In the most unequivocal terms, not a few communist leaders have told me that there is no room for poltiicians in the CPP/NPA set-up. To them, all politicians are a product of the “comprador, bourgeois-capitalist system” which must be eliminated.

I have discussed my “ideology” with them. And the biggest surprise of my life: They not only rejected it but held it as more dangerous than the outright capitalist ideology.

I tried to explain to them that the Filipino is not one who is comfortable in an extreme position, that the Filipino is basically a peaceful, spiritual, if not a religious man. I was, they told me to my face, “historically wrong.” I believe not. And the freedom that is born of the spirit remains the foundationof my ideology, my life’s credo.

I think I can best explain my ideology by excerpting from a manifesto I wrote last year after my 40-day hunger strike to protest the judicial (dis)processes under the present martial rule. On the advice of my Jesuit spiritual adviser, I wrote down the outlines of my ideal society. Part of my Manifesto reads as follows:

WE DREAM
OF A COMMUNITY OF LIBERATED CITIZENS enjoying the full benefits of a Free Society:
— FREE to choose, criticize and remove our duly elected governors;
— FREE from the imprisoning walls of ignorance, poverty and disease;
— FREE from the exploitation of a privileged and propertied few; and
— FREE from the entangling webs of super-power hegemony, imperialism and neo-colonialism.

WE BELIEVE
WE ARE THE PEOPLE OF GOD

ENDOWED with reason — which lifts us from the brute — from which we derive our standards of morality, justice and the rational method of ascertaining our duty to our fellowmen and our community.

ENDOWED with a free will and slave to no one, save our Maker. Exercising our free will, we enter into an agreement with all citizens on basic and fundamental tenets, to which we all adhere — and which we pledge to protect — to further the commonweal and our communal interests.

A FREE SOCIETY reconciles liberty and equality; rejects liberal freedom without equality and total equality without freedom. Its essence is the absence of special privilege. Its guarantee is an equal opportunity for self-fulfillment for every citizen. It is dynamic, not static, open to change, be it gradual or rapid, for no one does possess the last word, and the world of men and nature is in constant flux.

LABOR is the most effective human principle; social interest the fundamental stimulus to economic activity. Ultimately, all basic and strategic means of production must come under social ownership to ensure equitable proration of the national wealth and to safeguard the national interest.

THE DIALECTIC OF POWER AND RESISTANCE is one of the great motive forces of history. Power produces conflict and conflict between antagonistic forces give rise to ever new solutions.

AN OPPOSITION PARTY is indispensable in a democracy. The opposition should act as the critic of the party in power, developing, defining, and presenting the policy alternatives which are necessary for a true choice in public decision-making. It must therefore be guaranteed not only protection but existence, and must be allowed to speak freely and unafraid.

A FREE MEDIA, the most effective vehicle for untrammeled discussion, mutual criticism and refutation, is imperative if we are to prevent the entrenching of error.

A TRULY REPRESENTATIVE PARLIAMENT is a natural friend of liberty and an “unrestrained executive magistracy” is a natural enemy of freedom. The delicate system of checks and balances and the strict separation of powers are indispensable to a republican form of government.

UNDERDEVELOPMENT is the consequence of a capitalist system that perpetuates poverty and attendant human misery, of social structures based on gross inequalities in social well-being, privilege and power. This system must be replaced.

TYRANTS SUCCEED not because they are really strong but because the citizens are weak and indifferent. Threatened with various sanctions and “invitations to Crame,” the intimidated masses cower in fear and supinely agree to pay for a false freedom with their basic civil liberties.

Only when a man has learned to fear nothing but the scruples of his conscience is he truly free. If he is ready to die, who can threaten him with death?

THE ESSENCE OF THE DEMOCRATIC FAITH is that through the continuing process of political education, men become sufficiently reasonable to discover, with evidence and the give and take of free discussion, a better way of solving common problems.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF DEMOCRACY rests not on the belief in the natural goodness of man but his educability, not in the inevitability of social progress but in the potentialities of nature and intelligence.

IN THE END we get the government we deserve! No social or political organization can be better than the quality of the men and women who compose it. The quality of their lives will be determined by their visions, their courage and their fortitude.

GOVERNMENTS MAY SINK TO DEPTHS LOWER THAN THEIR SOURCE; THEY CANNOT RISE HIGHER!

WE VOW
TO REMAIN STEADFAST, unintimidated, and to risk jail rather than see our liberties nibbled away.

TO SPEAK OUT AND DENOUNCE RAMPANT INJUSTICES. Justice can be realized only when “those who have not been victimized become as outraged as those who have been.”

TO HELP OUR FELLOWMEN HELP THEMSELVES by removing the barriers of poverty, ignorance and disease that have stunted their growth for ages. Give them the tools and show them how best they can help themselves. A viable and a truly lasting revolution requires not only the overthrow of an oppressive external order but the continuing struggle for the minds, hearts and souls of men.

TO IMPOSE UPON OURSELVES the supreme obligation to crystallize and effectuate a determined and a committed OPPOSITION to the oppressive order, because tragedy of tragedies, we have become a nation with a history as dangerous to forget as it is painful to remember.

I grew up under a democratic capitalist system with its doctrines of free enterprise and laissez faire. Our economic system, copied from that of the United States, held out profit as the main motive force of economic activity. Profit is the great incentive. Capitalism appeals to the greed of men.

Capitalist doctrines went thusly: As much as possible, government must minimize its interference in matters of economics and business; governmental controls and regulations must be kept to the utmost minimum; the owners of business and industry must be allowed to fix the rules of competition.

But capitalism has not been all bad. History shows that it has been a vibrant, vital force.

Beginning with the 19th century, capitalism gave impetus to the growth of modern science and its application to daily life. It saw the triumphant assertion of individual daring, skill and enterprise over bureaucratic inertia and ineptitude. The ascendance of economic individualism brought with it a strengthening of political liberty.

But as the capitalist economy progressed, small economic units were gradually absorbed by the bigger enterprises that could afford the latest technological  innovations. Access to credit and capital became a key to growth. Those who got it, or had the “access,” grew, prospered, became the “signeurs” of the capitalist-dominated order.

True, work became collective. But ownership remained very individual. Thus the social phenomenon: the aristocracy of the moneyed few, the serfdom of the majority who are poor.

The challenge to capitalism was created by its failure as much as by its successes. Unemployment, for one thing, became a major problem. It demolished the myth that capitalism possessed a built-in, self-restoring natural harmony. For another, there was the contradiction between political freedom and economic dependence. This became more acute and accentuated with the growth of giant enterprises and the concentration of tremendous wealth in the hands of a few. Not content with making money, the new capitalists expanded into the field of media and politics. Politicians and journalists became like commodities — bought and sold in the open market!

The existence of industrial absolutism within the walls of political liberty, observes Prof. William Ebenstein, an eminent professor of politics, “lies at the basis of the critique of capitalism.” He elaborates, “Whereas in a democracy political policies are arrived at through a process of consent that begins at the bottom and ends at the top, in corporate business economic policies are made from the top to the bottom.”

And this is what handicapped Philippine democracy — from the start, it was a “capitalist democracy.”

The dogma of laissez faire created a political situation that violated the canons of democracy. The owners of capital wielded powers so far-reaching — over their employees, over the public — without being accountable to the community, without being responsible to those whose fate they determined with their vital economic and political decisions. They were the country’s plutocrats (they have been called “oligarchs,” which is a misnomer) — and plutocrats of the worst kind.

It is true that since the establishment of the Third Republic in 1946, there has been a substantial shift from pure free enterprise or laissez faire economy to a more government-regulated one. Currency controls were imposed in 1949, followed by import and export restrictions. Social security was established during the mid-fifties. Increasingly, with the establishment of the National Economic Council, central economic planning by government came to thefore.

During the late sixties and early seventies, the concept of absolute property rights began to give way to a more socialist concept of property. This concept — that property is a mere trust — even found a place in the 1973 Constitution.

But we are still a long way from freeing our economy from the tentacles of capitalism. Government financing institutions are still spawning overnight millionaires, just as they have done over the last five decades. I filed a bill in the Senate to limit government financing only to open corporations whose stocks are freely traded in the market. Closed family corporations, under my bill, would have to resort to private financing. It got nowhere.

Public mistrust in government-run businesses and industries continues to grow. And it is not surprising, because government planning is left to second- and third-rate minds who eventually penalize the whole economy with their half-baked economic concepts. Mediocrity is so prevalent in government because the better trained and experienced economic planners are pirated by private business after the government has spent much time and money on their education.

If central economic planning is to succeed, the private sector, instead of pirating government brains, must volunteer the services of their experts to the central planning agency. Only thus may the country operate as a national corporation dedicated to the welfare of all.

If I have taken great pains to elaborate on my personal ideology, it is because it grieves me profoundly to be carelessly branded a communist by those who never bothered to understand the difference between communism and Christian socialism. To them, socialism and communism are synonymous — a throwback to the McCarthyism of the early fifties in America. Unhappily, they are now the custodians of the New Morality.”

Testament from a Prison Cell (1984) 35-39

As I delved deeper into the underlying reasons behind our chronic insurgency problem, I came to a realization: The accepted notions of our capitalist system must be thoroughly reviewed, some very basic capitalist doctrines must be totally discarded.

I also concluded: The answer does not lie in the extreme solution of communism.

In fine, I came to accept: Capitalism must be reformed by an ideology that will restore the original balance between economic and political freedom.

Capitalism must be corrected by vigorous anti-monopoly legislation, supplemented more positively by social welfare and security measures than now exist. Basic economic decisions must be made by the community — the government — and not by the private owners of the means of production. More efficient national economic planning must be adopted to husband our meager resources and bring the greatest good to the greatest number.

Individual economic independence must be restored under conditions set by the people themselves.

It was this realization that prompted me to call for the nationalization of our basic and strategic industries during the late sixties. I proposed then that all public utilities — for a start — should come under government ownership. In the area of mass transit, for example, I advocated a measure of subsidy to alleviate the difficulties of the working poor. In the Senate I joined the sponsors of land reform and urban housing development for the masses.

One of the reasons I joined the Liberal Party in 1963 was because I was convinced by President Macapagal’s welfare state program. I saw it as a step, humble though it was, towards the removal of the great social and economic imbalances in our country — the main causes of our continuing unrest.

If I must be labeled, I think I will fit the label of Christian Socialist best. My ideology flows from the mainstream of Christian Democratic Socialism as practiced in Austria, West Germany and the Scandinavian countries.

I believe that in a democracy, political power is a sacred trust that must be held for the benefit of the people.

I believe that freedom of the individual is all-important and ranks above everything else. Every citizen must be given the equal opportunity to self-fulfillment, to better himself. While it is true indeed that not all men are equally endowed, I believe that every man should be given the equal opportunity for advancement through free, universal and quality education.

Confidence between the majority and the minority, between the government and the governed, is indispensable to the vitality of a democracy. There can be no confidence where established rights are destroyed by fiat.

The supreme value of democracy is freedom, not property. The democratic world will meet the communist challenge if it upholds and unites on the issue of freedom as the fundamental element of human survival.

I believe that once the life of freedom is guaranteed, the question of economic institutions, of private and public enterprise, will take care of itself.

A free media is indispensable if a democracy is to function efficiently, if it is to be real. The people, who are sovereign, must be adequately informed all the time. A reasonable case, reasonably presented, will eventually win the hearts of the people. But the people must know the facts if one expects them to decide correctly.

I believe democracy is not just majority rule, but informed majority rule, and with due respect for the rights of the minorities. It means that while the preference of the majority must prevail, there should be full opportunity for all points of view to find expression. It means toleration for opposition opinions. Where you find suppression of minority opinion, there is no real democracy.

The basic flaw of capitalism is its primary concern for political liberty; it cares comparatively less about social and economic equality. Communism, on the other hand, aims at social and economic equality but ruthlessly opposes and destroys political liberty.

I believe in a Christian Democratic Socialist ideology that will harmonize political freedom with social and economic equality, taking and merging the best of the primary conflicting systems — communism and capitalism.

I have said, and say it here again: I am not a communist, never was, and never will be! These are my reasons:

1. Communism calls for violence in the overthrow of existing institutions regardless of the cost in human lives. The individual’s interest is subordinate to that of the state. It aims to establish a dictatorship under a one-party system. It tolerates no truth other than itself!

As Engels bluntly put it, in a letter to Bebel: ‘As the State is only a transitional institution which we are obliged to use in the revolutionary struggle, in order to crush our enemies by force, it is pure nonsense to speak of a free people’s State. During the period that the proletariat needs the State, it needs it, not in the interests of freedom, but in the interest of crushing its antagonists; and when it becomes possible really to speak of freedom, the State as such will cease to exist.’ (Quoted in Lenin’s State and Revolution, pp 170-171, Vanguard Press, 1926)

And as Lenin himself wrote: ‘Dictatorship is an authority relying directly upon force, and not bound by any laws. The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is an authority maintained by means of force over and against the bourgeoisie, and not bound by any law.’
(Lenin, The Proletarian Revolution, p.15)

I believe in evolutionary reform and I regard all human life as equally priceless, regardless of circumstances. I hold individual freedom most sacred, because it is God’s gift. I cannot accept any form of dictatorship, whether of the left, the right or the center.

2. Revolutionary communism visualizes the transition from capitalist enterprise to public ownership as a sudden, violent and complete act. There is no payment or compensation for expropriated property, because it considers capitalist property, morally and socially, as little better than theft. It is committed dogmatically to the principle of public ownership of all forms of property, excepting only personal consumer goods.

3. I am not committed to any a priori dogma of the inherent supremacy of public ownership over private. I believe in the Christian Socialist ideology that seeks to establish a set of rational, pragmatic, empirically verifiable criteria that qualify an industry for nationalization. I agree that monopolies in private hands must never be allowed. I also believe that basic and strategic industries must be nationalized, because it is too dangerous to leave the determination of national needs and priorities in the hands of a few. My primary concern is national interest and the general welfare, not nationalization.

I am for the payment of just compensation for the expropriation of property, but I hold that the state should regulate the re-investment of these compensatory funds. For example, funds paid landowners in the expropriation sale of their ricelands should not be allowed to be invested in overseas or foreign ventures, or even in any of the nation’s other regions. The government should set up industries where the expropriated lands are located, then exchange stocks in these industries for the land bonds paid the landowners.

In this way, two things are accomplished: There is no capital flight from the region and additional job opportunities for non-farm workers are created. If capital flight is allowed, landowners will reinvest their funds in, say, Manila; during the amortization period, there will be a steady capital drain from the original region.

I adhere to an evolutionary program. This must always stand the test of national approval as expressed through periodic elections, plebiscites, referenda, which will ensure that the program is implemented — and will continue to be implemented — only with the consent of the majority freely expressed.

4. In communism, the opposition is liquidated. I believe the opposition must be won over.

Lenin held that workers under capitalism are mentally enslaved to the capitalist ideology and incapable of peaceful conversion to socialism without changing first the economic structure of society. Violence, he said, is the sole vehicle for change because the capitalist will yield only to force. To use a much-abused cliche, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

Lenin based his justification of Communist Party rule on the assumption that the masses are incapable of understanding and acting “correctly.” They must be led, Lenin held, by “a dedicated band of selfless revolutionary professionals” who possess the “correct knowledge of the laws of history and society.” He advocated not a dictatorship of but over the proletariat! In this, his apologia for authoritarianism did not differ from any other apology for tyranny.

Finally, Lenin argued that because communists are engaged in a ceaseless struggle, a class war which is always a ruthless conflict, the communist has no room for sentimentality, for romanticism, but must use all possible tactical and strategic means, whether legal or illegal, to reach his objectives. This is, shorn of Leninist jargon: the revolutionary seizure of power. It is, said Lenin, the only way.

I am a humanist, a democrat and a romantic. And this is where I part company with the communists.

In 1969, I visited the Soviet Union on the invitationof the USSR Friendship Society. I was allowed to bring a television crew to film my tour and interviews. I saw the great progress made by that mighty communist regime. In less than sixty years, Russia had emerged from backwardness to the status of a super-power!

Thepeople looked well-fed. Everyone seemed to be employed. The universities were full of eager students. Cost of living was kept at a stable minimum. From all appearances indeed, communist Russia was the dreamed-of Utopia where unemployment, hunger and want had been banished.

But I left Russia with a distinct feeling — that there was something lacking in the Soviet paradise. On reflection, I realized what was lacking: there was a lack of color and variety; miles and miles of high-rise apartments which all looked the same; the people rarely smiled.

In the exhibition parks where the Sputniks and the latest Soviet farm equipment were displayed, there were thousands of ogling Russians but very few talked to a foreigner. I got the impression from my interviews with people that they weighed every word they spoke. They were uneasy speaking to a foreigner.

Yes, the Russian people had their bread. But they had lost their freedom!

According to Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, the Russians still crave for freedom, but they have lost the will to fight for it:

x x x we are waiting for freedom to fall on our lap like some unexpected miracle, without any effort on our part, while we ourselves do nothing to win it. Never mind the old traditions of supporting people in political trouble, feeding the fugitive, sheltering the passless and the homeless (we might lose our state-controlled jobs). We labor day by day, conscientiously and sometimes even with talent, to strengthen our common prison.

Solzhenitsyn said that if the Russian people had only willed to live on a crust of bread and be honest, they would be free and invincible.

On the eve of his exile, he gave this parting judgment of his people which may well be a universal diagnosis:

“We have got what we deserved!”

Testament from a Prison Cell (1984) 29-33

I am Benigno S. Aquino, Jr., 45, Filipino, married, father of five, a native of Concepcion, Tarlac, and presently detained since September 23, 1972 at the MSU Compound of the Philippine Army at Fort Bonifacio.

My detention camp is also known as the “cemetery for the living” — to distinguish it from the American Cemetery directly to the north and the Libingan ng mga Bayani (Cemetery of Heroes) slightly to the south.

Both my grandfather and my father were imprisoned, as I am now, for serving the Filipino people.

I am the grandson of the late General Servillano Aquino of the Filipino Revolutionary Army under President Aguinaldo of the First Republic. Shortly after the turn of the century, my grandfather was captured by American forces, tried, convicted and sentenced to death by an American Military Tribunal for “guerrilla war crimes even after the capitulation of President Aguinaldo.” He escaped execution only after President Theodore Roosevelt declared an amnesty for all Filipino rebels. For six years, my grandfather was imprisoned in the dungeons of Fort Santiago and a grateful nation recognized and rewarded his efforts by naming one of the biggest Philippine Army camps in his honor.

I am the son of the late Benigno S. Aquino, Sr., a former congressman, a senator (majority floor leader), cabinet member under President Quezon during the Philippine Commonwealth, and a Speaker of the National Assembly. He was the No. 2 man of the wartime Second Republic. American authorities imprisoned my father, together with the other members of the wartime government, in Tokyo’s Sugamo Prison. He regained his freedom at the birth of the Third Republic in 1946.

I am a product of the Benedictines and of the Jesuit ratio studiorum. After 2 years in Catholic educational institutions, I began the study of law at the University of the Philippines.

I am a former newspaperman (The Manila Times). At 17, I was a war correspondent (the Korean War). Later, I became a foreign correspondent (Indo-China, Malaya, Indonesia, the Middle East). In 1955, I was elected mayor of Concepcion, Tarlac. In 1961, I became vice governor of Tarlac province. In 1961, I became governor of Tarlac province. I was elected to the same office in 1963. In 1967, I was elected to the Senate of the Philippines.

I was executive assistant to three Presidents: Magsaysay, Garcia, Macapagal. I was awarded decorations by three Presidents: Quirino (The Philippine Legion of Honor, Degree of Officer, for services during the Korean War); Magsaysay (The Philippine Legion of Honor, Degree of Commander, for negotiating the return to the government of Luis M. Taruc, erstwhile Huk Supremo, in 1954); Garcia (First Brown Anahaw Leaf to the PLH – Officer, for services in the peace and order campaign; Presidential Merit Award for intelligence work in Indonesia, in 1958, “classified”). In awarding me the highest civilian award of the Republic, President Magsaysay cited my “invaluable contribution to the collapse of the communist-led Huk insurgency.”

I am not a communist. I have never been one. I have never joined any communist party. I am not — and have never been — a member of any illegal and/or subversive organization, or even a front organization.

Yes, I have met with communist leaders and members of subversive organizations both as a newspaperman and as a public servant as far back as 1954. In fact the government awarded me the highest civilian award precisely for what my pacification parleys with rebels and subversives had achieved.

President Magsaysay made use of my services as a negotiator not only with the communist-led dissidents in Central Luzon but also with Muslim outlaw leaders. Indeed, I consider my ability to communicate with the leaders of the various dissident movements as well as my understanding of their causes as one of my special qualifications for high office.

I have been a student of communism, especially the Philippine communist movement, for the last two decades. I have writtean many papers, delivered many lectures on the Huks, who later became the HMBs and who, still later, became the CPP/NPAs, their aims, their inner dynamics and motivations, both in the Philippines and abroad.

If I had planned to seek the Presidency in 1973, it was because I sincerely believed I had the key to the possible final solution to the vexing dissident (communist) problem.

I was first exposed to communism as a young teenager shortly after the war, in 1945, when my hometown of Concepcion was literally occupied by the Hukbalahaps. Our town mayor, an avowed Huk, was appointed by the dissident group.

In 1950, I was assigned by the Manila Times to cover the UN police action in Korea with special emphasis on the participation of the Philippine Expeditionary Force to Korea (PEFTOK). I witnessed the brutal massacre of innocent civilians by fleeing communist forces. Barely 18, I learned firsthand from North Korean survivors how the communists governed and regimented their people, how all their freedoms were suppressed, especially the rights to peaceful assembly, religion and free speech. Some of my most poignant early newspaper stories dwelt on the grimness of existence under communist totalitarian rule.

At 20, I was assigned as a foreign correspondent in Indo-China. I was at Dien Bien Phu and covered the last dying moments of French colonialism in Asia. Later, I was posted to Malaya to cover the British counter-insurgency efforts under General Templar. In 1954, I returned to the Philippines and negotiated Mr. Taruc’s return to the government fold on May 16, 1954.

Three former Presidents availed of my services, especially in the field of counter-insurgency. I was special assistant to President Magsaysay when I met Taruc. Under President Garcia, I was entrusted with the delicate mission of monitoring the so-called “Colonels’ Revolt” in Indonesia. Under President Macapagal, I served as his special assistant in his travels to Cambodia and Indonesia at the height of the Malaysia-Indonesia konfrontasi.

In 1965, President Macapagal appointed me spokesman of the Philippine Delegation to the crucial Afro-Asian conference in Algiers where the two Communist super-powers, the USSR and the PRC, girded for a showdown. The Philippine Delegation, together with a handful of “free world” delegations, held the balance of power. Fortunately, or unfortunately, a bomb was exploded inside the confence hall on the eve of the meeting, forcing the organizers to “indefinitely postpone the conference.”

In 1970, I was a member of the Philippine delegation to the Djakarta Conference on Cambodia which took up the entry of American and South Vietnamese forces into that country.

In fact, four days before the martial law declaration, Senator Gerardo Roxas and I were given a highly classified briefing by the AFP general staff on the nation’s counter-insurgency plans at Camp Aguinaldo.

I enjoyed the highest security clearance from the government.

I have been a student of theoretical Marxism. I have followed every twist and turn of our local communists. I have read practically all lthe published works of our local Reds. Whenever possible, I interviewed communist intellectuals to get first-hand information.

This, however, does not mean that I have embraced communism, much less joined any communist of subversive organization. On the contrary, I would like to believe that I convinced some of the dissidents to return to the fold of the government, as in the case of Mr. Taruc.

I have never advocated the overthrow of the government by force and violence, much less the establishment of a totalitarian regime. Or worse, placing this country under the domination and control of an alien power.
I have no reason to do that — not I, of all people. Why should I advocate a violent overthrow of the government? I am one of the lucky few who have never lost an election — from mayor, to vice governor, to governor, to senator. Why should I want to destroy a form of government that has served me well? In fact, in 1972, I was within a stone’s throw from the highest office within the gift of our people — the Presidency.

It is true I urged our people to boot Mr. Marcos out of office. I campaigned vigorously against him in 1965 and again in 1969. I warned our people as early as 1968 of Mr. Marcos’ sinister plot to suspend our elections and perpetuate himself in power through the declaration of martial rule. I denounced in my maiden privilege speech in the Senate Mr. Marcos’ gradual and steady development of a “Garrison State.” For four years before September 1972, I warned our people of Mr. Marcos’ creeping militarism.

Mr. Marcos is not the Republic and the State. It is unfortunate that some people hold the belief that to oppose Mr. Marcos is to oppose the State and that opposition to Marcos is tantamount to treason.

I am against Mr. Marcos. But I am a loyal citizen of the Republic!”

Testament from a Prison Cell (1984) 13-16