EDSA discourse 2010: history & “ideology”

the discourse on EDSA has levelled up, about time.   as recently as february 2009 we were still arguing about when to correctly celebrate it, on the 22nd or the 23rd or the 25th, if at all.   at least today we’re arguing about EDSA’s significance, if any,  in our lives and in our future, though maybe only because we have national elections coming up and the unico hijo of cory and ninoy is a presidential candidate running on “people power”, and the unico hijo of meldy and ferdie the ousted one is a senatorial candidate running on windmills, lol, maybe more like, on hot air, still insisting that marcos is the hero ’cause he did not order his soldiersto shoot, that’s why EDSA was bloodless, haha, yeah, tell that to the marines led by the late general artemio tadiar ;))

so yes, a lot of stories and opinions have been shared, which is good.   except that of course these days everyone’s story and opinion is colored by his/her political agenda, or who s/he’s rooting, or not rooting for, in the may elections.   noynoy supporters tend to rave still about EDSA (ballsy still thinks it was a miracle, and restyo tends to agree, why am i not surprised), while bongbong supporters today and marcos supporters of yore tend still to dismiss it as a failure, and the left continues to point to the first quarter storm as the true context of EDSA.

so this from sparks’ The Politics of Owning and Remembering EDSA is a valid observation.

A monopoly on history is a monopoly of power. A monopoly of telling the narrative can only match the writer’s ideological standpoint. What really happened in EDSA? Who were the protagonists? The bad guys? Those who chose to sit on the sidelines? What was the context in which the event happened? Was it planned or spontaneous? What were the events that led to it?

…The view from the left is not the same from the right. The view from the top cannot be the same as that from the bottom. What is not contested is that the People Power revolution was good. This is probably why so many camps seek to co-opt EDSA to suit their own purposes today. Co-opting EDSA endows one with magic/legitimising properties. Co-opting EDSA allows one to be morally right. And so it seems, rarely do we ‘remember’ in an entirely objective manner. On such a momentous event as the People Power revolution, the politics of remembering is rife.

true, the ideology thing.   though mine in february ’86 was more like a school of thought, the same as carl jung’s, the physicist-psychoanalyst who was into archetypes and also into astrology, which gives one a distinct take on unusual events, a sense of cycles and recurrence, and the significance of beginnings.   in occult / astrological thought, the birth moment, the beginning of a new cycle, is more meaningful than others, and holds the key to the future.   said jung: “whatever is born or done this moment of time, has the qualities of this moment of time.”   this was the thought that kept running around in my head as the four days unfolded, culminating in cory’s oathtaking and rapturously climaxing when marcos fled.   EDSA as birth moment, a new pattern set, of people breaking out of the old and trying out new ways of being and behaving — forcing leaders to change too — and winning.    even when EDSA was being dismissed as a failure early in the cory presidency because everyone just reverted to the old ways, i just kept going with my research, knowing (as surely as night follows day) that, the pattern having been set, it is bound to recur, sooner or later, and the better we know, the clearer we are about, what worked and what didn’t the first time, the more likely we are, next time, to do better and to sustain the energy beyond four days.

and true, “rarely do we ‘remember’ in an objective manner,” worse, we remember only so much, wittingly or unwittingly, which was precisely the problem back in 1986 post-EDSA when the newly liberated media were full of stories of the uprising.

Daily newspapers rendered nothing but snippets, fragments, slices of the revolution, mostly from and about the rebels and barricaders in and around Camps Crame and Aguinaldo. The few items there were about the Marcoses and Vers were very thin, mostly official press releases, or based on Marcos’s televised press conferences which we’d already seen but which told us next to nothing about goings-on behind the scenes. Worse, different reports, sometimes within the same newspaper, would provide different data on the same events. After the revolution the papers were, of course, awash with personality profiles, first-person accounts; social commentaries, political analyses and opinion pieces, all attempting to digest the reality of the people power phenomenon and its national and global implications; the fallen regime and its greed, the new leadership and its chosen few; and plenty more about a presidential daughter and her showbiz aspirations, on ex-detainees and torture, on Reformists and a snake called Tiffany, among other trivia.

Only some of these yielded new information about the four days, and, again, these were in bits and pieces and had to be carefully sifted from what were often rather emotional renditions of events. Like the news reports during the four days, these tended to neglect journalistic details like when, where, who, why, how, etc.

What I was looking for – some chronological retelling of the four days, blow-by-blow and event-by-event, as the revolution unfolded not just in the Enrile-Ramos camps and the people’s barricades but also in Malacañang Palace, the White House, the US Embassy, Clark Air Base, the Archbishop’s Palace, the contemplative nuns’ convents, and wherever else something was happening – I didn’t find. Local and foreign weekly magazines tried, but their accounts were only slightly more enlightening and some were just as uninformed or misinformed as accounts published earlier.

By April I was deep into note-taking, combing through every newspaper and magazine that came my way, sifting, lifting, historical from hysterical data, carefully noting my sources to satisfy the most sungit of scholars, with an eye towards piecing these into a chronology that would reflect the multi-events unfolding parallel-ly / synchronously on different fronts throughout the four days. A tedious task. Newswriters tended not to indicate what time, clock-wise, things happened or were observed to happen. It isn’t clear, for instance, what time Cardinal Sin made his first call to the public over Radio Veritas. I didn’t know where to place it – before Butz Aquino’s first call or after. Around nine o’clock, said several accounts. After Butz’s call, said another. Butz called after ten, said one. The Cardinal called late in the night, said yet another.

I was constantly rearrranging and refining my sequence of events, specially as I began taking in new data from the snap books. I’d find that I had placed one event too early, another too late; or mistaken three Marcos presscons for one, thanks to a reporter who didn’t bother to specify so and just lumped together pronouncements from three consecutive presscons into a report on the latest from Marcos.

Not that the snap books were that much more particular about times and spaces, only books do have more pages, and so contain more details. But the rush to cater to a captive world market saw writers, editors, publishers rehashing for the books the same angles already extensively covered by dailies and weeklies. There was no time to backtrack and double-check, to confirm what what was generally assumed, much less to unearth something new. The race was on.

all in all it took a decade of research (on and off between other jobs),pouncing on every new book, local and foreign, and jumping at every opportunity to interview key and not-so-key figures, like fvr and joe almonte, cory and eggie, sonny razon and tony abaya, rosemarie arenas and freddie aguilar, among others.   unfortunately enrile declined when eggie denied him editing privileges, while irene marcos araneta is said to have been extremely put out by my draft chronology; it was not an entirely filipino operation, she insisted, consistent with mother imelda’s and brother bongbong’s press releases to the effect that the marcoses left the philippines against their will, kidnapped by the americans in a cia operation.

in truth, i only meant to do the spadework, sift the historical from the hysterical, left right and center, conflicting data included, organize it all according to time and space, and offer the material as a tentative framework for filipino historians to confirm or deny, analyze and synthesize.   i expected that eventually, inevitably, someone from the academe would take over the job of explaining EDSA.   instead, I found myself stuck with it.   too soon no one cared how EDSA happened.   too soon EDSA was being dubbed a failure in revolution for not ushering in deep-seated social and political change.   worse, the key figures (cory, fvr, enrile, cardinal sin, the marcos family) were super-secretive with the press about what went on behind the scenes and slow to elaborate on certain twists and turns in the four-day drama.

it took the weekly magazine veritas all of eight months to scoop the news (“Coup!” by alfred mccoy et al, october ’86) that ferdinand marcos had been telling the truth back in feb 22/ /day one when he accused defectors enrile and ramos of an aborted coup plot—something the “snap books” of mid-’86 laughed at and which enrile consistently denied for the next 14 years, admitting it only in feb 2000 (scooped by philippine star).

it took the inquirer four years to scoop the news that upon cory’s return from cebu on day two, she sent a message to camp crame asking enrile and ramos to come and meet with her (and they came and they met) in her sister’s house in nearby wack wack, greenhills.

meanwhile, unlike enrile and butz aquino who were quick to render first-person accounts to local and foreign media, fidel ramos waited five whole years to tell (me) his story, and i suppose only because my draft chronology was on the ball (he kept referring to it during his account) and great presidential campaign material.   but he evaded questions on his relationship with the enrile-RAM faction before, during, and after EDSA, and on negotiations with aquino at the height of the stand-off in EDSA.   in the end, he did not release my manuscript for publication.   hindi kasi siya ang bida?

similarly, in an interview arranged for me by publisher eggie apostol in 1995, cory was evasive about the substance of her midnight talks with enrile and ramos that turned out to be one-on-ones (surprise, surprise!) because the dynamic duo could not be away from the rebel camp at the same time.   the same dynamic duo that split up soon after, neither now caring much about EDSA.   writes luis teodoro:

Fidel V. Ramos … has disparaged People Power for the image of political instability its exercise presents to the world and foreign investors.

As for Juan Ponce Enrile … he’s long written off EDSA as an anomaly because it led to Corazon Aquino’s, rather than to his, assuming the Presidency.

The bottom line for these … worthies is that, having benefitted from People Power, no one else should, henceforth — a view that’s both self-serving as well as based on fears that what put them in power can remove them (or could have), and that People Power can go ”too far” if encouraged.

One can appreciate their apprehension. Suppose People Power actually put someone in power other than a member of the handful of families that have been in power in this country since 1946? What if People Power actually changed something?

so really, enrile might even be telling the truth when he says he knows a lot more about EDSA than has been revealed.   maybe he even knows something about what a commenter to my post ninoy’s killers claims: that the americans offered to keep marcos in power in exchange for his tons and tons of gold bars, what a story.   but even if true, people power would have knocked them out anyway.

the radical significance of EDSA

over @ anti-pinoy.com :) blogger ilda who was either too young or not around yet in 1986 asks valid questions about EDSA One.

If an Edsa Denial group were to emerge today, their job will be easy. Aside from Ninoy Aquino’s statue on Ayala Avenue, his image on the 500-peso bill, and the Edsa “Shrine” at the corner of Ortigas Avenue, evidence of any legacy left by the 1986 “revolution” in Philippine society is becoming harder and harder to come by. What constitutes evidence that the Edsa Revolution did happen? What was the result of this event? Where is the country now in terms of economic stability and security — that “progress” that seemed so within our reach amidst the euphoria of 1986?

i’d say it’s pretty much like the 1896 revolution inspired by rizal and led by bonifacio, we (i) believe it happened because the history books (and my lola’s memoirs) say so, even if it only saw us eventually being handed over by one colonizer to another for some $20 million.   in the case of the EDSA revolution, most of my parents’ and my generation and our eldest kids’ saw it happen, that stunning non-violent change from dictatorship to democracy, even if it turned out to be just one elite group taking over from another.

just the same neither revolution was a waste of lives or effort.   i happen to be immersed in floro c. quibuyen’s A Nation Aborted — Rizal, American Hegemony, and Philippine Nationalism [Ateneo Press, 1990] for a book i’m writing on my lola’s memoirs, and this sums up pretty well what was so great about that armed revolution even if neither rizal nor bonifacio lived long enough to see it:

Summarizing the revolutionary gains of 1898, the Jesuit historian Horacio de la Costa writes: “For a few brief months, over a large area of the Islands, Filipinos were free.” The victories clearly indicate that the Revolution against the Spanish regime had been successful, and that an independent nation-state would have grown had not the Americans arrived to nip it in the bud. As Cesar Majul lamented, “The Revolution was a child that was not allowed to grow.” Herein lies the tragedy of the nation. But the tragic course of the Revolution had begun much earlier in the failure of Bonifacio and Aguinaldo in 1897 to forge a united leadership. [254]

The year 1898 marked the heyday of the Revolution, when the historic bloc that Rizal and Bonfiacio had dreamt of was finally formed.Ilustrado colleagues of Rizal who were initialy lukewarm to the movementof Bonifacio, fearing that it was ill-prepared and ill-organized, now enlisted in Aguinaldo’s army. A number of ilustrados, among them Antonio Luna, came home from Europe to join the Revolution. Apolinario Mabini, who had earlier refused to join Bonifacio’s Katipunan became, in 12 June 1898, Aguinaldo’s personal adviser (and ghost-writer in Spanish), and then, albeit briefly during the Philippine-American War, the prime minister in the revolutionary government. Throughout Luzon and the Visayas, practically all revolutionary units were organized, directed, and led by the local ilustrados, prominent members of the principalia, and even the native clergy. What Elias had hoped for in the Noli became a reality in the Revolution of 1898. (254-255)

as for EDSA, well, it was a completely different genre of revolution.   here’s an excerpt from my intro to the Chronology posted @stuartxchange.com actually meant for the english edition of Himagsikan sa EDSA–Walang Himala! that’s almost done but not quite.

Beamed worldwide from EDSA by satellite TV for all the world to witness, the dramatic People Power Revolution that non-violently ousted entrenched Philippine dictator Ferdinand E. Marcos from power into exile was the first of its kind and deserves serious study, never mind that it “failed,” as critics and cynics love to point out, to usher in social and political change. But before the failure came the success: the people stopped the tanks and Marcos fled, what a coup! no mean feat! how on earth did that happen?

Many still think the ouster was orchestrated by the Americans. As many others still insist that it was a miracle, an act of God. Not to be outshone, the military rebels claim credit for the uprising: had they not defected, there would have been no EDSA. Altogether the effect, deliberate or not, is to diminish the People’s role in that unexpected triumph, to insinuate that the People acted as mere puppets of some higher power.

Contrary to Marcos propaganda, the Americans were not responsible for the EDSA Revolution. Ronald Reagan’s trouble-shooter Philip Habib knew that something was brewing but he failed to get a handle on it. The Ramos-Enrile defection (Day 1) caught the Americans napping, People Power (Day 2) knocked them out. It was already Day 3—the battle was practically won—when the Americans intervened in earnest, and only in the matter of Marcos’s escape. Intelligence reports from the CIA may have helped the rebels during the four days but if the Americans had completely stayed out of it, EDSA would have happened anyway and it would have ended more decisively.

Neither were the military rebels responsible for EDSA. Their defection only served as catalyst for the display of People Power. Remove the reformists and some other agitators would have come along. At the time, Cory’s boycott campaign versus Marcos-crony businesses was starting to peak and the business community was beginning to hurt. Had the reformist military not defected, Big Business would have had to make a move to force Marcos to step down for the sake of the economy. The reformists would have fallen in line eventually, and People Power would have stolen the show just as stunningly, just in time to render moot Marcos’s inauguration. If anything, the military defectors owed their lives and status, post-EDSA, to the People who not only saved their lives but also prevailed upon Cory to avail of their armed services.

Neither was EDSA a miracle, beyond human understanding. There is a rational cause-and-effect explanation, unfortunately kept hidden from the public, for everything that happened during those four days, from the Enrile-Ramos defection to the Marcos-Ver escape. Walang himala! No sick were healed, no water turned into wine, the sun did not dance, and the Marian apparition is all in the Cardinal’s mind. EDSA was about ordinary people in great numbers who dared to confront, unarmed, the military might of the dictator and discovered in the process their mind-boggling powers when united by a common goal. Walang himala. The task of removing the dictator was well within the people’s natural human powers.

In fact, EDSA was wrought by People Power, which was made flesh by the martial law regime when it jailed, and then made a martyr of, opposition leader Beningno “Ninoy” Aquino, Jr. EDSA was the climactic and final chapter of the fierce rivalry between Marcos and Ninoy which saw the widow Cory rising triumphant on a glorious wave of People Power. Also, EDSA is a sublime, if controversial, chapter in the Filipino people’s continuing struggle for freedom which inspired the world but proved an empty victory at home. As in the aftermath of the 1896 Revolution, the masses in 1986 went home empty-handed, the spoils pre-empted by old peninsulares and new ilustrados. Nonetheless it was sublime, and the Four Days (and preceding events, to some extent) bear recalling and scrutinizing, if only for lessons in non-violent warfare and the dynamics of People Power.

like 1898, 1986 saw the rare “historic bloc” formed, this time unarmed, masses of poor, middle class, and rich coming together with one goal in mind: the ouster of marcos.   the action climaxed in EDSA on day 2, a cool sunday afternoon, when a sea of people stood in the path of tanks that had orders from marcos to ram through! and general tadiar and his men, instead, bowed to the will of the people.   that was the end of marcos.   the message of EDSA is simple: to effect CHANGE without bloodshed, the filipino majority only need to unite and rally behind a common cause.

the catch is, we have to unite, rally, behind a common cause.   to unite thus, we have to be adequately informed on issues.   in ’86 it was possible to unite against marcos after more than 13 years of martial rule and disappearances and salvagings and crony capitalism, and after more than two years since ninoy’s assassination, and only because there emerged the brave mosquito press that defied censorship rules and spread the word about the conjugal dictatorship, the hidden wealth, the profligate shopping, the fake war medals, the human rights violations, the behest loans, the failing economy, his kidney problem, at kung ano ano pa, which was critical in building up and unifying and mobilizing the anti-marcos movement behind ninoy’s widow when the dictator finally was pressed into calling snap elections.

in 2001 edsa dos succeeded in replacing erap with gma largely because of the free media’s exposes of the presidential mansions and mistresses and then eventually because of the nationally televised impeachment trial over some two months, replayed over and over at night and on weekends, until the second envelope issue triggered the walkout that brought the students massing in edsa, not knowing that behind the scenes the arroyos were plotting with the generals.   and because that’s all we rallied behind — the ouster of erap — that’s all we got.

since then every call for people power has failed.   the so-called edsa tres because the crowds, not knowing better, turned violent, and so the military didn’t hesitate to disperse them.    the post-garci oust-gloria rallies because, well, the people are a little more sophisticated: kung wala naman tayong ipapalit na matino, what’s the point.   indeed.

so it’s not as manolo quezon alias the explainer suggests, that EDSA is no longer significant, no longer relevant to these times.    EDSA will never lose its significance, not in a humane world where non-violence should rule.   invoking EDSA is not helping noynoy’s candidacy only because EDSA is all about CHANGE and a noynoy presidency, so far, promises only small change.

the media are the key to CHANGE.   an informed media would make all the difference.   popular print and broadcast journalists who will find the time to read and to think critically and write and talk about EDSA, and about the economic, environmental, health, and education issues that hound us, so that the public can have a better sense of the options open to us, would make all the difference.

enough of talkshow hosts who don’t read the right books *lol* who expect to be spoonfed by pundits who don’t read the right books either *lol* worse , who can’t be bothered to read yet dare talk about it.   google it man lang, guys!

enough of the wowowee idiocracy!

vote with y/our remote!

Midnight CJ and the Four R’s

Rene Saguisag

The framers could have said the position of Chief Justice (CJ) should be filled up immediately and that only the CJ could swear in a Prez. They did not. They said any judicial vacancy should be filled up within 90 days, which I suggest is even merely directory, not even mandatory. No way we can mandamus a Prez.

The case of Justice Minita Chico Nazario, where the vacancy was filled up six months later is instructive; she twisted in the wind that long before finally taking her oath and becoming a credit to the SC.

It took more than six months for CJ Querube C. Makalintal to replace CJ Roberto R. Concepcion. Thus, the virtue of collegiality. It also shows that when the Constitution gave the Prez 90 days to name a new Justice, the lack of urgency was seen. May the SC order the JBC, headed by the CJ?

When Marcos won, if my memory is true, I had at least two excellent teachers who had been named to the bench just before Macapagal himself was to step down. Seen as more than qualified, maybe, but no one in the judiciary, or elsewhere, is indispensable. The two had to go. In May, 1982, for a working week, we had no Supreme Court at all! All told, vacant days added together, we had no CJ for years. The nation moved on. There simply was no fire.

Now we have a golden chance for a transparent process in lieu of arcana. Justice Rene Corona must disclose in open hearing his suspicion that Justice Tony Carpio was out to smear him. Tony denied the charge, corroborated by Nanding Campos, who Rene had said tried to influence him improperly by using three ex-Justices to approach him (which those of us of the old school us would never do; it just was not and should not be done).

GMA acknowledged on December 30, 2002 that she divides our people. Now, she plans to continue in public life, and some salivate. Why? Are these but the noises of democracy we were glad to have again in 1986 after 15 years of coercive elimination of dissenters, leading to Jackson’s unanimity of the graveyard?

Charito Planas I first met in Washington, D.C. in 1982. She has chosen to be with GMA. The right to pick we cannot question, be it elixir or poison we choose. But, as in the case of Gary Olivar, what does she have to say about the Morong 43? The duo both courageously fought martial misrule. May God bless them both. But we in the human rights community need to hear them on the 43.

FOCAP (like our friend, Tony Lopez) could be naughty. Last Tuesday it held a forum entitled Who Will Fix the Mess? I saw no one take issue with the tendentious theme. All prez wannabes said No to operating the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant. Bravo! A Korean firm said it would need a billion pesos at least, which may yet double, or triple, to repair and upgrade it. But, we are pasable-OK-na-puede-na Pinoys. I hope Prez Cory and I would no longer be blamed for not operating the plant in 1986, when Chernobyl made it easy to mothball it. But, I had not realized I was so effective chairing the Cabinet and Senate Committees on it that here we are, 24 years after the event and no Prez or wannabe is for operating it.

This fact emerged with crystal clarity in the FOCAP affair. Nick Perlas was with me in the 1986-1992 effort.

Even Engineer FVR would not dare put the nuke plant on line (his home province is Pangasinan; I married one from there and it now welcomes nuke power in a nation where Murphy’s Law—if anything can go wrong, it will—prevails in rampancy: I am not sure we can be like Russia or Japan ably dealing with Chernobyl or Toyota’s recall). We need new energy plans. We need to know from the bets what their plans are, on top of their other sales talk, to pay public servants above the level of corruption by laying down the economic foundation of honesty. Dick Gordon would want school teachers to get P40,000 a month, less than the additional bonus of House employees last Christmas given by Congressmen: how much did they get for themselves?

There must be a better deal for employees, whether public or private, for them to compete for admission into public service.

On specifics, what do they have to say on senior citizens discounts where an employer’s profit is marginal and who will go under with the additional discount? Is this not confiscatory? Any subsidy? Else, the employer may fire employees to salvage the ailing business. There must be a health program too so one with a dollar (less than P50) can have dialysis monthly. More than Motherhood spiels we need from the leading bets. Those who have no chance should withdraw, to improve the chances of even a bad bet; else, by hurting him, we may get a worse, or even the worst one, in lying, cheating and stealing. Balzac said that behind every great wealth is a great crime. How many of the bets have no great wealth?

Anyway, I need to see in the text of the 1987 Constitution, or maybe, someone can show us that, in the debates, the intent was that in the judiciary “midnight appointments” are allowed, contrary to what the SC has nixed. I know how careful the JBC and SC are in observing the no-appointment rule during the critical two months. That was why the promotion of some RTC Judges created a hassle some years ago (even if admittedly, the nominees were good); there was static about antedating to make it appear as not falling within the interdicted two-month period. No transparency. Shielding the nomination process from scrutiny should go. If it would need a constitutional change so be it. Back to the Commission on Appointments? Noynoy I don’t recall ever having opposed any change in the 1987 Consti. He and his Mom, along with millions, simply wanted to do the Right thing in the Right way at the Right time for the Right reason.

Nothing says the CJ should administer the oath. Cory and Doy were sworn in on February 25, 1986 by “mere” Associate Justices, who used the rather unconventional formulation I rushed the night before in a rinky-dink typewriter. Indeed, an ordinary notary public can administer it. When we took power in 1986, I had no time to take it but then it was a risky revolutionary government we had inaugurated. Later, in a more normal time, I took it before a notary. It could not be said that I violated my Four R’s.

Today, what is not being violated in the violent time in the vilest possible way?

de quiros, aquino, edsa

conrado de quiros is sounding like a broken record these days, insisting that “edsa” &  “people power” and “good vs. evil” are the themes to work on if we want to see noynoy aquino again racing ahead of the pack like after his mom died.

and so a guy asked him daw:

“DON’T you think that transforming the choice into a moral one is a little too high for the masa to grasp? Don’t you think the better tack would be to talk about gut issues (malapit sa bituka)?”

the noted columnist’s reply is so last decade:

Not at all.

To begin with, you would not be transforming anything. You would not be raising or reducing or reshaping anything. That was exactly how the masa saw the choice from the very start, when Cory died and Noynoy Aquino announced his intention to run: the choice was a moral one. It was not a gratuitous choice between presidential candidates, between Noynoy and Villar (Villar never even figured in the equation), between what the candidates had to offer. It was a desperate choice between the GMA curse and the Cory legacy, between Noynoy (or what he represented) and Gloria (or what she is), between life and death.

It was a choice between Good and Evil.

The fact that Noynoy got more than 60 percent showed this wasn’t merely a middle-class or elite sentiment…

yes, but that was then, we were in grief, we were emotional and romantic, we wanted more of cory and ninoy (not of gma) and noynoy seemed like the next best thing.   but this is now, we have been through a lot since cory died — killer floods, the ampatuan massacre, the murder of the rh bill, and now the illegal arrest and torture of 43 ngo health workers — and some of us are looking for answers to many questions beyond who-what is good who-what is evil, according to whom?   dams are good in times of reasonable rain, but evil in times of excessive rain.   due process is good, but why is it that the law is more protective of the rights of indicted evil-doers?   and where is due process for the health workers accused of being bomb-makers?   is the military good or evil?    is contraception good or evil?   it’s all too muddled to work as a winnowing concept and yet de quiros thinks the world of this good vs. evil theme.

For a long, long time, GMA was seen as the worst leader this country has ever had after Marcos, or for some even before Marcos. Yet all that it elicited from the public was cynicism and text jokes. It was only after Cory died and Noynoy arose in her wake that the cynicism turned into a revulsion for an intolerable situation and the text jokes turned into an epic desire to change things.

For the Aquino camp, that means it’s not just enough to harp on the hell that the GMA curse is, or the heaven that the Cory legacy can be, it needs to harp on the hell that the GMA curse is and the heaven that the Cory legacy can be, at the same time. For the Aquino camp, that means that it’s not just enough to harp on Villar as the embodiment, continuation or extension of GMA (literally or in a kindred way) or Noynoy as the inheritor, keeper, and perpetuator of the Cory legacy, it needs to harp on the one as the disease and on the other as the cure.

but what is this heavenly change that cory’s legacy will bring about through noynoy?   mababaw ang kaligayahan ni de quiros.

Who cares about Noynoy’s plans for education? Simply removing the monsters whose very existence teaches the young that lying, cheating and stealing are rewarded and whistle-blowing, telling the truth, and being courageous are punished is an entire curriculum unto itself. Who cares about Noynoy’s plans for economic development? Simply stopping a reign of corruption stops poverty completely literally in that there is no mahirap where there is no korap, and completely spiritually in that nothing impoverishes a country more than an utter lack of moralidad. Who cares about Noynoy’s plans for national security? You arrest the usurpers who made the country home to desperation and insecurity, and line them up against the wall, or its legal equivalent since we don’t have the death penalty anymore, though we can always make an exception, and we will have more security than can be guaranteed by the armed forces or the insurance companies.

but we should care about a presidential candidate’s plans for education; the curriculum problem goes beyond / goes deeper, it’s not just ethical and moral but academic and pedagogic and even a problem of language.   and we should care about noynoy’s plans for economic development because de quiros exaggerates, stopping corruption will not stop poverty “completely literally”: it would only mean a little more money for health education and dole-outs for some but not nearly enough to make a sustainable difference in the lives of the many many poor, not while the oligarchy reigns and the debt policy rules.    and we should care about noynoy’s plans for national security because current policies discriminate against pinoys (think vfa) and civil society (pro-poor ngos) and do nothing to secure our environment, and our very lives, from deadly trash and irresponsible land use and destructive mining and rapid reckless deforestation.

in another column, de quiros waxes nostalgic about edsa and people power and the cory magic.

The Cory magic hasn’t lost its magic, it has simply not been used. Or the Cory magic hasn’t lost its magic, it has simply been lost on the people who held it in their hands but never knew what they had. The Cory magic is Edsa. The Cory magic is People Power. The Cory magic is the glimmer of hope piercing through the dark of despair.

I said last year that the Noynoy camp had a tremendous advantage in that the opening of the year presented two Edsas, January being Edsa II and February being Edsa I. Both resonated with good triumphing over evil, a concept GMA has been at pains to make people forget, which is why she has tried to hide the very thing—and people, who were Cory and Jaime Cardinal Sin—that brought her to power. Both stood to unleash the Cory magic in all its glory.

January came and went, and not a single statement on Edsa, or about Edsa, issued from the lips of the Aquino camp. We’re on the second week of February, and not a single statement on Edsa, or about Edsa, has issued from the lips of the Aquino camp. We’re on the fifth month after Noynoy declared his intention to run, and not much, if not not a single statement, has issued from the lips of the Aquino camp about their cries of anguish and anger from the pit of the land, about the glimmer of hope piercing through the dark of despair, about the people and their power.

The Cory magic is not something that works by itself, it works only by being used. The Cory magic is Edsa, the Cory magic is People Power, the Cory magic is people drawing the line, demanding change, commanding change, shouting at the top of their lungs, “tama na, sobra na, palitan na.” You do not invoke these things, you do not conjure these things, you do not say the magic words that unleash these things—there is no Cory magic.

ah, yes, EDSA.   de quiros makes it seem like we are back in 1986 and the choice is simple, black and white, good vs. evil, cory vs. marcos.    indeed “tama na, sobra na, palitan na” were magic words back then, but it was clear kung sino ang dapat palitan at sino ang dapat ipalit, the opposition being united behind one cory (doy did a mar upon the clamor of the people).   eh hindi naman ganyan ang sitwasyon ngayon.   ang daming choice.   maliban kay mar, walang kandidatong kusang nagbibigaydaan kay noynoy, each one thinks himself/herself as the good one vs. the evil one.   and maybe all of them are right, all in their own small ways.

if the object was were to beat gma’s annointed and everything evil she stands for in the may elections, and if the strategy was were to go by, be guided by, the EDSA tradition, then villar erap gordon gibo jamby perlas bro.eddie and jc, should have, one and all, when cory died, humbly nobly happily rallied behind noynoy as the one opposition candidate.   of course it didn’t happen because there was no clamor to that effect.   the real clamor is for CHANGE but noynoy is only promising small change — to stop corruption and streamline the system, the very system that needs changing.

truth to tell, it’s jamby madrigal and nicanor perlas who are running on platforms of CHANGE, and noynoy and the rest should be giving way to them, i.e., if we are to go by EDSA.   but the people aren’t ready, pinagiisipan pa nila, pinagtatalunan pa, kung sino ano ba talaga ang paniniwalaan, ano nga ba yung tama na, alin ba ang sobra na, paano ba papalitan, atano ang ipapalit.   clearly people power continues on “hold” while seeking to level-up beyond good vs. evil.