Category: history

Why skirt the issue of marital infidelity?

How very interesting the way our President and Vice President, as well as many (if not most) of our thinkers, writers, analysts, and columnists are raising their eyebrows at, and trying to rationalize away, marital fidelity as a political issue.

All in all, they’ve given four reasons why marital infidelity cannot, should not, be a criterion in choosing our public officials.

1. Given the sexual promiscuity of most Filipino men and (yes, to a certain extent) women, disqualifying two-timers would mean disqualifying practically all candidates — walang matitira.

2. Many of the world’s admired and greatest leaders were known to have been unfaithful to their wives; this means infidelity does not distract from good leadership.

3. Infidelity is solely the wife’s business. If she doesn’t mind, why should we.

4. History shows that marital fidelity has never been a political issue; by nature Filipinos are permisssive, that is, not puritan in their expectations of public officials.

The first exaggerates. Mayroon namang matitira; iilan-ilan nga lang. Admittedly, at this late date, it may be impractical to insist on clean slates, but at least notice would be served on future aspirants to public office.

The second assumes too much. Just because leaders like Arsenio H. Lacson, Manuel L. Quezon, and John F. Kennedy were also sexually promiscuous, it does not necessarily mean that the excess indulgence in no way affected their leadership styles. That would be saying that their individual performances could not have been improved upon, that theirs were the ultimate in leadership. I’m sure that’s not true.

The third is pure garbage (or it’s the double standard, as usual). In the disco incident that involved Congresswoman LVY, her aggrieved spouse complained in the most vehement terms, by slashing the face of her alleged lover. How did the case go? In Congress the lady solon was accorded the warmest sympathy and promised she would not be investigated. Media (which she accused of sensationalizing and making mountains out of molehills) were actually kind; no one wrote up the stories whispered around about her, maybe out of respect for her sex and office, maybe out of defensiveness (birds of the same feather…) or maybe just because journalists thought it proper to disdain, remain above, such lurid matters. So now she’s running for Senator.

The fourth is absolutely decadent. It’s the same as saying no to any kind of change, who cares if the country is going to the dogs and the pigs and AIDS, never mind if history isn’t all worth repeating.

FROM LEFT FIELD. On “The Big Story” (ABC 5’s version of Public Forum) the other Friday, Professor Randy David actually apologized for bringing up the subject of marital infidelity and, surprise, surprise, most of his feminist guests agreed, declaring it a “non-issue.”

Except, that is, for Bing Pimentel (Nene’s wife) and Nanay Luring (of Samakana, a rural-based women’s NGO) who dared disagree. Infidelity breeds corruption, Bing said, because mistresses are expensive. Marital infidetllity painfully violates the rights of the spouse, Nanay Luring said.

Curiously enough, the feminists of Gabriela and Filipina were unusually cool and detached, as though Nanay Luring’s cause did not concern them in the least. Mulat na ang kababaihan, said Chit Tapales. Relationships are changing, pareho na ang standards for men and women, said Karen Tanada.

It seemed to me they were being plain defensive, choosing to skirt the issue rather than confront it, in the vain hope that the issue will go away, and with it, their many fears. Fear that the marital fidelity issue would distract from “bigger” issues. Fear that discussions would deteriorate to the level of “lip-smacking” gossip. And, even, fear of casting stones. (Baka bumalik?)

*written for my coiumn NOTES OF A TV JUNKIE, Manila Standard, March 15, 1992

write it down, miriam!

Senate Prez JPE and Speaker Sonny may not be free to give year-end “bonuses” to themselves and to their staff, as a matter of law and delicadeza. Such “pamaskos” should be in the sunlight, given with transparency.

… Supposed to have said he was “just making lambing” to the senators, he (enrile) should have used his own money to stroke them.

that’s rene saguisag in Dark knights johnny and sonny, sunflower uncle jovy.  he also asks:

If JPE had given the same sums to Miriam & Co., would they have groused?

it doesn’t matter to me that miriam might be grousing only because she was one of four who had been given peanuts instead of the full monty.  what matters to me is that while grousing she has confirmed what we always suspected, that our senators are not only over-compensated, they are self-serving first, public servants kuno second, if that.

even more awesome, miriam has dared challenge enrile on historically significant matters.  read conrado de quiros’s Go girl:

Comes now Miriam Defensor-Santiago to set the record straight. Or to remind her countrymen of what they already know. Or to put back in shape the history that someone has tried violently to twist.

In her own words: “Namunini ’yan (Juan Ponce Enrile) noong martial law. Right-hand man iyan ni Marcos, martial law administrator iyan ni Marcos. (He immensely benefited during martial law. He was Marcos’ right-hand man, he was Marcos’ martial law administrator.) He should now answer for the crime of plunder. Bakit siya ganyan kayaman? (Why is he so rich?) He should answer for the crime of causing the disappearance of people. Defense minister siya, e di dapat managot siya doon.” (He was the defense minister, so he should answer for it.)

On Enrile’s part in Edsa: “Gusto niyang tanggalin si Marcos dahil buong pag-asa niya na siya na ang papalit. E, gusto pala ng publiko si Cory Aquino. Purmero, nakikipag-kaibigan. Mamaya nagbibigay ng pera pala para sa mga coup d’ etat laban kay Cory kaya pinatanggal siya sa gobyerno.” (He wanted to remove Marcos because he thought he would replace him. As it turned out, the people wanted Cory. At first he feigned friendship with her. Later, it turned out he was financing the coups d’etat against her. That was why he was booted out of office.)

On Enrile’s ambush in Wack Wack: “Tumigil-tigil na nga ’yang matandang ’yan! Noong panahon ni Marcos, inambush s’ya. Nung panahon ni Cory sabi nya peke ’yung ambush n’ya. Ngayong panahon na ito, sa kanyang autobiography kuno, sinabi naman niya na tunay daw ’yung ambush. Anong klaseng tao ’yan?” (That old man should stop it. During martial law, he said he was ambushed. During Cory’s time he said the ambush was fake. Then today in his autobiography he says again his ambush was real. What kind of person is that?)

What can I say? I love it.

i’m sorry she’s taken ill and i hope she recovers because there’s ping lacson to tackle pa.  he who calls miriam a crusading crook, the one senator who dares take up the cudgels for enrile, defending that gift-not-bribe, which makes you wonder about his no-pork-barrel stance.  hindi ba pareho lang yon, sa kaban ng bayan din galing ang funds?  ah but of course he’s defensive because he accepted the gift-not-bribe.

miriam can make it easy on herself by eschewing public interviews and, once she has recovered her health and equanimity, by writing it all down instead, e.g., a press release responding to lacson, for starters.  not that writing won’t raise her blood pressure, but it’s less stressful, and one can say more, even choose one’s words and frame one’s arguments, for best results.

my attitude is, miriam may not be without sin, as lacson insinuates, but i love her just the same for spilling the beans, like, you know, she’s our expert state witness!

remembering edsa dos

Parehong bongga at kamangha-mangha ang People Power I at People Power II. Biglang nagtipon ang daandaang-libong taongbayan sa EDSA and by their sheer presence ay tahimik na napa-step down from the seat of power ang isang presidente.

Pero totoo rin ba ang puna ng mga kritiko na bitin ang Edsa Two, na ito’y parang poor (kahit pa hightech) imitation kung ikokompara sa original o unang Edsa?

Natural, magkaiba ang drama ng Uno at Dos.  Read on

From pelikulang suspense to dambulahang MTV is a piece i wrote, comparing uno and dos, for eggie’s pinoy times soon after edsa dos.”  some time later, second thoughts: EDSA Dos, Tres, Kuwatro, Singko?  read, too, raul pangalangan’s EDSA 2 as a scripted event.

DepEd endorses El Presidente :(

The Emilio Aguinaldo biopic of the country’s first president, and one that revisits the first Philippine Republic, is clearly of quality. In fact it has been graded ‘A’ by the Cinema Evaluation Board (CEB) and is endorsed by Department of Education (DepEd), the Commission on Higher Education (Ched), and the Film Development Council of the Philippines (FDCP).

endorsed by DepEd and CHED?  ano ba yan!  DepEd and CHEd should be the last to endorse hagiographic material such as this that exalts emilio aguinaldo at the expense of andres bonifacio and others like antonio luna.  this is blatant historical revisionism, mostly based, not surprisingly, on aguinaldo’s memoirs — and we know how self-serving memoirs can be.

if anything, DepEd and CHED should be warning the public that there is much much more to the 1898 revolution than the depicted cinematic heroics of aguinaldo.

jessica zafra is right, Bonifacio was NOT a traitor!

“Salbahe pala si Andres Bonifacio.”

Mark Meily’s film El Presidente would have viewers believe that Andres Bonifacio, Supremo of the Katipunan, was a traitor who was plotting against the revolutionary government. Naturally the film would take Aguinaldo’s side, being a biopic whose primary source, cited in the credits, is Aguinaldo’s memoirs. Writer-director Meily’s avowed intention is to clear up the misconceptions surrounding this controversial figure. I do not doubt Meily’s sincerity, but I have a problem with his history.

Like our grade school textbooks, El Presidente oversimplifies the facts. It is correct in its general outlines: elections were held in Tejeros, presided over by the visiting Supremo (Cesar Montano, who now has the distinction of having played Rizal and Bonifacio). Aguinaldo was voted in as president in absentia; Bonifacio got the consuelo de bobo post of Director of the Interior. Then Daniel Tirona rose to question Bonifacio’s credentials in a most insulting manner, saying that the position required a lawyer and not a mere laborer from Tondo. Bonifacio lost his temper, drew his gun on Tirona, declared the elections null and void, and stormed out of the room.

Historians have long noted Bonifacio’s foul temper and his unwise decision to encroach on Aguinaldo’s territory. (I am citing Bones of Contention: The Bonifacio Lectures by Ambeth R. Ocampo, who cites Apolinario Mabini’s La Revolucion Filipina and other sources.) The movie goes further, painting Bonifacio as a man who would betray the Revolution he started. In one scene Aguinaldo himself overhears Bonifacio and his supporters planning to spread false news of his arrest. In another, Artemio Ricarte (Ian de Leon) on Bonifacio’s orders sends reinforcements away so that Aguinaldo’s men are defeated by the Spanish.

The movie tells us that when Aguinaldo’s men arrested Bonifacio, he resisted, fought back action movie-style, and wounded some men before he was brought down. But the record of Bonifacio’s military trial tells a different story. Aguinaldo’s officers, led by Colonel Agapito Bonzon a.k.a. Col. Yntong, had been received by Bonifacio as friends. They were offered breakfast and cigarettes before they left. The following day Col. Yntong and his men returned, firing their weapons and accusing Bonifacio of planning to take off with the revolution’s money. The slander seemed calculated to set off Bonifacio’s temper. When it didn’t work, Bonifacio was shot in the shoulder. As he fell, someone stabbed him in the throat.

This does not seem to be the act of someone obeying orders to take the Supremo alive. The arresting officers claimed that the Bonifacio brothers had shot first, but when Bonifacio’s revolver was examined, all the bullets were intact.

It gets uglier. After Bonifacio’s arrest, Col. Yntong and his men captured Mrs. Bonifacio, Gregoria de Jesus. Col. Yntong ordered her beaten until she revealed the whereabouts of the money she’d allegedly hidden. The soldiers refused to obey, whereupon Col. Yntong forced her into an empty house with the intention of raping her to further humiliate the wounded Supremo.

Yes, this is the Bonifacios’ testimony, but as Teodoro Agoncillo said, Why did Aguinaldo never order an investigation into the charges against Col. Yntong?

The attempted rape is not mentioned in the movie. However, in the epilogue, we are told that during the election in Tejeros, Aguinaldo’s supporters were away fighting so most of the people present were Bonifacio’s men. (Historical accounts say otherwise.) It’s not enough that he lost the election; his own supporters rejected him. Nothing is said in Bonifacio’s defense, but the movie feels compelled to keep defending Aguinaldo long after he has won. He repeatedly declares that he had “no choice” but to act as he did. El Presidente does Emilio Aguinaldo a disservice by portraying him as a victim of circumstance.

Even if this movie is from Aguinaldo’s point of view, the goal should be the truth. We are talking about Bonifacio, the hero who started the Revolution. If you must unmask him as a traitor, you had better have irrefutable proof other than some shifty looks from Cesar Montano.

At times the history is merely sloppy – Jose Rizal’s imprisonment at Fort Santiago is mentioned casually, but his execution is ignored altogether. The long sequence of events from the Pact of Biak-na-Bato to the Philippine-American War is rushed through, presented in a series of meetings where we hear the contents of various documents. The Declaration of the Republic of the Philippines on June 12, 1898, surely the apex of President Aguinaldo’s career, is treated in a perfunctory manner.

Though it is heartening to see history as a subject for popular culture, El Presidente exemplifies what ails our nation. We have amnesia. We choose to forget the inconvenient past in the name of “moving on”. We edit history for general patronage. We reduce history to names and dates – as Ocampo points out, we enjoy the non-working holiday on Bonifacio’s birthday, but we never come to terms with his role in Philippine history. The disturbing reality is that the man who started the revolution against Spain was killed by his own countrymen. El Presidente sanitizes history some more by saying that on some level, he deserved it.

i would like to think that the descendants of aguinaldo, one of them a member of the cabinet, another a popular showbiz figure, are not entirely happy with this biopic.  i hope they realize that this movie is a disservice to nation because it is more of the old propaganda than it is a credible fleshing out of history.  it is all about painting aguinaldo as hero and everyone else as villain.  it is about refusing to take any kind of responsibility for bonifacio’s execution.  it is about refusing to dwell on the compromises he made with the spaniards that led to the pact of biak-na-bato and exile.  it is about glossing over his secret talks with, and faith in, the americans that led to his return, and eventually to the fil-am war.  aguinaldo had a lot of explaining to do, but he wouldn’t, until the very end, and you have to wonder why.

read teodoro m. locsin’s Interview with the General, June 11, 1949 .  asked about bonifacio’s death and mabini’s fall, aguinaldo said, “It was all politics, of course, and I wish you would not ask me more about it.”

yes, the devil is in the politics, and continues to reign supreme.

the aguinaldo family would serve the nation best by commissioning a fair and honest retelling of  their patriarch’s story, warts and all.