Marcos Jr.’s mantra: Unity, dialogue, respect

SATUR C. OCAMPO  

Those words, or that mantra, got repeatedly mentioned by Ferdinand Marcos Jr. in his inaugural speech Thursday, after being sworn into office as the Philippines’ 17th president, at the façade of the National Museum in Manila.

“We shall seek, not scorn, dialogue, listen respectfully to contrary views, be open to suggestions coming from hard thinking and unsparing judgment but always from us Filipinos. We can trust no one else when it comes to what is best for us,” he said, adding, “Past history has often proven that.”

“Let us all be part of the solution that we choose [in resolving our national problems]. In that lies the power to get it done, always to be open to differing views but ever united in our chosen goal,” he stressed. Elsewhere in his speech, he recalled his reflections during the presidential campaign that led to his resolve “never ever give up hope for reconciliation.”

Oddly, while reiterating his campaign stance “not to talk about the past” but about the future, Marcos Jr. repeatedly referred to some of what his father had done during his prolonged authoritarian rule and which he vowed to emulate.

“I once knew a man who saw what little have been achieved since independence in a land of people with the greatest potential for achievement. And yet they were poor. But he got it done, sometimes with the needed support; sometimes, without. So will it be with his son,” he declared. Quickly, he added, “You will get no excuses from me.”

One action with long-term devastating consequences that Marcos Sr. took without the people’s support, without even pre-warning to them, was his declaration of martial law on Sept. 21, 1972.

Can, therefore, the Filipino people feel assured that these pronouncements by the son would remain firm – and conscientiously adhered to – throughout the Marcos Jr. presidency?

Let’s go over other excerpts from the text of the inaugural speech provided to the media:

• “By your vote, you rejected the politics of division. I offended none of my rivals in this campaign, I listened instead to what they were saying and I saw little incompatibility with my own ideas about jobs, fair wages, personal safety and national strength and ending want in a land of plenty.”

So where comes the “politics of division” Marcos Jr. alleged was rejected by the voters? And would the pursuit of reconciliation pertain only to his rivals in the presidential election?

• “You picked me to be your servant to enable changes to benefit all. I fully understand the gravity of the responsibility that you’ve put on my shoulders. I do not take it lightly but I’m ready for the task. I will need your help. I want to rely on it but rest assured I do not predicate success on the wider cooperation that’s needed. I will get (the task) done.

“There are hints of a road not taken that could get us out of here quicker, to something better, something less fragile. There is also what you, the people, did to cope [with the pandemic and its harsh economic impacts] but this time empowered by new technologies and more resources. You got by, getting some of what you needed with massive government help. And for this I thank my predecessor for the courage of his hard decisions. But there is a way… more means and choices in your hands. I trust the Filipino.”

• “But again, I will not predicate my promise to you on your cooperation. You have your own lives to live, your work to do and there too, I will help. Government will get as much done alone without requiring more from you. No excuses. Just deliver. It was like that, once upon a time.” He was referring to how supposedly it was during his father’s regime.

Marcos Jr. promised to tell the Filipino people in his forthcoming State of the Nation Address later this month “exactly how we shall get this done.”

• “Our future we decide today, yesterday cannot make that decision anymore, nor can tomorrow delay it. The sooner we start, the surer and quicker the prospect of achieving the future. We are presently drawing up a comprehensive all-inclusive plan for economic transformation. We will build back better by doing things in the light of experiences that we have had, both good and bad; it doesn’t matter.”

This, of course, requires looking back seriously to identify the weaknesses and errors that need to be strengthened or rectified. Marcos Jr. clarified:

“No looking back in anger or nostalgia. [But can that be the case if there’s no admission of misdeeds nor apologies, to say the least?] In the road ahead, the immediate months will be rough but I will walk that road with you…”

Marcos Jr. heaped fulsome plaudits on his father and his predecessor for having built “more and better roads” than those of all the administrations ahead of them. Following their steps, he said, his administration “will continue to build, I will complete on schedule the projects that have been started, without taking credit for doing so.”

His administration will present a comprehensive infrastructure plan to be carried out during his six-year term. “No part of our country will be neglected. Progress will be made wherever there are Filipinos, so no investment is wasted,” he assured.

He also assured actions to address food self-sufficiency, which he noted had been the “key promise in agriculture by every administration. None, but one, delivered,” he said – again referring to his father as the one who delivered during the early part of his 20 years in power. As for the rest, it was another story.

Deafeningly silent, however, was Marcos Jr. on national security management and its criminal consequences: foremost of which is the impunity enjoyed by state security forces in perpetrating massive human rights violations, under all administrations beginning with the Marcos dictatorship.

*     *      *

Email: satur.ocampo@gmail.com

Independence Day 2022

By AMELIA HC YLAGAN

It had to be clarified in Memorandum 2022-066 dated May 22, 2022 by the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) that directed the Independence Day flag-raising to local government units that it was the 124th Independence Day, reckoning from June 12, 1898 when Emilio Aguinaldo declared from his residence balcony in Kawit, Cavite that Pilipinas was free from the colonizer Spain. The DILG Memo is based on “Republic Act No. 4166 (An Act changing the date of Philippine Independence Day from July 4 to June 12 and declaring July 4 as Philippine Republic Day”).

But here we go again, debating and quarreling about when Filipinos really gained their independence. Perhaps the rise and fall of self-doubt are urged as historical events are celebrated (or generally ignored) such as Independence Day, the most significant marker of nationhood. But history is about concluded events more than emotional assumptions about the whys and wherefores that made it happen. Nor can post-facto emotions or changed principles and values justify any revision of what had already happened in history.

What better written history is there than the Official Gazette to review the events leading to the granting of Philippine Independence:

“The Philippine Revolution of 1896 was led by the Katipunan, a secret society led by Andres Bonifacio, which aimed to attain independence for the Philippines. The Katipunan expanded and affiliated with other revolutionary groups in Manila and other provinces in the Philippines. Due to political and other differences among the leaders, divisions arose in the organization. The Magdalo group headed by Emilio Aguinaldo of Cavite soon controlled the revolutionary movement. In the power play, Andres Bonifacio was accused of treason against the combined organization, and was arrested and sentenced to death in Maragondon, Cavite.”

When the Revolution was failing, “Aguinaldo entered into negotiations with the Spanish government. This resulted in an agreement under which Philippine Revolutionaries would go into exile in Hong Kong and surrender their arms in exchange for financial indemnities and pardons” (Official Gazette, “Araw ng Republikang Filipino, 1899”). That was just about the time that Spain was very busy, besieged and embattled by the United States of America, who came in to assist in the war for Cuban independence from Spain. That was the 10-week Spanish-American War for the colonies, fought in both the Caribbean and the Pacific, including the Philippines.

“The war ended with the 1898 Treaty of Paris (signed Oct. 1, 1898), negotiated on terms favorable to the United States. The treaty ceded ownership of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippine islands from Spain to the United States and granted the United States temporary control of Cuba. The cession of the Philippines involved payment of $20 million to Spain by the US to cover infrastructure owned by Spain” (Benjamin R. Beede, The War of 1898 and US Interventions; 2013).

“Aguinaldo had returned to Manila on May 19, 1898 and declared Philippine independence on June 12. When it became clear that the United States had no interest in the liberation of the islands, Aguinaldo’s forces remained apart from US troops. On Jan. 1, 1899 following the meetings of a constitutional convention, Aguinaldo was proclaimed (by a rebel junta) president of the Philippine Republic. Not surprisingly, the United States refused to recognize Aguinaldo’s authority and on Feb. 4, 1899 he declared war on the US forces in the islands. After his capture on March 23, 1901, Aguinaldo agreed to swear allegiance to the United States, and then left public life. His dream of Philippine independence came true on July 4, 1946. He died in Manila in 1964.” (US Library of Congress: The World of 1898: The Spanish-American War: Emilio Aguinaldo y Famy 1869-1964)

“During the American occupation of the Philippines (1898-1946), the Filipinos were governed by the Commonwealth of the Philippines (since Nov. 15, 1935) and earlier by the Government of the Philippine Islands or PI, both under the Americans” (pna.gov.ph, July 4, 2021). Meantime, World War II broke out, and the Japanese Army overran all of the Philippines during the first half of 1942. “On Oct. 14, 1943, Japan symbolically granted independence to the Philippines by establishing a new government headed by its Filipino president, Jose P. Laurel. The government was branded by historians as a ‘Puppet Government’ because of the tight control that the Japanese wielded over its affairs.” (esquiremag.ph, June 7, 2019).

“The United States and Philippine Commonwealth military forces fought together to liberate the Philippines until the Japanese forces were ordered to surrender by Tokyo on Aug. 15, 1945.

“On July 4, 1946, pursuant to the provisions of the Tydings-McDuffie Law or the Philippine Independence Act, the Commonwealth of the Philippines became the Republic of the Philippines — the Third Republic. It was on this date that the United States of America formally recognized the independence of the Philippines and withdrew its sovereignty over the country.

“The independence of the Philippines — and the inauguration of its Third Republic — was marked by Manuel Roxas, third president of the Commonwealth, re-taking his oath, eliminating the pledge of allegiance to the United States of America which was required prior to independence, this time as the first President of the Republic of the Philippines. The Congress of the Commonwealth then became the First Congress of the Republic, and international recognition was finally achieved as governments entered into treaties with the new republic.” (officialgazette.gov.ph).

Yet despite the tight chronology of events that built up to the sure pinpointing of when is the factual date of Philippine Independence, President Diosdado Macapagal issued Proclamation No. 28 in 1962, moving the anniversary date from July 4 to June 12 — the date independence from Spain was proclaimed in Emilio Aguinaldo’s home in Kawit, Cavite. In his proclamation, President Macapagal cited “the establishment of the Philippine Republic by the Revolutionary Government under General Emilio Aguinaldo on June 12, 1898, marked our people’s declaration and exercise of their right to self-determination, liberty and independence” (Ibid.).

The Official Gazette says it for the record, “the move was made in the context of the rejection of the US House of Representatives on the proposed $73 million additional war reparation bill for the Philippines on May 28, 1962. The rejection, according to President Macapagal, caused ‘indignation among the Filipinos’ and a ‘loss of American good will in the Philippines.’ He explained that he deemed it the right time to push the change of the independence date, a political move he was planning even before his ascent to the presidency.”

There is surely no further protest or even the last whimper to review and possibly change Independence Day back to July 4, or to again consider yet another anniversary date. But it is still important that historical facts and events are accurate so that the remembering of a nation of its history is always in the context of the experiences, good or bad, that have shaped its soul and spirit.

It is thanks to President Corazon C. Aquino, president after the 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution, who by Executive Order No. 200 revived the Official Gazette that was stifled in Ferdinand Marcos’ martial law dictatorship 1972 to 1986. The Official Gazette, which is printed by the National Printing Office (NPO), is the public journal and main publication of the government of the Philippines. Its website only uploads what has been published; it is managed by the Presidential Communications Operations Office [PCOO] (based on the attribution found in the footer of the Official Gazette website).

Look it up, it’s there: “A History of the Philippine Political Protest — Official Gazette.” (www.officialgazette.gov.ph)

The 1898 proclamation of independence

By RANDY DAVID

One hundred twenty-four years after our elders proclaimed the Filipino people’s independence from Spanish colonial rule, we may perhaps view with more understanding, and even admiration, the seemingly strange manner in which they performed that defining act. More specifically, why they invoked “the protection of the Powerful and Humanitarian Nation, the United States of America,” even as they were declaring their emancipation from Spanish subjugation.

Were they merely expressing a readiness to trade one colonial master for another? If so, then it was logical that Spain would cede the country to the new power, the United States of America, in exchange for a few million dollars — instead of acknowledging the freedom that the Filipino people had justly earned.

The situation was clearly far more complex than that. Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo, under whose leadership the June 12, 1898 proclamation of independence was conceived, was certainly no fool when it came to American intentions. He and his companions in the Hong Kong junta anticipated America’s moves in the Pacific region and its wish to take over the possessions of a weakened Spanish empire. They saw in that strategic plan an opening they could use to speed up the revolution against Spain. And for this, they needed to disarm the new conquerors through fawning gestures of flattery.

They were under no illusion that the United States would forgo the opportunity to take possession of the entire archipelago once its ships destroyed the limping Spanish armada in the battle at Manila Bay. Indeed, they saw that they were racing against time to establish the first organs of a new government in as many provinces as the revolutionary forces could cover. By doing so, they aimed to show the American public and the rest of the world that a colonized people that had successfully liberated themselves were equally worthy and capable of self-rule.

The Americans, of course, saw what Aguinaldo was up to, and they played along — until they could bring in enough US troops into the country. They would not be inveigled into supplying arms they might later use against the US itself. Assigned to review the captured documents of the revolution, US Capt. John R.M. Taylor (whom historian Renato Constantino accurately dubbed a “quasi-lobbyist” for annexation) portrayed it thus in his voluminous work, “The Philippine Insurrection Against the United States”:

“The insurgents were not to have American rifles placed in their hands to fight the battles of the United States. The soldiers of the United States were to be charged with that duty, and Aguinaldo saw that he was not to be given the opportunity of employing American rifles against the soldiers of the United States as his friends in the militia were about to employ Spanish rifles against Spain… The arms he received from Hong Kong on May 23 enabled him to begin an insurrection, not as an ally of the United States, but on his own account.”

One week before the proclamation in Kawit, Aguinaldo’s forces had gained enough ground in the surrounding provinces to justify holding a formal ceremony proclaiming the country’s independence from Spain. Invitations to Admiral Dewey and other American officers were sent. But, of course, these were simply ignored. The affair’s organizers had to make do with the presence of “a citizen of the U.S.A., Mr. L.M. Johnson, a Colonel of Artillery.”

Taylor writes about this event with an air of contempt: “From this time on there was no question as to the intentions of Aguinaldo and his followers. There did remain, and continued to remain, a grave doubt whether Aguinaldo really represented the people of the Philippines, and whether he would be able to keep his bit in their mouth…. ‘Colonel’ Johnson, ex-hotel keeper of Shanghai, who was in the Philippines exhibiting a cinematograph, kindly consented to appear on this occasion as Aguinaldo’s chief of artillery and the representative of the North American nation.”

Summoned to serve Aguinaldo as adviser, Apolinario Mabini arrived in Kawit on June 12, just in time to listen to the reading of the Act of Proclamation. The 34-year-old “sublime paralytic” must have at once noted some of the awkwardness and inconsistency in the longwinded document written in Spanish by Ambrosio Rianzares Bautista. In a June 23 proclamation signed by Aguinaldo, Mabini excised all reference to the United States and replaced “Dictatorial Government of the Philippines” with the simpler “Revolutionary Government.” Mabini read America’s moves with great accuracy. But he could neither save the revolution nor the fledgling republic established at Malolos on Jan. 23, 1899. Barely two weeks later, the Philippine-American War began.

It is extremely useful to revisit these crucial events in our nation’s history because, while our founding fathers were flawed individuals, most of them rose to the occasion with all the wisdom and moral strength they could muster — like all great heroes do — when summoned by a purpose larger than them. Aguinaldo, in particular, was at the center of these momentous events. But he had received such a bad rap from history for his role in the murder of the Bonifacio brothers and of Antonio Luna that it took more than 50 years before he could offer an account that tried to express “the purity of my intention.”

Many of our heroes died young; others like Aguinaldo, who died at 95, lived long enough to see the country’s passage through another war — a war that once more tested our leaders’ ability to discern the nation’s true interests at different stages in a rapidly changing world.

CHITO STA. ROMANA (1948-2022)

I never met him personally  but I had known of the Sta. Romana twins, Chito and Nelin, since high school days in St. Scho Manila (HS’66).  I’d see the two, tall and lean in their La Salle uniforms, usually standing by the gate just inside the pergola (where we all waited for our sundô), meeting up (I assumed) with their Kulasa sisters Neni and Chona for the trip home.

In U.P. Diliman when student ferment rose to a pitch in the late ’60s, I would hear Chito’s name mentioned in the same breath as that of Ed Jopson — student leaders from conservative exclusive schools La Salle and Ateneo, who started out as “moderates” compared to the U.P. radicals of Kabataang Makabayan led by Joma Sison, and who were all part of the First Quarter Storm when students protested the guns goons and gold that won Marcos re-election in ’69, and warned about Marcos’s plans for a prohibited third term via a constitutional convention.

But first, Martial Law. In ’76 when Eman Lacaba, poet-turned-armedrebel was reported killed by government forces, and again in ’82 when it was the turn of EdJop (who had turned radical in ‘72), I wondered about Chito. When I heard through the grapevine that he was in China, stranded into exile, I was just glad he was safe. I wondered, too, about Nelin, but there was no one to ask.

I read of Chito’s happy homecoming in 1986, of course. But it was only in 2011, when friend Sylvia Mayuga posted on Facebook an article about her cousin Chito retiring from ABC News | Beijing, that I finally got to ask about Nelin the twin, and Sylvia assured me he was fine, too. It was good to know that both had survived the Marcos years.

In November 2011, I got email from Nelin. He heard daw from Chito that I had asked Sylvia about him on Facebook and we agreed to meet, as it happened, on the 25th of Feb 2012 at Via Mare | EDSA Shang where he treated me and Katrina to lunch. It was like catching up with an old friend (in a past life, for sure).

Then in August 2015  I needed advice. Was it a good time for Katrina to go on a junket to China, not exactly the Philippines’ best friend in PNoy’s time, what with China’s belligerent ways in the West Philippine Sea, reclaiming rocks, harvesting Philippine marine life, driving Filipino fishermen away. We reached out to Chito via Nelin and Facebook.

ME.  I hope you don’t mind but you’re the only China specialist we “know.”  Manila Times, for which Katrina writes a column, wants to send her to China end of the month. Given the latest medyo nakaka-praning statements from Chinese officials, I’m thinking it might not be a good time? It might compromise her, in some way? Attached are two pages of the invite.  [12 Aug 2015]

CHITO.  Hi Angela, the Chinese are evidently stepping [up] their outreach to Philippine media. I have met several Pinoy journalists who have either gone or are going on trips to China upon invitation by the Chinese embassy. All these are part of their public diplomacy campaign to improve their image in the Philippines. If Katrina really feels uneasy about going, then I would advise her to wait until she is up to it.  I think the China invites will keep coming in the months & years to come.

But if she has not been to China & would like to see the “other side of the story,” so to speak, then I think she should accept the invite. Having seen her writings, I actually think she can think & analyze independently and so I would advise that she go ahead with the China visit from the perspective of “knowing the other side & understanding their mindset” so as to better analyze & rebut their propaganda.

Of course I could not resist a tiny rant.

ME.  So now, parang they’re being nice and reaching out to our media, pero tuloytuloy ang pag-challenge sa Pilipinas over the Spratleys?  I wonder if it’s an indication of how pliant they think our media people are. Just thinking out loud.

CHITO. I do agree that the Chinese actions in WPS are unacceptable & will simply trigger a counter-alliance vs them. I usually divide the dispute into 3 dimensions: territorial, maritime & geopolitical. The maritime aspect will hopefully be solved or at least clarified by the Arbitral Tribunal, if at all. The tribunal cannot [resolve] the territorial issue & it will be with us for a fairly long time, while the geopolitical issue (US-Japan vs China) will probably escalate in the foreseeable future. Hence the need to understand the Chinese strategy, their mindset. Which is what I am hoping Katrina will gain from the trip. I have seen others who have returned & become “cheerleaders” for China, which I am confident will not be the case for Katrina. My two cents worth.  [12 August 2015]

On Day 5 of 7, Katrina sent email from Beijing that I forwarded, un-redacted, to Chito and, later, Nelin. As it turned out, she was with a media group mostly older than she, and mostly old hands at the China gig. Posting excerpts here [redacted by her].

KATRINA.  This is their standard junket yata. Parang they’ve been on these trips together often enough, and they were surprised that I was even here. And today, after the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the talk with the Asian Affairs head, parang malinaw na rin that they are all anti-US … Feeling nila it’s important that the media is brought to China on trips like this, and China needs to give payola to media to balance out the money that America pays media raw … so that when they go back to the Philippines they can change the perceptions about China, etc. etc. And I’m like: lahat naman sila matatanda na and tainted na by their politics and biases. Too many of them are pro-Bongbong. May tendency rin to put down the Philippines among themselves.  … I want to tell nga the embassy girl na sana, next time, to get younger writers and columnists.

And oh my goodness, did I tell you? They fall asleep right in front of the people we meet with! As in humihilik and all. And P_ almost hit her head on the table as she fell asleep in front of the descendants of that Sultan of Sulu who’s buried in China. … And I get naman the ribbing and joking around. Pero talaga, minsan overboard. And the falling asleep in front of people. I wonder what the Chinese think of that.

Interesting naman that Tomb of the King of Sulu. But I don’t know that that specific moment stands for the kind of China, and the kind of Philippines, we are in the present. Oo nga, it was friendly, he died on his way back to Sulu and is the only foreign leader to be buried in China. And yes, his family members and descendants are Chinese citizens. Pero wala rin namang effort culturally for these descendants to care about the Philippines, or PH-China relations. Parang wala lang. May roots lang na gano’n. Tapos tapos na.  [11 Sept 2015]

CHITO. Thanks a lot, Angela, for sharing, Will keep this account “for my eyes only.” I did see a TV report on ANC by Willard [Cheng] on the Sultan of Sulu’s tomb in China, but didn’t know Katrina was part of the group. Her account of the visit is very interesting, insightful & extremely hilarious! She is right about the need to have younger writers be part of future groups. It must have been quite a scene to behold, to have the “seniors” dozing off & snoring during the briefings! Looking forward to Katrina’s columns & postings when she gets back. [13 Sept 2015]

When Chito was appointed Philippine Ambassador to China in 2016, it felt so right – like it was meant to be. It was where Chito pala was headed all along—from the First Quarter Storm to that first China trip, and exile, and immersion, and a lot of hard work and hard study that eventually made him the news bureau chief and scholar that he was, top of the heap, no less, in China studies and PH-China relations.

JAIME FLOR CRUZ.  Some three years into our forced exile, when Imelda Marcos visited Beijing, we received feelers through her Chinese hosts that she wanted to bring us home. Chito and our group thought the offer through, but quickly figured out the agenda of the dictator’s wife: she would bring us home as political trophies. We rebuffed the offer.

RAISSA ROBLES. [China’s Ambassador to Manila] Huang Xilian noted that Sta. Romana was “among the first Filipinos to visit the new China when he headed the visiting Philippine Youth Delegation in 1971”, after which he spent the next five decades as the country’s long-time resident, first as a student of Mandarin in Beijing, and then as ABC News’ China correspondent for over 20 years, before becoming the Philippine ambassador.

FLOR CRUZ. Chito mastered Mandarin, dived deep into China’s history and kept abreast with its current state of affairs. He made many friends and kept a rolodex of Chinese contacts. He learned how things worked in China—and why. He knew China inside out.

ROBLES. The late envoy played a key role in repairing once-tattered bilateral relations by advocating a more nuanced approach to the Philippines’ neighbour, after the 2016 arbitration ruling nullified Beijing’s claims to nearly all of South China Sea

FLOR CRUZ.  He knew, of course, that no one wanted the posting. “It’s a tough job,” he told me in a chat soon after he became ambassador.

In a last public address on March 5 this year, says Robles, the Ambassador advised the next president to hold firm to Ph’s strategy of engagement with China.

STA. ROMANA. It’s a combination of cooperation as much as possible, and pushback whenever necessary.

In private, John Silva, an old friend from La Salle days, tells of trying to find out how Chito felt about representing a government that’s at times indifferent to Chinese intrusion in Ph waters, and also the weakest of all ASEAN in safeguarding our territorial integrity.

JOHN SILVA.  Chito would reveal a nugget here and there and given Big Brother, the assumed bugging of the embassy, and the provided Chinese chauffeur, his remarks would be in near whispers.

The sum of his revelations were indicative of Chito’s style. He measured his comments so as not to be controversial to the listener. He though affirmed Chinese expansionism and rolled his eyes on the latest gaffes from the homeland, but that’s as much [as] one could expect from a diplomat.

I would have loved to see Chito rolling his eyes… over the latest gaffes once he was back in the homeland. Alas, he has gone ahead, gone too soon.

I wasn’t prepared for the sadness that came over me when I read of his passing. It is nothing, certainly, compared to the grief of Chito’s family and close friends, but grief nonetheless. The only other time I felt this kind of sadness was over the death of PNoy, whom I knew, too, only from afar. PNoy was a good man, he meant well. Chito was a good man, he did well. It’s all about nation.

***

Remembering Chito Sta. Romana by Jaime Flor Cruz
Tributes pour in for late Philippine ambassador hailed as ‘good friend’ of China by Raissa Robles
Remembering Ambassador Chito Sta. Romana by John Silva