This is an old article published in 1951 in the Philippine Free Press regarding the so-called Man of the Mass or Common Tao, President Ramon "Monching" Magsaysay. I published it to coincide with his 106th birthday (he was born in August 31, 1907). In my opinion, he was the greatest president this country ever had. We could have another Cory, Apo Ferdy, Ramos but I think it would be hard to emulate what this man had done for our country. He literally saved our country from being overran by the Huks, oligarchs, and maybe Americans (if they intervened ala Vietnam). Maybe the true savior of our democracy and maybe the only president who make the people felt they are in a democracy. To Monching, your memories and achievements will be remembered by the people. As his popular Mambo Magsaysay sang, " Our democracy would die kung wala si Magsaysay".

Ramon Magsaysay, Man of the Year, 

January 6, 1951

January 6, 1951
Ramon Magsaysay: Man of the year

by Leon .O. Ty

REPORTING from the United States, Vicente Villamin, Filipino lawyer and economist now residing in San Francisco, wrote in his regular column in the Manila Daily Bulletin last week:

“Every person I met here who either was anew arrival from Manila or was in touch with Manila correspondents spoke in the highest terms of Secretary of National Defense Ramon Magsaysay. They all said that he was doing his duty with great vigor and fidelity and demonstrating that the Quirino administration could solve its pressing problems and hold the confidence of the people it there were more officials like him.

“The also expressed fear that the time might soon come that he might not get the full backing of the administration itself because of jealousy and the fact that he never hesitated to step on the toes of anyone who he believed was not doing the right thing or was short of the standard of duty required of him. I hope all this is unfounded. President Quirino deserves great credit for finding and appointing a man like Mr. Magsaysay, and he would be the last to be against him because he is proving to be the right type of public officials to face an emergency. Every good citizen should make Mr. Magsaysay feel that he is appreciated by the people and give him all manner of support and encouragement.”

A couple of days before the Villamin comments were published, the Manila Chronicle spoke editorially on Magsaysay. Said the Chronicle in part:

“With that same directness and dispatch which have characterized his actuations since he became secretary of national defense. Mr. Ramon Magsaysay has now started a thorough reorganization of the armed forces of the country. His efforts in this direction have been acclaimed in all quarters for he has shown clearly that his purpose is to create a defense organization capable of accomplishing what is expected of it.

“Secretary Magsaysay, with an eye to efficiency and with an awareness of the necessity of doing justice to the officers and men of the Armed Forces, has eliminated positions, effected transfers, and forced resignations to achieve his aim. Secretary Magsaysay has not completed the reorganization of the Armed Forces. But with what he has accomplished so far, there is ample reason to hope that when finally he is done with the reorganization, we shall have a force which will stand the test of battle, within or without. It is our hope, as it is the hope of everybody, that Secretary Magsaysay is backed up by all the highest authorities as President Quirino is backing him up. He is doing well.”

Ramon Magsaysay became secretary of national defense last September 1. Though he has occupied the position for only four months, he has accomplished in that short span of time much that his predecessor failed to achieve in almost four years. However, in fairness to the man before him—Ruperto Kangleon—it might be mentioned, in passing, that if reforms were not elected before Magsaysay’s time, the former secretary of national defense was not entirely to blame. Quirino had a share in that blame because he did not give Kangleon complete backing. In fact the President seldom sought Kangleon’s views on matters affecting peace and order in the country. Quirino’s closest advisers on military matters as well as on affairs relative to the pacification campaign in the troubled areas of central Luzon were Generals Mariano Castañeda and Alberto Ramos. Since Kangleon was “in the doghouse” most of the time—though he always attended cabinet meetings—Castañeda and Ramos actually ran the entire armed forces of the country.

Then Magsaysay stepped into the picture. It will be recalled that he was congressman for Zambales when Quirino appointed him to the cabinet. As a legislator, this man was among the best in the House. In the first Congress, Magsaysay was chosen one of the “Ten Most Useful Congressmen” by more than a dozen newspapermen covering the legislature.

Upon his assumption of office as defense secretary, Magsaysay at once saw what was wrong with the Philippine Army and the Constabulary. Both outfits were run by “cliques” which determined promotions, transfers, etc. He called it “politics inside the armed forces.”

After the publication in this magazine of the now famous “Secret Report” about shocking cases of graft, corruption gross inefficiency, brutality and barbarism among PC officers in Nueva Ecija, Tarlac, and Pangasinan, Magsaysay at once took drastic steps. He ordered the transfer and investigation of more than a dozen high army officers in the provinces mentioned in the report.

That he incurred the displeasure of those yanked out from their lucrative stations in central Luzon was known to Magsaysay.

“I don’t give a hang about what they think of me,” Magsaysay once told a number of newsmen. “I’ll clean up the armed forces of crooks and misfits if it kills me. I left my job in Congress and accepted my present position because I felt that I could help President Quirino in my own humble way. I have no choice in this matter. Either those useless officers who are not a credit to the government must step out or I step out.”

Since he made this statement, scores of “useless officers” both in the Army and the Constabulary have been relieved. A goodly number have been reverted to inactive status.

From interviews with certain Army and PC brass we have learned that officers who used to feel secure in their jobs are now on their toes most of the time. They know that many of their colleagues who used to boast of their strong “connections” with bigwigs in the high councils of the armed forces have been either relieved or transferred to distant provinces.

“Some of those officers had adopted the I-don’t-care attitude because they felt secure in their jobs due to their connections with people in the ‘clique,’” Magsaysay said. “I changed that attitude. Now, the same officers are aware of the fact that they can remain on their jobs only as long as they improve themselves. They know that it’s only efficiency and devotion to duty that can keep them there.”

One officer who failed to send reinforcements to some soldiers whom the Huks had surrounded in the Zambales mountains not long ago was kicked out of the Army upon orders of Secretary Magsaysay.

One night this man went to the Secretary’s house and tearfully begged that he be given another chance. He had with him his wife and children. In the course of his plea, this man went to the extent of showing his scars from wounds sustained while fighting the Japanese in Bataan in 1942.

“I’m very sorry,” Magsaysay told him, “I can’t reinstate you. I know how you feel. I know how your family will feel about this. But what you did was something an officer should never do. I can’t maintain discipline in the army if I don’t punish you.”

A lot of other officers whom Magsaysay ordered dismissed have come to him for “another chance.”

“I always refused to reconsider,” he said. “If I didn’t, there could never be any discipline in the armed forces. We must have discipline and we can only have it if we apply a firm hand on officers and men who manhandle civilians, refuse to fight the dissidents, commit irregularities, and abuse their authority.”

Magsaysay has already relieved many officers for maltreating civilians. He told this writer that if there is anything he hates in men in the armed forces, it is brutal treatment of civilians, especially those in out-of-the-way places.

“I am very hard on officers and men who abuse or torture innocent civilians,” Magsaysay said. “The army and PC are supposed to protect, not to exploit them. Whenever I hear a report of abuse and manhandling of farm folk, I personally see to it that the officer or men responsible are punished.”

Magsaysay has contributed his bit in reviving the faith of the Filipino people in their government. Whenever he goes to the provinces, he makes it a point to talk with the parish priest, the teachers and farmers of the community. From these people, he gets correct information about the behavior of officers and soldiers.

Crowning achievement

“I do not bother talking at length with the officers,” he once told us. “If I confined myself to them, they would tell me nice stories about their achievements. But the people are the best judge of these officers. So I talk with the people and from them I invariably get a correct report on what the members of the armed forces are doing in their locality.”

Since Magsaysay assumed office, he has succeeded in effecting the surrender of several Huk chieftains and their men. These surrenders have taken place in Pangasinan, Nueva Ecija, Batangas, Laguna, and Zambales. Firearms and ammunition have likewise been turned over by these dissidents to the government.

Secretary Magsaysay has already done much to boost the morale of the men in the field. He goes to them unannounced and at the most unexpected moments. He is able to do this because he uses a plane in visiting combat teams in the provinces, thus saving much time. When an officer in the field is deserving of promotion. Magsaysay goes to where that man is and hands him in papers.

“I hate paper work and red tape,” he has repeatedly told newspapermen. “In the past, plenty of paper was wasted in the office because of endorsements from one office to another. And it took time to get those endorsements dispatched. Now, I either go to officers personally or just use the telephone to transact or just use the telephone to transact official business. It is much better because it is faster. The US Army is efficient because there is less paper work.”

The mass arrest of men and women suspected of being the core of the Communist party in the Philippines is Magsaysay’s crowning achievement. He told us that in due time he would give the lowdown on the incidents and circumstances that led to the discovery and final apprehension of the members of the local Politburo.

Furious

Co Pak, local Chinese multimillionaire, who is suspected as one of the top financiers of the local Reds is now confined. Magsaysay had him arrested. When the order to nab this Chinese was made, those in the Military Intelligence Service were hesitant. They were afraid of Co Pak because they had been informed that the man had hirelings who would murder at the drop of a halt. When Magsaysay learned about this, he flared up.

“If you cannot arrest Co Pak because you are afraid,” he told the arresting officers, “I’ll arrest him myself!”

Co Pak was finally apprehended and confined. But he stayed in the PC stockade only for a short time. Somehow or other, he succeeded in getting his temporary release by the mere expedient of filing a bond. We were informed that the man used political “pull.” He has strong “connections” among local bigtime politicos.

When Magsaysay heard of Co Pak’s temporary release, he became furious and ordered the immediate arrest of the Chinese.

Magsaysay has ordered the sale of scores of staff cars in the Army and Constabulary. When all the vehicles are sold, the government will net something like one and a half million pesos. With the money, new trucks (which are very much needed in the campaign against the Huks) will be bought. Magsaysay also said that his department will purchase some 100 trucks from the Manila Railroad Company. These will also be used by the combat teams in Central Luzon.

Not the least of Magsaysay’s achievements is the replacement of Generals Castañeda and Ramos. During the period when these gentlemen controlled military affairs, peace and order conditions went steadily from bad to worse. Their replacement by more effective leaders brings fresh hope of the ultimate restoration of peace and order throughout the nation, which as President Quirino himself has repeatedly said, is the government’s first problem.

From:

http://philippinesfreepress.wordpress.com/1951/01/06/ramon-magsaysay-man-of-the-year-january-6-1951/

P.S. People must understand that I was enamored with him during my UP days. Our Kasaysayan (history) class under Prof. Abrera required us to write a paper on Philippine history. Our group of three were assigned with Presidents Magsaysay, Garcia and Macapagal. I choose him and I was lucky I made the right choice. So I scoured the libraries of UP Diliman (reaching the Asian Center and Filipiniana even during Christmas vacation just to get some info (xerox and write). I actually love Asian Center library by the way.

Basing from the news articles and biographies I read, he was really loved by the people. Lots of anecdotes about his wisdom, humility, frugality (eating tuyo and drinking basi), his penchance for cursing and his dedication to his family was discussed. He was really loved that when he died because of an airplane clash, millions of Filipinos went to Manila just to grieve for him (consider the fact that the Philippines has lesser population in the late 1950s). Almost all authors will say positive things about him. It is just sad we lost a nice guy. My guy Magsaysay.

Food Trip in Ilocos

     When was the last time I posted in my blog? I couldn't remember but it had been too long. Maybe  a year in my reckoning. So anyway, I will try to be active here if I could despite my hectic law studies. For my first article or I could say my post, I am posting some foods that is defining Ilocos. Actually my list is not complete as I omit some classic Iloko foods such as pinakbet, bagnet and some of our vegetable dish. There had been a proliferation of oily Ilocano foods (fried,drench in oil and full of meat). Let's just say our classic pinakbet was originally not that greasy but the increase in level of living here had upgraded our food a bit. 

     Some might ask why I would post food. First, it was one of the things I missed when I was in Manila. You can never forget your roots and I shouldn't as it taught me to love some vegetables like ampalaya (bitter gourd), talong (eggplant), okra etc. Second, I am really a certified foodie who wants to taste any food I want (of course there are limitations e.g. exotic foods). Lastly, this is a tribute to one of my favorite writer who taught me that even a mundane topic food could be an interesting topic for conversation. It could also taught us about Filipino culture and society. Of course, I am talking to the late Doreen Fernandez, a National Artist. So let's start the counting:

1) Miki 

    This is the Ilocanos our to chicken mami or lomi. It is a gooey, yellowish noodle (miki) soup. Duck or chicken meat are used as the soup base. It is usually top with egg and/or chicken or pork skin chicharon. The yellowish color of the soup is achieved by using achuete seeds as coloring (same as in kare-kare). Usually, eaters would seasoned it with condiments such as pepper, vinegar, patis, vinegar (the black Ilocos version), or vinegar infused with chilis.

   Most roadside eateries and carinderias would include it in there menu as a merienda or breakfast. Some would treat it as ulam and eat it with rice. The good thing about miki  is it still good to eat even after its not steamy hot unlike mami. 

2. Lumpianada

     This food is actually a pun on two Filipino food, lumpia and empanada (the Ilocano version). Actually one could say that the latter was a kind of the former as both were fried vegetable egg rolls (though the former has no eggs). Basically these new snack (I don't remember eating this as a kid) uses lumpia wrapper but stuffs it with egg, sayote, bean sprout or the vegetable fillings of empanada sans longganisa. Sometimes, dried shrimps would be added to add a salty taste in roll (which I detest). Just like its two parents, it could be seasoned with vinegar or catsup.

     Compared to empanada, lumpianada costs around P10 while an empanada (without the longganisa filling) costs around P20. It is also filling and if one is really desperate enough, it could also be treated as a viand.



3) Dragonfruit (Pitaya)

     Maybe one of the newest food to be adopted by Ilocanos as this originated from Mexico and Central America (the same place where most of the ingredients in the pinakbet originated). One could consider it as a fad crop here as most houses plant this is their garden (and sometimes engulfing their houses). The sunny weather in Ilocos could have been favorable for this cacti plants.

     When I first tasted it, I was not impressed by its taste as it is not that sweet as some fruits. What really piqued my taste buds is its watery consistency and its sesame like seeds. Definitely tasty but not as addictive as an apple or banana.







Note: I'll try to update this blog if I collect more info on some of our Ilocano foods. 

Essay: Remembering Ramon “RM” Magsaysay (Jose Abueva)

Remembering Ramon “RM” Magsaysay

by Jose Abueva

On March 17, 1957, Ramon Magsaysay, the third President of our republic, perished in a plane crash in Cebu with 27 companions; only one survived. Millions grieved over the passing of our nation’s most popular and truly beloved President who united our people in our socioeconomic and political development. Across newly decolonized Asia, Ramon Magsaysay, or “RM,” loomed large next to its great founding leaders—Mao of China, Nehru of India and Sukarno of Indonesia.

But today most Filipinos do not know RM. Many others hardly remember “the Guy.” In his time, the Philippines was a leading country in East Asia after Japan. Fortunately, since 1958 the Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation has yearly recognized leaders in Asia who have shown the greatness of spirit and selfless service that RM exemplified in his short public life. In this way he lives all over Asia as our nation’s humble model of “transforming leadership” for democracy and good governance.

What did the people see in RM? To the so-called “masses,” he was their man, their leader and hero like no other president ever was before him. They saw him as one of them, for them and with them because of what he said, did and symbolized. He reinforced their image of him by his simplicity, honesty and visible action. He stood out in his adherence to “subsidiarity,” the principle that in a democracy, the people are sovereign and must actively take part in their governance, and must be served by the government and their leaders and civil servants.

As a congressman, RM was known to his constituents in Zambales as Monching, the former guerrilla leader, mechanic and transport manager of TryTran. As President Elpidio Quirino’s defense secretary, he reached out to the troops and the people in the successful campaign against the former anti-Japanese Huks and the communists. He helped Quirino ensure free and peaceful elections in 1951 and make up for the notorious presidential election in 1949. He would help resettle former rebels in government settlements in Mindanao.

Before Magsaysay, candidates depended on the local political oligarchy and family dynasties in their limited national campaign. But RM introduced the “barrio to barrio” campaign where he made direct contact with the voters to the tune of “Mambo Magsaysay.” In effect, he bypassed the local political bosses without making them feel ignored by him.

No doubt RM’s propagandists were skillful in reporting on his policies and actions. But most people believed in him simply because they trusted him. Somehow they sensed that he was working for them and making the government attend to their needs as never before. As lowly people, they most likely did not know that they were sovereign citizens, the source of government authority as defined in the 1935 Constitution.

When television was still new and limited in its reach, radio and the print media maximized their projection of RM’s image as a tall and ruggedly handsome man of action, of restless dynamism and high intensity. (Tall, demure and beautiful, Luz Magsaysay complemented her outgoing husband by tending to the family and avoiding publicity.) Journalists eagerly covered his frequent surprise visits to various government offices. They dramatized his visible impatience for results in making government officials and agencies serve the people. His quick temper was well-known, as were his regrets and apologies when he learned he was wrong.

On the day of his inauguration in 1953, RM opened Malacañan Palace to the people. He ordered its name changed simply to Malacañang, to symbolize its new meaning as “the people’s palace,” not the forbidding palace of colonial governors and Filipino presidents.

He formed the Presidential Complaints and Action Committee (PCAC), with Manuel Manahan heading a young and idealistic staff. The PCAC heard the grievances of thousands of people and recommended remedial action by the concerned government agencies. It served to boost the people’s morale and gave them confidence in the government, thus making good the President’s promise that “those who have less in life should have more in law.” RM also told the people they could reach him by telegram for just 10 centavos.

Greg Makabenta’s portrait of RM is pertinent: “People knew him as a ‘former mechanic’ who did not have impressive grades in school. Jokes about him included his reported plan to ‘repeal the law of supply and demand’ and the way he encouraged visitors to Malacañang to ‘feel in the family way’—a Pinoy euphemism to ‘feel at home.’

“The images that came across sharply in the media were those of a man who would take off his shoes and walk in the mud with the farmers, eat with his hands, leap over ditches. And from the time he became secretary of national defense up to his tenure as President, RM was portrayed as a no-nonsense reformer who cleaned up the military and the bureaucracy.”

Although he did well as a young student, RM was dismissed from the University of the Philippines. He could have earned his commerce degree from Jose Rizal College by combining his credits there and at UP, but he was more serious with his daytime work at a transport company.

Growing up in a middle-class family in Zambales, RM excelled in dealing with workers and the common folk, knowing what they needed in their homes and communities, and what they wanted from the government. He learned intuitively and sensed the people’s hopes and feelings by mingling with them. As defense secretary, he sensed the roots of the Huk and communist rebellions and the rebels’ need for land and justice.

As President, he focused his administration’s efforts on the barrios and the people’s basic needs for irrigation, roads, schools, clinics, peace and order. He initiated a national self-help community development program administered by a corps of professional community development workers. Inspired by his passion, private groups intensified their rural community self-help programs. He sought the help of bright, young leaders who shared his values, like Manahan, Emmanuel Pelaez, Raul Manglapus, Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr. and Ramon Binamira; he nurtured them as his political heirs.

RM was the youngest Filipino President, taking on the post at the age of 46. When they became president, Ferdinand Marcos was 48; Diosdado Macapagal, 51; Corazon Aquino, 53; Manuel Roxas and Gloria Arroyo, 54; Manuel Quezon, 57; Elpidio Quirino, 58; Joseph Estrada, 61; and Fidel Ramos, 64. The incumbent, President Aquino, was 50.

And in the 64 years from Philippine independence in 1946 to 2012, RM topped the other presidents in the percentage of the votes he received in the 1953 presidential election—69 percent of the total votes cast.

Note:

He is my favorite Philippine president. The first paper I made in UP (Kasaysayan 1) is about him. I enjoyed scouring the less frequented Asian Center library just to get materials about him. He was loved by people at his time. The only man to opened Malacanang to the people. The true "Man of the Mass".

From http://opinion.inquirer.net/25089/remembering-ramon-rm-magsaysay 

Essay: A Nation For Our Children(Pepe Diokno)

A Nation For Our Children

BY JOSE W. DIOKNO

Note: “A Nation for Our Children” was delivered late in 1984. At that time Pepe was deeply involved in trying to unify the opposition against the fascistic but failing regime of Ferdinand E. Marcos. This important and crucial task did not prevent him from delineating in near-lyrical language his dream of a nation for all Filipino children — a just, humane and free society. Priscila S. Manalang 

Download PDF

There is one dream that all Filipinos share: that our children may have a better life than we have had. So there is one vision that is distinctly Filipino: the vision to make this country, our country, a nation for our children.

A NOBLE nation, where homage is paid not to who a man is or what he owns, but to what he is and what he does.

A PROUD nation, where poverty chains no man to the plow, forces no woman to prostitute herself and condemns no child to scrounge among garbage.

A FREE nation, where men and women and children from all regions and with all kinds of talents may find truth and play and sing and laugh and dance and love without fear.

A JUST nation where whatever inequality exists is caused not by the way people act towards each other but by differences in natural talents; where poverty, ignorance, and hunger are attacked and every farmer has land that no one can grab from him; every breadwinner, a job that is satisfying and pays him enough to provide a decent standard of living; every family, a home from which it cannot be evicted; and everyone, a steadily improving quality of life.

An INDEPENDENT nation which rejects foreign dictation, depends on itself, thinks for itself, and decides for itself what the common good is, how it is to be attained, and how its costs and benefits are to be distributed.

An HONORABLE nation where public powers are used for the public good and not for the private gain of some Filipinos and some foreigners; where leaders speak not only well but truthfully and act honestly; a nation that is itself and seeks to live in peace and brotherhood with all other nations of the world.

Is this vision attainable? Or is it just an idle dream? If we base ourselves on today, we would be tempted to conclude that it is an idle dream. For our country today is in a mess. There is no other way to describe its condition.

Our economy is bankrupt. We cannot pay our foreign debt. Within the next two years, whether or not our foreign loans are restructured, prices and taxes will continue to rise. The peso will continue to fall. The domestic market will contract further. More workers will lose their jobs; more students will be forced to drop out of school. Hunger will spread, and disease will not be far behind. Crime will continue to stalk the streets even more menacingly. Anger, resentment, and frustration will escalate. Dissidence will propagate, and repression will intensify. The government has lost all credibility, yet it refuses to do the decent thing: return power to the people. Instead it continues to deny the people their basic rights and freedoms. And the calloused behavior of some of its leaders mocks and defies this cherished Filipino value.

Yet we must not give up our dream because of today. For if we look at ourselves, we have all the resources — human and natural — to become what we Filipinos choose to be. Our population is about 53 million, and that’s the 17th largest potential domestic market in the world.

We are a literate people. Our adult literacy is 75 per cent, the 40th highest worldwide. Sixty-three per cent (63 per cent) of our young people in the 15-19 year age group are enrolled in secondary schools, which is about 50 per cent higher than the average for countries like ours. And 27 percent of the 20-24 year age group are enrolled in colleges and universities, which is twice the average of countries like ours and more than that of some developed countries like the United Kingdom, West Germany, Australia, France, Belgium, and Switzerland.

Our land area is 300,000 square kilometers, the sixty-third largest in the world. It is rich in natural resources. Less than half of our land has been systematically surveyed for mineral but commercial quantities obtained of the thirteen basic raw materials required by a modern industrial economy have already been discovered: bauxite, chromium, copper, iron are, lead, manganese, nickel, phosphates, zinc, natural rubber among these. And we also have the human drive to develop these.

Encounters with nations which invaded and occupied us or traded with us have made us open to change and quick to adapt to it. Our people are ingenious and fast learners, competitive and achievement-oriented, rational and practical, and dedicated to freedom and independence. We are, let us not forget, the first Asian people who revolted against a western imperial power, Spain; the first who adopted a democratic republican constitution in Asia, the Malolos Constitution; the first to fight the first major war of the twentieth century against another western imperial power, the United States of America. Since 1972, we have suffered the brutal repression of martial rule, but freedom still burns bright in the hearts of most of us.

So there is no insurmountable barrier that could stop us from becoming what we want to he. Why then are we in this sorry condition? I think it is because we have forgotten one basic thing. We Filipinos are a variegated people. We live in seven thousand islands. We profess no less than five major religions. We pray in no fewer than seven native tongues. But all of us — Muslim or Christian, Tagalog or Visayan or Ilocano or Kapampangan — all of us are Filipinos not only because we are brothers in blood — many of us are not — but because we are all brothers in tears; not because we all share the same land — many of us are landless — but because we share the same dream.

Whether we like it or not, we are one nation with one future, a future that will be as bright or as dark as we remain united or divided.

Sometimes — as at present — events obscure this truth. At other times, human selfishness tries to deny it. But the truth will not die. We are one nation with one future. Yet today that nation is sorely divided even on such seemingly uncontroversial questions like what to do with the Marcos government or how to deal with the U.S. government. Some — I am one of them — would want to change not only Marcos but the system he has implanted in our country. Others would want to change only Marcos. Others would not even want that. They would be happy with changing Imelda and Ver. And others would not even demand that, simply that Marcos give up Amendment 6 or the power to issue presidential detention actions or both.

On such a simple matter as the United States relations, some want statehood. Others want independence, and those who want independence do not all agree on what it means. Some believe in independence from every foreign government except the United States, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In fact, some of those who think this way seek U.S. government help to get Marcos out and put themselves in. Still others believe in independence from every foreign government which includes Russia, China, Japan, besides the United States, the World Bank and the IMF. They want no U.S. intervention in our affairs not even to oust Marcos, and they want the U.S. bases out. But some who think this way, or say they do, urge that U.S. issues be submerged for the time being. Let’s finish with Marcos first, they say, and then let’s take on the U.S. government.

Just as we are not agreed on what changes we want, we are not agreed on how to obtain those changes. Some believe that change can only come from within the Marcos system which is why they took part in the last elections. Others are convinced that change can only come about from outside that system which is why they boycotted the elections. Some think that only violence can bring about change which is why they joined the NPA, the MNLF or other guerrilla groups. Yet others think that non-violence can bring about change, and so they have joined militant, peaceful mass actions.

In this state of disunity, change could come about, but except by a stroke of luck, it would hardly be the change that any of us want. For change to be meaningful, it is important that we agree at least on the basic issues, i.e., (1) Do we want to change just Marcos, or do we also want to change the system; (2) Do we want to free ourselves from the dominant influence of the U.S. government, or do we want to continue under its control; (3) Do we want to return to the kind of society we had before martial law, or do we want to establish a better society, more just and more human.

If we can agree on the basics of these issues, even though we may disagree on some details, then disagreements on how we can achieve these goals would not be insoluble. As long as we pursue the same basic objectives, there should be no difficulty in coordinating the activities of those who wish to pursue these objectives by different means. Let me just give you an example of what I mean.

We have today what is commonly called the parliament of the streets, and the objective of this parliament is to get rid of the Marcos government as soon as possible. But we also have political parties that are gearing for the elections in 1986 and 1987. Surely there should be no basic contradiction between these different methods. We can pursue the parliament of the streets and hopefully change the government before 1987, preferably before 1986, preferably before 1985. But if we fail, what is to prevent us from using the other methods in order to change this government. The important thing is that we agree on what we want because if we do then the dilemmas that we face today would no longer be critical.

Take for example this possibility. Suppose that Mr. Marcos for one reason or another were to quit his office tonight. Do you think the opposition would be able to put one candidate for president and one candidate for vice-president to fight against whichever candidates Mr. Marcos and the KBL would put up within the next sixty days? In 1986 if there is no agreement to these basic objectives, will the opposition be pulling up one candidate for the UNIDO, one candidate for PDP-LABAN, and one candidate for the LP, or more in the local elections as against the candidates of the KBL? And if so, what chance would the opposition have? And in 1987 if Marcos is still around to run, or even if he does not run — if he sponsors a candidate — would the opposition be able to put up one candidate, or will we be putting up four or five candidates to run against Mr. Marcos?

If we can agree, however, on all of these basic issues even if we don’t agree on all the details, then it would be easier to get agreement on one candidate. Why? Because if all of us are agreed on what we want, then insistence upon running can only be the result of personal ambition. And no candidate will ever tell you that he has personal ambitions. In fact, they will all say: I don’t want to run, but if the people want me, I will run.

And if we do agree on these basics, then docs it really make much difference who is the candidate as long as we are all united and agreed on what is to be done? It may make some difference. Some candidates may be more competent than others. The mere fact that we are all agreed on these basics should not make it impossible to achieve these changes regardless of who is this candidate. And therefore if we can agree on these basics, then we should be able to achieve the first step in this long journey to a nation for our children, and that is, the step of regaining our freedom.

But to do that, as I have said, will take time. It will be difficult. Wounds have become very deep, I’m sorry to say. I arrived, as you know, about a week ago, and I have found out during this short week that between certain groups disagreements have become personal, and those are the most difficult to address. But I also wish you to know that efforts are being made, and will continue to be made, so that all these disagreements can be ironed out. We do not expect perfect unanimity, we do not expect total agreement on every detail, but we believe that we can all agree at least on these basics.

First, that we must change not only Mr. Marcos but the system he has implanted. We must return to a truly democratic government with an independent judiciary and a responsible Parliament. And more than that, we must bring government and the making of decisions closer to the people affected by those decisions. Second, I feel that there should be — and there will be — no disagreement on the need to obtain our total liberation and freedom from American control. I say this because just the other day, there was a short meeting between representatives of UNIDO and others — those who had taken part and those who had not taken part in the last elections — and on the matter of “let’s start getting together, let’s talk and let’s see if we can get some bases of agreement,” one of them said: ‘Tanny, do you remember two years ago we signed a paper. Why don’t we use that as the basis of the agreement?” And Tanny said: “Fine. I don’t remember what was in that paper we had signed, but why don’t you just send it over’?” And it was sent over. And the first two paragraphs of that agreement made it very plain that every political force was committed to the proposition that the Philippines must be controlled by Filipinos and that all foreign bases must be removed from our country.

So I see no insurmountable difficulty there, and certainly I also see very little difficulty with respect to the third agreement, i.e., that we use our freedom and our independence to improve the quality of life of our people. Again we may disagree on how this is to be done but on the objectives, I think we are all agreed. I think that the second step in that long journey to attain a nation for our children is simply this: that in order to improve the quality of life of our people, what we have to do is really very simple n do the opposite of what Marcos has done for the last twelve years. I am not being facetious. I am not trying to be witty. I’m trying to state a fundamental truth.

Marcos has built his entire program on the principle of depending upon the U.S. and Japan and getting all the loans that he could. We must build our nation on the principle of depending on ourselves and getting as loans only what we need, not what we can get. Marcos has built his entire political system on gathering all power unto himself and eliminating all checks and balances. We must build our political system on respect for the sovereignty of the people, on the establishment of adequate checks and balances, and on empowering the people at the grassroots level.

Marcos has built his economic system on a policy of overspending, export-orientation, low wages, recession, unemployment, and poverty. We must build our economic system on strengthening our domestic market by increasing the productivity of our farmers and our workers and increasing their real wages because without an increase in the real wages and the real income of our workers and our farmers, it will not be possible for us to industrialize. We will continue to be dependent on foreign resources.

We must build our economy on removing disparities between urban and rural areas so that whatever social services we supply our rural areas — health, education, water, power, roads — must be of the same quality and the same standards as the social services that we supply to our cities.

And we must build our economy on using every method that we know as soon as possible to restore the buying power of our workers, at the very least and as a first step, to what was their buying power in 1972. From 1972 to the present, the real wages, the purchasing power, of our workers has dropped by no less than 45 per cent across the board — about 37 per cent for skilled workers and 48 per cent for unskilled workers. That has to be completely reversed. And our first objective must be to bring back their purchasing power at least to what it was in 1972 and then gradually increasing it.

Marcos has built his entire social system on a system of falsehood, on a system of repressing creativity, and on creating in our people a feeling of impotence and helplessness. I wonder how many of you have read Prof. Luisa Doronila’s report on the textbooks that are being used in our public schools and the effects they are having on our children. When the children were asked what they preferred to be — Filipinos, Americans, Japanese, etc. — the lowest rank was gotten by those who wanted to be Filipinos. What are we doing to our children? Our system must be the complete opposite. Our system must tell our children the truth. Our system must seek as much as it can to unleash their creativity.

I described to you when I began what I thought was the vision of most Filipinos of a nation for our children, and I know that for many of you, it may sound ideal. Yet reality is often much more beautiful than anything that we can conceive of. If we can but release the creative energy of our people, then we will have a nation full of hope and full of joy, full of life and full of love — a nation that may not be a nation for our children but which will be a nation of our children.

From http://diokno.org/post/3499678968/a-nation-for-our-children

My Value Added:

Nice article from my favorite lawyer. The only CPA and Bar topnotcher (at the same time). I will look for a lawyer (planning maybe in the next 4 years) that I will emulate, it will be him. Such a man of integrity.

Essay: Understanding the Edsa Revolution by Charles Tan

From http://charles-tan.blogspot.com/2011/02/essay-understanding-edsa-revolution.html

Essay: Understanding the Edsa Revolution

Tomorrow marks the 25th anniversary of the Edsa Revolution. The concept of "People Power" is fresh, considering current events, such as the protests in Egypt two weeks ago. But I say that not just as praise, but also as a warning. Other countries have attempted the same movement, but massacres do happen, such as what happened in Tiananmen Square in 1989.

The current question in Filipinos's minds is whether the revolution was a success. In many ways, that also echoes a concern of people around the world when it comes to Egypt: what happens next? The problem stems from the fact that people have different expectations.

This dilemma isn't new. A lot of people, in my opinion, suffer from a Messiah Complex, not in the sense that they envision themselves to be omnipotent and infallible, but they expect someone else--an individual-- to solve all their problems (and considering some of our prominent religions, it's not surprising). Unfortunately, this belief is a poor fit for democracy.

When people contemplate the Edsa Revolution, they compare whether the Philippines is better off today. The problem with that statement is that being "better off" is a relative term and doesn't provide concrete metrics. When former president Marcos was ousted, Filipinos expected many things: land reform, a prospering economy, a corruption-free government, etc. In other words, a utopia. What some of us don't understand is that these goals cannot be accomplished by a single individual nor does it happen with one single event. These are long-term problems and what's needed are long-term solutions. And that means constant vigilance and effort on our part as citizens.

What the Edsa Revolution did accomplish, and this was a transparent short-term goal right from the outset, was to oust a dictator. In that sense, we succeeded. Why was this important? Because it opened the possibility for change. This is the current plight of Egypt. A decade from now, Egypt may be better or worse off than its current state. We don't know what will happen, only the future can tell us that. But rather than the responsibility solely resting on one individual, the burden is now shared equally among its citizens (and to a certain extent, the global community).

This struggle isn't new. In fact, more than half a century ago, former president Manuel L. Quezon had this to say:

"I would rather have a country run like hell by Filipinos than a country run like heaven by the Americans, because however bad a Filipino government might be, we can always change it."

Whenever I used to see this quote, it usually ends with Americans, and leaves out the last part. Which I think is important here: not just the possibility of change, but the pronoun we.

In my opinion, some of us fail to fully comprehend all of the implications of a democracy and dictatorship. For example, democracies are complex creatures, unique to each culture and nation. The Philippines's democracy is vastly different from that of America's, or even Athenian democracy. Each type of democracy has its own advantages and disadvantages, sometimes giving more power to its citizens, at other times to its representatives. At the other end of the spectrum are dictatorships. Much like democracy, dictatorships can take on various forms, and not all dictatorships are equal. Some Filipinos miss the days of Martial Law. There was, after all, quick implementation of plans and policies. But that is the nature of dictatorships: with no one to question our superior's orders, drastic actions can be quickly accomplished. Democracies in general, on the other hand, have numerous checks and balances that change is relatively slow. (Similarly, long-term dictatorships can also plan better for the long term as succession to their rule ceases to be a threat.) But the problem with dictatorships is what happens when your leader stops being benevolent? Will you have the freedom to state your opinion, much less effect change? That is, in my opinion, a fundamental concept, going as far back as the philosophical debate of free will. Or better yet, what happens if you become the minority, the oppressed? What if your are suddenly abducted by the government for no reason at all other than being suspected of treason? The innocent are presumed guilty until proven otherwise.

There is also simple ignorance on the part of us Filipinos. For example, one of the pro-Marcos sentiments is that we had a strong peso vs. dollar rate during Martial Law. Unfortunately, this isn't due to Marcos being a savvy economist, but because we were under a Command Economy--thus the president could set the price without reacting appropriately to market forces. It can be advantageous in the short term but ultimately unsustainable as debts starts to pile up (and that is what happened with our national debt).

Nor were we on our best behavior. There is, of course, a lot of repressed anger at the time. The existence of looting after ousting a dictator comes as no surprise. But whereas Egypt made attempts to protect its treasures, there was no one to stop us Filipinos from looting Malacanang Palace.

Just the other day, I finished reading Brave New Worlds, an anthology on dystopian fiction. Editor John Joseph Adams writes a good introduction, especially the part where he reminds us that whether a society is a utopia or a dystopia depends on your perspective. Take for instance the story "Resistance" by Tobias Buckell: society has lost its ability to vote and in its place is a computer making all the decisions, based on how society would have voted. One could view this as the "benevolent dictator" argument and pro-Marcos supporters could have perceived the Martal Law era as that kind of utopia. But for some of us, that is a nightmare. These utopia-dystopias are real. Take for example China's one-child policy. Filipinos will frown upon it, especially when we have families here with half a dozen to even a dozen or more children. But in China, it's a way of life, and for them, the pros more than outweighs the cons. The concept of a benevolent dictator (and while arguably Marcos had some good intentions, he was hardly benevolent) is lucrative, but do we really want to live in such a society?

It's all too easy to take for granted the liberties we currently have. If the Edsa Revolution didn't take place, I'd imagine the Marcos regime taking control of the country's Internet, perhaps an amalgam of the Great Firewall of China and Mumbarak shutting down the Internet. But that is simply conjecture. If you want concrete, tactile examples, one only needs to look at the country's top newspapers. The Philippine Daily Inquirer was established during the weakest point of Marcos's administration, three months before the Edsa Revolution. At the peak of Martial Law, I doubt if the publication would have survived. The Philippine Star, on the other hand, is very much a post-Martial Law broadsheet, founded by key contributors of The Philippine Daily Inquirer. That's not counting the TV and radio stations that were monitored--and censored--at the time.

Was the Edsa Revolution a success? In its short-term goals, yes. A dictator was ousted. The power to change reverted back to the public. But when it comes to the long-term goals, it would be foolish to believe that a single event would sustain such a change. If we want a better Philippines, be it education, population control, quality of life, etc., it needs sustained action and effort by everyone, and not just from our leaders, past or present. That is the true price of our democracy, that we need to get involved to produce change. Filipinos might grow cynical with the voting system, at how there is cheating involved. But action and democracy is simply not just about the voting process. There were no votes cast to determine whether the Ampatuan Massacre would be reported for example. We have the tools. The question is what are we doing with them. And unfortunately, there will not always be easy answers to come by.