EDSA Rebuild Opportunity

The pause in the EDSA Rebuild program ordered by President Bongbong Marcos came at the right time. As Transportation Secretary Vince Dizon underscored, a major rehabilitation of EDSA happens only "once in a lifetime." We should therefore not miss the opportunity to refashion EDSA so that it serves all of us better and correct its many defects and deficits. Before proceeding, all agencies involved should be clear on the outcomes to be achieved.

The EDSA that we need is one that is safe, walkable, green, inclusive, conducive for mass transit, accessible for persons with disability and efficient for the movement of goods and people. When road space is limited, it should be devoted to the most productive and inclusive travel modes. A lane filled mainly with private cars moves only 600-1,600 persons per hour. A lane devoted to mass transit can move 10,000-25,000 persons per hour, while sidewalks and bike lanes can move five to 10 times more people than a motor vehicle lane.

EDSA Rebuild is an opportunity for the government to give full meaning to its policy pronouncements about prioritizing sustainable transport modes — public transport, walking and cycling. Under the National Transport Policy's implementing rules, "inclusive mobility and accessibility shall be achieved through the prioritization of people-mobility over vehicle-mobility ... In addition, provision for nonmotorized and active transport, such as walking and cycling, shall be incorporated in the design and implementation of transport projects."

In addition, the Philippine Development Plan 2023-2028 declares that "pedestrians and cyclists enjoy highest priority in the hierarchy of road users." The principle of "moving people, not cars" is also echoed in the Philippine Road Safety Action Plan 2023-2028, which underscores the point that the safety of all road users is of far greater importance than enhancing the flow or travel speed of motor vehicles.

The logic is clear. The current prioritization of EDSA for four-wheeled motor vehicles makes little sense and is a waste of public resources when we consider that cars are the least efficient use of road space and are major contributors to urban traffic, heat, noise and pollution. Studies show that only 11.5 percent of Greater Manila households are owners of four-wheeled motor vehicles. This calls for a transformation of EDSA so that it serves the needs of the majority and the most vulnerable. Cars should be among the users of a redesigned EDSA, but not its top priority.

The painful lesson we have learned over decades is that an EDSA devoted to moving cars is one of the root causes of Metro Manila's traffic and mobility crisis. A car-centric EDSA compels more Filipinos to use a private motor vehicle instead of walking, cycling or using public transport. To reverse this, we need an EDSA that will serve the range of different travel modes while ensuring that the most efficient and inclusive ones are safe, convenient and attractive. For short distances, walking or cycling should become the preferred travel option — very much possible on an EDSA with spacious and shaded sidewalks.

We also need an EDSA that is compliant with various accessibility laws — an obligation that has remained unfulfilled for decades by the very agencies tasked with their implementation. Several laws already guarantee that public infrastructure should not create a barrier for persons with disability: Batas Pambansa 344, the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability (which has the force of law in the Philippines). In this context, all agencies involved in the EDSA Rebuild are obliged to remedy EDSA's disgraceful lack of compliance, an infrastructure deficiency that affects the lives of millions of Filipinos in Greater Manila who have some form of physical incapacity. EDSA Rebuild should demonstrate how the rights of persons with disability can be fully respected on our roads.

Every day on EDSA, there are lives lost and bodies maimed, in large part because authorities continue to give paramount importance to achieving faster vehicle speeds despite the obvious danger for all road users. EDSA was a highway decades ago, but the land uses and the urban environment are significantly different today. With EDSA traversing many dense population areas and commercial centers, it needs to serve a diverse set of road users, not only four-wheeled motor vehicles. It should be redesigned as a boulevard and no longer be an expressway.

The Philippine Road Safety Action Plan 2023–2028 calls for lower speed limits. The global safety prescription is a maximum of 30 kilometers per hour (kph) on urban roads — this is what we should push for along the entire stretch of EDSA. A lower speed limit for EDSA is already mandated by law, but ignored by concerned authorities. The Land Transportation and Traffic Code requires that the maximum speed limit should be 20 kph "through crowded streets."

Joint Memorandum Circular 2018-001 defines "crowded streets" as streets "with heavy pedestrian traffic, including all streets within a 500-meter radius of schools, public transportation terminals, markets, government buildings, churches and other places of worship, recreational places, facilities frequented by the youth, parks, shopping malls, movie houses, hotels, restaurants and other public places as may be determined by the city or municipal government."

Experience already tells us that a higher EDSA speed limit is not relevant, because average vehicle travel speeds on it are already quite low (closer to 20 kph). A car on a congested EDSA gains nothing from a higher speed limit. With a lower limit, however, we not only make EDSA safer for all, we also make alternative travel modes more attractive for everyone.

A transit- and people-oriented EDSA will have a huge positive impact on the lives of millions of Filipinos. An EDSA that prioritizes public transport, pedestrians and cyclists, and empowers persons with disability will be able to move a larger volume of people and goods using the same road space. It will be safer, healthier, greener, cooler, more inclusive, more productive, more vibrant and attractive — an EDSA that every Filipino will be proud of.

Source: Manila Times

UNDP: AI can steer human development and inclusive growth

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Philippines, in partnership with the Philippine Human Development Network (HDN), successfully held the Philippine launch of the 2025 Global Human Development Report (HDR) at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Headquarters in Makati City.

With this year’s report titled “A Matter of Choice: People and Possibilities in the Age of AI,” the launch brought together government officials, industry leaders, private sector representatives, academics, and civil society representatives to discuss how artificial intelligence (AI) can be a tool for inclusive and sustainable human development.

The 2025 HDR, first unveiled globally in May in Brussels, emphasizes the growing role of AI in reshaping economies and societies. It calls for deliberate choices to ensure that AI technologies empower people, narrow inequalities, and support development goals, particularly in developing countries like the Philippines.

During the launch, Dr. Selva Ramachandran, UNDP Philippines resident representative, noted: “At its core, the HDR is a call to action for governments, businesses, communities, and individuals to make deliberate choices about how AI is designed, used, and governed. If we make the right choices today, AI could become a force and an engine for freedom, opportunity, and progress, not just for a few, but for everyone.”

Dr. Philip Arnold Tuaño of the HDN, Commissioner Javey Francisco of the SEC, and Hon. Reynaldo Cancio from the Department of Economy, Planning, and Development (DEPDev) also delivered opening remarks, underscoring the importance of inclusive innovation and robust policy frameworks.

“This year’s launch of the HDR comes at a pivotal moment. While the promise of AI grows even more visible, we are reminded that the path of progress is not inevitable. It is a matter of human choice and governance. This report highlights how AI can be harnessed to enhance human capabilities, rather than diminish,” noted Dr. Tuaño in his opening message.

Through digital transformation, the SEC is building a culture of transparency, measurable accountability, and ongoing performance enhancement. Commissioner Francisco highlighted that the SEC: “sees AI playing a growing role in our work — improving our ability to detect fraud, assess risk, and promote financial inclusion. AI can help us direct capital toward sustainable enterprises, enhance market integrity, and protect investors more effectively than ever before.”

The highlight of the event was a presentation of the HDR 2025 findings by Mohamed Shahudh, UNDP Philippines Economist, followed by a panel discussion titled “Shaping the AI Agenda for Human Empowerment and Inclusive Growth in the Philippines.”

The speakers explored the potential of AI to boost productivity, improve public services, and create new economic opportunities — while also addressing the risks of exclusion, job displacement, and uneven access to digital resources. Panelists stressed the need for forward-looking investments in education, research and development, and AI governance.

A recent IMF study cited during the event revealed that while one-third of Filipino workers are highly exposed to AI, 61% of those jobs could benefit from AI-enhanced productivity, particularly among young, urban, and college-educated workers.

The open forum that followed enabled participants to engage directly with the panelists on issues ranging from AI adoption in education and health to its implications for gender equity and development.

The 2025 HDR highlights that the Philippines, while making gains in its Human Development Index (HDI) — which rose to 0.720 in 2023 — continues to face challenges from inequality and climate vulnerability. The report argues for a pivot toward AI-augmented human development, where AI serves as a complement to human capabilities rather than a replacement.

mpireport2024en.pdf

Download PDF • 1.15MB

Source: Business World

Raise the land ownership retention ceiling

Raising the land ownership retention ceiling to at least 25 hectares.

This was pegged at 5 hectares for a married couple tilling the land and 3 hectares for an individual under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988. Note that the low land retention ceiling was intended to break up vast tracts of land under the ownership of a single individual or a family.

Agrarian reform advocates at that time said that this was meant to dismantle the monopoly hold of big landlords over local economies and politics, which had resulted in severe inequality and the exploitation of tenants and agricultural laborers.

So oppressive was the situation then that it led to a number of uprisings in the countryside, led by the communist insurgency. Hence, agrarian reform became an anti-insurgency instrument by successive political administrations.

There was the added argument, provided by liberal economists, that agrarian reform would result in greater productivity. They theorized that if the owners of the land were now the actual cultivators, there would be greater incentive to become efficient. No longer would the tillers have to share their harvests with their landlords.

Fast forward or nearly four decades after the CARL was passed, what were the results?

Undeniably, land ownership became more equitable as the average agricultural land holding is currently just a hectare. Now, one can hardly hear complaints about an evil landlord owning vast tracts of land and exercising the power of life and death over tenants.

As such, the anti-insurgency aim of the reform measure was successful. The communist movement never took over as a political power. Currently, its armed component has almost been decimated even in areas where they used to have effective control.

However, it is in the productivity or efficiency side that agrarian reform fared poorly. Overall, agricultural productivity is stagnant, averaging an annual growth of only 1 percent. It has not been able to keep pace with population growth, which has averaged 1.3-1.5 percent. Expectedly, our agricultural and food imports have kept on increasing.

Not surprisingly, agrarian reform advocates blame the government for this. They argue that the lack of government assistance is the reason why agrarian reform beneficiaries fail to significantly raise their productivity.

The argument is quite egregious. If the law wanted to turn our cultivators into farmer-entrepreneurs, why make them perpetually dependent on government assistance or subsidies to become successful? Isn't it the mark of a successful entrepreneur that of being innovative and resourceful? Don't real entrepreneurs value their independence as they find government regulation stifling to growth?

Unfortunately, one of the unintended consequences of the protracted implementation of the CARL is that it destroyed the middle-class farmers who could have transformed themselves into real agricultural entrepreneurs. The main reason is the low land ownership retention ceiling.

With the fragmentation of farm lands into miniscule sizes, there is no way that an agricultural venture can enjoy economies of scale and earn a decent income. A study by the late and revered friend Dr. Rolando Dy of the University of Asia and the Pacific's Center for Food and Agribusiness revealed that the economically viable land size for most crops is around 25 hectares (smaller for vegetables but larger for sugar).

Raising the land retention ceiling to 25 hectares will undoubtedly attract middle-class individuals to invest in agriculture as they have the means to buy the land, are educated enough to decide on the best agri-ventures to engage in, invest in technology to improve productivity and access greater markets for their products using e-commerce platforms.

It is a stylized fact in economic literature that investment is a function of savings and that growth is a function of investment. There are mainly two sources of investment for the agricultural sector: government and the private sector.

A study by another late colleague, Dr. Ramon Yedra, showed that there was little private sector investment in agriculture over the past three decades. There were hardly any new huge investments by big agribusiness corporations during that period, which coincided with the implementation of the CARL. This accounts for agriculture's stagnation as government resources are not enough to support the needs of various economic sectors.

There is a need to actively attract investments from the private sector, but until we are able to lift the low land ownership retention ceiling, this will remain an elusive goal.

But what about the government's farm clustering and consolidation effort so that economies of scale can be enjoyed by farms owned and operated by the small farmers? I am not too hopeful about it given the rigid and inflexible nature of our bureaucracy. Actually, the idea of farm clustering and consolidation started during the term of former Agriculture secretary William Dar.

After nearly four years since its introduction, nothing much has been attained. In other words, if we rely on the government to implement much-needed structural reforms to achieve an efficient, productive and competitive agricultural sector, it will take ages to happen without the guarantee that one will achieve the desired effect.

Just look at various government infrastructure projects: airports, a subway, reviving our rail system and now the EDSA upgrading. By the time these are completed, they will already be considered obsolete because they no longer meet the needs of their users, who have dramatically grown in size over the period the project was being constructed.

The best course of action is to rely on market forces, but this can only happen if we have the right policy framework that will be conducive for the private sector to participate in the agricultural economy to a greater degree. Absent that understanding from our agricultural policy makers, the sector will continue to be in deep trouble.

Source: Manila Times