Category: ninoy

ninoy’s politics: “The Filipino As Dissident”

In 1954 when I first established contact with Huk Supremo Luis M. Taruc, high government policymakers held as dogmatic truth that our insurgents were communist-led, if not all communists.

After my series of interviews with Taruc, I reported to President Magsaysay my basic findings: that the Huks led by Taruc were primarily agrarian reformers with valid grievances against landowners and government forces; that they were smarting from American discrimination in the recognition of guerrilla rights; that they were more socialists than “communists.” This report stirred a controversy. The President’s military advisers to a man denounced my report as “naive and totally erroneous.”

In my interviews with him, Taruc emphasized time and again that he was a socialist, a follower of the late Pedro Abad Santos, the founder of the Socialist Party of the Philippines. And as early as our first contact, I was deeply impressed by Mr. Taruc’s religious faith.

In all my dialogues with dissident field commanders in Luzon, I never met one who really understood the basic theories of Marx and/or Lenin, or its latest variant, the so-called Mao Tse-tung Thought. Most of them admitted having undergone some schooling in the underground “Stalin universities”during the fifties and sixties where Philippine revolutionary history and basic communist theories were the major fare. But few really went beyond mouthing the shopworn formulas, the cliches regarding the evils of “imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat capitalism.”

This does not mean that there are no capable communist intellectuals in our country. There are, but they have not succeeded in truly educating their mass base beyond the routine slogans and catch-phrases.

The basic cry has remained the same: Land for the landless! And a litany of real and imagined grievances against landowners, the government, the military and the local police agencies, who in the Huk’s view invariably sided with the rich in any conflict with the poor.

The Magsaysay approach to the dissident problem was effective, because he instinctively understood the basic motivations of the insurgent. He offered land to the landless. And he committed his administration to this principle, which he himself enunciated: “Those who have less in life, should have more in law.”

When offered the opportunity to own land of their own, Huk rank and filers surrendered by the hundreds. Many were resetlled in EDCOR farms hacked out of the jungles by army engineers. These are now bustling communities.

In 1956, shortly after my election as mayor of Concepcion, Tarlac, one of my first efforts was to contact the Huk leaders operating in my jurisdiction. I went to them unarmed, unescorted.

With the consent of President Magsaysay, I told them of my plans for our town and outlined my policies. I promised them free movement within my jurisdiction, freedom to proselytize and win the barrio people to their cause peacefully. I even named a barrio contact man for every barrio whom they could go to should they have any complaints or message for me. The only condition I imposed was: No killing.

PC records will bear me out. During my twelve years as mayor of Concepcion, vice governor and governor of Tarlac, Huk/HMB killings were at their lowest levels. After I left office in 1967, HMB-NPA killings increased by more than 500% — an average of 100 killings yearly, from 1968 to 1972.

Presidents Magsaysay, Garcia and Macapagal knew of my policy of “coexistence.” I briefed every incoming PC Zone commander and his staff. I told them of my willingness to engage the dissidents in open political combat. I was confident that, in any open election, our people would opt for our system of government so long as the government officials were faithful to their trust. I never lost a single political contest in Tarlac. In fact, I broke my own electoral records.

As late as 1969, the revitalized CPP/NPA fought us head-on politically. Again PC records will show that in 1969, there were three congressional candidates for Tarlac’s second district: Atty. Tomas Matic for the NP; Rep. Jose V. Yap, the incumbent, for the LP; and Atty. Max Llorente for the CPP/NPA group. It is true Atty. Max Llorente gave our LP candidate a stiff fight in the towns of Capas, Bamban and Concepcion, where the CPP/NPA cadres were strongest. But in the final tally, he trailed miserably behind our LP candidate.

Once again, we proved the validity of our policy. In an open political combat, the communists could not win popular support.

But the rebels have their usefulness to some barrio residents. Some HMB/NPA bands waged unrelenting war against cattle rustlers in areas where local police forces were lax, were unresponsive or, worse, were in connivance with the criminals.

In several land and tenancy disputes, HMB/NPA commanders invariably sided with the poor exploited farmers and brought pressure on the landowners. In some extreme cases, landowners were liquidated, especially if they proved unrepentant and recalcitrant. Rebel justice was often swift and without cost to the litigants, thus winning the respect, if not the silent support, of the unlettered peasant.

It is almost axiomatic that where the government is weak and unresponsive, the rebels are invariably strong and popular. In situations like this, the rebels are indeed the people’s army.

To this day, I still believe the mass of our dissidents can be persuaded to return to the fold if the government adopts a liberal policy of attraction and resettlement; if the government pursues a genuine, progressive land reform program that will not only give land to the tillers but assistance to the farmers to free them from the clutches of usurers; if petty corruption at the lowest level is curbed; and if the government can bring modern technology to the farmer and provide him some protection from the vagaries of nature.

In 1961, under the sponsorship of NEC-US AID, I launched Operation Spread (Systematic Program for Rural Economic Assistance and Development) in Tarlac. In less than two years, rice yields increased by 30%. New grains, like sorghum and hybridcorn, were introduced to augment the feed grains for our infant livestock industry.

In the Senate, I tried to acquaint my colleagues with the dynamics and motivations of the insurgency movement in Central Luzon to give them a better perspective of the problem. I assisted Senator Salvador H. Laurel’s Committee on Justice in its in-depth study of the dissident problem. Its report has since become a major resource paper on Philippine insurgency.

In my speeches, both in and out of Congress, I advocated a more humane approach to the dissident problem. I denounced the use of para-military units, like the Monkees, who summarily executed barrio residents suspected of NPA links. My exposes brought me into a collision course with Mr. Marcos and his military subordinates.

In May 1966, barely five months in office, Mr. Marcos branded me a “Huk coddler and sympathizer” when I, as governor of Tarlac, denounced the massacre of farmers in Barrio Culatingan, Concepcion, Tarlac, by a group of Monkees led by a PC Ranger. It is indeed an ironical twist that while I stand today charged with communist subversion, Mr. Marcos is adopting some of my recommendations in 1966: a liberal program of amnesty for returning dissidents, resettlement and a vigorous land reform program.

In 1969-1970, I joined a majority Senate group that wanted Republic Act No. 1700, the “Anti-Subversion Act,” repealed because it had not only outlived its usefulness, it was a major stumblingblock to the normalization of diplomatic relations with the socialist countries, including the two communist super-powers.

During the Senate Committee on Finance deliberations on the budget, I consistently batted for increased capital expenditures and appropriations for social services while limiting the Armed Forces outlay to no more than 10% of the total national budget. We, the Liberals, never succeeded in our efforts to keep the AFP budget below the 10% target. Year after year, we were voted down by the sheer numbers of Mr. Marcos’ Nacionalistas, after months of debates and filibusters.

Before civic audiences, I warned our people that time was running out — that if we Filipinos did not reform our society peacefully, we would be reformed violently by a communist-led upheaval.

In various speeches and writings, I urged the abolition of special privileges. I denounced government corruption in many Senate speeches, and my exposes sparked numerous Senate Blue Ribbon investigations.

Many of our countrymen have been conditioned to automatically believe that the dissidents, be they HMBs or CPP/NPAs, are not only communists or communist-led, but are evil personified. I do not believe they are per se evil. Assuming they are evil, they are a necessary evil.

Were it not for the Huks, President Magsaysay would never have pushed through Congress the landmark Rice Tenancy Act, which provided for tenants’ security of tenure and the itemization of the division of produce. Known as the 70-30 Rice Law, that law for the first time gave the tenant the sole option to remain a tenant or become a lessee.

All our Presidents have pursued social reform programs in reaction to dissident unrest. Let us go down the list:

President Quezon proclaimed his “social justice” program as a direct result of the unrest spawned by the Anak Pawis, the Colorums, the Sakdalistas and other rebel groups during the twenties and the thirties.

Presidents Roxas and Quirino had ambivalent Huk policies. But they nevertheless pursued a liberal policy towards labor — and they expropriated the so-called friar lands and other feudal estates for re-distribution to their tenants.

President Garcia pushed for more liberal labor laws in addition to his Filipino First policy.

And when Macapagal, a son of Central Luzon, was elected President, the country witnessed the enactment of the first comprehensive Land Reform Code in the Philippines, seminal though it was. Congress passed it in 1963; but only after President Macapagal had called the reluctant Congress to several special sessions, wearying the landed interests in the Senate and the House until they gave in. This is the Land Reform Code now being implemented by Mr. Marcos.

Indeed, our wealthy Filipinos have yielded only under mounting social pressure — never of their own volition. Without the Sakdals, without the Huks, without the NPAs, our toiling people would still be serfs in a kasama or land tenancy system as feudal as in any feudal state.

The dissidents, I concede, have committed many acts of murder and depredation. Many have already paid for their crimes with their lives or with long prison terms. But it must be equally admitted that because of their unremitting struggle, our society and our people’s social conditions have improved.

When the muse of history writes the Filipino saga, free of bias and prejudice, I am sure the Filipino dissident will be given his rightful share of praise and gratitude in the struggle to free and improve the lot of the Filipino poor.

I have seen young rebels die in combat. Outnumbered, they stood their ground and went bravely to their death.

I have seen many of them wearing tattered clothes, hunted like wild animals in the mountains of Tarlac, sleeping on bare earth inside sugar cane plantations with nothing more than a small plastic sheet to shelter them from the elements, going without food for days. These young men endured all hardships without complaining.

They should have been in schools studying. Yet, without compensation, they left their homes and loved ones and engaged in a lonely struggle against overwhelming odds.
Many of these young rebels died unlamented and unsung!

Yes, there were times I marvelled at their simple idealism and unalloyed courage. In their own fashion, they were patriots!

But let us not forget: This Republic was founded by rebels and insurgents who were hunted down like mad dogs in their own time. My own granfather was one of those hunted men. Some of our greatest heroes — Frs. Gomez, Burgos and Zamora; Jose Rizal and Andres Bonifacio — were all executed for treason. Yesterday’s traitors are today’s heroes!

Who knows but that fifty years from now, a province, a huge military camp, a major national highway, will be named after young rebels who today are branded as traitors and shot on some God-forsaken mountain.

If I have gone out of my way to meet with insurgents, if I have given them shelter and medical aid when they came to me, bleeding and near death, it was because I was convinced these dissidents were freedom-fighters first — in their own light — and if they were communists at all, they were communists last.

One of the most moving parables of Jesus Christ is the story of the Good Samaritan who helped the injured Jew, the sworn enemy of his sect. Abandoned and ignored by his fellow Jews, the wounded man was saved by his own enemy. Jesus Christ gave mankind only one commandment: Love your God and your neighbor. And to Jesus, even your worst enemy is your neighbor.

I never wanted even our worst rebels to feel isolated from government. I wanted to give them the opportunity to air their grievances to a nationally elected Senator of the Republic who would make their voices and their demands heard in the Senate.

They might have been dissidents. But to me they were brother Filipinos who deserved the right to be heard. My intention was to prevent them from becoming hopelessly desperate — and to givethem a feeling of belonging. By lending them a hand and a sympathetic ear, I wanted to hold out to them the hope for a better future.

If this is treason, if this is subversion, I am ready to be punished.”

Testament from a Prison Cell (1984) 23-28

ninoy’s politics: “Three Generations”

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

beyond conspiracy: ninoy’s politics

it was impossible not to weep as i watched the retelling of ninoy’s life and death by the docu Beyond Conspiracy: 25 Years after the Aquino Assassination courtesy of the Foundation for WorldWide People Power. impossible because i so remember those days.

i was 23 when marcos declared martial law and i remember ninoy aquino before that, the chubby bespectacled senator who was the fastest talker and the most fearless and most ardent critic of marcos. and i remember those news photos of a thin Ninoy through the military trial and the hunger strike,and that one time he was allowed to speak out on television — when the streets of manila were empty because everyone was indoors watching and listening to the last man standing, painfully lean, and, to me, painfully sexy, in his hunger for justice and freedom.

i remember feeling abandoned when his heart failed and he flew off to america for treatment, and three years later exulting when he announced that he was coming home, tie a yellow ribbon ’round that ol’ tree, it’s been three long years, do you still want me… and i remember that fateful sunday afternoon, how my heart sank when i heard that he had been killed, and how i wept for cory and kids and country.

but the second half of the docu left me cold. i suppose okey lang for young viewers hearing the story of the assassination and the trials and witnesses for the first time; otherwise it told me nothing new, except maybe for some trivia. to my mind the big question, i mean, the big story, is no longer who ordered ninoy killed, rather, why aren’t these masterminds in jail? because blood, or maybe even just class, is thicker?

hindi rin lang ito kayang itanong o sagutin, sana iba na lang ang tinutukan, such as ninoy’s politics, on which subject there is ample material. then maybe the kids’ iamninoy campaign would have some ground to stand on other than faithhopeandcharity.

in his goodbye statement to the house of representatives of the u.s. congress in 1983 ninoy spoke of a “program of action” that he drafted during his three years in exile which he intendedto take up with the leaders of the non-violent opposition at home, hopefully to end the bloodletting and set the economy right. nothing has been heard about this program of action since. but the book Testament from a Prison Cell published by cory in 1984 has a wealth of information about the man and his politics.

TESTAMENT Foreword:

This book is Ninoy’s ‘closing statement’ before Military Commission No. 2.

Ninoy started working on his ‘closing statement’ in 1975 and he finished it in 1977. Although many believed that the charges against him were fabricated, still Ninoy believed he should present his side to the Filipino people.

Ninoy was determined that this book should reach his people and so my children and I smuggled out the manuscript, page by page. He instructed me to furnish the international press with copies of his statement. Perhaps he had a premonition. As it turned out, the Military Commission prevented Ninoy from reading his ‘closing statement’ by keeping him locked up in his cell during the last vital eight hours of the proceedings.

I cannot help but point out the striking parallel between Ninoy’s closing statement before the tribunal that condemned him to death on November 25, 1977, and his ‘arrival statement’ for August 21, 1983. In both instances Ninoy was stopped from reading them.

Allow me then to present to you, the Filipino people, Ninoy’s testament.

CORY AQUINO

coming next are selected excerpts from Testament:

Three Generations… “I am Benigno S. Aquino, Jr., 45, Filipino, married, father of five…”

The Filipino As Dissident… “In 1954, when I first established contact with Huk Supremo Luis M. Taruc…”

A Christian Democratic Vision… “As I delved deeper into the underlying reasons behind our chronic insurgency problem…”

Manifesto For A Free Society… “In the most unequivocal terms, not a few communist leaders have told me that there is no room for politicians in the CPP/NPA set-up…”

wearenotninoy

smoke’s rom thinks ninoy became a hero only because he was assassinated, that otherwise he would have turned out to be just like any traditional politician with feet of clay.

What does Ninoy actually represent, other than that he was a victim of a dictator (just like hundreds of other public intellectuals, labor leaders, journalists, and so on)?

Kids today don’t know squat about him, or about what he did. His place in our pantheon of heroes was secured for him by the fact that he was assassinated. Prior to that, he was just one of the many who were victimized by the Marcoses. Fine, he was primus inter pares or something, but at the end of the day, I tend to admire more those who stayed and lived their lives in constant danger of death, rather than those who fled.

I mean, Joma is in the Netherlands, isn’t he? And don’t we all laugh at how he runs the communists here by remote control? Well, if you’re being honest about it, that was exactly what Ninoy’s exile was all about.In the meantime that he was gone, people at home were being harassed, hounded into the hills, and getting impoverished by the importunings of the dictator.

The only time he returned was when, according to him, he felt that the time was right to convince Marcos to hand over the reins of government to him in order to prevent the turmoil that would inevitably result when Marcos died and his lieutenants began fighting for their share of empire (kinda like how Alexander’s generals – Ptolemy and all the rest – carved up Alexander’s empire into smaller kingdoms). Sure he braved death, but at least part of that bravery was openly motivated by the will to power. Not very heroic that, eh?”

clearly the information is inadequate, therefore the concluson is flawed.

in fact ninoy was one of those “who stayed and lived their lives in constant danger of death”. he was not one of those who fled, like oppositionists heherson and manglapus and maceda a.k.a. “steak commandoes” in america demonstrating against the dictator and martial law from afar. ninoy did not flee to america, he was offered medical treatment in america when his heart began to fail after 7 years and 7 months in jail. and once he was well, he could think of nothing but the homeland and going home, even if it meant going back to his prison cell.

if he had not been assassinated and had instead succeeded marcos i have no doubt that he would have been creative enough and brave enough -remember, he was much much younger than senators tanada and salonga – to find ways of working out a peaceful settlement of the mindanao problem as well as a more equitable economic system all around (as can be gleaned from his writings) AND with his charisma he would have inspired the nation to unite behind a truly democratic social order.

also rom dares say that edsa wasn’t about ninoy, it was about ramos and enrile.

Ninoy Aquino’s death didn’t free us.

We freed ourselves.

In fact, the EDSA revolution wasn’t even about Ninoy, was it? It was about Enrile and Ramos battling their way out of corners they’d found themselves painted into. It was Cardinal Sin who turned it into a Ninoy Aquino lovefest – and to great effect. The soldiers Enrile and Ramos were smart enough to recognize a tactical advantage and were quick to jump on the bandwagon.

What sets him apart from all his peers – people like Tanada and Salonga – is that his death happened at the right time and under the right circumstances that allowed it to be used by US as the seed of OUR revolution. The idea of him being killed by the dictator gave us the focal point we needed for our simmering discontent to boil over into massive mobilization. Except, of course, if Ninoy hadn’t died, he would have succeeded Marcos (prolly) and his feet would be touching the same base clay as Salonga and Tanada, and the discontent would have escaped into the atmosphere as nothing more than so much vented steam.”

if EDSA were about ramos and enrile, why then did enrile not end up the president?

in fact EDSA was about ramos and enrile trying to unseat marcos, replace him with enrile, thus preempting cory, but they failed because the people would have none of it — the people had united behind cory in the snap elections the way they would have united behind ninoy, and when they went to edsa, wearing cory’s colors and waving her flags, it was not just to support ramos and enrile, it was to woo them and the reformist soldiers into serving as cory’s armed forces and helping unseat marcos.

but rom’s right, we are not ninoy. i’d even say he died because we did not deserve him, and we still don’t.