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)