The Corona Model for Matuwid na Daan

Kumander Dante “cried like a baby”. This was the revelation of Mario Miclat in his book entitled “The Secrets of the 18 Mansions”. Kumander Dante, Bernabe Buscayno in real life, was the erstwhile leader of the New People’s Army (NPA) before he was given amnesty by the Cory Aquino Administration sometime in 1986. This revolutionary peasant was a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) together with author Miclat under the leadership of Jose Maria (Joma) Sison who now lives in the Netherlands.

This private experience of the author regarding Buscayno’s emotional episode showed the human weaknesses of people in the highest echelons of a well organized; strongly motivated; and highly dedicated, disciplined and idealistic group – the Communist Party of the Philippines. I am not however, just referring to Buscayno’s show of his emotions when he “cried like a baby” but more particularly to the circumstances surrounding the incident. Author Miclat narrates that the incident happened when he and Buscayno witnessed a quarrel between Joma Sison and his wife in a most unlikely situation and unexpected of the character of the very refined Mrs Sison. Accordingly, the trio (Buscayno, Sison and Miclat) had a meeting when Sison’s wife entered their meeting place and in a fit of anger pounded hard on the back of Sison. She allegedly learned that another woman just gave birth to a child by Sison. The author said that he had an inkling of Sison’s “indiscretion” having personally known Sison’s other woman and the latter’s husband (or partner), being both also members of the CPP. That recent incident only confirmed what he already knew of Sison all the while.

So why did Kumander Dante “cry like a baby”? Probably, he was stricken with great guilt and remorse for what he had done in the past. Probably it may also have been cry of resentment or a feeling of utter helplessness in the situation he was in. Realizing the fact of Sison’s grave violation of party policies, he cried and exclaimed, “… and to think that we have killed so many of our dedicated and good comrades in the past even for minor cases and sometimes unconfirmed acts of sexual opportunism!”

This glimpse of an inside story in the lives of “idealistic” people in the likes of Joma Sison brings to mind the political situation unfolding in our country today especially as an aftermath of the impeachment of former Chief Justice Renato Corona. We all know that this is part of the President’s program to run after grafters in government in his so called ”Matuwid na Daan” policy.

We cannot question the wisdom of the Senate Impeachment court for declaring the former Chief Justice as guilty. Nor could we also question the “other wisdom” of the dissenting opinions of Senators Merriam Defensor Santiago, Joker Arroyo and Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. They too had their brilliant justifications for declaring that former CJ Corona did not commit an impeachable offense. We can also commend the manner in which the proceedings were handled by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile who had to tread a very fine line that spelled the difference between a political and a judicial exercise. Many would say that if the proceedings were treated as a purely judicial exercise former CJ Corona would have been exonerated. However, as history would have it, it was treated as a political forum where the impeachment court was not bound to follow purely judicial guidelines in their proceedings and subsequent judgment.

The impeachment of former CJ Corona is bound to set very dangerous precedents which may make or unmake our honest president. We have seen that there was nothing in that exercise that has proven that former CJ Corona was guilty of graft and that he stole from government or from other people; or that he indulged in anomalous or illegal personal or business transactions. All that the prosecution has proven was that, he has not declared his real assets, liabilities and net worth and as such he has betrayed public trust. For some members of the prosecution panel and sadly, for some Senator-Lawyers (one of whom was a former Secretary of Justice) to insist that Corona was corrupt was “unlawyerly” looking at it from a point of view of a non-lawyer like me.

If Corona betrayed public trust simply because he did not correctly declare his true SAL-N, would that policy or standard or general frame of mind also apply to the President, Vice President, the Senate President or the Speaker of the House? Would it also apply to Corona’s successor as the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who would obviously be P Noy’s “man”? Would the latter undergo the same close scrutiny as was done on Corona? Would it also apply to all other top government officials who by virtue of their positions and responsibilities also require public trust? Let us hope that it would. Surely, it would ensure the realization of the “Matuwid na Daan”, a direction which many say is simply just wishful thinking of our honest president.

Corona’s challenge for high government officials to make transparent their assets and liabilities and to open for scrutiny all their peso and foreign currency bank accounts should not be taken lightly if our honest president is indeed honest in his words and deeds. Let it not be said that we have two sets of laws – one for “my” people and one for those that are not “mine”. There is a general belief amongst the Filipino people that the scrutiny of Corona’s SAL-N was only a way of getting rid of him because of his perceived closeness with former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. The SALN angle was an obvious fishing expedition as shown in the haste and manner in which the prosecution conducted their business.

I commend the few senators who had the humility and honesty to say sorry to the former Chief Justice for their guilty verdict on the latter. They knew Corona as a good man who led a modest and frugal life. However, he had to be judged based on the specific charge hurled against him, not on the basis of the reputation that he has built for himself in his many years of honest government service.

If we are to use the Corona case as a model for good governance in the future, we can be truly proud to say that we are now moving into the right direction of the “Matuwid na Daan” that we have been dreaming of. Otherwise, our honest president may simply “cry like a baby” as Kumander Dante did because he cannot apply the same brand of justice to his close friends and associates. Maybe he won’t even cry at all. He may just look the other way and even come to the immediate defense of his friends and associates as he had done many times in the past.

The North Star and the Matuwid na Daan

A retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, well known for his integrity and independence condemns the misuse of the pork barrel funds. Ex-Chief Justice Reynato Puno speaking on September 21, 2013 before a gathering of Methodist Churches at the Good Samaritan Church in Quezon City denounced the pork barrel as an evil that people should fight to abolish. He added that the “pork barrel scandal is all about abuse in the exercise of powers of government over the money of the people”.

In his speech, Puno used the “North Star” to illustrate the unchanging and unchangeable position in the abuse of governmental power. “Our North Star has always been and will always be the Word of God. We maintain that government derives its power from God; that it is the sovereignty of God that counts, it is the sovereignty of God that controls. It is the sovereignty of God that should dictate the direction of human destiny”, Puno emphasized.

Instead of using the President’s slogan of “Matuwid na Daan” (Straight Path), Puno used instead a different battle cry in urging the Filipino people towards moral regeneration. Why the North Star then? The North Star or Polaris is the brightest star in the constellation Ursa Minor or the Little Bear. Since it steadily appears in the northern hemisphere, it is often used by navigators since ancient times in determining directions. One who follows directions based on the North Star never gets lost along the way. Many believe that the Divine Wisdom created the North Star as a never failing beacon that would guide all his creations in all generations towards the right path.

What about the “Matuwid na Daan”? Many would say that it is just like one of the many empty political slogans of previous administrations such as the “New Era” (of peace and prosperity) of President Diosdado Macapagal; “Isang Bansa, Isang Diwa” of President Ferdinand Marcos; or the “Walang kamag-anak, Walang Kumpare” pronouncement of President Joseph Estrada in his inaugural speech.

There had been a lot of criticisms lately on the so called “Matuwid na Daan” because of its selective application. The President is observed to immediately condemn and will go out of his way to remove an official that he dislikes or those who were closely identified with his predecessor as in the case of former Chief Justice Renato Corona and former Ombudsman Merciditas Gutierrez. There were allegations that he released some PHP24 Billion to “bribe” congress to impeach Corona (and another PHP25 Billion for the passage of the Reproductive Health Bill).

Many people wonder why the congressmen came up with a verdict in the Corona impeachment proceedings so fast and within a record time that it would have been impossible for them to read the voluminous documents relative to the case. It did not also give them enough allowance to weigh out their decisions on such a very important matter that would destroy the career and life of a high government official.

The most damning of all these accusations/information was that of former Senator Kit Tatad, who is a journalist by profession. In his September 23, 2013 article with the Manila Standard Today, he claimed that the bribe money of PHP 24 Billion for the Corona Impeachment were coursed thru Janet Lim Napoles and were facilitated by House Majority Floor leader Nepthali Gonzales II for the Congressmen and by two Cabinet Secretaries close to Napoles for the Senators. This report was earlier bared by another columnist of the same paper although the amounts were not divulged.

Since the start of the pork barrel scandal, several groups advocating for change in our government have sprouted. The North Star was one. Another such group is the United Front for Good Governance (UFGG) which started as a discussion group but has transcended into a solid front with its first organizational meeting on September 21, 2013 in a restaurant in Malate. The group is a hodgepodge of former RAM members, Marcos Loyalists, coup plotters against the Arroyo administration, members of the academe, active and retired soldiers, the judiciary, student groups and the business and the religious sectors. The group advocates peaceful and non-violent ways of reforming our government but a lot of things can happen if these methods would not work as they appear at present.

A more radical group called the Reformist Officers Union (ROU) has replaced the Young Officers Union (YOU) of the 80’s fame which figured prominently in several bloody coup attempts against the Cory Aquino administration that almost toppled her government. This group of young officers are not happy with the manner in which the present President is running the affairs of the country especially in his obvious double standard application of his “Matuwid na Daan”, his penchant for fault finding amongst those identified with former President Arroyo and his mishandling of the peace efforts with various groups such as the MNLF. The ROU has gained momentum when senior non-commissioned officers of the AFP signed a manifesto supporting the objectives of the organization. From here, we do not know what would happen next. A few of its members are agitating the group by chiding them members of NATO (not referring to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization of the same acronym) to mean “No Action, Talk Only.” As to the of actions they would undertake no one can say. The fact remains that the already passive members of the AFP are now again restless with the political situation in our country.

Other than the three groups mentioned are about 6 or more loosely organized ones, all advocating for reforms in government. These include the Filipinos against Corruption; Filipinos for Better Philippines; North Star Movement for the Youth; Ulat sa Bayan, Una sa Mamamayan; Defenders of Freedom and Democracy; the Philippine by Jury Trial Movement; and the Plunder Watch Group.

From this unfolding scenario, Juan dela Cruz would ask. “Where do we go from here?” Do we continue following the so called “Matuwid na Daan”, rough and rugged one beset with ruffians that would make travel uncertain and whose direction is unknown? Or should we follow the path that is illumined and guided by simple truth and morality devoid of all hypocrisy that appears to be the mode of the day? Should we be guided by the North Star as former Chief Justice Puno subscribes or should we just sit and watch our country going towards damnation?

Reminiscence of an Old Soldier

Student activism in the fiery brand of the 70’s was never heard of in our old high school when I was a student of the then Central Negros Institute (CNI). Being young, and therefore typically restless and adventurous, many of my peers and me were also activists in a way. We were activists yet in a different way as we were not inspired nor were we part of any of the many leftist student groups that were organized on a national scale at that time. We only wanted to find expression of our sometimes radical ideas, albeit simplistically, about local issues such as high tuition fees; unnecessary and expensive examination booklets; unqualified and inefficient teachers; and inadequate school facilities, among others. Bureaucrat capitalism, imperialism, colonialism and other “isms” that were shouted on the streets in the big cities were strange concepts that we hardly understand nor were we interested to know about either.
The most common expression of our objections to the ills of the school was to boycott our classes especially of those teachers who cannot or did not do justice to their jobs of “educating” the students. Each time this scenario happens, the school authorities would reluctantly meet us for a dialogue. The school director and the principal would then be placed on the “hot seat” and forced to listen and respond to the students’ issues. The boycott would eventually fizzle out when the school administration gives assurances of preferential action on our concerns. Most often, those promises were repeatedly forgotten and remain without any action. Thus, we also resume our mass actions especially during their periodic collection of fees that were conveniently camouflaged as the school periodical examinations.
On many occasions, my father, who was a part time teacher in the school’s night high school department, was advised of my “misbehavior” and role as the leader of the many class boycotts. In return, he would caution me about my actions but always without success. Hence, he threatened that he would not send me to college if I continue with what I was doing. He told me that he was not willing to invest his hard earnings on a rebel of a son whom by all indications would do nothing in college except joining mass actions and demonstrations instead of preparing himself to become a teacher, an engineer or even a lawyer. Moreover, sending two children (my elder sister was already in Silliman University then) to college at the same time was a gargantuan task.

To end my story short, I ended up entering the Philippine Military Academy as a full government scholar. I also learned that I could have the chance to earn a baccalaureate degree for free as long as I pass the competitive entrance examination. While studying, I would also receive a stipend amounting roughly between the pay of a master sergeant (the highest ranking non-commissioned officer) and that of a 2^nd Lieutenant (the lowest ranking officer) and other allowances for my meals and my military uniforms, among others. The best part of it was that I was assured of a well paying decent job right after graduation with great chances of promotions over other military officers who did not go through this military institution.

As a young teenager of 18 summers at that time, becoming a soldier was farthest from my mind. I wanted to become a lawyer but I was forced to embrace the profession of arms due to economic considerations. Moreover, it not only saved my father from the parental obligation of giving his prodigal son a good education but also solved the problem of swaying him away from becoming a full pledged rebel later on.
Many summers have passed since I first stepped into the hallowed grounds of the so called premier military institution of the Philippines. Yet, I didn’t take even a little time for reflection as to how I did as a cadet and later on as an officer rising through the hierarchical ladder until I retired. I believe that I have not done anything extra ordinary that is worth crowing about. I simply played a role that fate has assigned to me ever remembering that each one of us has a specific but equally important role to play in life which is incomparable with that of others.
As a young boy, I also role play-acted as a soldier as many young kids do. I was also fascinated with guns and smart men in uniforms. I loved to watch war movies, too. In reality though, I did not want to be a soldier when I grow up. I did not like to die like a hog and sometimes buried in unmarked graves, the way it happens in the many war movies that I watched. Yet, fate had its way. One day, I woke up and found myself as a soldier.
They say that the life of a soldier is not an easy one. It is true. The life of a soldier is not difficult, too because it is VERY DIFFICULT! It is the difficulty that one encounters during entry and training to become one and later on in coping with the day to day rigors as a regular soldier. However, it is also the difficulty that one experiences that makes it rewarding after hurdling the challenges at the end of each day. I can not nor will not claim to be more nationalistic than others because I was a soldier. I would rather say that I am proud to have been a soldier who was given the rare opportunity to serve our country in a difficult and challenging way!

The soldier and the lesbian

 

An old man sat in a coffee shop wearing the same old faded camouflage jacket. Being a familiar feature, the waitress asked him whether he was a soldier. The old man replied, “Yes I was a soldier for 36 years. At 17, I was a cadet at the Philippine Military Academy. I fought in the MNLF conflict in Mindanao in the late 70’s unto the 80’s as a junior officer and later the MILF as a field commander in the late 80’s onwards. I was in the insurgency campaign in Samar, Northern Luzon, the Bicol Region and in many parts of our country. I was an instructor of the Ranger School as well. Well, I bet that makes me nothing but a soldier.” “How about you?” the old man asked the waitress in return.

“Well”, the waitress replied, “I’ve had different odd jobs before but what I am sure about is that I am a lesbian. When I wake up in the morning, I start imagining of naked women. When I take my shower, I still think of naked women and even when taking my meals I can’t help thinking about naked women. All day long I think of nothing but naked women and even in my sleep I still dream of naked women”.

The waitress left and the old man was silently sipping his coffee when a young man arrived. He saw the old man and noticed his camouflage jacket. He approached the old man and asked, “Sir, were you a soldier?” The old man replied, “I thought I was a soldier, but now I realized that in fact I was a lesbian!”

Juan dela Cruz: The New Beginning

 

A boatman was accused of having brutally murdered two men in their sleep in the waterfront of Cavite. He was arrested and was put to jail without a preliminary investigation and a proper trial. After languishing in prison for twelve years, the Americans found him in 1898 still awaiting his day in court. That poor man was named Juan dela Cruz. He was a victim of injustice, the kind that existed not only during the Spanish, American and Japanese occupations but also is recent times.

The name Juan dela Cruz speaks clearly of our colonial past with Spain. During their occupation of the islands, they required the natives to take on family names with mostly Christian first names, many of which were derived from the names of saints. Juan was the most popular first name, there being more saints named Juan. Thus the name became the first choice when our Spanish masters required the native unlettered Filipinos to sign documents. Since they could not write, they just affix the letter X and since the most popular name was “Juan”, anyone writing their names as” X” was thus known by the Spaniards as Juan of the Cross (X) or Juan dela Cruz.

The use of “Juan dela Cruz” became a collective reference to Filipino citizenry and a national identity because it is the most common name among Filipinos even in contemporary times. It was perhaps also a reminder of the many injustices done to the Filipinos as exemplified by the experience of that boatman from Cavite who carried that name. We may also come to think that the tag was intentionally used by our new colonial masters (the Americans) to ram-in the idea that there was so much injustices during the Spanish Regime and that the former have come to put our country in order by ushering in their own brand of democratic ideals, justice for all being one of them.

However, it was not to the credit of the Americans that the use of “Juan dela Cruz” gained popularity in reference to the Filipino masses. Much of the credit goes to the Scottish publisher of the Philippines Free Press, Robert McCulloch-Dick in the early 1900’s. McCulloch noticed that Juan dela Cruz was a common name in the court dockets and in the police blotters. Thus, he started to write small verses about Juan de la Cruz and his petty crimes. When he ran out of stories about petty crimes committed by this character, he expanded his concept of the typical Filipino who is friendly, hospitable, humble, God-fearing, hardworking, family oriented and gullible, among other virtues.

Indeed, “Juan dela Cruz” has become the national personification of the common Filipino and is oftentimes depicted wearing the salakot, the camisa chino, native pajama type trousers and barefooted (or using the native slippers). The term is sometimes shortened to just “Juan” which also refers to the Filipino psyche. Thus, we have characters as Juan Tamad (the lazy one), Juan Pusong (the clever one) and Juan Crisostomo Ibarra, the hero of Rizal’s Noli Mi Tangere, to name a few.

So we now see two types of Juan dela Cruzes. One is a victim of injustices and naturally desires a better life for himself through freedom from tyranny. We picture him as a man in chains and sometimes when shown beside the caricature of Uncle Sam, as a victim of American imperialism. This Juan dela Cruz yearned for freedom as his ultimate fulfillment.

The other Juan dela Cruz is a simple man torn between virtue and the will to survive. He is a good man yet commits a lot of petty crimes just to make both ends meet. He dresses as a lowly agricultural worker suggesting that most Filipinos of today have not coped up with modern times. He is fatalistic and goes wherever the wind blows. He humbly survives by the small droppings of the economic and political elite.

In a political rally shortly before the last elections, the candidates of one political party dramatized their advocacy for change by imitating a popular television drama series entitled “Juan dela Cruz: Ang Simula”. They came up the stage “armed” with wooden bolos and did some acts as if slaying an imaginary enemy (the evils of society). The main character actor of that TV series was Juan dela Cruz, the Tagabantay (savior or vanguard) against the “aswangs”.

That television series is just like any other mode of entertainment. However, the non-fantasy part of its plot is something to ponder upon. Here is a Juan de la Cruz involved in a crusade to rid the world with the evils that surround it. This suggests that perhaps we need a more dynamic type of Juan dela Cruz to portray the modern Pinoy who is aware of what is happening around him, who knows what to do to confront the situation and is willing to sacrifice a little for his future.

The new Filipino is one who is proud of his talents and could compete with others. He is one who has the dignity to sit side by side with other citizens of the world because of his ability. He is one who takes active part in chartering the destiny of his country. It is about time that the image of Juan dela Cruz be changed. We can now portray him as one who is dressed in jusi or piña barong, not the camisa chino worn by the early Chinese migrant laborers. He should now sport well tailored slacks, not the pajama type trousers used by the barefoot Katipuneros of old. He should be wearing inexpensive Marikina shoes and no longer be barefooted like the farmers who manually till their land. It is about time that we think of a new beginning for Juan dela Cruz in order to be relevant to our times. (Juan dela Cruz: Ang Simula)

Angie Reyes and Corruption in the Government

 

There were mixed reactions to the suicide of Gen Angie Reyes as a result of the scandal in the AFP. He was vilified by some but also glorified by others; insulted in the senate but still adored in the agencies that he has worked with he has worked with; and accused by one friend but remained respected by other friends.

After writing several articles on Angie Reyes, many would expect that my concluding article would be something that would declare him innocent of the charges of corruption imputed against him. A friend who was able to read all my previous articles asked if I felt that he was innocent considering that I was extolling most of his virtues in my articles. He was expecting me to somehow say yes but he was disappointed when I said that Angie Reyes was corrupt. I said it not because I have specifically seen that he stole money nor that I have proof of corrupt actions on his part. I claim none of those.

The more appropriate questions that may asked are any of the following: “How corrupt was Angie Reyes?; Was he more corrupt than the whistle blower or the honorable senators who conducted the inquiry?; Is the AFP the only corrupt agency in the government?; or How corrupt is the AFP compared to other agencies in government say, the Department of Public Works and Highways, the Bureau of Customs, the Bureau of Internal Revenue, or the Honorable House of Congress, among others?” Was Angie just a house lizard? a gecko? a bayawak? a salamander? an alligator or a giant crocodile? (This is to borrow the ridicule by many when they categorize the personnel of an agency in government noted for its corruption.)

During the “inquisition” on Angie in the senate, he asked LtC G, his accuser: “Noong ako ay CSAFP, ako ba ay nagging ganid?” (When I was the CSAFP was I exceedingly greedy?) That question of his was an indirect admission of guilt but with a hint that it was of a lesser scale and of a tolerable limit; and that while he did it everybody benefited from his indiscretions to include the whistle blower himself. This is similar to a previous sensational case of corruption which even implicated the highest office of the land and some top ranking national government officials where the whistle blower was advised by his friend and former superior to temper the greed of people involved in the ZTE deal. These parallel situations suggest that all the while, corruption exists in the Philippine bureaucracy but only of different levels depending on the kind of people who perpetrated them whether they were house lizards, geckos, salamanders, alligators or giant crocodiles.

Any position of authority is prone to corruption. To be blunt about it, it is almost impossible for any person to remain spotless in our present bureaucracy. For him to say that he was never corrupt while in the discharge of his office is at the height of hypocrisy. Daniel Webster defines corruption as any improper conduct or the making of an act evil. It means that a public servant is corrupt when his actions go beyond the due bounds of his authority and when he takes undue advantage of his position for financial or material gains at the detriment of others. By this definition everyone is corrupt.

This is not to justify whatever misdoings the former Chiefs of Staffs of the AFP had done because corruption is corruption regardless of how small they may have stolen. Here we see a need for change but we can only start this change if we accept that we ourselves are guilty rather than just point accusing fingers on others except ourselves. We also have to rid ourselves with hypocrisy and start within our own spheres of influence. We are not blind but we refuse to see. We are lucky to have President Noy who is a model of honesty and that is a good start. If he can make honest men of our lawmakers, our local executives, our judges, our soldiers and policemen and other public servants, then we have something to rejoice about because we are in for a new beginning.

Was Janet Lim Napoles of the Same Breed as Luis Taruc and Teodoro Asedillo?

 

Two prominent fugitives in the past have surrendered to a sitting President said Presidential spokesperson, Edwin Lacierda. He said that Luis Taruc surrendered to then President Ramon Magsaysay while Teodoro Asedillo also surrendered to then President Manuel Luis Quezon. Hence, it is not the first time that it happened when an incumbent President would receive criminals or fugitives from the law. There was nothing unusual when the President received the surrender of Janet Lim Napoles, the alleged mastermind in the 10B pork barrel scam, he stressed.

The circumstances on the surrender of Napoles have indeed fueled speculations of her having strong connections and allies in high places. On Wednesday evening (August 28, 2013), she was brought to Malacañan Palace to meet with the President. She was escorted by Lacierda who picked her up from the Heritage Park in Taguig City earlier that evening. From his meeting with Napoles, the President proceeded to Camp Crame (accordingly even ahead of Napoles) to personally look into to her security (and comfort?) requirements. The President was joined by DILG Secretary Mar Roxas; the Chief of the Philippine National Police, DG Alan Purisima; and other high government officials. These accordingly “routine and common” actions (says Malacañan) sparked the imagination of the citizenry who have been following the unfolding of events of this sensational issue.

There were also other reasons why many would believe that a special treatment was given to Napoles. Lacierda was a former junior partner in the law office of Lorna Kapunan, Napoles’ Chief Legal Counsel. Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa was also a former partner of MOST (Marcos, Ochoa, Serapio and Tan) Law Office, the firm that prepared the counter affidavits of Napoles with regard to the serious illegal detention case filed by Benhur Luy, one of the pork barrel whistle blowers.

Lacierda dismissed the allegation of a VIP treatment on Napoles. He argued that it was nothing but standard. In doing so, he compared her surrender with that of Taruc and Asedillo, two former high profile fugitives that were likewise received by then Presidents Magsaysay and Quezon, respectively. Lacierda said that the three surrender incidents (Napoles, Taruc and Asedillo) were the same! He was insinuating that the crimes committed were of the same category and therefore their effects and implications are likewise the same. Many would fall for this trick because very few knew who these two other personalities were.

To get to understand the situation better, we will make a short research on these two personalities mentioned.

Luis Taruc was a peasant hero in Central Luzon during the agrarian unrest in the 1930’s, a guerilla organizer, political figure and later on, an insurgent leader. He exposed agrarian injustices and poverty in Central Luzon, joined the Partido Socialista and later the Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas (PKP) where he became a ranking leader. In March 1942, he organized the Hukbalahap (Hukbong Bayan Laban sa Hapon) and became its Supremo. This guerilla unit of some 30,000 fighters fought effectively against the Japanese invaders.

In 1946, Taruc abandoned his armed struggle and ran in the House of Representatives under the banner of the Democratic Alliance. However, with seven other party mates that were likewise elected, he was not allowed to occupy his seat in Congress allegedly for committing election fraud and terrorism. This led him to abandon his parliamentary struggle and went underground. He transformed the Hukbalahap into the HMB (Hukbong Magpapalaya ng Bayan) controlling most of Central Luzon, the “Rice Basket” of the Philippines, including the capital towns of San Fernando, Pampanga and Tarlac, Tarlac. After many failed negotiations under two (2) Presidents (Roxas and Quirino), he finally surrendered to President Ramon Magsaysay on May 17, 1954.

It will be noted that as then President Quirino’s Secretary of National Defense, Magsaysay embarked on a strategy to combat insurgency by gaining the support of the peasants and by reforming the abusive Philippine Army and Constabulary. The unconditional surrender of Luis Taruc in 1954 was therefore the culmination of years of sustained efforts to draw back into the folds of the law not only the 15,000 rebels but also their mass base of about 2 million. Hence, Taruc’s surrender effectively marked the end of the Huk Insurgency.

How about Teodoro Asedillo then? Who was this guy?

Teodoro Asedillo was also a rebel leader in Laguna and Tayabas. He was a nationalistic elementary school teacher and defender of the peasants and laborers who turned against the American colonial government. He was dismissed from the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) in 1923 for not abiding with the American system of education which forbid the use of the local dialect as a medium of instruction and for refusing to teach the young children an alien culture. He founded the “Anak Pawis” (Child of Sweat), a communist inspired organization, became a labor leader in Manila in 1934 before joining forces with Nicolas Encallado, another rebel leader who was active in the boundaries of Laguna and Tayabas provinces. Contrary to the statement of Lacierda, Teodoro Asedillo never surrendered to anybody This mustachioed rebel leader who was called as the local Robin Hood by the masses was in fact killed by government forces under Lt Jesus Vargas (later on to become the Chief of Staff, AFP from 1953-56) in his hideout in Maladiangaw Falls, Sampaloc Tayabas (now Quezon) on December 31, 1935.

So now, were Napoles, Taruc and Asedillo of the same breed of fugitives? Was Napoles also an ideologue like the other two? Was she as nationalistic? Did she sacrifice her personal comforts to achieve what she believed was good for the people? Was she a popular leader of a segment of our society that dream of a better Philippines?

What about the effects/implications of the three (3) surrenders (granting that Asedillo surrendered and not killed)? Would they be the same? When a president receives the surrender of the likes of Taruc and Asedillo (?), they would have far ranging effects and positive impacts on the strategic direction of our country. These would have a healing effect on a wounded society that was marked by social injustice and oppression. These would also send a strong message that the latter agrees in principle to the legitimacy of their cause (less the violent manner with which they were manifested) and may mitigate the criminal offenses committed in pursuit of their political ideology.

Magsaysay, in personally accepting Taruc’s surrender reinforced the impression that he was the “Man of the Masses” as Taruc represented the countless disgruntled peasants of Central Luzon. The impact of Asedillo’s surrender would likewise be the same. Would it also be the same for Napoles as Lacierda implied? I bet that the impact would rather be the opposite and perhaps disastrous to the image of our President!

(Published in the News Record on the Sept 01-08, 2013  issue)

Beautiful Philippines

   

(The following article was earlier published in the News Record in Jan 2011)

Many summers ago, when I was a young captain in the Philippine Army, the Philippine Government sent me to the United States Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center in Fort Bragg, North Carolina for a five month military training. It was my first time to travel abroad. While taking the Civil Affairs Officers’ Advance Course there, I happen to meet an American who was himself a captain in the United States Army. Being both “second class” students (he being of American Indian ancestry and me being a Filipino and Bisaya pa jud) we hanged out together and developed a close friendship. In the many occasions that we exchanged ideas and experiences, mostly over a few bottles of beer, he told me of his fascination of the Philippines. He happened to visit our country for about ten days in the course of his rest and recreation (R and R) when he was stationed in Okinawa, Japan as part of a US Special Forces contingent there. He saw the primitive engineering wonder of the Banaue Rice Terraces, the imposing beauty of Mayon Volcano, the historic Corregidor Island and Fort Santiago. He observed the rich cultural heritage of the Filipino which he noted during his visits to the Ayala and the National Museums, among others. He also told me of his appreciation of the Filipino style of hospitality and friendship, the warm smiles of our kababayans, not to mention the few beautiful Filipinas he had the opportunity of getting acquainted with during his short stay. It was probably this reason why among the American students, he was the first one who befriended me.

The exchanges that I had with this American were eye openers to me of some sort. There I was, a Filipino who lived in the Philippines all his life, being told by a non-Filipino who was only in the Philippines for a few days, the beauty of this country. I was ashamed of myself and more ashamed still to admit to him that, except for Mayon Volcano which I see from a distance when I travel by land from Manila to Samar via the Bicol Region, I haven’t seen most of the places he has visited. There I was - a Filipino admiring the beauty in far-away lands not realizing the beauty that abounds in his native land.

There are so many who were like me. Many Filipinos have climbed the Statue of Liberty and the Eiffel Tower but most of them do not even know where the “Bantayog ng Kagitingan” or the Mac Arthur Park are, or even know that such monuments exist. We strolled the beaches of Bondi in Sydney but have never been to Boracay or Panglao Beach. We toured the Pyramids of Giza in Egypt ad the Great Wall of China but saw only our own Banaue Rice Terraces in the post cards at the National Bookstore. We know that Baltimore is the capital of Maryland but will say that Cagayan de Oro City is in the Visayas when asked in a quiz in a local television noon time show.

We criticize most of our kababayans who see other places first before seeing their own country. However, we will observe that this phenomenon of seeing other places ahead of one’s own country - is not only true to us Filipinos. I climbed the Statue of Liberty for the first time together with this American friend of mine who was telling me about the places he visited in the Philippines. It was also his first time to see this marvelous landmark of the United States. Out of curiosity I asked my American classmates and to my surprise four out of five admitted that they have not climbed the Statue of Liberty much more even been to New York themselves.

I tried to rationalize why this is so, at least in the Filipino context. Travel is a luxury that many Filipinos could not afford. These Filipinos who had the opportunity of seeing other places were there to work and were just enjoying the fruits of their labor. While working in a foreign country they earn enough money to travel and hence they can go to other places to entertain themselves and to escape from the loneliness of being away from friends and family. In short, most of them were accidental tourists. Later, they invite their families to visit them and they bring them to the same places they discovered earlier as worthwhile destinations.

There is another group of Filipinos, rather small, who also become accidental tourists. These are the government scholars; or representatives of private corporations or government agencies that are sent to another country in furtherance of their company’s or agency’s objectives. In addition to the seminars/conferences, business transactions, and training are tour packages organized and scheduled by their hosts. These are done as part of their company’s or agency’s strategy to facilitate their company business interests, increase cooperation in their joint undertakings and optimize the learning experience of their students. Over and above that, most governments encourage these programs as part of their tourism strategy.

There is still another group that travels to other countries, this time primarily as tourists. These are the people who can afford and can therefore choose where they would like to go. Instead of seeing their own country, they chose foreign destinations instead. I have a friend who belongs to this group. He earned his millions in the Philippines and when he was comfortable enough to travel, he went to Australia first then to China, among the other foreign places he went to later on. I know for a fact that he has not been to Boracay or Baguio or Davao before his foreign travels because I invited him in a number of instances to these places. However, for whatever reasons I didn’t bother ask, he traveled to Boracay, Tagaytay and Davao after having been abroad. He also went to Baguio with other friends, accordingly to play golf.

One can only realize the beauty of his country when he gets a chance to look at it from a distance or when he makes a comparison after visiting another country. He learns to patronize his own after a supposedly enriching experience in a foreign land. I talked to a lot of Filipinos who made it good in another country. In planning their vacation to the Philippines, they normally include visits to places they have not been to before they went abroad.

The best things that I got from my travels abroad were not the first class military training that I had; nor the chance to meet people of another culture; nor the extra dollars that I save from my travel allowance. What I value the most was the opportunity to visit different places that gave me a basis for comparison. It allowed me to see my country in another perspective and made me realize that I have a beautiful country, more beautiful than any place in the whole world and a country that I can be proud of – my native Philippines.

The Other Friendly Observer

 

My friend, Arthur Keefe, who writes a critical column in the News Record using “The Friendly Observer” as his byline, is on a leave of absence for a few months in order to visit his family in his native Bristol, England. This nice guy introduced me to the News Record when he first brought copies of it and distributed them to the early morning coffee drinkers in a cozy but small coffee shop in Chico Street at San Julio Subdivision some three months ago. Since then, he gave us free copies each time the paper comes out with its weekly issue.

The FRIENDLY OBSERVER, like the other gentlemen in his favorite table, is a regular visitor to this coffee shop. After bringing his daughter to school in the morning, he passes by the coffee shop to exchange ideas on issues of local and national significance that comes to his attention. Probably, he feels that this is the best place where one can get freewheeling and critical exchange of opinions of mutual interest to him and the other guys. Admittedly, I feel the same, too. I also go to this coffee shop not as a matter of convenience after my morning walk or jog at the nearby Center Mall but more especially for the opportunity to socialize with friends. To my expectation, the other guys’ reasons for coming are the same. They go there for the intellectual intercourse or the “kutso-kutso” as we call it in our native lingo. After all, most of us can take coffee at home or in other native coffee shops. However, the same kind of “kutso-kutso” may not be present.

I must admit that as a former soldier, I hated the morning reveille and road runs. It was always heaven for me when another call of duty allows me to be absent from this twice a week regimen. To my surprise as a retired soldier now living in San Carlos City, I find delight and look forward to my almost daily jog/walk and the coffee that followed it. I am not much of a coffee drinker myself, so I realized that the exchange of ideas that happens while drinking coffee was the most pleasurable part of the activity. Two or more bright ideas and opinions often result to a better one or a hybrid. Perhaps it would be nice to share these ideas and opinions with our kababayans. This gave me the idea to try my hand in writing at the News Record.

Enough for the introductions or the foreplay as some naughty coffee drinkers might prefer it to be called. As mentioned earlier, the FRIENDLY OBSERVER is away for a while and naturally, the News Record will come out with issues sans his well read column. I will attempt to fill-in this gap; hence, I will call my column as THE OTHER FRIENDLY OBSERVER while I still don’t have a column to call my own.

In one of his previous articles, the FRIENDLY OBSERVER made a simple analysis for the failure of our country to improve the living standards of its people when it used to be way ahead of its neighbors some 50 years ago. Now, almost everyone has overtaken the Philippines in good governance, scientific advancements, urban planning and even in food production. Some say it was the result of history – its proud Malay origins, the 300 years of oppression by the Spaniards and the democratic way of life imposed by the Americans, among others, – which resulted to the unique psychology of the Filipino, his relaxed attitude towards life, and his high tolerance to the unusual, including graft and corruption in government.

One would ask, why Filipinos stay poor when the Philippines is sitting on rich mineral, marine and forest resources? Most of the time we blame our deplorable conditions to our politicians whom we claim to be corrupt, inept and insincere. Why blame just them? We have to blame ourselves, too. In the first place, we were the ones who placed them in office and therefore we deserve the kind of poor services and bad governance they deliver. Just a few months after elections, we normally complain about the broken promises, the lack of basic services and the abundant graft and corruption. Yet, during election time, we again vote for the same people in exchange for material gains or temporary personal favors without scrutinizing their credentials and their capacity to deliver. Hence we all deserve what we get!

In the last presidential elections, one smart guy tried to analyze the several “presidentiables” by looking into their positive attributes that would make him an ideal president. Accordingly, a president should be one with the unquestionable integrity and sincerity of Senator (now President) Aquino; the charisma of Ex President Erap Estrada; the brilliance of Secretary Teodoro; the political will of Senator Gordon and Administrator Fernando; the divine inspiration of Eddie Villanueva; and the vast resources of Senator Manny Villar. Naturally, not one of them posses all the attributes cited at the desired strategic level, and one would retort that in such a case, none of them can become an ideal president. True indeed!

Choosing a president that can govern a country with so many problems such as ours is a task that needs to be deeply thought of by all concerned and well meaning Filipinos. During the last national elections, the Filipino was then confronted with a difficult choice. Would the Filipino people choose somebody who is undisputedly honest but whose capacity to influence the whole government to be graft ridden is still to be proven? Or can he use his simple honesty to put bread on the table of Juan de la Cruz? Or would the Filipino people opt for somebody who has an excellent academic achievement and an outstanding public service record but whose loyalty to the Filipino people may be subject to the whims of the former administration? 0r would the people select somebody who is identified with the masses and loved by them but whose previous governance was marred by a number of scandals? Or somebody whose actions are based on religious morality and backed by a minority religious sect whose members may exert a strong influence on future public policy? Or somebody who had the strong resolve and the capacity to “operationalize” government programs but may not understand if these programs are acceptable to the people much less intended for the benefit of the majority? Or somebody so obsessed with becoming president that he is willing to spend a fortune and even make a pact with the devil just to win the elections but may sell the country to the highest bidder in order to make more millions?

As history had it, the Filipino people voted for the candidate whose strong attribute was honesty and integrity. Suffice it to say, Juan de la Cruz wants an honest president – something that is rare nowadays! Now did we make the right choice? Hopefully we did! President Noy may be other things but nobody would doubt his integrity. An honest man at the top of government is a good start for a country that is ridden by graft and corruption at all levels and sectors of government. Can President Noy transform the government into an honest and well performing bureaucracy that would be relevant to the ordinary Filipino? Or will honesty just remain in the heart and the spirit of our President?

We may recall that the late former President Cory Aquino, the President’s mother, was an epitome of honesty. She was president at a revolutionary time when our people were ready to embrace a reformed civil society and government, courtesy of the world famous EDSA revolution. She was our president at the time when people wanted an overhaul in government and we had high hopes on her. President Cory didn’t waiver in her commitment for an honest government. She was an ideal public servant in so far as honesty in public office is concerned. That was where it ended. Did we eradicate graft and corruption? Did the lives of the Filipinos improve? You be the better judge!!!

President Noy is in the mold of his mother Cory – full of honesty and idealism. We hope though that his integrity will matter this time.

(The above article was published in the News Record in Dec 2010)