1.

Describe the treatment given by the government to the Chinese Mestizos

before and at present times.

The Chinese Mestizos before were granted greater significance in the aspects of
political and economic freedom. These group of mestizos enjoyed a legal status
subjects of Spain that was denied to the pure Chinese. They were considered, unlike
the mixed-Chinese of other Southeast Asian countries, not "a special kind of local
Chinese" but "a special kind of Filipino."

The eighteenth-century expulsion edicts had given the Chinese mestizos the
opportunity to enter retailing and the skilled craft occupations formerly dominated by
the Chinese. The removal of legal restrictions on Chinese economic activity and the
competition of new Chinese immigrants, however, drove a large number of mestizos
out of the commercial sector in mid-nineteenth century. As a result, many Chinese
mestizos invested in land, particularly in Central Luzon. The estates of the religious
orders were concentrated in this region, and mestizos became inquilinos (lessees) of
these lands, subletting them to cultivators; a portion of the rent was given by the
inquilino to the friary estate. Like the Chinese, the mestizos were moneylenders and
acquired land when debtors defaulted.

By the late nineteenth century, prominent mestizo families, despite the inroads of
the Chinese, were noted for their wealth and formed the major component of a
Filipino elite. As the export economy grew and foreign contact increased, the
mestizos and other members of this Filipino elite, known collectively as ilustrados,
obtained higher education (in some cases abroad), entered professions such as law or
medicine, and were particularly receptive to the liberal and democratic ideas that were
beginning to reach the Philippines despite the efforts of the generally reactionary--and
friardominated--Spanish establishment (US Library of Congress).

Nowadays, these Filipino-Chinese still enjoys the privilege that they have before.
They are Philippines' pioneer owners of large companies, corporations, and other
businesses. They are great entrepreneurs, financial analyst, and business innovators.
Simply put, they are still on the top of the social hierarchy and are usually held in a
higher pedestal.

2. Search for an agrarian disputes in your place or on the internet and compare
it to the case discussed in this module.

The agrarian case that I found revolves around the issue of tenancy. Stated in the
case at hand that in 1979, Deogracias Musa entered into a verbal tenurial arrangement
through Rosario Dasig. Included in that agreement is the sharing arrangement per
harvest for the rice land portion and coconut plantation, 2/3-1/3 and 60-40,
respectively. Howbeit, in the year 1990, Deogracias Musa fell ill due to a stroke.
Thereupon, his sons, Andro and Romeo Musa took over the cultivation and continued
the previous arrangement with Rosario Dasig, who duly acknowledged the same and
received the share pertaining to her as the landowner. So, from the year of agreement
(1979) to the succession of land (1990), until the sale of the property (March 5, 1993),
the Musa’s have been cultivating the land for 14 years. This case in point indicates the
stability of the agreement between Musa and Dasig, making the petitioners a long
term tenant of the said landholding. However, Amor, the respondent and a relative of
Dasig (who is already residing in US), sold the said landholding without the
knowledge and consent of the Musa's. On her statement, she stipulated that the Musa'
s are not legitimate tenants of the landholding because there is no written agreement
between the two parties and that they were only hired on a "pakyawan" basis. At the
end, the petition of the Musa's were dismissed by the Court of Appeals in favor of
Amor.

This case is similar to the agrarian disputes discussed in the module in a way that
it both discusses tenancy and the injustices experienced by the tenants. Before, big
pieces of lands were owned by the Spanish friars and then they would ironically rent
it to Filipinos. Our ancestors have lost their autonomy over our own resources and
was instead subjected to agrarian inequalities and injustices. Some tried to intervene
and alleviate the situation but each attempt always yield exact same result - failure.
Same thing has happened to Musa's. Even though they have been tilling the land
entrusted to them for 14 years, they were easily stripped off of their rights to the
landholding. Moreover, even though their claims were backed up by Section 7 of R.A
1199 which stipulated that tenancy relationship may be established either verbally or
in writing, expressly or impliedly; once such a relationship is established, the tenant
shall be entitled to security of tenure as hereinafter provided, the landholding was still
taken from them unjustly.

3. Death penalty kills Gomburza. Today, some politicians are trying to relive
death penalty for selected heinous crime. Justify your favorable/unfavorable
position.

The eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth ideology of justice has never been an
appealing idea to me. I believe that this dogma will only seed nothing but ugly
emotions of vengeance - a nonstop cycle of killing for 'justice'. Death penalty will
never be effective in a country like the Philippines where unjust powerplay is rampant.
The justice system in the Philippines is rotten to its very core. It is akin to a machinery
run not by oil and gas but money and power. As long as the justice system is
controlled by the people in the position, those who are at the top of social hierarchy,
justice in a form of death penalty will always be a form of injustice.

There is a lot of inconsistencies and questions need to be answered regarding this

issue. How sure are we that the 'criminal' who will be killed is really the one who
committed the crime, not just a scapegoat of some influential personality? How sure
are we that with death penalty social status will be disregarded? Will the rich people
be judged fairly? How sure are we that this punishment is being relive for the
common good of the Filipino people and not just some propaganda of politicians to
make their names relevant? Before reliving death penalty in our country, we should
relive first what justice truly is.

More importantly, we should remember that only God can take the lives of his
creation. No one, even the highest law in this world can make killing legal even those
that of a criminal. It goes against the morality of life, because if God can forgive why
can't we? After all, everyone deserves a second chance.