Last Friday, I delivered a homily during the funeral mass of Sabino Dapat, a cousin of mine. I cited a conversation I had with him. Recalling that conversation now in this article is not necessarily a way of paying tribute to him, for I have already done so. Rather, what he told me would serve as a starting point for my thoughts on some principles that should guide us as we navigate our responses to the evolving crisis brought about by the war in the Middle East.
When the restrictions caused by the Covid-19 crisis were slowly being relaxed, I asked him whether his own business, an accounting firm, was victimized by the virus. He answered in the affirmative but added “I saw to it that the takehome pay of my employees was not negatively affected. I do not mind taking less, as long as those working would not be receiving less.”
The answer struck me because it concretized at least two related principles in Catholic Social Teaching. First is the principle, propounded by the late John Paul II, that capital be at the service of the laborer, who is a human person. Secondly, it was also a way of living the option for the poor. This second principle, popularized by liberation theology but whose roots go back to biblical times, finds its equivalent in the thought of the late President Ramon Magsaysay, “Those who have less in life should have more in law.”
These principles cannot be set aside even in a crisis situation like what we are having today. Or it is better to say, they cannot be set aside most especially in a crisis situation. The question cannot be whether the State or the Church must take side. We rather ask, “are our institutions taking the sides of the more vulnerable?” The vulnerable include the farmers and fisherfolk, laborers, unemployed. In a word, the poor.
It is never true that tragedies or crisis moments are great equalizers. In tragedies like earthquakes or floods, the rich are less vulnerable for their wealth can buy the best protection. And if, despite their wealth, they still get inundated, they have the greater capacity to recover quickly. This is true not only in natural calamities but also in the economic calamity created by the United States, Israel and Iran.
Any measure to be introduced to help us withstand this current crisis should pass this litmus test: Is it pro-poor? Is it pro-labor?
To be concrete, let us take the question whether it should be the drivers or the commuters who should take the greatest impact of the crisis. But why should it be a choice between the drivers and commuters? There is a missing group in the question: the operators. Why should the operators not get the brunt of it?
Let us get more concrete and consider the possibility of raising the jeepney fare. Currently, the rates are P13 for the first four kilometers and P1.50 for every succeeding kilometer. Are the choices limited to, on the one hand, stopping any fare hike and thus drivers will have considerably less take-home pay, or, on the other hand, increasing the fare rates and letting the passengers take the hit. But then again, there is a missing alternative. A driver has to pay the operator maybe P1,000 a day as jeep rental (usually called boundary in the world of drivers). It is actually the operator whose income is not affected whether there is fare increase or not.
My point is that in an ideal world, the call to make sacrifices can be more appropriately addressed to the operators. Can they not lessen what they are now receiving every day so that drivers and commuters will suffer less?
This is not to say that all operators are affluent. Some of them started their business by obtaining bank loans and are still paying them through installments. Maybe, banks can also be asked to do their share and make new arrangements with operators. But I guess majority have fully paid their loans and what they are now daily receiving would be net income.
In the end, it is a call to think creatively to look for solutions and not limit ourselves to fare hikes or suspending fare hikes.