Barong Tagalog makes the foreign service, May 31, 1958

May 31, 1958
“Barong Tagalog Makes the Foreign Service”

FOR the first time last April 17, a Filipino diplomat presented his credentials wearing the Filipino national costume—the barong Tagalog. The diplomat was Dr. Melquiades J. Gamboa. He wore the native attire when he presented his letters of credence in Ceylon to which he is the Minister of the Philippines. Dr. Gamboa is also the Philippine Ambassador to India. Photo shows Dr. Gamboa with Mr. Alfred Edward, chief of protocol, Ministry of External Affairs, Ceylon.

The First Filipino Senate, editorial October 21, 1916

October 21, 1916

The First Filipino Senate

IN THE historic event of last Monday the legislative act approved by congress and ratified by the president of the United States took living form and substance, the declared will of two peoples found visible and material expression, and palpable manifestation was given to the struggle of years and the record of a signal triumph won. It was, in a manner, another linking of East and West, the firmer transplanting of the principles of constitutional government under an oriental sky.

In the convention of last Monday one may see no more than the assemblage of some twenty men chosen to represent their country in making its laws. It was, if you wish, a very ordinary, possibly a very tiresome procedure. But, as a grain of sand holds the solar system, a drop of water the universe, so in that parliament of last Monday one may see epitomized the unceasing struggle of mankind through the centuries.

It seems that the roots of the tree of human liberty must be watered with human blood. And the Philippines have proved no exception. They have paid the price. But now from the crimsoned soil of ’96 and ’98 there rises in fullness the fruition of their sacrifice. The years have brought benison and reward. And even out there on the Luneta the bronze and granite pile which bespeaks the martyrdom of Rizal is no such true monument as that senate which today sits in the full freedom of the Filipino people.

Another obligation which they owe is to the United States. Whatever may be thought, the American people have kept the faith.

Yet another obligation the members of the new senate owe, is to the millions of the Far East who still figuratively live in darkness—who have not yet seen the full light of the shining day that here has reached its noon. In a manner they are the custodians of the fate of those millions.

By a direct vote of the people were the members of the First Filipino senate chosen; but by more than the direct vote of the people will they be judged.

Technorati Tags: history, philippines, Philippines Free Press

Re-constructing Colonial Philippines: 1900-1910

Special to the Century Book

Re-constructing Colonial Philippines: 1900-1910
Patricio N. Abinales

THE birth of the Philippines in 1896 was one thing; consolidating the territory was another matter. While most Filipinos would attribute the unification of the Philippines to the 1896 Revolution, in reality it was a series of local revolts against the Spanish, and later against the Americans. It remains debatable as to whether these revolts either identified wholly with Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo’s Malolos Republic, or whether, had they all succeeded, whether would unite under one contiguous territory. Already when the first American troops landed in Negros Island, Negrenses were threatening to create their own republic.

The Americans were actually responsible for giving territorial reality to Las Islas Filipinas, the basis of the future Republic. They did this first by employing force against those who opposed American rule. They waged brutal military campaigns against forces loyal to the Malolos Revolutionary Government of Pres. Emilio Aguinaldo, pushing the latter as far back as the mountain fastness of northern Luzon and scattering his troops in southern Luzon, the Visayas and Mindanao. The American use of armed might was so brutish that in Samar Island, for example, hundreds of women and children were killed when Gen. Jacob Smith ordered to turn the island into a “howling wilderness.” After Aguinaldo’s capture at Palanan, Isabela, there were attempts to re-establish a new revolutionary center, but all this was quashed by the Americans.

In the towns and in Manila, American suppression of Filipino revolutionary nationalism took the form of proscribing the publication of “seditious” materials that could be disseminated through the emergent print media and the ever-popular plays. Public display of pro-revolutionary sentiments were also prohibited, with the most notable ban being the Flag Law that disallowed any showing of flags associated with the Katipunan and the Malolos Republic. The Americans also sped up the organization of police forces to oversee “peace and order” and this successor of the hated Spanish Guardia Civil proved up to the task of suppressing urban dissent.

Once sure that their control would not be seriously challenged anymore, the Americans turned their attention to governing “the new possessions.” The foremost problem that immediately confronted them was the generating money for the colony and then developing the personnel necessary to run the government.

The U.S. Congress approved the colonization of the Philippines but refused to provide sustained financial support for the undertaking. In fact, the Congress allotted only $3 million for the Philippines in the entire period from 1903 to the formation of the Philippine Commonwealth. One economist called it colonial administration “accomplished ‘on the cheap.’” Financial constraints were also complicated by the difficulty of attracting Americans to govern the colony. The solution to these problems was found in generating revenues from the colony’s own resources, particularly the existing crops that the colony was exporting abroad later years of Spanish rule. Enhancing this export economy, however, was not easy. American legislators, especially those coming from the agricultural regions of the U.S., vigorously opposed proposals that Philippine products enter the country tariff-free. As a consequence, the so-called “free trade” that introduced under American rule was not so free. The U.S. was very selective in the choice of Philippine products that could be exported to the American mainland. Only sugar, hemp and coconut were allowed open access to the U.S. market; and even these products would later be taxed in American ports. Selective entry of these goods however was enough to resurrect the export economy, and by the end of the decade much of it was re-energized because of the American market.
The second issue—putting people into the administrative and political structure—proved more successful because the Americans early on opened up the structure to Filipino participation. It is general knowledge that even as the war against Aguinaldo was raging, the Americans were already able to recruit prominent Filipinos to their side. These collaborators became the backbone of the Federalista Party, a party committed to full American control as well as the medium for introducing the party system to the Philippines. The Federalistas were also supposed to become the dominant Filipino party in the soon-to-be formed Philippine Assembly and American backing initially helped them to mobilize Filipino support.

The Americans transformed the Philippine Commission from its original function as a fact-finding and policy-recommending body created by Pres. McKinley, to the highest policy-making body of the colony. Through the Commission, the Americans were also able to bring in Filipinos into the leadership (although they had limited powers) and further legitimize their rule. With the Federalistas supporting them and the pacification campaigns winding down, especially after Gen. Macario Sakay, the last of the revolutionaries fighting for a Tagalog Republic in 1905, the Americans proceeded to prepare the grounds for eventual self-rule.

The Commission ordered a colony-wide census to ascertain the exact population of the Philippines. The census was followed by provincial elections in 1906 where a new group of Filipinos emerged to challenge the Federalistas. The former consisted of local elites who saw the value of the nationalism of 1896 and how it made many Filipinos suspicious of the pro-American Federalistas. Using their provincial positions, this group began to present themselves as the real alternative to the Federalistas. Americans increasingly recognized the strength of this sentiment, especially at the provincial and municipal levels, and began to turn their attention to these new elites. The result of this new collaboration was the creation of the Nacionalista Party, a coalition of provincial elites who promised to fight for the cause of nationalism but within the framework of the American policy of eventual self-rule.

On July 30, 1907, the first elections to the Philippine Assembly—the legislative body which would act as the “lower house” to the more “senatorial” Philippine Commission—was held and the Nacionalista won a majority. From their ranks emerged Manuel L. Quezon (from Tayabas province) and Sergio Osmeña (from Cebu), who would lead the fight to expand Filipino power inside the government and eventually become the dominant leaders of the American period. Under Quezon and Osmeña, a colony-wide party system began to take shape, its power derived from a combination of clan-based alliances, patronage and a commitment to Filipinization. As more Americans chose to return to the mainland instead of staying to serve the colonial government, Filipinos increasingly took over their position.

By the end of the first decade, “regular provinces” comprised half of the Philippines. These provinces had elected and appointive Filipino officials, many of whom owed their positions to Quezon, Osmeña and the Nacionalistas. Combining their local political experiences learned from the last years of Spanish rule, with the “political education” they were getting from the Americans, the Filipinos proved within a short period of time that they had the ability to be equally adept at governing the colony. In its first year at work, the Philippine Assembly had already shown a marked adeptness in introducing additional provisions or new amendments to existing colonial laws, and in negotiating with the Philippine Commission and the Governor General over matters of policy formulation, funding and government personnel changes. Quezon and Osmeña were at the top of all these processes. They were fast becoming astute leaders of the political party they helped build, of the Assembly that they presided over, and of the colonial regime they co-governed with the Americans. If Rizal was credited for having conceived of the “Filipino,” and if Bonifacio and Aguinaldo were the leaders who gave this imagination a reality with the Revolution, to Quezon and Osmeña must be given the distinction of helping construct the political and administrative structure that would be associated with the term “Filipino.” The Americans may have created the colonial state, but it was these two leaders who gave flesh to it and putting the foundations that the future Republic would stand on.

This type of political and administrative consolidation however was only happening in one part of the colony—the “Christian” Filipino dominated “lowlands” in Luzon, the Visayas and northern Mindanao. In the other half of the colony, the U.S. army administered the “special provinces” on the grounds that their population—the so-called “non-Christian tribes”—were more backward than the Filipinos and were prone to more “warfare.” The Americans saw their “civilizing mission” as special given that the underdeveloped character of the Cordillerans and Muslims required a longer time for them to become familiar with self-government. They also had to be thoroughly “pacified.”

Surprisingly, the pacification process was fast and relatively easy. There was hardly any resistance from the various indigenous communities in the Cordilleras, while Muslim resistance was scattered and unsustained. At the middle of the first decade, the Cordilleras and “Moro Mindanao” had become very stable and peaceful areas.

A major reason for the American success was the cooperation extended by Muslim and Cordilleran leaders to the Americans. They regarded colonial rule as a means of protecting themselves against Christians and “lowlanders.” American military officials reciprocated this cooperation by resisting the efforts of Filipinos to extend their power to the “special provinces.” A working relationship eventually developed between these community leaders and the Americans whereby the former were given minor posts in the provincial government (“tribal wards” in the case of the Muslims) in exchange for agreeing to recognize American sovereignty. U.S. army officers who administered these areas also became their protectors against Filipino leaders, doing everything they can to limit the presence of Manila and the Nacionalista party in the Cordilleras and “Moro Mindanao.”

The only major resistance came from the Muslims at the hills of Bud Dajo and Bud Bagsak, when the army declared a ban on weapons and raised head taxes. American military superiority prevailed and over a hundred Muslim men, women and children were killed. Politically, however, these actions eroded the army’s standing and opened up an opportunity for Quezon to attack military rule in Mindanao. After the massacres, the army was forced slowly to concede authority to Manila and the Filipinos. The army’s powers were also clipped once the U.S. Congress authorized its partial demobilization, and once the American president ordered its withdrawal from the special provinces and its replacement by Philippine Constabulary units. Many American officers also preferred to continue their military careers in the U.S. mainland, seeing very little prospects in just limiting themselves to the Philippines. All these problems emboldened the Filipinos to assert their political presence in these special provinces. This was something that a weakened military government could not repulse anymore. In 1913, the army conceded its power to the Department of Mindanao and Sulu, a body controlled from Manila and by Filipinos. The Cordilleras’ status as a special province was also terminated and the Nacionalista Party began recruiting its first “Cordillerans” to join the organization.

Two major features therefore characterized the first decade of colonial rule. First was the full and effective unification of Las Islas Filipinas under American rule, and second was the division of colony into two major zones of administration reflecting the histories of their respective populations. These two zones were eventually unified under the Filipinization policy, but the distinctiveness upon which they were based continued to affect overall colonial development. Muslims and Cordillerans remained staunchly pro-American and anti-Filipino, while Christian “lowlanders” continued to mistrust and maintain a low regard for these “wild tribes.”

About half a century later, a separatist movement threatened to disengage “Moro Mindanao” from the Philippines, while in the Cordilleras, the quest for autonomy remained strong.
End

Technorati Tags: Philippines, Philippines Free Press, politics

Our issue for July 15, 2006

FREE PRESS
 
July 15, 2006 Issue

Main Features
 
On the cover: Manny Pacquiao whips Mexico’s Oscar Larios
 
          By Dominic Menor

1. Uncertainly Safe
 
When does the constitutional ban on bringing a new impeachment complaint against President Arroyo really end—June 26, 27, 28, 29? Or is it July 24? The House of Representatives’ rules do not make this clear, so the opposition is trying to cover all the possible dates with a surplus of complaints, including one coming from another member of the Catholic clergy on July 24, the day when Mrs. Arroyo faces Congress to make her State of the Nation report. House leaders are using the uncertainty for the advantage of Mrs. Arroyo and if they are successful all the complaints brought last week, even the strongest one brought by 300 private citizens led by Zeneida Quezon Avanceña, President Manuel L. Quezon’s last surviving daughter, are dead. They interpret the ban as ending on July 24, the date of last year’s impeachment complaint to the House justice committee. Or is it July 25, a day after the referral?  Maybe it’s September 7, a day after the shameless majority allies of Mrs. Arroyo threw out the first complaint last year? Or maybe after the Supreme Court has decided on Lakas Rep. Clavel Martinez’s petition for review of the House’s action on the first complaint? The picture is as uncertain as Limbo, which the Roman Catholic Church is considering dropping from its teachings because of the emerging theological view that innocent and virtuous but unbaptized people cannot be excluded from full blessedness and therefore should also be received in heaven. Given their political cupidity, Mrs. Arroyo’s allies will not accord the complaints this fairness. The only thing that matters is Mrs. Arroyo’s political survival, which means their own political survival. But even if one of the dates between June 26 and July 24 is correct, that is still no assurance that the House will impeach Mrs. Arroyo. Impeachment remains a numbers game and although some disgruntled members of the majority and some reelectionists who want to make political points ahead of next year’s congressional elections may support one of the complaints, it remains doubtful that the minority can get the 78 votes needed to hurdle the procedural barrier. 
 
            By Ricky S. Torre and Wendell Vigilia
 
2. Double Standard
 
Malacañang has asked the Catholic bishops conference to sanction Caloocan Bishop Deogracias Yñiguez for bringing an impeachment complaint against President Arroyo. That’s politicking, says presidential chief of staff Michael Defensor. Church and state should be separate. But instead of even reprimanding Yñiguez, the bishops conference throws its full support behind the Caloocan prelate’s action. Yñiguez has brought the complaint as a citizen of the Philippines, not as a member of the clergy, and the Constitution is clear about this. Sure, Yñiguez is a clergyman, but his action is consistent with the conference’s exhortation to the Filipino people to continue their search for the truth about the 2004 election. The conference has declared 2006 “Year of Social Concerns,” urging Filipinos to speak more about social issues and participate more in actions that can change their society. Why restrain Yñiguez? Former vice president Teofisto Guingona is right: Why the double standard? Why talk about separation when Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo actively sought help from the church when she was trying to unseat Joseph Estrada? When it’s Mrs. Arroyo who is seeking help from the church, there is no question of separation. But when it is a clergyman that’s speaking against Mrs. Arroyo policies or actions, there should be separation. And doesn’t Mrs. Arroyo say God placed her in the Philippine presidency? And hasn’t she just attempted to use Pope Benedict XVI to picture herself as having papal blessing in insisting on ruling the Philippines? She has been beaten to the Vatican by Dagupan-Lingayen Archbishop Oscar Cruz, who traveled to the Vatican last year and reported the true social and political conditions in the Philippines.
 
            By Ricky S. Torre

3. Why Him Alone?
 
The Office of the Ombudsman, trying to beat a June 30 deadline imposed by the Supreme Court, has recommended the impeachment of Election Commissioner Resurreccion Borra for the irregular grant in 1993 of a contract to a private consortium for vote-counting machines. The Ombudsman also ordered the dismissal and criminal prosecution of eight members of the Comelec’s bids and awards committee and the criminal prosecution of the incorporators of the private supplier. A long-awaited decision coming as lame as this one causes great public disappointment, especially as Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez has promised to be merciless to grafters. Mercy the Merciless is not even sure whether she has jurisdiction over impeachable officials, so she is leaving Borra at the disposal of the House of Representatives. Maybe she also doesn’t know that the Comelec acts as a collegial body, so she is singling out Borra as if the guy had the sole decision to award the contract to the unqualified bidder and winner, Mega Pacific Consortium. Members of the House minority say they will bring a complaint for Borra’s impeachment, but they are not sure whether it is fair to move against Borra alone because they know that no single member of the Comelec can approve contracts on his own—the decision is always the act of the whole commission. Gutierrez’s office says the other election commissioners are still being investigated. How? They are already retired. All the Ombudsman investigators need to do is review the records of the case and the Supreme Court’s evaluation of the facts. They have been keeping the records sent to them by the Supreme Court for nearly a year now.
 
          By Guiller de Guzman

4. Beyond the Birds and the Bees
 
Are high school students ready for sex education? Shouldn’t this sensitive subject be left to parents to teach to their children? The Education Department has not even began introducing sex education in high school but the Catholic Church is already trying to block the new program, insisting that the subject be left a matter between parents and children. If it were only the church, which has a right to assert its teachings, the controversy will not be so scandalous. But self-appointed members of lay organizations are spreading lies about the program, claiming that the use of condoms will be taught in schools, complete with demonstrations. The program’s plan, however, does not include demonstrations and the word “condom” appears only twice in the text, cited only in the discussion of sexually transmitted diseases. The Education Department is going ahead with the program but for how long it can keep the subject up depends on Malacañang.
 
            By Guiller de Guzman

5. The Roots of the Education Problem
 
One reason why sex education must be taught in high school is the runaway population growth, which is also the root of the acute classroom shortage in public schools. The United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (Unesco) has long warned UN member countries about the problems that overpopulation can cause but apparently the Philippines has ignored the agency’s warning. The Unesco’s records show that as of July 2005, 36 million, or 35.4 percent, of the Philippines’ population are children up to 14 years of age and 22 million of them are eligible for public education. The Philippine government has built only 36,000 schools for these children. 
 
            By Ramiro C. Alvarez
 

 

Our issue for July 8, 2006

FREE PRESS
 
July 8, 2006 Issue

Main Features
 
Cover: Parañaque Mayor Bernardo Bernabe (with 8-page full-color supplement, Parañaque City)
 
1. The People vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
 
A group of citizens led by a daughter of President Manuel L. Quezon and a national artist for literature files a complaint for the impeachment of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in the House of Representatives on Monday. The complaint, signed by nearly 300 private citizens and endorsed by House Minority Leader Francis Escudero and PMP Rep. Ronaldo Zamora of San Juan, raises the same charges in the first complaint that the House majority dismissed last year on a technicality: electoral fraud, lying, cheating and breach of public trust, but adds violations of the Constitution using as evidence the Supreme Court rulings against Mrs. Arroyo’s mailed-fist policy on street protests without permits, prohibition to government, military and police officials to testify in any congressional investigation without her permission, and declaration of a state of national emergency in February to crush opposition to her rule. On Tuesday former vice president Teofisto Guingona files a complaint in intervention on behalf of the “people’s tribunal” that tried and found Mrs. Arroyo guilty of crimes against the people. At least two more complaints are expected to be brought in the House against Mrs. Arroyo, who is in the Vatican on the first leg of a European trip.
 
Malacañang is not at all disturbed, confident that Mrs. Arroyo’s allies in the House will protect the President as they did last year. Last week, Mrs. Arroyo’s lawyer, Romulo Macalintal, asked the House not to entertain any new impeachment complaint against Mrs. Arroyo, saying that the first impeachment process is not yet over because the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on a petition brought last year by Lakas Rep. Clavel Martinez of Cebu asking the court for a review of the House’s action on the first complaint. Commentators say, however, that this is not a problem because the Supreme Court has not acted on the petition, and Martinez and her seven co-petitioners can just withdraw their petition if necessary. The bigger question for the new complaint is whether it can hurdle the procedural barrier in the House. At least 78 legislators (three-fourths of the remaining members of the House; Reps. Rolando Andaya and Ronaldo Puno have joined the executive) need to support the complaint for it to go the Senate. To be sure, the majority will again use sheer numbers to defeat the complaint.
 
            By Ricky S. Torre andWendell Vigilia
 
2. One Voice: Let the Constitution Alone
 
A new group composed of former election officials, Catholic bishops and prominent citizens has risen to try to stop the Arroyo administration from revising the Constitution to perpetuate current officials in power. The new group, Once Voice, will also try to stop the bogus “people’s initiative,” a signature campaign being undertaken not by the people but by the Department of the Interior and Local Government, to force the amendment of the Constitution by Congress. How? The group will conduct community discussions to explain to the people the country’s problems hoping that the people will understand that the solutions are not a parliamentary government run by the same officials and a unicameral legislature dominated by the allies of President Arroyo, but social and political reforms. This strategy will work in the referendum on the proposed new constitution, but will not stop President Arroyo and her allies from rewriting the Constitution, submitting a new one to a referendum, and rigging the vote to ensure the approval of their ticket to continued stay in power. The only way to stop the administration-sponsored “people’s initiative” is to challenge its legality in the Supreme Court, but if One Voice is planning to do this it is not saying at this point. Dropping all pretenses at noninvolvement, Malacañang says there is no turning back—the co-opted Commission on Elections will validate the signatures from the government-financed campaign, Congress will sit as an “interim parliament” in July, and the amendment of the Constitution will proceed in August. (Manolo, you’re a member of One Voice. Is One Voice going to the Supreme Court for a ruling on the people’s initiative?)
 
          By Guiller de Guzman and Wendell Vigilia

3. Can You Kill an Insurgency?
 
Can you kill the communist insurgency? Not with an army. You can shoot all the communist insurgents in the mountains and in the jungles, but others will take their place. To kill an insurgency, or to drive it away, a government must eliminate the social and economic ills that send people to the mountain to fight for justice. The Arroyo administration does not get, but the Commission on Human Rights does: the P1 billion that President Arroyo is giving to the military and the police is better spent to deal with the country’s socio-economic problems. But no one in the administration is listening.

4. Alms for the Poor
 
The Metro Manila wage board has approved a raise of P25 in the minimum wage for workers in private busineses in the metropolis. What will that amount buy? A kilo of rice, a couple of tins of sardines, but not a bus ride from Monumento to Makati or a lunch at work. But that’s all the employers can give, according to the wage board. Wage Order No. 12 takes effect in July. The approved raise is P50 short of the P75 moderate labor filed for and P100 lower than the raise militant labor groups are demanding.

5. Bloodthirsty
 
President Arroyo has signed a bill repealing the death penalty law, but this is not the end for anticrime activists. Dante Jimenez, head of the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption, has asked the Office of the Ombudsman to investigate Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and the justices on the Supreme Court to find out if the tribunal indeed had made a judicial error in affirming the death sentence on Leo Echegaray in June 1996. Jimenez wants Panganiban and the justices who concurred in the court’s decision to be impeached.
 

 

The Church, July 2, 1938

July 2, 1938

The Church

WHEN President Quezon vetoed the bitterly contested religious instruction bill after its passage at the last session of the National Assembly, he did not put an end to the most violently discussed issue of the day.

That the fight would go on to a finish became evident last week when the Metropolitan Archbishop and the Suffragan Bishops of the ecclesiastical province of Cebu published a pastoral letter which replied to President Quezon’s memorable speech in Cebu on the occasion of the inauguration of the city’s capitol, in the course of which the chief executive advanced some of his reasons for vetoing the religious instruction bill.

“Irreligious youth”

To all, the pastoral said, “the future of Religion is of vital interest, particularly to those who will have to render an account of the souls committed to their care.” Hence it bemoaned the irreligion of the youth of today.

Mostly blamed for youth’s lack of religion by the ecclesiastical dignitaries is the present system of public education “based as it is on religious neutrality.”

Appeal to leaders

After saying that “the question of the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the [religious instruction] bill” is “a question upon which only the supreme court can pass a final and decisive verdict,” the letter expressed the hope “that our leaders, ever devoted to the common good and incapable of remaining indifferent to the interests of our future citizens, will bear down all difficulties, and in the near future a measure will result which, without in the least infringing upon either the letter or the spirit of the Constitution, but by adapting the Constitution to the will of the people, and not the will of the people to the Constitution, will provide them with the desired efficacious religious instruction.”

Promptly, Catholic circles in Manila hailed the letter as a clear, firm, and accurate expression of the Catholic attitude toward the religious instruction issue. The Philippine Commonweal, official organ of Catholic Action in the Philippines, issued a special supplement containing the entire letter.

The President’s answer

A source of joy to many good Catholics, the pastoral letter was no less a source of irritation and disappointment to one bill-vetoing Catholic. Stung to the quick, President Quezon fumed in Malacañan, penned a statement which threatened to overshadow the Mayon eruption.

The President said:

“I am amazed at the boldness of the Metropolitan Archbishop and Suffragan bishops of the ecclesiastical province of Cebu in taking up at an episcopal conference a matter concerning the constitutional duties and prerogatives of the officials and branches of the government of the Commonwealth.

“I had so far ignored charges made to the effect that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in the Philippines had instigated and was behind the movement for the enactment of the bill regarding religious instruction in the Philippines. But the pastoral letter is incontrovertible evidence that we did face at the last session of the legislature, and we do face now, one of the most menacing evils that can confront the government and people of the Philippines, namely, the interference of the Church in the affairs of the State.”

“Blind to lessons of history”

“It seems that the Archbishop and bishops who have written this pastoral letter are blind to the lessons of history including our own during the Spanish regime. Being myself a Catholic, I am no less interested in preserving the independence of the church from the state than I am in preserving the independence of the government from the church.

“It should be unnecessary to remind the ecclesiastical authorities in the Philippines that the separation of church and state in this country is a reality and not a mere theory, and that as far as our people are concerned, it is forever settled that this separation shall be maintained as one of the cardinal tenets of our government. They should realize, therefore, that any attempts on their part to interfere with matters that are within the province of the government will not be tolerated.

“On matters purely ecclesiastical, the Catholic bishops may speak for the Filipino Catholics; but when it comes to expressing the will of the Filipino people as a political entity on any matter concerning legislation or governmental measures, the Catholic bishops, some of whom are not Filipinos, are assuming too much when they pretend to speak for our people as they do in the pastoral letter when they say that the majority of the Filipino people are demanding the enactment of the bill which I have vetoed. The fact that the majority of the National Assembly voted for the said bill does not necessarily prove that the majority of the people are for it. It only proves that the majority of the members of the National Assembly were for the bill.

“If I were inclined to interfere in the affairs of the church, as the Catholic bishops are attempting to do with the affairs of the state, I would tell the Archbishop and the bishops of the ecclesiastical province of Cebu that it is their lack of Sunday schools and catechists to teach the Catholic religion that is mainly responsible for the deplorable ignorance of their own religion that is found amongst the Catholic youth.”

“Unfair campaign”

“A very unfair campaign has been launched against the government, making it appear that we are not complying with the provisions of the constitution regarding optional teaching of religious instruction. The truth is the opposite, as evidenced by the fact that while the enrolment in classes in religious instruction during the academic year…1932-1933 was only 29,996, this had increased to 187,089 in the academic year 1937-1938. During this last school year, in the 817 schools where religious instruction was given, more than one-half of the children enrolled in said schools received religious instruction.

“Moreover, if the desire is to have hours exclusively devoted to religious instruction in the public schools, so that the regular school activities may not interfere with said instruction, I am placing Saturdays and Sundays at the disposal of all the ministers of all religions existing in the Philippines. On Saturdays and Sundays, the public schools are not being used for school purposes and, therefore, they may be used for religious instruction if it is so requested. What is prohibited in the existing legislation and by the constitution, and which, therefore, I may not allow is that any hour needed for public school proper be devoted to religious instruction.”

The Quezon blast produced a small counterblast. Speaking from the pulpit of the Manila Sampaloc church, Saturday, young Rev. Dr. Gregorio Villaceran defended the Catholic church and the signers of the pastoral. Clergymen, he retorted, have as much right as other citizens to deliberate on government matters, especially if those matters happen to affect the church most directly and vitally. The separation of church and state, he stressed, does not prohibit ecclesiastical authorities from exercising their constitutional rights.

Interviewed in Cebu, Archbishop Reyes disclaimed any intention to challenge or provoke the President. “In my name and in those of the bishops of the Cebu archdiocese,” he was quoted as saying, “I reiterate my respect for the government and those entrusted with its administration.” However, “with regard to the presidential veto, the bishops respect it, but within that respect they honestly believe there is nothing which would prevent them from entertaining any opinion and publicly expressing that opinion which under a democratic regime such as ours they have the right to do. It is hardly just to deny the bishops a right which is accorded to any other citizen of the land.”

Defense of chief executive

President Quezon boarded a Japanese freighter bound post-haste for Kobe shortly after issuing his philippic; but pending his return, Assemblymen Gregorio Perfecto and Eugenio Perez, both uncompromising opponents of the religious instruction bill, are preparing a resolution which they plan to introduce in the special session in the latter part of next month, endorsing the chief executive’s stand.

Meanwhile, “fighting” Rev. Samuel W. Stagg, Protestant pastor, defended the chief executive in a radio speech over KZIB, and at the same time accused the Catholic hierarchy of being “the sworn enemy of all democracy.” He lauded the President for his “great courage in taking issues with the hierarchy in defense of the hard-won liberties of the Filipino people.”

Our issue for July 1, 2006

FREE PRESS
 
July 1, 2006 Issue

Main Features

Cover: Kate Bosworth plays Lois Lane in Superman Returns

1. War
 
Instead of halting the killing of leftists, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo declares a war to the finish with the communists by announcing P1 billion in new spending for the military and the police to wipe out the communist insurgency in two years. Her government is also bringing more than 860 charges all over the country and filing criminal charges in the Netherlands against the founding chairman of the Communist Party of the Philippines, Jose Maria Sison, in an apparent attempt to deflect blame from itself for the killing of more than 220 leftist leaders since she took office in 2001. The military has originally set a 10-year timetable for defeating the communist insurgency, but Mrs. Arroyo, needing to give the nation a reason to rally around her instead of kick her out of office, has ordered the deadline cut to two years, well ahead of the end of her term in 2010. She gives as reason for the all-out war the insurgency’s hindering of economic development in the countryside, although official corruption and political patronage in the local governments are behind economic disasters in the provinces, resulting in the worsening of poverty and driving rural folks to the side of the communist insurgents. She announces P75 billion for investments and development projects in rebel-infested areas of Luzon and gives the protection of these projects as a major reason for the war against the communists. What is Mrs. Arroyo counting on? No government previous to hers, not even the government of President Corazon Aquino, which honestly tried to deal with rural poverty, managed to dent the communist insurgency. It is not possible that Mrs. Arroyo does not know that the communist rebels will not stop fighting until they win and become the country’s rulers—that is the objective of any communist insurgency—and it is not possible that she honestly believes her government can set a record by defeating the rebels. It is more likely that she is trying to project her government as strong, determined, and deserves support from the people. She is wrong. The opposition is taking the case of the killings of leftists to the United Nations and with this, her administration will be drawing even more international attention for its being a violator of human rights. The war against the insurgents will certainly bring a lot of collateral damage, with that, increasing public anger. By choosing war instead of pressing the peace negotiations, Mrs. Arroyo may be hastening the demise of her own rule.
 
            By Ricky S. Torre
 
2. Take 2
 
The minority in the House of Representatives brings a new complaint for impeachment against President Arroyo next Monday, continuing its attempt to legally remove from power the leader whose legitimacy has become even more suspect with her prohibition of official testimony in congressional investigations without her permission and with her heavy-handed tactics in dealing with public calls for her resignation. Struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, together with a proclamation of national emergency in February that quickly turned out to be just a strategy to crush opposition to her rule, these policies have given the House minority additional evidence of violations of the Constitution against Mrs. Arroyo. Add to these testimonial and documentary evidence coming from the Senate defense committee’s investigation into the Arroyo tapes scandal and the minority has a stronger case against Mrs. Arroyo this time. But will the complaint hold this time? If 2007 were not an election year, the complaint would be dead outright. The government is operating on the reenacted 2005 budget, giving Mrs. Arroyo a free hand in juggling funds—she can simply raise her congressional allies’ share of the pork barrel by P30 million each to restore it to the original P70 and she’s out of danger. But 2007 is an election year. With about a half of the House up for reelection, Mrs. Arroyo’s allies will have to listen to their constituents’ demands for her ouster. Then again, they don’t have to. The administration’s political operators can handle the election question as ably as they did in 2004.
 
By Guiller de Guzman, Wendell Vigilia and Butch Serrano
 
 
3. Don’t Be So Sure
 
With the Senate leadership changing hands when the third regular session opens on July 24 comes the question: Is this the total end of congressional independence under the rule of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo? Malacañang and the administration-dominated House of Representatives are looking forward to the subjugation of the Senate even with the incoming Senate president’s assurance of maintaining the chamber’s independence. Sen. Manuel Villar, the incoming Senate president, remains an ally of Mrs. Arroyo and that seems to be the basis of the Palace’s and the House’ optimism. But Sen. Franklin Drilon, the departing Senate president, is moving to the opposition’s side and he is bringing with him Majority Leader Francis Pangilinan and Sen. Juan Flavier, tilting the balance of power in the chamber to the opposition’s side. If Villar plays the administration’s game, he will find it hard to lead and deliver.             
 
            By Guiller de Guzman and Butch Serrano

4. Nearing Confrontation
 
The Arroyo administration, through its surrogate Sigaw ng Bayan, is preparing to ask the Commission on Elections to validate 9 million signatures it has gathered in the campaign to force the amendment of the Constitution by Congress. The surrogate is not paying attention to former president Fidel Ramos’s advice to go to the Supreme Court first for a ruling on the validity of the people’s initiative, confident that in the event of a challenge, the administration will prevail. But the opposition is just waiting for the administration to take the signatures to the Comelec: the moment the poll body touches the signatures, the opposition goes to the Supreme Court.
 
By Guiller de Guzman and Wendell Vigilia
 
5. Is There a Price for Human Life?
 
How much is human life? In the absence of a law that allows compensation for the families of convicts wrongly executed, Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales says the family of Leo Echegaray, erroneously executed for rape in February 1999, according to Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban, can go to the Board of Claims and it can receive P20,000. Shocking, isn’t it?     
 
(This is supposed to be Nati Nuguid’s assignment. Unfortunately, she died on Monday. Guiller de Guzman takes over.)

6. We’re Vulnerable
 
The volcanic and seismic activity in the Pacific Ring of Fire is worrying scientists in the Philippines. They say that the restiveness of Mount Merapi on Indonesia’s Java island has no connection to the restiveness of Mount Bulusan in Sorsogon province here, but what worries them is not really the eruption of a volcano but the occurrence of an earthquake with magnitude great enough to generate a tsunami. The devastation from a tsunami, especially in the Manila Fault Line that runs from the Visayas to Manila Bay, would be much greater than the destruction from an eruption of Mount Bulusan. The Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology has been warning about such a catastrophe even before the December 26, 2004 tsunami that killed more than 300,000 people in 12 countries on the Indian Ocean Rim, but nobody seems to have been listening. Neithern the national government nor any local government has drawn up plans for safety and reconstruction.
 
By Ramiro C. Alvarez