoots) from their backyard, cooking pots and other useful items from their houses. As spontaneous reaction, there were instances of agents being killed, assumed to be retaliation of victims to their abuses.
Underpricing of farm products persisted. As big landlords and traders were usually the usurers, they set the condition that they would be the exclusive buyer of their harvest, thus, dictating the farm gate prices. Nationwide, peasants are protesting the depressed farm gate prices, especially when big landlords and traders, use the influx of imported rice as bargaining. Fundamentally, there is no change in the feudal and semi-feudal exploitation being endured the Filipino poor peasants, thus, the correctness and validity of waging the agrarian revolution are as clear as the countryside skies.
The struggle
With the present and even past regimes were unable to rule with their old ways, state terrorism worsened to new heights and undisputed as crimes against humanity, particularly aiming revolutionary peasants, activists and supporters. It should be noted that the peasant sector is always the majority victims of human rights violations, as documented by a national human rights organization in their regular situationer. Thus, many regional chapters are geared on their anti-fascist campaigns, based on their general anti-feudal campaign.
Many regional and local chapters have adhered to the memorandum of the CPP to urgently build human rights committees. This is composed of leaders, organizers and mass members who were trained for basic human rights documentation and paralegal work. This is now bearing fruit as anti-militarization campaigns are swiftly coordinated to regional and national organs, as compared in the past years. Human rights training is also sustained, with some mass members saying “dapat pala matagal na naming nakuha ito,” (we should have learned this earlier), pertaining to how should they have dealt with military forces occupying peasant communities. Moreover, as brought about or substantiated by the reports of the organized documentation of human rights violations, the option of the “legal pushback” is always on the consideration of plans, as a means of defense, based on the revolutionary dual tactics, or utilizing the very little useful provisions of reactionary laws.
Many regional and local chapters are also capable of providing sanctuary for besieged peasant leaders or those being accused of trumped up charges. Moreover, many democratic sectors have committed their support. Chapters are able to coordinate with patriotic lawyers, and are even supported by peasant advocates, in secured manner of filing counter-affidavits or other legal requirements. There are many cases of legal victories or dismissal of trumped up charges, that further exposes the baseless accusations against peasant leaders.
When waging the anti-militarization campaign, we always take inspiration from the work of Prof. Sison, “Our Urgent Task,” in the part “Further Strengthen the People’s Army and Carry Forward the Revolutionary Armed Struggle!” that states:
“When the masses are being forced to evacuate, legal mass struggle should be launched to oppose and stop the evacuation. Even when the forced mass evacuation is already done these legal mass struggles can go on for the restitution of damage to their crops and homes, for better treatment and rationing at evacuation centers and for their early return to their evacuated homes.”
Thus, the holding of quick-reaction-teams, fact-finding missions, humanitarian missions, solidarity missions, are in the legal arsenal of the revolutionary peasants, where the broad people could be informed of the real situation in the countryside, and mobilized for concrete actions. These are now being operationalized in the sub-regional, regional and national level. Concurring, the anti-fascist and anti-militarization propaganda-education campaign is launched, even reaching mainstream and alternative news outlets, social media and other forms of media.
The anti-feudal campaign is at the center of the political work of the revolutionary peasants. Generally, the stage is at the defense of actual positions on land against displacement, land grabbing and land-use conversion of productive agricultural lands. This is observed as the reactionary system, with its subservience to the dictates of US imperialism, is engaging massively in financialization of land. Peasant community victims in plains or productive agricultural lands, highways or nearby urban areas are now engaged in legal and democratic mass campaigns, supported by legal mass organizations. Part of the anti-feudal struggle is also the struggle for the increase of wages of farm and agricultural workers. Even the institute of labor studies or ILS of DOLE in their January 2025 study on sugarcane field workers in 2024 was forced to agree that the majority of them are only paid slave like wages of P2,000 – P9,800 a month.
There are some regions who reported that landlords owning upland farms gave up imposing land rent as the area is known to be a “hotspot.” Though not formally declared as confiscated lands, revolutionary peasants are already enjoying the freedom from feudal rent. There were also regions with confiscated lands since the late 1970s, communal farms and work-point systems are being institutionalized. In the interior areas, revolutionary peasants work in improving communal farms, work-point system and productivity. Common forms of early seeds of cooperative production is the “batarisan” or “bayanihan,” or also called mutual-aid teams, for labor-exchange. Through this, a land-holding peasant could save up in the costs of paying for daily farm work. There were also chapters who were able to advance moratorium in paying debts during calamities. In improving productivity, some chapters held organized dialogues to demand farm equipment from the reactionary state.
Moreover, to further advance the political struggle of the revolutionary peasants, a stepped-up attention in organizing peasant advocacy groups is being put into place. Regional and local chapters are now reaching out to various sectors such as the youth, artists, small business, environmental activists, scientists and others. Their involvement in propaganda-education activities, relief drives for the economic well-being of peasants, qrt-fact-finding-solidarity missions, and cultivation activities, are considered milestones in the revolutionary peasant political struggle. Furthermore, alliance and network formations with the middle sectors are also being initiated. This is considered to be part of the broadening of peasant political struggle. With the venues being organized by these formations, more are being informed by the poor peasants’ real situation, analysis against reactionary programs and policies, and the bankruptcy of the reactionary regime. Their concrete support ranges from providing relief during calamities, material and financial support for political campaigns, solidarity missions, and even sanctuary.
With the NPA
The revolutionary peasants’ fulfillment of being the primary force of the people’s democratic revolution could be straightforwardly described in the 2018 article by an alternative news site, “Joma shows map of NPA presence in 73 provinces.” It stated, “According to the map, among the provinces the NPA does not currently have presence are Batanes, Bataan, Biliran, Cebu, Marinduque, Siquijor, Romblon, and Guimaras.” Thus, revolutionary peasants in the 73 provinces are carrying out their tasks is supporting the NPA in the armed struggle in various degrees. Being the primary force, units of the NPA are majority composed of peasants.
In some regions, revolutionary peasants serve as the people’s militia. These were evident in the past CPP and NPA anniversary events, where those included in military formations were the revolutionary peasants. CPP and NPA activities such as holding of conferences, mass education, medical services and other revolutionary activities could not be possible without the active participation of revolutionary peasants.
Also, revolutionary peasant communities or consolidated mass bases, serve as rallying points for deployed revolutionaries from the urban areas. There were also incidents that CPP cadres being hunted by fascist forces sought refuge in the revolutionary peasant areas. Even those coerced or forcibly recruited to CAFGU units sent tactical information of military operations. Successful tactical offensives were also possible because of the support of revolutionary peasants.
As “Armed Struggle– Agrarian Revolution–Base-Building” are inseparable “ingredients” for the people’s protracted war, a brief indicator of the level of development of the revolutionary peasant areas is the intensity of the armed struggle in the guerilla fronts, as well as the anti-feudal mass campaign.
Perspective
The revolutionary peasants are optimistic and fervent. Leaders, organizers and mass members are guided by the Rectification Movement. Empiricism, subjectivism, conservatism and other weaknesses are being addressed. Organizers are always reminded of their recovery and expansion of “Grupong Pang-organisa” (GP, organizing groups), preparation for the recovery and formation of the “Ganap na Samahang Masa” (GSM, full-fledged mass organization), further expansion of the legal peasant organization and against conservative setting of targets to political mass mobilizations. The chapters are guided by the inspiring and educational memorandum from the CPP, such as the new year’s memo on the mass movement that stated,
“The capacity of the Party and the revolutionary forces must be raised in carrying out tireless mass work, propaganda on the masses and leading the mass struggles. This is not the same as the style of the NGO offices that bring their ‘advocacy issues’ to the table. In contrast, our goal is to build up the organized strength of the masses, break the fascist terror and state terrorism, and lead them on the path of militant struggle. We need to educate the masses about the roots of their suffering and suffering, and focus on their resistance to the US-Marcos regime.
Plans must be drawn up for the strengthening of mass work, and the concomitant and solid forms of mass propaganda and education which reach and arouse millions of people.”
As positive development, mass members in some chapters are now saying “dapat mag-rally tayo sa …,” (we should mobilize at …) “kailan ang susunod na mobilisasyon …” (when is the next schedule of the mobilization?) in a cluster of barangays, where the immediate plan was only to recover the Organizing Groups in 5 barangays, but is actually on the 10th barangay, with an effective leadership of more than 600 peasants, farm workers and some semi-proletariat. Moreover, some chapters have surpassed their targets in mass mobilizations, which we view as the correctness of the phrase “matabang lupa para sa rebolusyon” (fertile ground for revolution) and overwhelming denunciation of the rotten reactionary system.
To conclude, we are to impart that the meaning of upholding the mass line, is to believe, never fail to recall, that the peasant masses always intend to change the semi-feudal and semi-colonial system, do not cower the state terrorism, they are since in the past, primed to be aroused, organized and mobilized for the people’s democratic revolution. Thank you and revolutionary greetings!
Support the Revolutionary Peasants Advancement of the Agrarian Revolution!
Onwards the People’s Democratic Revolution!”
This contribution was part of FFPS’ webinar “Land is Life!” of October 11, which included discussions about how the peasants defend their land amidst heavy state repression, advance their aspirations for genuine change step by step, and the NDFP’s revolutionary vision on land reform through Agrarian Revolution.
Download the full contribution here: