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)
No comments:
Post a Comment