All Aboard! July 13, 1946

PHILIPPINES FREE PRESS EDITORIAL

ALL ABOARD!
July 13, 1946

The Congress of the Philippines has been likened by the irreverent boys of the press to a railroad company. The simile is not inappropriate due to the propensity of the majority members of both Houses know that they owe to the President as much as to their own personal brilliance and vote-getting power, if any, their election to office.

Against the pious determination of the majority to do as the Boss wishes, the minority men have raged and pounded and declaimed —in vain. Malacañan wants this particular measure to be passed? “All aboard, boys!” the party whips cry. Malacañan does not like this one? The train comes to a shrieking stop.

Yet the presence of a vocal and active minority in congress augurs well for the infant Republic’s venture into democracy. There was no minority at all, when the Greatest Boss of Them All [Quezon] was still around. Then there was even talk of a “partyless democracy” which, critics pointed out, would be neither partyless, in practice, nor a democracy. There would be only one party and no democracy. Now there are two parties. Now there is a minority—ineffective, so far, and uncertain, but in the long run likely to prove beneficial and salutary.

Farewell, My Lovely, July 26, l986

Constitution of the Philippines

Preamble

The Filipino people, imploring the aid of Divine Providence, in order to establish a government that shall embody their ideals, conserve and develop the patrimony of the nation, promote the general welfare, and secure to themselves and their posterity the blessings of independence under a regime of justice, liberty, and democracy, do ordain and promulgate this constitution.

Farewell, My Lovely

Does that not say all that the Preable of a Constitution should say? And more memorably than the preamble of any other constitution?Think of one more memorable. Anything coming close to it in resonance of phrase and grandeur of thought. It is like the ringing of great bells or the opening of the doors of a cathedral.

But the Preamble of the l935 Constitution is part of a charter that required the approval of the American President for it to become the Supreme Law of the land. It is U.S. made, nationalists will say. It is not truly ours. Yet it has been most inspiring and useful to the Filipino people from its proclamation until the Japanese Occupation and after three years of that rule of force, from Liberation until the Marcos Occupation. Then “constitutional authoritarianism” took its place, complete with a “constitution” enacted by the most shameless collection of political protitutes in the history of any nation, and “approved” in a fake referendum. Who among the decent and honorable did not mourn the passing of that “U.S. made” Constitution of l935? Filipinos fought and died for the restoration of the rights and liberties enshrined in that charter, only to have it abrogated by a Filipino and his creatures in that disgraceful convention. The l973 “constitution” is made in the Philippines, all right . By Filipinos to their everlasting shame and dishonor. They were not selected as the members of the Constitutional Commission now engaged in drafting a new charter were, but elected. Elected by a foolishly trusting people whom they betrayed with absolutely no qualm of conscience, having none. A Filipino handiwork, indeed Philippine-made, all right.

But in what way waxs the l935 Constitution U.S. made? That it required the approval of the President of the United States before it could be in operation and effect did not make it any less the products of Filipino minds and hearts. Claro M. Recto presided over the body that drafted the charter, and he is hailed today as the nationalist par excellance. (Nationalist though he was, that did not stop him from collaborating with the Japanese invader as secretary of foreign affairs in the made-by-the-Japanese government. Thus, he must have thought, he and his fellow-collaborators would somehow serve as a kind of buffer between brute Japanese force and the Filipino people) Recto, and like-minded Filipinos, drafted the l935 Constitution, and when a Filipino would subvert it. Recot went after that Ilocano with all the passion and eloquence at his command. Yet, it was a “U.S.-made” Constitution.

(Incidentally, the present Free Press editor, overwhelmed by the language and vision of the conclusion of one of Recto’s speeches on American bases in this country, likened it to “the closing of the doors of a great cathedral.” only to have Recto write, saying it was more like “the creaking of a garage door.” Self-depreciation is a mark of the superior man.)

Where did Recto get his knowledge of Constitution Law if not, aside from other sources, the American?So did his fellow constitutionalists, and that is true of those who claim the same savvy in the Constitution Commission now. They are all, to a great extent, if not mainly, “U.S.-made”consitutionalists. But, surely, that is nothing to be ashamed of. The American Constitutionis is, after all, the best of America. Is there any better?

But what’s good enough for America is not necessarily good, or good enough, for us. We’re different, our situation not so happy. We are still trying not to be, after all, an American colony. So, a Filipino Constitution. by all means – a decolonized one. However . . .

Farewell Old Constitution. May the new serve the Filipino people better than you did. And may its statement of purposes, its Preamble, equal if not transcend the old so that it may resound in our minds and possess our hearts in the days to come. Like a poem. For such is the Preamble of the l935 Constitution: a poem.

Farewell, my lovely!

Our aims, outlined: January 20,1907

January 20, 1907, Sunday

Our aims outlined

No class, creed, or party axes to grind

Square deal for all

THE Philippines Free Press has been founded for the purpose of bringing into closer harmony the forces best calculated to achieve real progress in these islands. Our hopes of success are based merely on the merit of the policy we are determined to pursue and on our usefulness as a news vehicle.

When Babel tower was in the first stages of erection, there was (according to the writer in the good book) a decided unity of purpose among the people of the world of that time. The Great Architect decided that a little less unity would fit the bill, and by divers tongues the disunion was accomplished. Be that as it may, language variance among mankind has certainly kept the world in a continual state of cordial discord. From Finland to the Philippines, from Panama to Peking, it is just the little difference in man’s way of saying: “Top of the morning to you!” that is mainly responsible for the barriers builded between men, for the bickerings between chancellories

• • •

Through Justice, Progress!

Strict Justice at the hands of the American administration is all that is sought by the Filipino people. And through justice, alone, can real progress be won. You cannot make bricks without straw, and you cannot rear the cross of a permanent peace upon soil scarred by the sword of strife without the co-operation of a people really free, confident, and content. These are the three great necessities, and the greatest of these is confidence. It may be achieved by the acts (not words) of the governing body.

• • •

A clean-cut policy for the guidance of the representatives of American power in the Philippines was defined at the start by the highest authority in the United States. And the cry “lack of policy” would never have been raised if some of our insular policy-pill-rollers had not lost the prescription and pounded in the mortar nostrums of their own devising. “None so blind as those who will not see,” of which sort has been the blindness of the policy-puzzled Philippine senator. The humor of it is one could not call it color-blindness.

• • •

The archbishop of Manila has recommended to the pope the appointment of a coadjutor or assistant, and he is credited with the desire that the mitre be placed on the brow of a Filipino priest. We do not intend to mix in denominational matters. At the same time, we may, perhaps, be permitted the remark that in this matter as in others, the attitude of Monsignor Harty displays considerable sound sense. Filipino Catholics are entitled to have one of the able and zealous priests of their own race placed “close to the throne.” A glance at the early chapters in the history of christianity points a moral that the churches sometimes forget. The cult of the Great Jew is today the faith of the Gentile world. Mighty was Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles!

• • •

“Our lack of a policy in the Philippines, while communicating a feeling of uncertainty to the Philippine commissioners, who are performing their duties to the extent permitted them with sincere purpose, has had unhappy result in the appointment of a great herd of subordinate American officials in Manila, and to some extent in other cities, who are distinctly hostile to the Filipino. No definite mission or policy has been imported to these subordinates from the government. Our government has no policy. As a consequence, these men are simply “holding down their jobs.” They do not associate with nor care to know the Filipinos. There is to-day a distinctly anti-Filipino American element in Manila. Secretary Taft referred to this fact last winter before the New York chamber of commerce. I have heard high government officials, while passing the time in a Manila club, refer in terms of the utmost contempt, and incidentally vilely, to the Filipinos. The salaries of these men are paid by the very people they detest. Such a spirit does not exist, for instance, among the British or Dutch subordinates in India or in Java. Those countries have clear-cut policies, whether good or ill, which are well known. Many merchants, businessmen and officers of constructing companies state that the commission, while permitted little constructive power, exercises autocratic authority in inhibitory measures.”

The above is an extract from an article contributed to The World Today by Hamilton Wright, the young American “special” who looked over the Philippine field a few months ago. In the main Wright’s deductions are right, and his reference to the anti-Filipino attitude of some of our officials is unfortunately within the truth. Yet, we are not suffering from “lack of a policy.” On the contrary, we would diagnose our ailment as one of too much physic and too many conflicting physicians.

End

Junket Fever, editorial, July 24, 1954

Junket fever
July 24, 1954

MANY people are beginning to note with alarm the increasing frequency of so-called “official trips” by high-ranking officials. If these traveling worthies spent their own funds and not the taxpayers’ money, nobody protest. The trouble, however, is that often their gallivanting in foreign countries is at the taxpayers’ cost.

Particularly exasperating is it when they take along with them on “official trips” members of their families. And there have been, as everyone knows, a number of such instances.

Since the present administration took over, certain provincial governors, congressmen and senators—not to mention private individuals in the good graces of the powers that be—have gone abroad. In the case of a couple of governors, the public is still in the dark as to what they accomplished during their recent trip to Japan. As regards the lawmakers, Representative Diosdado Macapagal is authority for this statement (during the regular session): “12 days were declared as a recess. . . during which the House leaders went on a junket to Hong Kong. . . .They could not wait for the session to end to have their junket. What was worse was that they announced that they went to Hong Kong at their own expense when the records of the House show that their 12-day vacation was at the expense of the people.”

The Pampanga congressman went on to say that “whereas the past administration—during the Japanese peace conference in San Francisco, where the Philippines had a vital stake because of the reparations issues—the Philippine delegation consisted only of seven persons, in the recent Geneva Conference where we have no voice, the government sent a delegation of 17 members! The delegates, according to a Manila editor who covered the conference, spent most of their time sightseeing in Paris and other nearby tourist attractions at public expense because they had nothing to do in Geneva!”

There is a plan afoot to send a delegation to the United States to work for revision of the Bell Trade Act. Composed of senators and congressmen and “an unlimited number of technical assistants,” the entourage will be provided with funds amounting to no less than half a million pesos. In this case, of course, the amount is negligible, IF the delegation brings home the bacon.

But so far as the Filipino people know, most of the junketeers are empty-handed upon their return except for so-called reports which nobody cares to listen to. They also bring home vouchers and fat expense accounts. And, of course, luxury goods from the capitals of Europe, America, and Asia.

Lacson’s defiance, editorial, July 18, 1953

Lacson’s defiance
July 18, 1953

MANILANS who saw scout and armored trucks menacingly rumble through the streets of the city last Monday evening, with mounted machine guns manned by soldiers in full battle regalia, at once thought that either the Huks had swooped down on the city or a foreign enemy had just landed. Many a city resident was truly scared by the presence of the battle wagons, with soldiers who were armed to the teeth, as they rolled grimly through the metropolis.

But there was no Huk invasion. Nor was there an invasion to be repelled. They were merely soldiers from Camp Murphy who were responding to a frantic call from their boss—Secretary of Justice and National Defense Oscar Castelo, who was at the Shellborne Hotel.

Why did Mr. Castelo call for the army and the constabulary at that time of the night? And why so many men in arms and in battle uniform?

According to the secretary, his life was being threatened by City Mayor Arsenio Lacson and his men, numbering about 40. They were right around the premises of the Shellborne, the secretary said, lying in ambush for him. Castelo felt certain that Lacson was out to murder him that night. Hence, the SOS to Camp Murphy—which was promptly and adequately answered.

But Mayor Lacson vehemently denied Castelo’s allegation, said he was not at the Shellborne, but in another adjacent place, waiting, for a call from somebody to make arrangements with Florentino “Scarface” Suarez who was going to “spill the beans” that night on the Monroy murder. Suarez’ confession was going to be tape-recorded by the mayor, in the presence of newspapermen, newsphotographers and members of the police department.

The armed forces were merely obeying Castelo’s order to arrest Lacson. But the city mayor defied the secretary’s order because the arresting officer had no warrant of arrest. “Mr. Castelo should come and personally arrest me and I’ll break his neck,” Lacson is said to have told newsmen in a moment of excitement.

If Secretary Castelo’s real purpose was merely to have Lacson arrested, why didn’t he do the usual thing under the circumstances: call for a squad of Manila policemen (of whom we have a number) and order the cops to nab the city mayors? And since he is the secretary of justice, although on leave, why didn’t he first secure a warrant of arrest from any of the many Manila judges before ordering the arrest of Lacson? It becomes obvious that in summoning the army and the constabulary to “pinch” the mayor of Manila, Mr. Castelo was trying to impress all and sundry that being the biggest boss of the army, the men in that organization were at his beck and call, and that any time he could summon a battalion to parade before people he wants properly “impressed.”

Unfortunately, he met one who refused to be impressed—Mayor Arsenio H. Lacson.

T.R. Editorial for January 27, 1907

January 27, 1907, Sunday

T.R.

WE are not disposed to look for faults in the sayings and doings of our officials. The FREE PRESS is not in the least anxious to win the cheap plaudits with which thoughtless people frequently laud the carping critic. We seek the respect of those who think calmly and dispassionately, and we try to be just. Thus, we willingly affirm that Governor General Smith has started out well in his tenure of office. His motives are above reproach: and he is a plain talker. He has accomplished much in a very short time. Some of his speeches have been admirable—that address at the Quill Club dinner was particularly good. So much in deserved approbation—now for the other side of the medallion. Smith is a man, and a man (like a woman) can talk too much. When a man talks too much he frequently becomes garrulous, and garrulousness in an executive is a parlous thing—a decidedly perilous thing.

“Speech” said M. de Tallyrand, “was given to man that he might conceal his thoughts.”

When the beasts of the field and the birds of the air were at war, and the war became barren of battles through the inability of the carabao to fly and the unwillingness of the dove to peck at the tiger’s tail, the rival armies chose the bat as go-between—for the recorded reason that the bat was dumb. The wise Philip of France once remarked that his greatest regret was that his realm was so short in deaf-mutes that he was hard put to find suitable ambassadors.

No disrespect to General Smith, who is an excellent man and a governor in earnest—but we believe he would have done better in the north country if he had closed his ears against some of the soothing ditties of the revenue-spenders and refrained from intoning them with variations while playing the Piper up-country in Luzon.

“The Piper”—that is not a bad title for our little insular serio-comedy. Chief piper, little pipers, and lesser pipers.

It is not General Smith’s fault that he is cast for the little role, and, after all, it is, at best, an ungrateful part: but it is, in great measure, his fault that there are so many little pipers and lesser pipers crowding the stage that there is hardly room in the auditorium for the people who are paying the freight, that a great deal of the music is execrable, and the libretto so massacred that its author would never recognize it.

We are told by the highest authority that the government is “flat broke.” “It has no money to speak of, now, and it will have less than that (nothing from nothing leaves nothing) next year”—what a sorrowful confession for a modern government to be forced to make! Yet, it is partly true—the central government has so many high-salaried official ornaments on its hands that it has not a copper centavo for necessary, urgently needed works. We are short on teachers for the public schools, road builders, and others of the rank and file, and long on expensive chair warmers. That is why the cupboard is bare.

Once in a while, an economy wave strikes the administration, officials of the mandarin class go a-head-hunting; cut out some hundred-dollar clerks, stop a few leaks at the bottom of the governmental bark and—raise their own salaries.

There’s the rub. It is against reason to expect the higher officials of the Philippine Islands to cut down their own salaries. The economies at the top will have to be ordered by the governor general, or by Washington on the advice of a special commission sent out for that purpose. There lies Smith’s opportunity, and the alternative.

That the governor general is not over-paid will be generally admitted. Equally, there is agreement that the government is absurdly top-heavy—that it is but another teat added to a long-suffering and over-milked cow.

Parade of the people’s “finest.” Editorial for April 14, 1907

April 14, 1907, Sunday

The parade of the people’s “Finest.

["The most noticeable feature of the Philippines—the one that jars—is the absurdly numerous army of highly-paid officials. About every second American you meet is working for the government and he will tell you, candidly enough, that all he cares about the islands is to make enough in savings out of his salary to give him a stake back home. There are exceptions, but they are few. And this army of officials is maintained by taxation wrung from a people impoverished by a series of misfortunes in which almost every known destructive element has been combined—taxation that has throttled industrial enterprise, paralyzed the agriculturalist, and sent soaring the cost at the market stall of the food of the poorer classes. I have been forced to the conclusion that the Philippines are suffering from too much government; and it is not in the interest of American prestige that this state of things should continue"—An American Tourist in the Philippines."]

Numerous complaints were uttered during last week by civil government employees granted leave of absence, but unable to secure transportation to the United States. Many of these men and women have been serving the government in out-of the-way places in the Philippines, and they have looked forward to their leave as an opportunity of joining for a brief space the old folks at home. Instead, they find themselves paying hotel rates they can ill afford in Manila, because the Pacific liners are all booked-up away ahead, and the civil government’s toy transports cannot make the distance.

The Magsaysay boom, editorial, March 7, 1953

The Magsaysay boom
March 7, 1953

THE Philippines is going wild about Ramon Magsaysay.

Newspaper correspondents’ reports, numerous telegrams and letters of congratulation have been endlessly pouring into Manila, hailing Magsaysay’s resignation from the Quirino cabinet. Magsaysay-for-President clubs are daily mushrooming in provincial capitals, chartered cities and municipalities, while labor, school, civic, social and youth organizations continue to vie with each other in endorsing Magsaysay’s candidacy for the highest position within the gift of the Filipino people. Even some of the Huks—whom Magsaysay and the armed forces of the Philippines tried hard to subdue during the two and a half years that he was secretary of national defense—have made known their Magsaysay-for-President stand.

There is no parallel in our political history to the case of Magsaysay. No Filipino official has as yet resigned from a government job and received so much spontaneous commendation as has this man from Zambales. In fact, no public official in our country has severed his connection with the government and been the recipient of so much praise for a job well done.

The simple explanation of the current Magsaysay-inspired rejoicing must be that the Filipino people as a whole, are fundamentally sound and that they know a good, faithful, and patriotic public servant when they see one. It is more than apparent that in Ramon Magsaysay they have seen one.

It is doubtful if any administration has received so much public condemnation for tolerance of official crookedness, corruption, inefficiency, and incompetence as the present. But despite the general damnation that has come from the people, Magsaysay (who was with the same administration for a long time) has been singled out as a shining exception. And rightly so. For during his time in office, not once was his name mentioned in the same breath with venality, abuse of power and other cardinal sins associated with many a Filipino public official today.

Magsaysay left the Quirino cabinet because life with Quirino had become a series of frustrations. Magsaysay said that he sought public confidence as his highest reward for the services he had rendered. But he realized that such confidence could not be won if he continued serving under the Quirino regime. Many people sincerely subscribe to this view.

Despite efforts were made this week to win back Magsaysay to the fold of the Liberal Party. Liberals who fear their party’s collapse now that Magsaysay—the party’s chief redeeming feature—is out, and won over by the Nacionalistas, this week planned and schemed to woo back the ex-defense secretary. But all attempts have proved futile. Senator Tomas Cabili, chief LP negotiator, has given up the idea of ever getting Magsaysay back. In a moment of despair, Cabili said this week: “They (referring to his fellow Liberals) have ignored the handwriting on the wall…and now, when it is too late, there is feverish effort to reach for a solution….”

Meanwhile, the Magsaysay boom keeps increasing. To try to stop it would be tantamount to the old story of sweeping back the ocean with a broom.

The Reason Why? Editorial, Febryary 5, 1972

February 5, 1972

The Reason Why?

A PUPIL once asked Confucius: “If the Prince of Mei appointed you head of the government, to what would you first set you mind?”

Confucius replied: “To call people and things by their names, that is by their correct denomination, to see that the terminology was exact.”

The pupil could not believe his own ears. His master’s reply seemed beside the point.

Noting his incredulity, the master said: “You are a  blank. An intelligent man hesitates to talk of what he doesn’t understand, he feels embarrassment.

“If the terminology be not exact, if it fit not the thing, the governmental instructions will not explicit, if the instructions aren’t clear and the names don’t fit, you cannot conduct business properly.

“If business is not properly run, the rites and music will not be honoured, if the rites and music be not honoured, penalties and punishments will not achieve their intended effects, if penalties and punishments do not produce equity and justice, the people won’t know where to put their feet or what to lay hold of or to whom they should stretch out their hands.

“That is why an intelligent man cares for his terminology and gives instructions that fit. When his orders are clear and explicit they can be put into effect.”

The gist of what the philosopher said is that good government is founded on respect for the truth.

Every new year the President of the Republic addresses Congress and the people with what is known as his State-of-the-Nation message. An envisioned by the legislators who thought of this rite, the President is expected to give an accurate description of the situation in his country during the preceding year and his suggestions to improve that situation in the coming year. Congress is expected to learn from the contents of his message and frame laws that are relevant to the conditions he has described. That, at any rate, is how it should go in a responsible democracy.

If the President’s message does not reflect reality, especially if this is done purposely then the whole purpose of the rite is frustrated. The President is supposed to describe accurately the state of the nation, speaking plainly and holding nothing back that could contribute to his auditors’ understanding of the matters he had discussed. Congress, then, takes it up from there. That is the general idea of this rite where the President delivers a message before both Houses of Congress, addressed to the nation. The reality is something else.

Our Presidents, on these occasions, have inflated their achievements—or claimed imaginary ones—and glossed over their mistakes. They paint a bright picture of the previous year and a still brighter one of the coming one. How they have the cheek to do this before the people who have suffered so much from their mistakes is one of the intriguing mysteries of politics.

LAST week, President Marcos delivered his seventh State-of-the-Nation message at the opening of Congress. The day before, his arch-foe, Sen. Benigno Aquino, Jr., issued a statement to the press which began by asking whether this year, 1972, President Marcos would again exasperate the people with his usual empty rhetoric or would he, for once, do as he has never done on this solemn occasion for the past seven years of the Administration, that is, speak the truth plainly and give the people a true description of the sorry state of the nation?

In 1966, said Senator Aquino, Marcos described the nation as “in crisis and tragedy” and swore to “Make This Nation Great Again.” The people believed him and pinned their hopes on his promise.

In 1967, he rallied the people around his standard for “The Epic of Nation Building.” The people renewed their faith in him.

In 1968, he announced that he would forge the people into “A Nation of Achievers.” He would, of course, be the No. 1 Achiever. By this time the people began to suspect to be the No. 1 Deceiver.

In 1969, his catchphrase was “The New Filipinism: The Turning Point.” A turning point it was all right for “the new Filipinos”—Marcos cronies who became millionaires overnight.

In 1970, he offered “a new heart, a new spirit” and promised to “raise the nation to a bold, new future.” But the nation had had its fill of his promises and vomited out its surfeit of frustration and anger in a student revolt. That was the response to his call for unity. His own troops acted brutally. The only feelings he generated were mounting hatred for him and grief for those who fell in the riots that followed far into the summer of that year.

In 1971, he went on to proclaim, apparently, oblivious of the “credibility gap” that yawned at his feet, “A Democratic Revolution.”

(This led Senator Aquino, among other concerned citizens, to suspect that something “tragic” had happened within the President’s person, probably as a result of his overlong sojourn in the Palace. There were times when one felt it was more charitable to commiserate with the President on his condition than to attack him for his mistakes.)

When the President offered to lead the nation, no one followed, said the senator, except his tuta, who were rejected by the electorate with a sweeping gesture of contempt on November 8, 1971.

The people gave him a taste of a genuine if non-violent revolution.

When the President delivers his State-of-the-Nation message, said the senator, we shall be able to measure his candor by noting how closely his message sticks to the following facts about the Philippine situation:

The President is a man much hated and not in the least respected or loved by his people.

The people: 5% privileged; 95% ill-clad, ill-fed, ill-housed, ill-placed.

The economy: in chaos, and the peso, not floating but steadily sinking.

The officialdom: thoroughly corrupt and brazen in its depredations on the public treasury.

The Republic: its international image the worst ever and its government ostracized by its neighbors. For all his charm, the foreign secretary has not succeeded in getting them to come to an Asian summit conference Mr. Marcos desperately want to host.

The public mood: angry, bitter, vituperative, desperate, because the people have realized that they have reached the end of their tether, they have lost all faith; the President and the country seem beyond redemption.

“In a word, the state of the Filipino nation in 1972 is dismaying.”

So went Senator Aquino’s own report on the state of the nation.

The President complaints of an undeserved “credibility gap” between him and his people. If he would only look at the difference between what he promised the people and what they have been getting in the past seven years of his Administration, the existence of the “gap” would not baffle him so much.

Here in the words of Senator Aquino, are what the President promised the people and what the people got:

“Promise No. 1: To bring down high prices and raise incomes.

“What there is: The consumer price index (1955:100) has risen to 235.5, against 149.1 when he assumed office; a full 21% increase in one year. This is way above the 10% critical inflation limit set by the Central Bank charter, while the peso’s purchasing power has constricted to a bare 42 centavos of what is bought in 1955.

“In June 1970, the Minimum Wage Law increased the base rates for non-agricultural workers from P6.00 to P8.00 and the agricultural workers’ from P3.50 to P4.75. But he devalued the peso, de facto, and the workers are worse off than where they were.

“Promise No. 2: To stop the shortage of rice.

“What there is: We imported 460,000 metric tons in 1971, we are importing ‘a minimum of 350,000 metric tons’ this year (Mr. Marcos’s original bid: 837,000 metric tons) and, likely, will be asked to import again in 1973, the result of willful diffusing of the rice self-sufficiency program to take on the First Lady’s image-building vegetable gardening project, crafted for propaganda purposes as ‘The Green Revolution.’

“Promise No. 3: To reduce graft and corruption to a minimum.

“What there is: An Administration swathed in scandalous multimillion-peso and multimillion-dollar deals. Well-etched in the public’s mind are, as Speaker Villareal once listed, the P60 million Namarco-Aguilar, $34 million public works equipment, P80 million Aidsisa-PNB, Nawasa pipes, ACA fertilizer, Lepanto shares, Benguet-Bahamas deals. Involved: the Marcos cronies.

“Graft, corruption and evildoing rather than being curbed, have essayed into new fields, with the protection racket among the latest. The gambling casinos on Roxas Boulevard enjoy powerful protection and, reports have it, yield P1 million monthly to people high in the government. Vice-President Fernando Lopez, a leading Nacionalista, recently gave the dimension: ‘tong’ in government loans, he said, is ‘anything from 20 to 30 per cent.’

“I estimate graft and corruption in the ruling circles today come up to a minimum 3% of  GNP. That’s about P1 billion per annum!

“Promise No. 4: To punish those who have enriched themselves in office.

“What there is: Tuta who have built fortunes on the peso devaluation, the money markets, the oil speculations.

“Promise No. 5: To stop smuggling.

“What there is: The Walton Report is revealing. Corruption exists, it says, in an ‘all-encompassing and all-embracing manner in all of the country’s 22 ports, and losses on technical smuggling alone amounted to a conservative P1.5 billion annually.’

“Only a few days ago, Mr. Marcos reshuffled key men of integrity out of their posts—like Collector Salvador Mascardo from the M.I.A., where he had been doing a back-breaking job for over 10 years—and put his own men in. The Supreme Court has just put Mr. Marcos’s replacement for Collector Mascardo in M.I.A.—Mr. Artemio Agoncillo—on the block for unexplained wealth!

“Promise No. 6: To speed up land reform.

“What there is: In 1969, Sen. Juan R. Liwag complained that despite the fact more than P250 million had been spent, only 5% of the objectives of land reform had been realized. The situation is no better today.

“Promise No. 7: To create more jobs.

“What there is: Our unemployed number about one million, 8.5% of our total labor force of 13.2 million, while another five million are underemployed. You have here a staggering index of the poverty level of Filipino society, 1972.

“Promise No. 8: To restore peace and order.

“What there is: These nagging questions: Who bombed Plaza Miranda? Where are they? How did it happen in the first place?

“These questions, too: Where are the murderers of Congressman Floro Crisologo? Of Mayor James Gordon? Of Vice-Governor Nicolas Feliciano? Of Governor Juan Alberto?

What about the Lapiang Malaya, Jabidah, Tarlac, Cotabato and Lanao massacres?

“These all happened since 1969, when Mr. Marcos came to office. What there is, in truth, is: crime and criminality on the gallop!

“A PC situationer—given the House of Representatives Committee on Public Order and Security—shows it:

“1. Criminal cases solved dropped from 85% in 1969 to 56% in 1971.

“2. Reported killings totalled 10,945 in 1969-71.

“3. Common crimes—thefts and robberies—shot up from 19,086 in 1969 to 22,360 in 1971.

“4. There is an increase in the number of politically motivated crimes.

“Mr. Marcos has spawned an Age of Violence in our country!

“Promise No. 9: To pursue honest tax collection.

“What there is: The Bureau of Internal Revenue is able to collect only 45% of all taxes due the government. It can do a better job, I hold, if Mr. Marcos runs after his tax-evading cronies.

“Promise No. 10: To reduce the national budget to spending for essential services.

“What there is: Government overspending is a Marcos hallmark. And this has been dictated more by political rather than economic considerations.

“When the Marcos machinery recklessly spent P900 million in the 1969 elections, the money supply went up by 19.4%. We are now suffering from this fiscal irresponsibility.

“The budgetary deficit incurred in the six years of Mr. Marcos has reached a staggering total of close to P3 billion. This is three times-plus the total accumulated deficits suffered in the nine years of the Garcia and Macapagal presidencies. This is more than double the accumulated government deficits since our independence in 1946.

“Today, the public debt is almost P12 billion. In simplistic terms, this means: the debt of every Filipino man, woman and child is about P317 per head. This is almost half the annual per capita income of the Filipino.

“President Marcos sends to Congress so many requests for projects that he knows fully well cannot be programmed for lack of funds. Now, the department of national defense wants about P1.2 billion. This means the armed forces under President Marcos will get 25% of the budget.

“And what do we give the Department of Labor? We give labor: 0.4%.

“What do we give our state universities and colleges? We give them 1%.

“What do we give social welfare? We give this: 0.4%.

“What do we give agriculture and natural resources? We allocate: 4.4%.

“The national defense budget—since Mr. Marcos—has gone up by 51 per cent. And what about all those intelligence and other funds of Mr. Marcos? Is that essential services-oriented budgeting?

“Promise No. 11: No nepotism.

“What there is: An uncle of Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos, Eduardo Romualdez, is ambassador to the United States. Kokoy Romualdez, Imelda’s  brother, is governor of Leyte and special presidential ambassador. Dr. Pacifico Marcos, the President’s brother, is chairman of the Medicare Commission. His uncle, Juan Manuel, is secretary of foreign affairs. And a cousin is the new PC chief.

“Add to these: a sister of the President is governor of Ilocos Norte, a Romualdez nephew is commercial attaché in Vancouver, Canada, a presidential sister-in-law is employed in the Central Bank. There are many, many more.

“Promise No. 12: No new taxes.

“What there is: Mr. Marcos wants to impose the most massive array of taxes in postwar history, As of November 1971, 49 tax bills had been reported out by the House of Representatives Way and Means Committee. I understand there are 78 more tax bills pending in the House.

“Promise No. 13: Rule of law.

“What there is: Dozens of university professors, students and mass media people clamped in jail after Mr. Marcos suspended the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus—only to have them released much later.

“He played with the law freely!

“Promise No. 14: No persecution of political enemies.

“What there is: Ask Vice-President Lopez, his so-called oligarchic enemy. Ask the businessmen who did not support him. Ask my fellow Liberals. Ask the Nacionalistas who did not deliver the votes in the last election.

“My brother-in-law, Antolin Oreta, was deprived of his liberty for 24 days—only to be released after the elections with a simple ‘I’m sorry.’

“Promise No. 15: No troops to Vietnam.

“What there is: History is our witness!

“Promise No. 16: To adopt a nationalistic policy.

“What there is: The Japanese, Americans and Chinese must be smiling at this. For they, like our students, know better! And, invariably, the standouts are Marcos’s friends.

“In 1969, a fake NEC resolution—No. 23-36—was secretly approved. We suffer the impact of this today: Japanese products in every line of consumer and capital items. Curiously, when Immigration Commissioner Edmundo Reyes wanted the Japanese liaison officer deported, Mr. Marcos stepped in and stopped him. Why?

“Promise No. 17: To provide heroic leadership.

“What there is: Mr. Marcos no longer dares walk our streets!

“Given all this, it is time that we face up to our realities, not allow Mr. Marcos to foster his myths.

“The need is for the leadership to make bare our reality, no matter how harsh, and, hopefully, get our people to join in the communal sacrifice demanded by our unhappy situation.”

Again? Editorial for January 23, 1971

January 23, 1971

Again?

THOSE who lived through the Japanese Occupation, and that includes Pres. Ferdinand Marcos himself, know what a total horror it was, how people were tortured and heads cut off on mere suspicion of resistance to Japanese military rule—and how it did not discourage resistance. Everybody was a guerrilla, or claimed he was.

President Marcos keeps hinting at the imposition of military law on the Filipino people when he does not hint at the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. With the suspension of the writ, President Marcos could order the arrest of anyone and keep him or her in prison or in a concentration camp at his pleasure—that is, indefinitely. With the imposition of martial law, that is, the establishment of a military dictatorship, “Congress might as well close up,” as one congressman has observed. And the courts might as well close up, too, for Marcos would have absolute power. The independence of Congress and the Judiciary would be a thing of the past. Marcos’s rule would be absolute. He would be king.

Is the fate in store for the Filipino people to live under the sovereign will of “King Ferdinand”—and “Queen Imelda”?

As noted in the article beginning on page 2, the demonstrations in the United States have been marked by violence which makes the demonstrations here models of law and order by comparison. A magazine, Scanlans, features in one of its issues “Guerrilla Warfare in the U.S.A.,” and presents, in a most graphic fashion, the almost countless acts of sabotage, dynamiting, attacks on persons in authority and other acts of war against the government and the Establishment it is supporting—yet the American president, Richard Nixon, has never ventured to speak of the possibility of suspending the writ or imposing martial law. Were he to do so, he would be promptly impeached and removed from office.

Why does President Marcos keep on talking about suspending the writ or imposing martial law? One would think he could hardly wait to do so. And what good would that do? What good would that do him? Never mind what good it would do the country, but what good wold to do him? Having imposed martial law and become a dictator, how could he ever leave Malacañang and rejoin a people finally free of his rule? He must be a dictator for life to be secure.

He’d never be safe otherwise, no more than the Japanese—what was his name?—who headed the Kempetai could have lived with any sense of security among Filipinos once the Japanese forces had been disarmed. As a matter of fact, the Marcos Administration is reaching the point of no return to a democratic regime, for with so many young Filipinos killed merely for demonstrating against the manifest injustices of the government, how safe would Marcos & Co. be when no longer in power? Could Marcos afford to be no longer in Malacañang if more of the young should be slaughtered?

Was it necessary or wise to arm government forces with Armalites to maintain order during the demonstration in Plaza Miranda last week? Armalites are used in war. (The Americans use them in their war in Vietnam.) Has Marcos declared war on demonstrators, whose right to demonstrate he continually affirms—after all, it is a constitutional right and he is supposed to uphold the Constitution—that he must have his forces armed with Armalites when they confront the demonstrators?

Is there a war on?

The British, confronted with rampaging Chinese Communists in Hong Kong at the height of the Cultural Revolution, kept their cool. They sent police with only truncheons to meet the mob. If the mob should break through the police lines, it would be met with police armed with tear gas and riot guns. Only if the demonstrators should be able to overwhelm the second police contingent would the government give them the works. Armalites are the works—and the Marcos regime resorted to their use last week, killing four and wounding many others—almost as a matter of course.

After “Black Wednesday,” military rule and a Marcos dictatorship would seem to be an inevitable development. The further use of Armalites against demonstrators and the slaughter of more who cannot stomach the Marcos Administration would make it certain.

What would life under Marcos dictatorship be like—and its political and other consequences of the Republic?

With the courts and Congress reduced to impotence and the independent press shut up—with publishers who dare to disagree with Marcos placed under house arrest or in concentration camps where they would be joined sooner or later by outraged justices of the Supreme Court, senators and representatives who would not lick the boots of Marcos, as well as others who would not submit to tyranny—the nation would be “polarized.” the Philippines would be divided into Marcos collaborators and those who love liberty and are branded “misguided elements” (as during the Japanese Occupation) and declared enemies of the Marcos state.

Marcos, as a former guerrilla leader, should know how the Japanese failed to stop the Resistance against their rule. The more atrocities the Japanese committed, the more Filipinos they tortured and killed—the more joined the Underground. It became a matter of honor to do something against the oppressors, whether it be merely to contribute money to the guerrillas or to commit some act of sabotage against the government if not actually to go to the mountains and take up arms against the regime. Filipinos in tremendous numbers found they were not afraid to die for freedom. They were suddenly free from fear. Marcos himself got a lot of medals for not being afraid, and many more showed the same lack of fear though they got no medals for it. The country became one vast concentration camp except when men dared to be free.

Life under a regime of martial law or a Marcos military dictatorship would be little different from life during the Japanese Occupation. How many would submit to it? And how would Marcos ever dare restore civil law? Would he dare to leave Malacañang? Would he not  be compelled to declare himself President for life, that is, a dictator forever? And how long would “forever” be?

Our republican institutions suffer from corruption but they do guarantee certain civil liberties—like freedom from arbitrary arrest and indefinite detention without trial and the right to demonstrate peaceably against the government for redress of grievances and to write an editorial like this. The denial of such liberties in all-too-many cases does not argue against the goodness of the institutions. Because there are thieves does not make the law against theft a bad one but only makes enforcement of the law more necessary than ever. Under our republican institutions we enjoy certain liberties, to repeat—if not too much economic progress. Justice is often mocked, true, but under a military dictatorship, there would be no justice at all, no liberty at all, and even less progress than ever. The entire economy would be organized into a government corporation run by Marcos & Co., and one has just to contemplate how Nawasa, the Philippine National Railways and other government corporations are run to know how the people would suffer under such a regime.
Only Marcos & Co. would profit from martial law. They should. They would be the law. The rest of us would be mere subjects—or outlaws.

Those who wish the President well should advise him to stop talking about martial law. Whatever he and his friends get out of it—would it really be worth it?

The Survivor: Man of the Year for 1987

January 9, 1988
Man of the year

HOPE springs eternal, as in the case of the political prisoner being blindfolded before the firing squad. It might misfire.
One clings to life, however miserable. Life is better than none—except to the would-be suicide. He does not think so, and pulls the trigger. A martyr to his conviction. But just to go on living, under the most adverse conditions, is worth it. Just survive!
But is life, as it is, better than none—to the wretched of the earth? Perhaps, life after death will be an improvement.

There’ll be pie
In the sky
By and by.
It’s a lie!

So went the International Workers of the World’s gibe at organized religion’s panacea. Suffer here, enjoy there— forever! Opium of the people? But relaxing!

And what if there is no life after death? Well, who can tell? Who really knows anything about “that undiscovered country from whose bourne no traveler returns”? Ask no question and you will be told no lies. A question without an answer is a silly one. But there is a question that may be reasonably asked:

“Is there life—after life?” After birth?

Life worth living?

Is living in Smoky Mountain life? Worth living?

Must be. Or so many thousands of human beings—like you and me—would not be living there. Not rising in revolt against their inhuman condition and burning the city down. They’re alive. Enough reason for being.

Life is good—however its condition. That is the ultimate affirmation of faith. That is the Survivor’s Creed.

The Survivor, then, is the Man of the Year. He took all that life and the regime he suffers under but still maintains,  with protest but also with patience. Showing “grace under pressure”—to the exasperation of those who would replace the present dispensation with its flawed rights and liberties with a dictatorship, fascist or Communist, that would strip him of all rights but promises rice for his liberties. He’s still free—to suffer but protest against his suffering. Still being robbed but protesting the robbery. Still being tortured—as that poor young man who was burnt with lighted cigarettes and had electrode wires attached to his genitals if he did not come across with P10,000 for the police…

Life is good—despite the Government and the Opposition, fascist and Communist, offering only the alternative of the Tiger or the Hyena. One suffers and labors and provides, however inadequately, for the needs of those one loves, one’s family, the Real Country—without hurting others. One is a good man or woman. One survives—remaining human.

“To the Survivor!”

The Man of the Year.

The Magsaysay boom, editorial for March 7. 1953

The Magsaysay boom
March 7, 1953
(Editorial)

THE Philippines is going wild about Ramon Magsaysay.

Newspaper correspondents’ reports, numerous telegrams and letters of congratulation have been endlessly pouring into Manila, hailing Magsaysay’s resignation from the Quirino cabinet. Magsaysay-for-President clubs are daily mushrooming in provincial capitals, chartered cities and municipalities, while labor, school, civic, social and youth organizations continue to vie with each other in endorsing Magsaysay’s candidacy for the highest position within the gift of the Filipino people. Even some of the Huks—whom Magsaysay and the armed forces of the Philippines tried hard to subdue during the two and a half years that he was secretary of national defense—have made known their Magsaysay-for-President stand.

There is no parallel in our political history to the case of Magsaysay. No Filipino official has as yet resigned from a government job and received so much spontaneous commendation as has this man from Zambales. In fact, no public official in our country has severed his connection with the government and been the recipient of so much praise for a job well done.

The simple explanation of the current Magsaysay-inspired rejoicing must be that the Filipino people as a whole, are fundamentally sound and that they know a good, faithful, and patriotic public servant when they see one. It is more than apparent that in Ramon Magsaysay they have seen one.

It is doubtful if any administration has received so much public condemnation for tolerance of official crookedness, corruption, inefficiency, and incompetence as the present. But despite the general damnation that has come from the people, Magsaysay (who was with the same administration for a long time) has been singled out as a shining exception. And rightly so. For during his time in office, not once was his name mentioned in the same breath with venality, abuse of power and other cardinal sins associated with many a Filipino public official today.

Magsaysay left the Quirino cabinet because life with Quirino had become a series of frustrations. Magsaysay said that he sought public confidence as his highest reward for the services he had rendered. But he realized that such confidence could not be won if he continued serving under the Quirino regime. Many people sincerely subscribe to this view.

Despite efforts were made this week to win back Magsaysay to the fold of the Liberal Party. Liberals who fear their party’s collapse now that Magsaysay—the party’s chief redeeming feature—is out, and won over by the Nacionalistas, this week planned and schemed to woo back the ex-defense secretary. But all attempts have proved futile. Senator Tomas Cabili, chief LP negotiator, has given up the idea of ever getting Magsaysay back. In a moment of despair, Cabili said this week: “They (referring to his fellow Liberals) have ignored the handwriting on the wall…and now, when it is too late, there is feverish effort to reach for a solution….”

Meanwhile, the Magsaysay boom keeps increasing. To try to stop it would be tantamount to the old story of sweeping back the ocean with a broom.

If, editorial, August 23, 1986

August 23,1986

IF

If they had sent a limousine to the airport instead of a van, Marcos and Imelda would still be in Malacanang. The Conjugal Dictatorship, as the author of the book with that title called the regime, would still be in dictatorial power – to imprison, torture, murder whoever opposed the Monstrous Duo while the looting of the nation went on. The author of the book now lies in an unknown grave but Marcos and Imelda would be living horribly on.

Why the van? To take the body of Ninoy after his execution at the airport to a military camp where it would be dumped by his killers on the cement floor. (Why killers, not killer? Because he was killed by all those who plotted his assassination, not just by the soldier or officer who fired the shot. Only a conspiracy made possible the “salvaging”.) And so it came to pass.

But just think what would have happened to Ninoy – if he had been taken safely from the plane and escorted to a waiting limousine and brought to Malacanang. There Marcos and Imelda would be waiting to welcome him! Ninoy would have gone unsuspectingly and fallen into the trap. He would be alive today but politically dead. There would have been no millions accompanying his body for kilometers and kilometers to its grave, in outrage and grief at what they had done to him. No mass demonstrations against the dictatorship. No fearless confrontation of its clubs, guns and gas. No ceaseless cry for justice for Ninoy – and all the other victims of the regime. No People Power that drove the Two into headlong flight with their awful family and retainers and no such freedom as the Filipino people now enjoy.

Ninoy would be still alive but politically dead. And dead, politically and economically, would be the Filipino people with the exception of Marcos and his KBL Gang. (They would still be looting and killing together.) But why would Ninoy be politically dead?

He had been warned by Malacanang before his departure for Manila that there was a conspiracy to kill him if he went back. If Marcos et.al. had knowledge of such a conspiracy, why did they not go after the conspirators? Imelda had previously warned Ninoy that if he went back, there were those “loyal” to Marcos and her whom they could not control and who would, presumably, do him grievous harm. Kill him, in short. She offered him money to stay away. Afterward, she was quoted by Newsweek magazine as saying: “If Ninoy comes back, he’s dead.” How could she have been so certain of his death? How, if she and her husband were not set to kill him on his return?

Ninoy decided to return, anyway. He brushed aside all advice, Filipino and American, not to go back. He would bring peace and democracy back to a suffering people. He gave the Communists five years to seize power if the Marcos dictatorship went on in its usual way. Then, blood would flow. He would seek a meeting with Marcos, talk to him about the need for a peaceful; and orderly restoration of democracy in their and our country, forestalling a Communist take-over. Think of the Filipino people, in God’s name, and of his Marcos’s – place in Philippine history!

“I believe that there is some good in Marcos, and it is to that good that I shall address myself,” Ninoy said to the Free Press editor, who argued against his return in a long talk in New York, shortly before Ninoy went, fearlessly and hopefully, to meet his appointment with death in Manila.

Ninoy’s naivete cost him his life. He believed there was some good in Marcos! Yet, though there was nothing good in Marcos, there was, surely, a way to get rid of Ninoy without killing him. Perhaps, Marcos was too sick at the time to make the final, fatal decision on what to do with Ninoy. He was too sick then, perhaps, and besides, he was surely too clever, too smart a politician to do such a stupid thing as to order Ninoy’s killing; he would have foreseen the consequences, being so clever, so smart. So went a column of the American political “pundit” Max Lerner. On what basis, on what evidence of Marcos’s innocence, the American wise guy rendered the verdict acquiting Marcos, it is difficult to ascertain. Who is so clever as never to make mistakes? Marcos politically infallible? Why the rush to verdict? Why not just keep one’s mouth shut? But Marcos was sick at the time, perhaps, near death. Could he have ordered the killing of Ninoy?

If Marcos was well enough, however, to order Ninoy killed, would he have done so, considering his alleged intelligence? He was able to terrorize and rob the Filipino people as he pleased, to the extent he wanted, and he never ceased wanting. This is intelligence? This is what those who collaborated with his regime called brilliance, turning away from those who opposed his regime. Isn’t the better part of valor prudence in the face of such a master intellect? Al Capone ruled Chicago for years and there was nothing the U.S. government could do all that time except, finally, get him for income tax evasion. Capone ruled – robbing and killing at will – so, he, like Marcos, was brilliant? Anybody could be “brilliant” – with a gun.

So, Marcos was brilliant – at the start. He did not have a gun, then: martial law enforced by the Armed Forces of the Philippines with his Number 1 hood, Ver, as chief-of-staff. Then, martial law! Brilliant he was, okay, or just cunning, unprincipled, a thinking son of bitch? All right, brilliant Marcos was. But the intellect deteriorates not meeting real challenge. The gun makes all challenge ineffectual. The mind becomes dull. Absolute power does not only corrupt absolutely, it stupefies. There is no need for intelligence when the guns serves. The blade of the mind rusts. Absolute power brings absolute stupidity. Such is the lesson of all dictatorships. Except the Communist challenge to contend with, and so remains as sharp as ever. Marcos, if in control when Ninoy was killed, had become just plain stupid.

Anyway, if Marcos did not order Ninoy killed, he must have at least considered that option when Ninoy announced his return. Marcos had a military mind and a commander considers all the options that may be taken in case of an enemy attack. And Ninoy was enemy. A political enemy. The most formidable one. Tanada and other Opposition leaders had been reduced to political impotence and pleading with Ninoy to come back and bring the opposition back to effective life. What should be done with Ninoy? The options before the Marcos regime were: house arrest for Ninoy upon arrival; solitary confinement in prison again; freedom – to lead the Opposition against the regime and then shot while campaigning, blaming the Communists for it, or while allegedly trying to escape from prison if he should be so held by the government. If, though allowed to live and campaign freely against Marcos, he should prove ineffective, not much of a threat, then, let him live.

These were the options of Malacanang on what to do with Ninoy. There was another option obviously not considered. What? Hell, welcome him! He’d be dead politically, and Marcos and Imelda could live happily with that. Before Ninoy’s arrival, the Liberal Party leadership held a council during which a top Liberal leader said with the utmost conviction:

“I am betting my last peso that Ninoy has made a deal with Marcos!”

If Marcos or, if Marcos was too sick at the time to be consulted, Imelda had ordered Ver to send a limousine to bring Ninoy from the airport to Malacanang, instead of having him shot there and his body taken to a military camp in a van, Ninoy, with his faith in the goodness of human beings beyond understanding, would have gone trustingly to the palace. And there he would have been met Imelda, not to mention Marcos if he could get up from his bed, assuming he was sick, and not only welcomed but even – anything is possible – embraced by the Two. Television and press cameras would, of course, record the touching scene: Ninoy, grinning boyishly – the Free Press editor always thought of him, because of the difference in their ages, as a kid, knowing the world, he thought, more than Ninoy in his innocence did – and the cameras clicking and exposing him to future ignominy. For the general conclusion would have been that Ninoy had, as the Liberal leader had bet, made a deal with the enemy of the People and would serve that enemy’s purposes thenceforth, surrendering manhood and principles for peace for himself and his family. For an end to exile, the worst fate for one who loves his country, who would never be at home anywhere else.

Ninoy having thus apparently surrendered, having thus made peace with the Enemy, what else could the Filipino people have done but do the same? Peace without liberty, peace without dignity, peace without honor – peace at any price! The peace of the grave.

But they killed Ninoy.

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

The Hon. W. Cameron Forbes, editorial for May 15, 1909

Saturday, May 15, 1909

The Hon. W. Cameron Forbes

Let us have the truth about the Mr. Forbes. Let us give him credit for working when he might retire into a life of privacy and ease. Let us pay tribute to his generosity if there be merit in a generosity which feels little or no loss in the giving. Let us applaud his close attention to his official duties and his indefatigable labors in the common weal. Let us admire his readiness to assist any deserving cause. Let us acknowledge some degree of business ability.

At the same time let us not shut our eyes to Mr. Forbes’ shortcomings. Let us admit that he has neither social charm nor a winning personality. Let us confess that his manner is unfortunate, that as a public speaker he does not impress or inspire his audience, that he seems to lack energy and aggressive force of character, that rumor commonly credits the staff of men with whom he has surrounded himself as contributing in very large degree to such success as he may have attained, and that he is never regarded as a strong man or one could successfully guide the administration here through a long term of trying years.

As to the “accomplishment of the man” we fail to see much so far. Some promise, yes, but little performance. As to “the trust and affection of all elements of the people” we simply say—buncombe!

We do not wish to be understood as feeling unkindly towards W. Cameron Forbes the man or Forbes the official. But we do wish to be understood as protesting against this intolerable atmosphere of cant and gush and benevolent misrepresentation when it comes to our men in office. Here the lack of an opposition has bred an atmosphere of complacent self-deception, of extravagant appreciation, of stereotyped and indiscriminate praise and panegyric.

Business, editorial for May 14, 1910

Saturday, May 14, 1910

“Business”

IN CONNECTION with a prize subscription contest advertised recently in the FREE PRESS and the apparent indifference on the part of the young people toward the money prizes offered, a young Filipino from Negros who is a friend of the paper, explained the apathy on the ground that the Filipino youth would not respond where cash prizes were offered as it looked too mercenary, too much like “business.”

We are inclined to believe there is something in what our young Filipino friend says, and we think that among certain classes of the Filipino people there exists a feeling of disdain for anything which has in it a suggestion of money-getting. This view is borne out by the sneering reference occasionally made in the Filipino press to the word “business.”

As we view it, this attitude is wrong and one which is working great harm and must continue to work great harm to the Filipino people. One may feel very superior in affecting to despise business and the accumulation of the dollar or peso, but it is the foolish superiority of a Don Quixote. To follow out this attitude to its logical conclusion  it must mean that the Filipino is proud of over 90 per cent of the retail trade of these islands being controlled by Chinese who constitute a good deal less than ten per cent of the population. For our part, we think it is cause for shame.

Business means wealth, wealth means power, power means independence.

In our opinion the friend of the Filipino can do him no better and more sincere service than urge upon him the imperative necessity of trying to develop the business instinct. This is a commercial age and with the leading nations setting the pace all the nations must fall into line or be hopelessly left behind in the struggle.

Whooping it up, editorial for May 13, 1939

May 13, 1939

Whooping it Up—Con Bombo Y Platillos

IT LOOKS like the real thing this time. After many false starts, President Quezon’s reelection bandwagon is on its way. From Basco to Bongao, men in public life are rushing to get aboard. Not only politicians, but businessmen and doctors and lawyers and bankers have endorsed the move to amend the Constitution to permit the reelection of President Quezon.

To be sure, there are several obstacles which must be overcome. A constitutional convention must be held, and the amendment must be ratified by the electorate. Finally, it must be approved by the President of the United States.

But the obstacles aren’t worrying the people on the bandwagon. When there’s a will, there’s usually a way. And those who are whooping it up for the reelection of President Quezon have plenty of determination.

At all events, they’re whooping things up on the bandwagon, and a lot more passengers want to get on. Constitutions aren’t amended every day in the year, and it looks like excitement ahead.

Wither are we drifting? Editorial for May 1, 1909

Editorial
Saturday, May 1, 1909

Whither are we drifting?

ONE of the most significant in our administration of these islands today is the growing estrangement between American and Filipino. Ever since two or three months after the Taft visit and the inauguration of the assembly there has been a steady drifting apart and the tension seems to be daily increasing. This condition is not imaginary. It is matter of comment among many Americans and Filipinos in touch with racial sentiment here, and former residents returning to the islands say they have been forcibly struck by it.

The causes conducting to this state of affairs are not obscure. In our political relationship there exists an inherent and prolific source of discord.

This political antagonism, sufficient in itself to make the situation one of exceeding difficulty, is intensified by racial antipathies. Between the two peoples there seems to lie a social gulf which is crossed in only rare instances. The average American, with whom usually rests the initiative, is not concerned about making a friend of the Filipino; rather does he enjoy showing his open contempt for him. The feeling of racial superiority, not always justified, will not down. Even where the American may display a perfunctory solitude for the Filipino and a desire to maintain social relations the latter, possessed of a pride equal to our own and gifted with a delicate intuition sometimes superior to our own, discerns and resents the veiled condescension.

Constitutional Convention Or Malacañang Kennel? Editorial for January 22, 1972

January 22, 1972

Constitutional Convention Or Malacañang Kennel?

IS it true that Malacañang has given or is offering “10,000 reasons” per delegate to the Constitutional Convention to vote for the parliamentary instead of the presidential system?

“A reliable little bird was head to say this,” went a prepared statement to the press by 10 delegates.

There were a series of conferences with Malacañang, ending in a dinner on the eve of the voting by the legislative powers committee, the statement elaborated.

“In that January 6 dinner, is it true that the Three Kings—or a King and a Queen—distributed 10,000 reasons to each of the delegates in order to change their minds?”

The statement located the “headquarters of the (Malacañang) tutas” in one of the rooms on the Manila Hotel’s fourth floor.

The statement raised another question:

“Is it true that these tutas are receiving weekly allowances from Malacañang?”

A Cebuano delegate “identified with the Nacionalista Party” was called one of the Malacañang tutas in the statement, which went on:

“This delegate, who is now so vociferous for the parliamentary system, shouted himself hoarse during the campaign and over the radio for the presidential system, but now he is the spokesman for the parliamentarists.”

Same dog, different collar? Editorial for March 18, 1972

March 18, 1972

Same Dog, Different Collar?

FOUR months ago, the overwhelming majority of the electorate voted against six of the eight NP senatorial candidates (picked by President and Mrs. Marcos) as an act of protest against the Marcos Administration. No other administration had inflicted so much suffering on the Filipino people since the establishment of the Republic! Mr. Marcos, it was clear, could not win if he ran for President again—not if the elections are clean. He might not even make it if he ran for senator.

But if Mr. Marcos were to run for deputy in Ilocos Norte under the Parliamentary system, he would surely win in that province. Once in Parliament he could shoot for the Premiership—and get it. Nacionalista congressmen, with huge sums in criminal allowances collected during their present term and with additional financial support from Malacañang plus electoral frauds and terrorism, would support for Parliament on their respective districts and most of them would win—and, in gratitude for the help extended them during the elections, not to mention whatever they might get after, vote for Mr. Marcos for Premier. Thus, Mr. Marcos would be head of state for the third time. He would have run, in effect, for reelection a second time and won.

For better or for worse. Editorial for April 28, 1934

April 28, 1934

For better or for worse

ANOTHER momentous event in Philippine history will occur when the legislature meets in special session to accept the Tydings-McDuffie independence law. Exactly thirty-six years after Dewey’s thundering guns sounded the prelude to American occupation of the Philippines, the Philippine legislature will meet to take the decisive step toward the final withdrawal of the United States from the islands.

Once the independence law has been accepted, the die will have been cast, the Rubicon crossed. There can then be no turning back from the high adventure upon which the Philippines will have embarked, no seeking of shelter from the buffets and blows of a selfish and remorseless world. For better or for worse, for weal or for woe, the game must be played out to the end.

The Philippines stand at the threshold of a new world, a new experience. This country will need courage and daring and a will to work and a capacity to suffer. Above all it will need a mighty and transcendental patriotism in the period ahead of it. God forbid that this glorious venture shall be wrecked upon the shoals of disillusionment, or despair or cynical, self-seeking, disregard of the public welfare.

Sunset. Editorial for April 24, 1948

“SUNSET”
April 24, 1948
(Editorial)

INTO the setting sun, merging into the shades of night, goes the spirit of President Manuel Roxas, bound for “the undiscovered country from whose born no traveler returns,” leaving behind a sad and sorrowful and anguished people. For him no more the breaking of the dawn, the call to the day’s pressing duties, the cares and burdens of the State, the sleepless hours in the silent watches of the night, or the occasional happy mingling with the thousands whom he served.

And tomorrow (Sunday), “in memoriam,” his people will do him homage, a nation will mourn his loss. In Manila, the cerements of woe, the solemn tolling of the bells, the slow passing of the caisson and the long cortege, with the family of the late President and high officialdom, from the Malacañang to the Hall of Congress, the hushed throngs lining the route of passage, the eloquent and soul-stirring eulogies in honor of the departed, then the procession to the North Cemetery under military escort with the US Army and the British Navy participating, and at the Cemetery the last sad obsequies, the lowering of the bier, the three volleys, the bugle blowing the mournful notes of the soldier’s requiem, “taps,” and all the impressive and somber ritual that marks the interment of the illustrious and soldier dead.

Likewise throughout the provinces will there be general observance. There also the bells will toll and by means of the radio and loud speaker the last solemn rites be heard. And there, doubtless, as here in Manila, there will be many a sigh and mayhap even a tear from those who knew him well, or perchance even from those who had only heard him speak or had the pleasure of greeting him and clasping his hand.

Yes, Manuel Roxas, President Roxas, is dead, and a nation bows its head in grief. Less than four years ago it was robbed of its beloved son, Manuel L. Quezon, and now again it is sorely afflicted, the hand of Death is laid heavily upon it. It bears its cross, but:

No more for him life’s stormy conflicts,
Nor victory, nor defeat—no more time’s dark events,
Charging like ceaseless clouds across the sky.

Face to face, April 22, 1933

April 22, 1933

Face to face

THE United States may stay in the islands forever if the Hawes-Cutting law is rejected.—Osmeña.

The United States may remain in the islands forever if the Hawes-Cutting law is accepted, and, with our consent.—Quezon.

Such, is condensed form, is the first main line of divergence on which the two chief protagonists in the Hawes-Cutting law battle find themselves in opposition, as reported in the daily press.

However, it appears certain that Senator Osmeña will not commit himself till Washington is reached and his colleagues have a chance to be heard. There the real battle will begin.

Senate-President Quezon will sound out President Roosevelt and leading members of congress as to the probable result of rejection of the Hawes-Cutting law, with reservations. Should the information elicited be favorable, he may be depended upon to return here still more resolved upon rejection, even in opposition to his colleagues. In that event we may see staged the battle royal which has been long impending.

Our reply to La Vanguardia,. Editorial for April 2, 1910

Saturday, April 2, 1910

Our reply to La Vanguardia

A SHORT time ago one of our American colleagues, the Times, undertook to disqualify us on the ground that we were so pro-Filipino as to be un-American and so un-American as to be non-American. Now one of our Filipino colleagues, La Vanguardia, tells us we are so pro-American or rather so pro-imperialistic that we are anti-Filipino, and an enemy to Filipino aspirations to nationality and self-government.

The arraignment by our Filipino colleague we reproduce elsewhere in this issue. With regret we say that we think it unfair and so disappointing. Starting with a purely academic discussion our contemporary in its first reply at once abandoned the academic platform and resorted to the old argumentum ad hominem and proceeded to call the FREE PRESS names on the basis of imputed and unjustifiably imputed motives. We were told that we are mercenary, ambitious, imperialistic, and hypocritical and in fine that under the cloak of alleged political incapacity on the part of the Filipino people we seek to see them exploited and enslaved and held in permanent subjection and oppression.

Possibly we might present argument in our own defense, but we prefer to leave our record to speak for itself and trust to the fairer judgment of our Filipino readers and friends to do us justice.

We think we can trust them, also, to do us justice to the government or the people of the United States and their attitude toward the Filipino people and their aspirations toward self-government and independence. It may be as La Vanguardia implies, that the policy of the government of the United States in these islands is harsh, iniquitous and oppressive. When one turns the pages of past and present day history and sees the wonderfully benevolent policy of Russia toward Poland and Finland, the mildly beneficent reign of Germany in New Guinea, the merciful enlightenment of the Dutch policy in Java, the altruistic abnegation of the British in Ireland and India, the gentle persuasion of the French in Morocco, the unheard of magnanimity of Japan in Korea—when one contemplates these heroic examples of self-sacrifice and disinterested benevolence in behalf of alien peoples one is struck by the cruel, tyrannous, and monstrous policy of the United States toward the people of the Philippine islands—a policy that for lusting greed, savage and ruthless oppression, fierce and intolerable despotism, pitiless despoliation and barbarous inhumanity stands unparalleled in the annals of mankind.

Just listen to this grasping, sordid, and heartless recommendation of Secretary of war Taft in his “Special Report to the President on the Philippines: “—Should congress be anxious to facilitate and hurry on the work of redeeming the Philippine Islands and making the Filipino people a self-governing community, it could take no more effective step than a permanent appropriation of two or three millions of dollars for ten or fifteen years to the primary and industrial education of the Filipino people….” That good friend of even the most radically disposed Filipinos, William Jennings Bryan, said when he was out here a few years ago that you could not educate a people and at the same time hope to keep that people in subjection. But of course in recommending to congress that it appropriate some sixty millions pesos for education so that it might expedite the time when the Filipino people would assume entire control of the government Mr. Taft was inspired only by base, cunning, hypocritical and machiavellian motives.
The whole question really resolves itself into one of faith or unfaith in the American government and its promises.

In this connection we recall the words of then Governor General Wright in a farewell address. We may not quote his exact words but they ran like this: “To my Filipino friends I would say, put your trust in the American people. Have faith in them. Put them on their honor—and they will not fail you.”
In the same connection we recall the experience of District Attorney Jerome of New York in his dealing with criminals or persons arrested were brought to him at night and they could not put up bail for their appearance the next day, which meant spending the night in a cell, to have them pledge him their word of honor to be on hand. He explained to them that he had no authority to let them go and that he and he alone would be held responsible should they betray him. Well, out of scores and even hundreds of cases, not one, he said, had ever failed him and gone back on the pledged word.

The United States, through President McKinley, President Roosevelt, and President Taft is pledged to give self-government, autonomy, independence or what you will to the Filipino people. To quote Mr. Taft in his last declaration: “When the Filipino people as a whole show themselves reasonably fit to conduct a popular self-government, maintaining law order and offering equal protection of the laws and civil right, to rich and poor, and desire complete independence of the United States, they shall be given it.”

If even crooks and criminals could respond to an appeal made to their honor, is it unreasonable to suppose that the people of the United States will ignobly fail to respond?

And what precedent, we ask, shall be cited to prove that the United States will not keep faith with the Filipino people? The best and most recent is the case of Cuba. There are ninety million dollars of American capital invested there, but did that keep the United States from fulfilling its promise? Was not the American flag lowered in honor in the redemption of a solemn pledge? Was not Cuba evacuated?

We contend that it is not fair to seize upon and exaggerate the little shortcomings here and there—to center one’s gaze upon the little side currents of the broad stream setting towards the fulfillment of America’s pledge to the Filipino people. We contend that in the face of its hypocrisy, deceit, and double dealing, with no sense of honor, with base perfidy and unpardonable duplicity.

To La Vanguardia and to the Filipino people we would say: “Have faith in the American people.”

A blunder worse than a crime. Editorial for September 25, 1909

Saturday, September 25, 1909

A blunder worse than a crime

IN SUCH category, we very much fear, must be included the action of the Chief Executive in cutting off the government’s advertising appropriation from El Renacimiento.

By the Chief Executive’s action the government is placed in the humiliating position of confessing that it has suffered from the periodical’s criticism. If there is any justification for the saying that “it is the truth that hurts”, the government is further placed in the position of admitting that the criticism has been true, and that the truth has rankled. The action of the government will be interpreted as a confession of weakness. And, far from crippling El Renacimiento, it will simply tend to strengthen it.

It is a common remark among Americans that El Renacimiento is the organ of the “demagogues” and “politicos”, but those best acquainted with that newspaper and its clientele know that it is much more than that—that it is the chief organ of the Filipino people, that it comes closer to them than any other, that it more truly voices their aspirations—that it is THE PEOPLE. The government is thus placed in the position of striking not only at El Renacimiento, but striking at the Filipino people, and using the money of the people to do it.

Further, the government is placed in the position of admitting that the money of the people spent in the form of advertising appropriations is nothing more than a bribe to the newspapers here to keep hands off the government. It is confessedly an effort to corrupt and stifle a free press. The presumption is that the government has its notices published for the benefit of the people, and, as there is no Filipino paper with one half the circulation of El Renacimiento, the government stultifies itself and by its action confirms the belief that the money is not spent for publicity purposes or as a business proposition but solely as a bribe to silence criticism and promote sycophantic adulation. Truly a most edifying picture!

“Spontaneous” demonstrations. Editorial for March 5, 1949

PHILIPPINES FREE PRESS EDITORIAL
March 5, 1949

“SPONTANEOUS” DEMONSTRATIONS

One man, observing the demonstration last Saturday night at Plaza Miranda, Manila, by students from the different universities and colleges of Manila and members of labor organizations and venders associations, estimated at more than 20,000, wondered how decent men and women could declare themselves for a man who represented all that is iniquitous in the government. For the object of the “spontaneous” demonstration, the man in whose defense the rally was held, was none other than Jose Avelino.

Yes, Jose Avelino, the same man who had taxed the President of their country with not covering up, or at least tolerating, abuses and anomalies by party men in the government, who would led a gang of unprincipled men rob the people at will—with impunity. Yes, the same Jose Avelino, who while in office amassed riches he had yet to explain. The very same man who, while invoking the Constitution in his need, had trampled on it in the past, denying to others the right to speak which be now claimed. The one and the same person who, crying for due process of law, had allegedly secretly sought to destroy that process by dictating, or attempting to dictate, to the courts.

It was in “honor” of this man that the demonstration was held. Shocking indictment of the sense of probity of the people of the capital! But there had been such demonstrations in the past, equally impressive and just as “spontaneous.” Who has not read of demonstrations hailing the arrival of some official from abroad—demonstrations by meek and subservient government employees who must be present, or else! No doubt there were those sincerely “for” Avelino in that mob in Plaza Miranda last week for in the past Avelino had dispensed favors liberally, if not illegally. And there were those present out of curiosity. And if students hailed Avelino’s name during that rally, it should also be recalled that students in a “homecoming” at Avelino’s alma mater, the Ateneo de Manila, had booed his name.

And, of course, one remembers the demonstrations for the cruelest oppressors of the Filipino people in history, who had robbed, murdered and raped for three terrible years: the Japanese. Those demonstrations, by the reports in the papers then in circulation, were “spontaneous,” too.

Politics: means and end. Editorial for August 29, 1953

Philippines Free Press editorial

POLITICS: MEANS AND END
August 29, 1953

AS a tribute to the late President Manuel L. Quezon, his birthday was declared a national holiday. The nation rejoiced that he was born, which is tribute, indeed. A big parade was held in the city named after him, complete with military units and allegorical floats. There was a man; when comes such another?

It was splendid and glittering and expensive, the celebration of his birthday; it would have pleased him. Yet, the greatest tribute to the man cost exactly nothing. A man stood up and, for the first time, told, in measured language, the truth about Quezon. It cost the speaker, Sen. Claro M. Recto, nothing to make the speech except intelligence, which practice does not exhaust, literary skill, which is sharpened by use, knowledge of politics, which may be shared without losing, and good judgment, which is increased by exercise. Recto knew Quezon, admired him, but had no illusions about him. Last week, he told the truth about him, and what Recto said is a better monument to the man than the architectural affair the government is contemplating. When a man dies, what he has done is soon forgotten; his deeds are writ on water. He who would live a little longer after death, in the minds of men, is fortunate if he finds a biographer who can catch his spirit on the wing. Recto gave us the essence of Quezon as a public man.

If, August 23, 1986

August 23,1986

IF

If they had sent a limousine to the airport instead of a van, Marcos and Imelda would still be in Malacañang. The Conjugal Dictatorship, as the author of the book with that title called the regime, would still be in dictatorial power – to imprison, torture, murder whoever opposed the Monstrous Duo while the looting of the nation went on. The author of the book now lies in an unknown grave but Marcos and Imelda would be living horribly on.

Why the van? To take the body of Ninoy after his execution at the airport to a military camp where it would be dumped by his killers on the cement floor. (Why killers, not killer? Because he was killed by all those who plotted his assassination, not just by the soldier or officer who fired the shot. Only a conspiracy made possible the “salvaging�?.) And so it came to pass.

To be a woman! February 3, 1986

February 7, 1986

To Be A Woman!

THERE has never been anything like it in Philippine history: a woman telling the machos of business and industry to do what she is doing, to stand up to the injustices against which they have been content merely to complain. That the economy is being ruined, has been ruined, from which they happily drew so much profit in the past; that the system under which they prospered is in dire danger of total collapse and eventual replacement by one that would have no place for them is evident to them. Free enterprise, that holy of holiest in their minds, is doomed by crony capitalism. And one with any sense of morality, of human right and dignity, can only recoil from government by, for, and of one man clearly determined to maintain his rule at whatever cost to the nation. But it took a woman to do what a man, or men, should have been doing: Fight! Being a man was sadly inadequate. One had to be something else. Be a woman — like her!

Like Cory.

Their baby? Editorial for March 5, 1994

THEIR BABY?
March 5, 1994

A TWO-headed baby was born recently in the town of Taraclia, Moldova. Aside from two heads, the baby also has two hearts, two sets of lungs and two spinal cords but only one set of limbs. Doctors blame the 1986 Chemobyl nuclear disaster for the defects.—Reuters

THE Constitution is new. What’s wrong with it? Why amend it?

Abolishing the Senate will leave only the House of Turon to meet the problems of the nation. With what? A piece of the delicacy? The Constitution vests legislative power in the Senate and the House. Without the Senate, the people will be at the mercy of the House and its voracious appetite. The senate makes them more secure.

What are the problems of the nation? Mass poverty and unemployment; graft and corruption in the government; continuing violation of human rights; widespread rebellion; massive deforestation, which threatens to turn the country into a desert; mockery of justice: the rich few get away with robbery and murder while the poor feels its lash. And other evils too many to enumerate here. None of them is to be blamed on the Constitution.

If the senators were to agree to the scrapping of the Senate, they would become and insignificant minority of 24 against 180 and could do nothing to improve the performance of whatever the House would be called. They would be called the same as the company they kept. Good for nothing, if not crooks.

President Ramos would still hold on to power—as premier. By running for membership in the House or Parliament and after using his P10 billion pork barrel for the re-election of the members, he would get their votes as prime minister. They would lick the hand that fed them. Lie dogs.

True, he has sworn:

“I have no plan or ambition or inclination to stay on as President when my term ends in 1998. Even if the Constitution were amended to allow my re-election, I would not seek re-election. Even if the people want it and vote that I stay in office, I shall not serve. If the Constitution were amended to introduce the parliamentary system, I would not run for office; and if elected, I would reject it.”

Or he would argue:

“The voice of the people is the voice of God. Who am I to go against God?”

Or keep his word.

Or, Speaker Jose de Venecia would be premier. And “behest loan” the rule?

Why not leave the Constitution alone?

They ran under it and should defend it.

Wanted, A Respectable Opposition: editorial for September 3, 1988

Philippines Free Press Editorial
September 3, 1988

Wanted: A Respectable Opposition

THE late Pres. Manuel L. Quezon expressed a preference for “a government run like hell by Filipinos” to “one run like heaven by Americans.” The government run by Americans was hardly heavenly, what with its colonial economy keeping the country a producer of cheap raw material for export and a market for highly-priced imported goods, and the Filipino people in their place as “hewers of wood and drawers of water.” The Army and Navy Club with the sign: “Dogs and Filipinos not allowed.” And a cultural brainwashing that left the Filipino with one dream: to be an imitation American.

If the American-run government was not celestial, the Filipino-run was sure hellish or at least purgatorial. Democracy being the only saving grace, for allowing the Filipinos to kick out their Presidents and representatives and kick in the next hungry pack that turned out no better. Hungry mosquitos replacing over-fed ones, in the words of the late Manila mayor, Arsenio H. Lacson.

The New Menace: editorial for April 1, 1961

Philippines Free Press Editorial
April 1, 1961

The New Menace

THIS country has never been more menaced by youthful criminality than it is today.

One has only to take a cursory look at the nation’s press to realize the gravity of our teen-age problem. No less than the secretary of national defense and the chief of staff of the Philippine Constabulary have offered to make available units of our armed forces to stem the rising tide of youthful violence.

Even the Man in Malacañang during a commencement address in Cebu City this week took cognizance of the rising criminality among our young people, and promised to deal with it “to the full extent of the law.�? At the same time, President Garcia urged that the nation’s attention “be focused unerringly on this social malady.�?

What has happened to our young people?

In Manila and the surrounding cities, they have gone on rampage! Like jungle beasts.