joma sison, plaza miranda, ninoy aquino

it was while i was writing marginal notes to the ishmael bernal anti bio, grounding a “dialogue” between bernal and jorge arago (both leftists at some point) in the culture and history of their times, when i found myself forced to deal with senate president jovito salonga’s studied view that it was cpp chairman jose maria sison who had ordered the bombing of plaza miranda in august 1971, and not, as we all had believed, president marcos.

sison has always denied it.  of course.  but salonga was known for rectitude and probity; he would not have charged sison so unequivocally if there had been any doubt in his mind.  and in this light there is no ignoring related questions raised re ninoy aquino who was expected at that miting de avance of the liberal party of which he was secretary-general.  it is said that he was just delayed by a party that he had had to attend; but it is also said that he had been warned to stay away from plaza miranda by a kadre friend, thereby insinuating that ninoy had not only saved only his own skin, but even that he had been complicit in the bombing.

i wondered if that was why ninoy stayed and submitted to arrest in september 1972 instead of going underground or fleeing into exile — he felt that he deserved some punishment for plaza miranda?  perhaps he could have done something to prevent the carnage?  but what if maybe, if there had been a warning, it had come too late to warn anyone else?  more recently, as i was reading up on the affair and writing this blogpost in my head, i wondered if the discovery that sison was responsible for plaza miranda may have affected the way that senator salonga had felt about ninoy, given the latter’s admitted links to the cpp-npa.

steve salonga, a friend from u.p. days and on facebook today, was quick to enlighten me via private message:

I looked positively at those links [of Ninoy with the CPP-NPA]. That happened way before Miranda and has no relation to later events. Most of what you hear about that today was actually trumped up ‘evidence’ during Ninoy’s military trial for murder.

Dad began hearing the ‘scuttle-butt’ about JOMA ordering the Plaza Miranda operations as early as 1982. Although it wouldn’t be until 1990 that testimony at a senate blue ribbon comm hearing would expose the whole fiasco.

The rumors that Ninoy knew about the bombing before the fact are true, but then, so did we. At that time we had raw intel of a plan to bomb our campaign sorties. But nothing definite. After Miranda, the rumors about Ninoy surfaced. But neither Dad nor I believed any of it. We knew Ninoy was at a party with Doy Laurel at the Sky Room at Jai Alai. We also knew he would follow shortly after that party. We never changed our mind about his innocence.

just the same it boggles the mind that when ninoy came home from exile, he timed it so that he landed on the tarmac on the 21st of august 1983, twelve years to the day since the plaza miranda bombing.  at the very least, it tells me that august 21, 1971 was a critical juncture in his life that he deemed worth marking.  with his death, as it turned out.

*

Truth about blast first told in Sierra Madre by Jovito Salonga
Revolution by assassination? by Max Soliven
Days of Shame: August 21, 1971 and 1983 by Rigoberto Tiglao
Once upon a ride to the Plaza Miranda bombing Part 1 by Mauro Gia Samonte
Part 2 …  Conclusion 
Ninoy Aquino, the Plaza Miranda bombing and Japanese collaborators
Jose Maria Sison Arrested by Dutch Govt for Murder
Victor Corpuz, Joma Sison, Martial Law, Plaza Miranda Bombing

Ayala Land: Health hazard

Katrina S.S.

One of the things that I appreciate about President Duterte is his consistent stand against oligarchs’ abusive ways (no matter how selective), and his notion of community justice that happens not just in terms of peace and order ala war on drugs (highly arguable strategy notwithstanding), but also in terms of bringing back peace and quiet to our communities. During the campaign, I heard him talk about videoke bans in public places, and I was hopeful that things might change for us who suffer through the incessant construction noise of big urban land developers.

Read on…

“state of lawlessness”

late friday night when the news of the davao explosion broke — 10 dead, 60 wounded was the first count — and as we waited for more facts, i was of course thinking abu sayyaf:  who else would dare hit out at the president’s beloved davao, especially since he had recently ordered the armed forces to destroy the terrorist group down to the last man.  i imagined that duterte must be livid with anger, all his strongman threats for nought.

by the time i woke up saturday the president had declared a state of lawlessness across the length and breadth of the archipelago, which only means daw that he is calling out the military to help police suppress the violence and terrorism.  but this raises so many questions.  is the threat of terrorism — whether from the abu sayyaf or, as the bandit group alleged later, from its ally daulat ul islamiya — nationwide?

if yes, why are we not being told unequivocally about these threats and why are we not being properly advised?  to avoid sowing panic?  but we have seen enough of ISIS terrorism in europe, and threats in america, via cable tv — people are properly warned and advised to be vigilant, and it is for the people to decide whether to stay home and avoid crowds, or to refuse to be frightened or cowed.

listening closely to the president and his men, it’s clear that that they choose not to dignify the claim by the abu sayyaf or to acknowledge its ally, daulal ul islamiya, as though that would be to glorify them, or dahil ba ayaw rin nilang i-acknowledge na naisahan sila?  they had been warned pala, as vice mayor paolo duterte admitted, but we don’t know by whom, or what the extent of the threat is, as he continues to keep it all secret.  i suppose they didn’t take it seriously — macho bravado?  these terrorists, isis-linked or not, wouldn’t dare?

because otherwise that davao night market would could should have been better secured, with more police and plainclothes peeps hanging around, keeping an eye on things, and the populace would have been vigilant rather than relaxed, as in, pamasahe-pamasahe.

and then i saw this, thanks to raissa robles.  a facebook status by one of the president’s men, peter tiu lavina, saturday afternoon.

Early this morning I wrote that three groups were likely behind the bombing in Davao City last night that left 14 dead and 67 injuredt: 1) drug lords, 2) terrorist ASG, and 3) political opposition. I stand corrected. There is a fourth group. One that is a collusion of these three suspects. An alliance of all anti-Duterte forces. Drug lords providing the funds, Abu Sayyaf providing the muscle, and the political opposition providing the brains and hecklers. Not farfetched, don’t you think even if the ASG has claimed the wrongdoing? Let this 0.2% do their evil worst. The rigtheous many will always be victorious.#SulongDabaw #SulongPilipinas!

it’s quite a conspiracy theory — clearly a barefaced attempt to connect the davao blast to EJKs allegedly perpetrated by drug lords — that so far has no basis in fact, or we’re simply not being told the facts?  maybe it’s pure speculation, pang-distract, but we’re expected to swallow it all, hook line and sinker?  by the way, guys, you left out the CIA.  but never mind, your new ally, the CPP, has not.  read Reds blame US for Davao blast.

i agree with rene saguisag (just heard him on tv) that we do not have a state of lawlessness nationwide, chaos and anarchy do not reign.  well, except perhaps in the wishful minds and hearts of the duterte admin.  and i agree with teddy locsin jr. that the abu sayyaf are not terrorists of the same blend as al qaeda, hamas, IRA, or ETA.  nor do they seem to be of the diehard islamic terrorist kind.

They do not have a serious political aim. They are bandits whose aim is the extortion of anything within reach. And that reach goes only as far as the weakness of national government is deep.

But there is no hatred—like Bin Laden’s for America’s desecration of Islam’s holy lands by American physical presence there.

Not yet.

So the ASG can be talked to.

But that requires keeping a tight rein on our rhetoric. (That is, shutting the f*** up.)

HAIL TO THE CHIEF

Raffy Aquino

During her interpellation in yesterday’s oral arguments on the Marcos burial at the Libingan, Chief Justice Sereno suddenly mentioned the case of “Galman vs. Sandiganbayan”. Not a few lawyers, myself included, looked up in surprise. While it was one of the 18 decisions where the Supreme Court called Marcos “authoritarian,” it had no substantial connection to the legal issues being argued.

But as she read part of the decision in that case into the record, it became apparent she was addressing herself not to the petitioners but to her brethren and to the institution they collectively represented. Through Galman, she was reminding the Court that the judiciary should never again bend the knee before an overbearing and belligerent executive; she was rallying the High Tribunal to the great constitutional standard of judicial independence and warning that such independence could rest only upon the extraordinary moral courage of each of the magistrates seated around her.

Maria Lourdes Sereno was appointed Chief Justice in 2012. Yesterday, she became the Chief.

SATURNINA GALMAN, et al. vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, FIRST DIVISION, et al. G.R. No. 72670 September 12, 1986

“…There has been the long dark night of authoritarian regime, since the fake ambush in September, 1972 of then Defense Secretary Juan Ponce Enrile (as now admitted by Enrile himself was staged to trigger the imposition of martial law and authoritarian one-man rule, with the padlocking of Congress and the abolition of the office of the Vice-President.

“As recently retired Senior Justice Vicente Abad Santos recalled in his valedictory to the new members of the Bar last May, “In the past few years, the judiciary was under heavy attack by an extremely powerful executive. During this state of judicial siege, lawyers both in and outside the judiciary perceptively surrendered to the animus of technicality. In the end, morality was overwhelmed by technicality, so that the latter emerged ugly and naked in its true manifestation.”

“Now that the light is emerging, the Supreme Court faces the task of restoring public faith and confidence in the courts. The Supreme Court enjoys neither the power of the sword nor of the purse. Its strength lies mainly in public confidence, based on the truth and moral force of its judgments. This has been built on its cherished traditions of objectivity and impartiallity integrity and fairness and unswerving loyalty to the Constitution and the rule of law which compels acceptance as well by the leadership as by the people. The lower courts draw their bearings from the Supreme Court. With this Court’s judgment today declaring the nullity of the questioned judgment or acquittal and directing a new trial, there must be a rejection of the temptation of becoming instruments of injustice as vigorously as we rejected becoming its victims. The end of one form of injustice should not become simply the beginning of another. This simply means that the respondents accused must now face trial for the crimes charged against them before an impartial court with an unbiased prosecutor with all due process. What the past regime had denied the people and the aggrieved parties in the sham trial must now be assured as much to the accused as to the aggrieved parties. The people will assuredly have a way of knowing when justice has prevailed as well as when it has failed.

“The notion nurtured under the past regime that those appointed to public office owe their primary allegiance to the appointing authority and are accountable to him alone and not to the people or the Constitution must be discarded. The function of the appointing authority with the mandate of the people, under our system of government, is to fill the public posts. While the appointee may acknowledge with gratitude the opportunity thus given of rendering public service, the appointing authority becomes functus officio and the primary loyalty of the appointed must be rendered to the Constitution and the sovereign people in accordance with his sacred oath of office. To paraphrase the late Chief Justice Earl Warren of the United States Supreme Court, the Justices and judges must ever realize that they have no constituency, serve no majority nor minority but serve only the public interest as they see it in accordance with their oath of office, guided only, by the Constitution and their own conscience and honour.”