In the preceding lessons, we have discussed some primary sources

from two different historical periods, the pre-colonial and Spanish colonial
periods. For this week, we will analyze the historical content and context of
primary sources during the post-Spanish period, focusing on the birth of
Philippine Independence and the first Philippine Republic.
The Spanish regime lasted for about three hundred thirty-three years,
that was considered the longest regime in Philippine History. The Filipino
revolutionary forces under Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo proclaimed the
sovereignty and independence of the Philippine islands from Spanish
colonization in Kawit, Cavite on June 12, 1898. Then on January 23, 1899,
the First Philippine Republic was inaugurated after the promulgation of the
Malolos Constitution.
 
LESSON PROPER

1. 1898 Declaration of Philippine

Independence
by: Ambrosio Rianzares Bautista
 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Ambrosio Rianzares Bautista (17 December 1830 – 4 December 1903),
also known as Don Bosyong, was a lawyer and author of the Declaration of
Philippine Independence document. A distant relative of the Rizal family,
Philippine national hero Jose Rizal always sought his advice during his
school days in Manila.
Bautista solicited funds to finance the campaign for the reforms in the
Philippines. He then became a member of the La Liga Filipino, Cuerpo de
Compromisarios, and La Propaganda. In 1896, the Spaniards arrested and
imprisoned him at Fort Santiago, as he was suspected for being involved in
the Philippine Revolution. He defended himself and was later released from
prison. He became the first adviser of President Emilio Aguinaldo in 1898,
and subsequently wrote the Declaration of Philippine Independence. On 14
July 1899, Bautista was elected vice-president of Tarlac's Revolutionary
Congress. He was later appointed judge of the Court of First Instance of
Pangasinan.
 
 

CONTEXT ANALYSIS
The Act of Declaration of Philippine Independence was written and
was read by Ambrosio Rianzares Bautista in Spanish and translated by
Sulpicio Guevara. It was written to use for the declaration of freedom of the
Philippines after the war against America and Spain. The declaration was
signed by 98 persons and at the end of it, emphasizing an American
present in there with no official role. It is said that there are American army
officer who witnessed. The main reason for having the declaration is to
symbolize that Philippines has the right to be independent and free from
the Spaniards and is no longer tied politically with them.
With a government in operation. Aguinaldo thought that it was
necessary to declare the independence of the Philippines. He believed that
such a more would inspire the people to fight more eagerly against the
Spaniards and at the same time, lead the foreign countries to recognize the
independence of the country. Mabini, who had by now been made
Aguinaldo’s unofficial adviser, objected. He based his objection on the fact
that it was more important to reorganize the government in such a manner
as to convince the foreign powers of the competence and stability of the
new government than to proclaim Philippine independence at such an early
period. Aguinaldo, however, stood his ground and won.
 On June 12, between four and five in the afternoon, Aguinaldo, in the
presence of a huge crowd, proclaimed the independence of the Philippines
at Cavite el Viejo (Kawit). For the first time, the Philippine National Flag,
made in Hongkong by Mrs. Marcela Agoncillo, assisted by Lorenza
Agoncillo and Delfina Herboza, was officially hoisted and the Philippine
National March played in public. The Act of the Declaration of
Independence was prepared by Ambrosio Rianzares Bautista, who also
read it. A passage in the Declaration reminds one of another passage in
the American Declaration of Independence. The Philippine Declaration was
signed by ninety-eight persons, among them an American army officer who
witnessed the proclamation. The proclamation of Philippine independence
was, however, promulgated on August 1 when many towns has already
been organized under the rules laid down by the Dictatorial Government.
 
CONTENT ANALYSIS
Every year, the country commemorates the anniversary of the
Philippine Independence proclaimed on 12 June 1898, in the province of
Cavite. Indeed, such event is a significant turning point in the history of the
country because it signaled the end of the 333 years of Spanish
colonization. There have been numerous studies done on the events
leading to the independence of the country but very few students had the
chance to read the actual document of the declaration. This is in spite of
the historical importance of the document and the details that the document
reveals on the rationale and circumstances of that historical day in Cavite.
Interestingly, reading the details of the said document in hindsight is telling
of the kind of government that was created under Aguinaldo, and the
forthcoming hand of the United States of America in the next few years of
the newly created republic. The declaration was a short 2,000-word
document, which summarized the reason behind the revolution against
Spain, the war for independence, and the future of the new republic under
Emilio Aguinaldo.
The proclamation commenced with a characterization of the
conditions in the Philippines during the Spanish colonial period. The
document specifically mentioned abuses and inequalities in the colony. The
declaration says:
"...taking into consideration, that their inhabitants being already
weary of bearing the ominous yoke of Spanish domination, on
 account of the arbitrary arrests and harsh treatment practiced
by the Civil Guard to the extent of causing death with the
connivance and even with the express orders of their
commanders, who sometimes went to the extreme of ordering
the shooting of prisoners under the pretext that they were
attempting to escape, in violation of the provisions of the
Regulations of their Corps, which abuses were unpunished and
on account of the unjust deportations, especially those decreed
by General Blanco, of eminent personages and of high social
position, at the instigation of the Archbishop and friars
interested in keeping them out of the way for their own selfish
and avaricious purpose, deportations which are quickly brought
about. By a method of procedure more execrable than that of
the inquisition and which every civilized nation rejects on
account or a decision being rendered without a hearing of the
persons accused."
The above passage demonstrates the justifications behind the
revolution against Spain. Specifically cited are the abuse by the Civil
Guards and the unlawful shooting of prisoners whom they alleged as
attempting to escape. The passage also condemns the unequal protection
of the law between the Filipino people and the "eminent personages."
Moreover, the line mentions the avarice and greed of the clergy like the
friars and the Archbishop himself. Lastly, the passage also condemns what
they saw as the unjust deportation and rendering of other decision without
proper hearing, expected of any civilized nation.
From here, the proclamation proceeded with a brief historical
overview of the Spanish occupation since Magellan's arrival in Visayas until
the Philippine Revolution, with specific details about the latter, especially
after the Pact of Biak-na-Bato had collapsed. The document narrates the
spread of the movement "like an electric spark" through different towns and
provinces like Bataan, Pampanga, Batangas, Bulacan, Laguna, and
Morong, and the quick decline of Spanish forces in the same provinces.
The revolt also reached Visayas; thus, the independence of the country
was ensured. The document also mentions Rizal's execution, calling it
unjust. The execution, as written in the document, was done to "please the
greedy body of friars in their insatiable desire to seek revenge upon and
exterminate all those who are opposed to their Machiavellian purposes,
which tramples upon the penal code prescribed for these islands." The
document also narrates the Cavite Mutiny of January 1872 that caused the
infamous execution of the martyred native priests Jose Burgos, Mariano
Gomez, and Jacinto Zamora, "whose innocent blood was shed through the
intrigues of those so-called religious orders" that incited the three secular
priests in the said mutiny.
The proclamation of independence also invokes that the established
republic would be led under the dictatorship of Emilio Aguinaldo. The first
mention was at the very beginning of the proclamation. It stated:
"In the town of Cavite Viejo, in this province of Cavite, on
the twelfth day of June eighteen hundred and ninety-eight,
before me, Don Ambrosio Rianzares Bautista, Auditor of War
and Special Commissioner appointed to proclaim solemnize
this act by the Dictatorial Government of these Philippine
islands, for the purposes and by virtue of the circular addressed
by the Eminent Dictator of the same Don Emilio Aguinaldo y
Famy."
The same was repeated toward the last part of the proclamation. It
states:
"We acknowledge, approve and confirm together with the
orders that have been issued therefrom. the Dictatorship
established by Don Emilio Aguinaldo whom we honor as the
Supreme Chief of this Nation, which this day commences to
have a life of its own, in the belief' that the is the instrument
selected by God in spite of his humble origin, to effect the
redemption of this unfortunate people, as foretold by Doctor
Jose Rizal in the magnificent verses which he composed when
he was preparing to be shot, liberating them from the yoke of
Spanish domination in punishment of the impunity with which
their Government allowed the commission of abuses by its
subordinates."
Another detail in the proclamation that is worth looking at is its
explanation on the Philippine flag that was first waved on the same day.
The document explained:
"And finally, it was unanimously resolved that, this Nation,
independent from this clay, must use the same flag used
heretofore, whose design and colors and described in the
accompanying drawing, with design representing in natural
colors the three arms referred to. The white triangle represents
 the distinctive emblem of the famous Katipunan Society, which
by means of its compact of blood urged on the masses of the
people to insurrection; the three stars represent the three
principal Islands of this Archipelago, Luzon, Mindanao and
Panay, in which this insurrectionary movement broke out; the
sun represents the gigantic strides that have been made by the
sons of this land on the road of progress and civilization, its
eight rays symbolizing the eight provinces of Manila. Cavite,
Bulacan, Pampanga, Nueva Ecija, Bataan, Laguna and
Batangas, which were declared in a state of war almost as
soon as the first insurrectionary movement was initiated; and
the colors blue, red and white, commemorate those of the flag
of the United States of North America, in manifestation of our
profound gratitude towards that Great Nation for the
disinterested protection she is extending to us and will continue
to extend to us."
This often-overlooked detail reveals much about the historically
accurate meaning behind the most widely known national symbol in the
Philippines. It is not known by many for example, that the white triangle
was derived from the symbol of the Katipunan. The red and blue colors of
the flag are often associated with courage and peace, respectively. Our
basic education omits the fact that those colors were taken from the flag of
the United States. While it can always be argued that symbolic meaning
can always change and be reinterpreted, the original symbolic meaning of
something presents us several historical truths that can explain the
subsequent events, which unfolded after the declaration of independence
on the 12th day of June 1898.
 

1. The Malolos Constitution and the First

Philippine Republic
by: Felipe G. Calderon
 
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Felipe Gonzales Calderon, known as the 'Father of the Malolos
Constitution", was born on April 4, 1868 in Santa Cruz de Malabon now
Tanza), Cavite, to a Spanish nobleman, Don Jose Gonzales Calderon, and
Doña Manuela Roca who was of Spanish-Filipino blood. Calderon was the
author of the Malolos Constitution, which was enacted on January 20, 1899
by the Malolos Congress that established the First Philippine Republic. The
original was written in Spanish, which became the first official language of
the Philippines.
Notably, Calderon established two law universities -- Liceo de Manila,
the first law college in the Philippines, and the Escuela de Derecho (School
of Duties). He taught in both institutions. In 1904, he was appointed
member of a commission to draft a proposed Penal Code. He also
organized the La Proteccion de la Infancia (The Protection of Infants) that
established a humanitarian institution to protect and care for disadvantaged
children. His Encyclopedia Filipinas was published in 1908.
He died on July 6, 1908 at the age of 40.
 
 

CONTEXT ANALYSIS
After returning to the islands. Aguinaldo wasted little time in setting up
an independent government. On June 12, 1898, a declaration of
independence modeled on the American one, was proclaimed at his
headquarters in Cavite. It was at this time that Apolinario Mabini. a law, and
political thinker, came to prominence as Aguinaldo’s principal adviser. Born
into a poor indio family but educated at the University of Santo Tomas, he
advocated "simultaneous external and internal revolution," a philosophy
that unsettled the more conservative landowners and ilustrados who initially
supported Aguinaldo. For Mabini, true independence for the Philippines
would mean not simply liberation from Spain (or from any other colonial
power) but also educating the people for self government and abandoning,
the paternalistic, colonial mentality that the Spanish had cultivated over the
centuries. Mabini's The True Decalogue, published in July 1898 in the form
of ten commandments, used this medium, somewhat paradoxically, to
promote critical thinking and a reform of customs and attitudes. His
Constitutional Program for the Philippine Republic, published at the same
time, elaborated his ideas on political institutions.
On September 15,1898, a revolutionary congress was convened at
Malolos, a market town located thirty-two kilometer north of Manila, for the
purpose of drawing up a constitution for the new republic. A document was
approved by the congress on November 2,1898. Modeled on the
constitution of France, Belgium, and Latin American countries, it was
promulgated at Malolos on January 21, 1899, and two days later Aguinaldo
was inaugurated as president.
American observers traveling in Luzon commented that the areas
controlled by the republic seemed peaceful and well governed. The Malolos
congress had set up schools, a military academy, and the Literary
University of the Philippines. Government finances were organized, and
new currency was issued. The army and navy were established on a
regular basis. having regional commands. The accomplishments of the
Filipino government, however, counted for little in the eyes of the great
powers as the transfer of the islands from Spanish to United States rule
was arranged in the closing months of 1898.
The Treaty of Paris aroused anger among Filipinos. Reacting to the
US$20 million sum paid to Spain, La Independencia (Independence), a
newspaper published in Manila by a revolutionary. General Antonio Luna,
stated that "people are not to be bought and sold like horses and houses.
Upon the announcement of the treaty, the radicals, Mabini and Luna,
prepared for war, and provisional articles were added to the constitution
giving President Aguinaldo dictatorial powers in times of emergency.
President William McKinley issued a proclamation on December 21, 1898,
declaring United States policy to be one of "Benevolent Assimilation" in
which "the mild sway of justice and right" would be substituted for "arbitrary
rule." When this was published in the islands on January 4, 1899,
references to "American sovereignty" having been prudently deleted,
Aguinaldo issued his own proclamation that condemned "violent and
aggressive seizure" by the United States and threatened war.
 
CONTENT ANALYSIS
Excerpts from the Malolos Constitution
Article 3. Sovereignty resides exclusively in the people.
Article 5. The State recognizes the freedom and equality of all
religions, as well as the separation of Church and State.
Article 19. No Filipino in the full enjoyment of his civil and political
rights shall be hindered in the free exercise of the same.
Article 20.1. Neither shall any Filipino be deprived of: The right of
expressing freely his ideas and opinions either by word or by writing,
availing himself of the press or any other similar means.
Article 20.2. Neither shall any Filipino be deprived of: The right of
joining any association for all the objects of human life which may not
be contrary to public morals.
Article 23. Any Filipino can find and maintain establishments of
instruction or of education, in accordance with the regulations that
may be established. Popular education shall be obligatory and
gratuitous in the schools of the nation.
 
Table of Titles
             1.     The Republic
             2.     The Government
             3.     Religion
             4.     The Filipinos and Their National and Individual Rights
             5.     The Legislative Power
             6.     The Permanent Commission
             7.     The Executive Power
             8.     The President of the Republic
             9.      The Secretaries of Government
            10.     The Judicial Power
            11.     Provincial and Popular Assemblies
            12.    Administration of the State
            13.    Amendment of the Constitution
            14.    Constitutional Observance, Oath and Language
 
The Malolos constitution is the first important Filipino document ever
produced by the people's representatives. It is anchored in democratic
traditions that ultimately had their roots in American soil. It created a
Filipino state whose government was "popular, representative and
responsible" with three distinct branches -- the executive, the legislative
and the judicial. The constitution specifically provided for safeguards
against abuses, and enumerated the national and individual rights not only
of the Filipinos and of the aliens.
The legislative powers were exercised by the Assembly of
Representatives composed of delegates elected according to law. To make
the function of Congress continuous, the document provided for a
Permanent Commission which would sit as a law-making body when
Congress was not in session. The assembly elected the President of the
Republic. The Cabinet, composed of the Secretaries of the different
Departments of the government, was responsible not to the President, but
to the Assembly. The administration of justice was vested in the Supreme
Court and in inferior courts to be established according to law. The Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court was to be elected by the Assembly with the
concurrence of the President and the Cabinet.
The constitution as a whole is a monument to the capacity of the
Filipinos to chart their own course along democratic lines. In a period of
storm and stress, it symbolized the ideals of a people who had emerged
from the Dark Ages into the Light of Reason.
 
THE MALOLOS REPUBLIC
Owing to the objections of Mabini to some provisions in the
Constitution, Aguinaldo did not immediately promulgate it.
The leaders of Congress compromised by inserting some
amendments. After promulgating the Malolos Constitution, the Filipino
leaders proceeded to inaugurate the first Filipino Republic on January 23,
1899.
 
 In the second part our lesson, we will examine some political
caricatures/cartoons, which is a form of art that gained full expression
during the American era. These cartoons were made by Filipino artists to
record national attitudes toward the coming of the Americans as well as the
changing mores and times in the Philippines.
Cartoons became an effective tool of publicizing opinions through
heavy use of symbolism, which is different from a verbose written editorial
and opinion pieces. The unique way that a caricature represents opinion
and captures the audience's imagination is reason enough for historians to
examine these political cartoons. Commentaries in mass media inevitably
shape public opinion and such kind of opinion is worthy of historical
examination (Readings in Philippine History, 2018).
 
LESSON PROPER

Political Caricatures of the American Era

by: Alfred McCoy
 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Born on June 8,1945 in Concord, Massachusetts, United States, Dr.
Alfred "Al” W.  McCoy is a Professor of SE Asian History at the University
of Wisconsin at Madison where he also serves as director of the Center for
SE Asian Studies. He's spent the past quarter-century writing out the
politics and history of the optimum trade.
McCoy has spent the thirty years writing about Southeast Asian
History and politics. His publications include Philippine Cartoons (1985),
Anarchy of families (1994), Closer Than rothers: Manhood at the Philippine
Military Academy (2000) and Lives at the Margin (2001).
After earning a Ph.D. in Southeast Asian history at Yale, the writings
of McCoy on this region has focused on two topics; Philippine Political
History and Global Opium Trafficking. The Philippines remains the major
focus of his research. His teaching interests include; Modern Philippine
social and political history, U.S. foreign policy; Colonial empires in
Southeast Asia; illicit drug trafficking; and CIA covert operations.
 
 

POLITICAL CARICATURES
In his book Philippine Cartoons: Political Caricature of the American
Era (1900-1944), Alfred McCoy, together with Alfredo Roces, compiled
political cartoons published in newspaper dailies and periodicals in the
aforementioned time period. For this part, we are going to look at selected
cartoons and explain the context of each one.
 
The first example shown above was published in The Independent on May
20, 1916. The cartoon shows a politician from Tondo, named Dr. Santos,
passing his crown to his brother-in-law, Dr. Barcelona. A Filipino guy is
depicted wearing salakot and barong tagalog was trying to stop Santos,
telling the latter to stop giving Barcelona the crown because it is not his to
begin with.
 
The second cartoon was also published by The Independent on 16 June
1917. This was drawn by Fernando Amorsolo and was aimed as a
commentary to the workings of Manila Police at that period. Here, we see a
Filipino child who stole a skinny chicken because he had nothing to eat.
The police officer was relentlessly pursuing the said child. A man wearing
a salakot, labeled Juan de la Cruz was grabbing the officer, telling him to
leave the small-time pickpockets and thieves and to turn at the great
thieves instead. He was pointing to huge warehouses containing bulks of
rice, milk, and grocery products.
 
The third cartoon was a commentary on the unprecedented cases of
colorum automobiles in the city streets. The Philippine Free Press
published this commentary when fatal accidents involving colorum vehicles
and taxis occurred too often already.
 
The fourth cartoon depicts a cinema. A blown-up officer was at the screen
saying that couples are not allowed to neck or make love in the theater.
Two youngsters looked horrified while an older couple seemed amused.
 
The next cartoon was published by The Independent on 27 November
1915. Here, we see the caricature of Uncle Sam riding a chariot pulled by
Filipinos wearing school uniforms. The Filipino boys were carrying
American objects like baseball bats, whiskey, and boxing gloves. McCoy, in
his caption to the said cartoon, says that this cartoon was based on an
event in 1907 when William Howard Taft was brought to the Manila pier
riding a chariot pulled by students of Liceo de Manila. Such was
condemned by the nationalists at that time.
 
 The last cartoon was published by Lipang Kalabaw on 24 August
1907. In the picture, we can see Uncle Sam rationing porridge to the
politicians and members of the Progresista Party (sometimes known as
the Federalista Party) while members of the Nacionalista Party look on and
wait for their turn. This cartoon depicts the patronage of the United States
being coveted by politicians from either of the party.
 
ANALYSIS OF THE POLITICAL CARICATURES
The transition from the Spanish Colonial period to the American
Occupation period demonstrated different strands of changes and shifts in
culture, society, and politics. The Americans drastically introduced
democracy to the nascent nation and the consequences were far from
ideal. Aside from this, it was also during the American period that Filipinos
were introduced to different manifestations of modernity like healthcare,
modern transportation, and media. This ushered in a more open and freer
press. The post-independence and the post-Filipino-American period in the
Philippines were experienced differently by Filipinos coming from different
classes. The upper principalia class experienced economic prosperity with
the opening up of the Philippine economy to the United States but the
majority of the poor Filipino remained poor, desperate, and victims of state
repression.
 
The selected cartoons illustrate not only the opinion of certain media
outfits about the Philippine society during the American period but also
paint a broad image of society and politics under the United States. In the
arena of politics. for example, we see the price that Filipinos paid for the
democracy modeled after the Americans. First, it seemed that the Filipino
politicians at that time did not understand well enough the essence of
democracy and the accompanying democratic institutions and processes.
This can be seen in the rising dynastic politics in Tondo as depicted in the
cartoon published by The Independent. Patronage also became influential
and powerful, not only between clients and patrons but also between the
newly formed political parties composed of the elite and the United States.
This was depicted in the cartoon where the United States, represented by
Uncle Sam, provided dole outs for members of the Federalista while
the Nacionalista politicians looked on and waited for their turn. Thus, the
essence of competing political parties to enforce choices among the voters
was cancelled out. The problem continues up to the present where
politicians transfer from one party to another depending on which party was
powerful in specific periods of time.
 
The transition from a Catholic-centered. Spanish-Filipino society to an
imperial American-assimilated one, and its complications, were also
depicted in the cartoons. One example is the unprecedented increase of
motorized vehicles in the city. Automobiles became a popular mode of
transportation in the city and led to the emergence of taxis. However, the
laws and policy implementation were mediocre. This resulted in the
increasing colorum and unlicensed vehicles transporting people around the
city. The rules governing the issuance of driver's license was loose and
traffic police could not be bothered by rampant violations of traffic rules.
This is a direct consequence of the drastic urbanization of the Philippine
society. Another example is what McCoy called the "sexual revolution" that
occurred in the 1930s. Young people, as early as that period, disturbed the
conservative Filipino mindset by engaging in daring sexual activities in
public spaces like cinemas. Here, we can see how that period was the
meeting point between the conservative past and the liberated future of the
Philippines.
 
Lastly, the cartoons also illustrated the conditions of poor Filipinos in
the Philippines now governed by the United States. From the looks of it,
nothing much has changed. For example, a cartoon depicted how police
authorities oppress petty Filipino criminals while turning a blind eye on
hoarders who monopolize goods in their huge warehouses (presumably
Chinese merchants). The other cartoon depicts how Americans controlled
Filipinos through seemingly harmless American objects. By controlling their
consciousness and mentality, Americans got to control and subjugate
Filipinos.
For this topic, we are going to study Filipino Grievances against
Governor Wood which served as impeachment request to the Governor.
Although Governor Wood established improvements in some areas, his
personality caused strong antagonism between him and Filipino political
leaders. They feared that the autonomy gained from previous
administration might be lost. The struggles between Wood and Filipino
leaders enhanced the nationalistic spirit of the people. However, the crisis
against his administration was eased shortly as Governor Wood died due
surgery failure in the United States.
Unlike other sources discussed from previous modules, this primary
source was authored and collaborated by two politicians, Jose Abad
Santos and George Jacobo.
 
  LESSON PROPER

FILIPINO GRIEVANCES AGAINST

GOVERNOR WOOD
 by: Jose Abad Santos
 

AUTHORS' BACKGROUND

 
 
Jose Abad Santos was born in San Fernando, Pampanga. He was a
Pencionado and studied law in Northwestern University in Evanston,
Illinois.  He was appointed Undersecretary of Justice in 1921 but gave up
the position at the height of the cabinet crisis in 1923. He served as chief
legal counsel of the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of
Representative and it was during this time when he joined the Anti-Wood
campaign.  He was appointed Associate Justice of the Supreme Court in
1932 and became Chief Justice nine years later. On April 11, 1942, the
Japanese army arrested him in Barili, Cebu and he was subsequently
brought to Mindanao. On May 7, 1942, he was executed in Malabang,
Lanao in the presence of his son Pepito.
 
  
 
 
 
Jorge Bocobo was born in Gerona, Tarlac on October 19, 1886. His
parents were Tranquilino Bocobo and Rita Teodora Tabago.  In 1907, he
earned his Bachelor of Law degree from Indiana University under the
Pensionado program of the colonial government. He started his career as
law clerk in the Executive Bureau and in 1911, he began teaching in the
U.P. College of Law.  In 1917, he was appointed Full Professor of Law and
acting Dean of the College.  He was a close associate of Manuel L. 
Quezon and served as one of his speech writers. He  became president  of 
the  University of  the Philippines from 1934 to  1939  and Associate 
Justice of  the Supreme Court from 1942-1944.  He died on July 23, 1965
Jorge Bocobo was born in Gerona, Tarlac on October 19, 1886. In 1907,
he earned his Bachelor of Law degree from Indiana University under the
Pensionado program of the colonial government.  He was a close associate
of Manuel L.  Quezon and served as one of his speech writers. He became
president of the University of the Philippines from 1934 to 1939 and
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court from 1942-1944.  He died on July
23, 1965.
 
 

GOVERNOR LEONARD WOOD AND THE FILIPINOS

 After Woods replaced the highly popular Harrison on October 5,
1921, he vetoed 64 of 217 bills passed by the Legislature compared to only
five under Harrison. According to the Filipinos, the bills were dismissed on
the flimsiest motives. Wood for his part saw the vetoed bills as poorly made
or unconstitutional. The strictness of Wood was perceived as an affront to
the newly found liberties by Filipino leaders like Quezon. Wood was also
aghast to learn that the government was in a financial crisis and it was
subsidizing losing corporations like the Philippine National Bank, the Manila
Railway Company, and Manila Coal Company which became inefficient
because of having too many employees, many of whom were
recommended by Filipino officials. Wood moved to streamline these
corporations and make them self-sufficient. The threat of removing officials
placed there by patronage of Filipino officials made Wood their personal
enemy.
The point of confrontation between Wood and the Filipino officials led
by Quezon came to the fore with the Cabinet Crisis of 1923. This crisis was
sparked over Wood’s order to reinstate an American police detective
named Ray Conley. Conley was the head of vice squad of the Manila
Police tasked with running after the operators of gambling and opium den
and their patrons. He was charged with accepting bribes from gambling
den operators apparently as revenge by criminal elements because of his
efficient drive against them. The city mayor of Manila, Ramon Fernandez,
and the Secretary of Interior, Jose P. Laurel, believed in Conley’s guilt. The
Court of First Instance, however, found the evidence against Conley as
insufficient and inconsistent, and ordered the case against the detective
dismissed. Wood ordered Conley reinstated but Conley’s enemies wanted
him charged administratively of keeping a mistress and having made false
statement that the mistress was his wife. Laurel tried to have Conley
investigated administratively but Wood objected saying that this would
make Conley’s accusers his judges. Wood himself encouraged the
investigation of Conley on the charge of keeping a mistress and making
false statement. An independent Committee of Investigation was convened
and it found Conley not guilty of the charges. Wood then sent a
memorandum to Laurel ordering Conley’s reinstatement. Laurel transmitted
a letter to Mayor Fernandez requesting compliance and then tendered his
resignation as Secretary of the Interior. Conley who was later reinstated,
retired with full benefits.
Filipino officials then accused Wood of meddling in the details of the
local government which should have been handled by the Filipinos.
Quezon saw this incident as an opportunity to embarrass Governor Wood
by resigning form the Council of State. At the time, the ruling Nacionalista
party was facing the prospect of defeat in the 1923 elections. Quezon
needed a villain to fight and keep himself in power. Following Quezon’s
resignation, Mayor of Manila, Speaker of the House, Manuel Roxas, and all
the Filipino Department Secretaries also resigned. Wood accepted the
mass resignation of the Filipino officials. Quezon, as President of the
Philippine senate, refused to confirm for his part, and refused to confirm all
officials appointed by Wood to replace the officials who resigned.  The
Cabinet Crisis plagued the rest of Wood’s term until his death on August 7,
1927 while being operated on for a brain tumor.
 

THE PROTEST
"In the face of this critical situation, we, the constitutional
representatives of the Filipino people, met to deliberate upon the
present difficulties existing in the Government of the Philippine
Islands and to determine how best to preserve the supremacy and
majesty of the laws and to safeguard the right and liberties of our
people, having faith in the sense of justice of the people of the United
States and inspired by her patriotic example in the early days of her
history, do hereby, in our behalf and in the name of the Filipino
people, solemnly and publicly make known our most vigorous protest
against the arbitrary acts and usurpations of the present Governor-
General of the Philippine Islands, particularly against Executive Order
No."
Philippines being in Martial Law under the leadership of
Ferdinand Marcos experienced a lot of brutality from the government. This
urged Corazon Aquino to be a strong advocate for the restoration of
democratic country to bring back the power to Filipino people. To declare
freedom from Marcos regime, to mark a new beginning for Filipinos and to
appeal financial assistance to cope with all the adversities the Philippines is
facing during her time were the intentions of her speech. She also credited
her husband Ninoy Aquino for conceptualizing achieving peace through
peaceful means in her speech. Corazon being the first female president
successfully restored civil rights and abolish 1973 constitution and made
remarkable contributions to the Philippines.
 
LESSON PROPER

Speech of Her Excellency Corazon C.

Aquino
President of the Philippines
During the Joint Session of the United
States Congress
 

AUTHOR’S BACKGROUND
President Corazon C. Aquino was the 11th president and the first female
president of the Philippines. When President Ferdinand Marcos called for a
snap election in 1986, she became the opposition’s presidential candidate.
When she narrowly lost the election, Aquino and her supporters challenged
the results. This resulted to the so-called EDSA revolution, prompting
Marcos to seek exile in Hawaii. On the 25th of February 1986, Aquino was
sworn into office.

Speech of Her Excellency Corazon C. Aquino

President of the Philippines
During the Joint Session of the United States Congress

 
Three years ago, I left America in grief to bury my husband, Ninoy Aquino.
I thought I had left it also to lay to rest his restless dream of Philippine
freedom. Today, I have returned as the president of a free people.
In burying Ninoy, a whole nation honored him. By that brave and selfless
act of giving honor, a nation in shame recovered its own. A country that
had lost faith in its future found it in a faithless and brazen act of murder.
So in giving, we receive, in losing we find, and out of defeat, we snatched
our victory.
For the nation, Ninoy became the pleasing sacrifice that answered their
prayers for freedom. For myself and our children, Ninoy was a loving
husband and father. His loss, three times in our lives, was always a deep
and painful one.
Fourteen years ago, this month was the first time we lost him. A president-
turned-dictator, and traitor to his oath, suspended the Constitution and shut
down the Congress that was much like this one before which I am honored
to speak. He detained my husband along with thousands of others –
senators, publishers and anyone who had spoken up for the democracy as
its end drew near. But for Ninoy, a long and cruel ordeal was reserved. The
dictator already knew that Ninoy was not a body merely to be imprisoned
but a spirit he must break. For even as the dictatorship demolished one by
one the institutions of democracy – the press, the Congress, the
independence of the judiciary, the protection of the Bill of Rights – Ninoy
kept their spirit alive in himself.
The government sought to break him by indignities and terror. They locked
him up in a tiny, nearly airless cell in a military camp in the north. They
stripped him naked and held the threat of sudden midnight execution over
his head. Ninoy held up manfully–all of it. I barely did as well. For 43 days,
the authorities would not tell me what had happened to him. This was the
first time my children and I felt we had lost him.
When that didn’t work, they put him on trial for subversion, murder and a
host of other crimes before a military commission. Ninoy challenged its
authority and went on a fast. If he survived it, then, he felt, God intended
him for another fate. We had lost him again. For nothing would hold him
back from his determination to see his fast through to the end. He stopped
only when it dawned on him that the government would keep his body alive
after the fast had destroyed his brain. And so, with barely any life in his
body, he called off the fast on the fortieth day. God meant him for other
things, he felt. He did not know that an early death would still be his fate,
that only the timing was wrong.
At any time during his long ordeal, Ninoy could have made a separate
peace with the dictatorship, as so many of his countrymen had done. But
the spirit of democracy that inheres in our race and animates this chamber
could not be allowed to die. He held out, in the loneliness of his cell and the
frustration of exile, the democratic alternative to the insatiable greed and
mindless cruelty of the right and the purging holocaust of the left.
And then, we lost him, irrevocably and more painfully than in the past. The
news came to us in Boston. It had to be after the three happiest years of
our lives together. But his death was my country’s resurrection in the
courage and faith by which alone they could be free again. The dictator
had called him a nobody. Two million people threw aside their passivity
and escorted him to his grave. And so began the revolution that has
brought me to democracy’s most famous home, the Congress of the United
States.
The task had fallen on my shoulders to continue offering the democratic
alternative to our people.
Archibald Macleish had said that democracy must be defended by arms
when it is attacked by arms and by truth when it is attacked by lies. He
failed to say how it shall be won.
I held fast to Ninoy’s conviction that it must be by the ways of democracy. I
held out for participation in the 1984 election the dictatorship called, even if
I knew it would be rigged. I was warned by the lawyers of the opposition
that I ran the grave risk of legitimizing the foregone results of elections that
were clearly going to be fraudulent. But I was not fighting for lawyers but
for the people in whose intelligence I had implicit faith. By the exercise of
democracy, even in a dictatorship, they would be prepared for democracy
when it came. And then, also, it was the only way I knew by which we
could measure our power even in the terms dictated by the dictatorship.
The people vindicated me in an election shamefully marked by government
thuggery and fraud. The opposition swept the elections, garnering a clear
majority of the votes, even if they ended up, thanks to a corrupt
Commission on Elections, with barely a third of the seats in parliament.
Now, I knew our power.
Last year, in an excess of arrogance, the dictatorship called for its doom in
a snap election. The people obliged. With over a million signatures, they
drafted me to challenge the dictatorship. And I obliged them. The rest is the
history that dramatically unfolded on your television screen and across the
front pages of your newspapers.
You saw a nation, armed with courage and integrity, stand fast by
democracy against threats and corruption. You saw women poll watchers
break out in tears as armed goons crashed the polling places to steal the
ballots but, just the same, they tied themselves to the ballot boxes. You
saw a people so committed to the ways of democracy that they were
prepared to give their lives for its pale imitation. At the end of the day,
before another wave of fraud could distort the results, I announced the
people’s victory.
The distinguished co-chairman of the United States observer team in his
report to your President described that victory:
“I was witness to an extraordinary manifestation of democracy on the part
of the Filipino people. The ultimate result was the election of Mrs. Corazon
C. Aquino as President and Mr. Salvador Laurel as Vice-President of the
Philippines.”
Many of you here today played a part in changing the policy of your country
towards us. We, Filipinos, thank each of you for what you did: for,
balancing America’s strategic interest against human concerns, illuminates
the American vision of the world.
When a subservient parliament announced my opponent’s victory, the
people turned out in the streets and proclaimed me President. And true to
their word, when a handful of military leaders declared themselves against
the dictatorship, the people rallied to their protection. Surely, the people
take care of their own. It is on that faith and the obligation it entails, that I
assumed the presidency.
As I came to power peacefully, so shall I keep it. That is my contract with
my people and my commitment to God. He had willed that the blood drawn
with the lash shall not, in my country, be paid by blood drawn by the sword
but by the tearful joy of reconciliation.
We have swept away absolute power by a limited revolution that respected
the life and freedom of every Filipino. Now, we are restoring full
constitutional government. Again, as we restored democracy by the ways
of democracy, so are we completing the constitutional structures of our
new democracy under a constitution that already gives full respect to the
Bill of Rights. A jealously independent Constitutional Commission is
completing its draft which will be submitted later this year to a popular
referendum. When it is approved, there will be congressional elections. So
within about a year from a peaceful but national upheaval that overturned a
dictatorship, we shall have returned to full constitutional government. Given
the polarization and breakdown we inherited, this is no small achievement.
My predecessor set aside democracy to save it from a communist
insurgency that numbered less than 500. Unhampered by respect for
human rights, he went at it hammer and tongs. By the time he fled, that
insurgency had grown to more than 16,000. I think there is a lesson here to
be learned about trying to stifle a thing with the means by which it grows.
I don’t think anybody, in or outside our country, concerned for a democratic
and open Philippines, doubts what must be done. Through political
initiatives and local reintegration programs, we must seek to bring the
insurgents down from the hills and, by economic progress and justice,
show them that for which the best intentioned among them fight.
As President, I will not betray the cause of peace by which I came to
power. Yet equally, and again no friend of Filipino democracy will challenge
this, I will not stand by and allow an insurgent leadership to spurn our offer
of peace and kill our young soldiers, and threaten our new freedom.
Yet, I must explore the path of peace to the utmost for at its end, whatever
disappointment I meet there, is the moral basis for laying down the olive
branch of peace and taking up the sword of war. Still, should it come to
that, I will not waver from the course laid down by your great liberator:
“With malice towards none, with charity for all, with firmness in the rights as
God gives us to see the rights, let us finish the work we are in, to bind up
the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and
for his widow and for his orphans, to do all which may achieve and cherish
a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”
Like Lincoln, I understand that force may be necessary before mercy. Like
Lincoln, I don’t relish it. Yet, I will do whatever it takes to defend the
integrity and freedom of my country.
Finally, may I turn to that other slavery: our $26 billion foreign debt. I have
said that we shall honor it. Yet must the means by which we shall be able
to do so be kept from us? Many conditions imposed on the previous
government that stole this debt continue to be imposed on us who never
benefited from it. And no assistance or liberality commensurate with the
calamity that was visited on us has been extended. Yet ours must have
been the cheapest revolution ever. With little help from others, we Filipinos
fulfilled the first and most difficult conditions of the debt negotiation the full
restoration of democracy and responsible government. Elsewhere, and in
other times of more stringent world economic conditions, Marshall plans
and their like were felt to be necessary companions of returning
democracy.
When I met with President Reagan yesterday, we began an important
dialogue about cooperation and the strengthening of the friendship
between our two countries. That meeting was both a confirmation and a
new beginning and should lead to positive results in all areas of common
concern.
Today, we face the aspirations of a people who had known so much
poverty and massive unemployment for the past 14 years and yet offered
their lives for the abstraction of democracy. Wherever I went in the
campaign, slum area or impoverished village, they came to me with one
cry: democracy! Not food, although they clearly needed it, but democracy.
Not work, although they surely wanted it, but democracy. Not money, for
they gave what little they had to my campaign. They didn’t expect me to
work a miracle that would instantly put food into their mouths, clothes on
their back, education in their children, and work that will put dignity in their
lives. But I feel the pressing obligation to respond quickly as the leader of a
people so deserving of all these things.
We face a communist insurgency that feeds on economic deterioration,
even as we carry a great share of the free world defenses in the Pacific.
These are only two of the many burdens my people carry even as they try
to build a worthy and enduring house for their new democracy, that may
serve as well as a redoubt for freedom in Asia. Yet, no sooner is one stone
laid than two are taken away. Half our export earnings, $2 billion out of $4
billion, which was all we could earn in the restrictive markets of the world,
went to pay just the interest on a debt whose benefit the Filipino people
never received.
Still, we fought for honor, and, if only for honor, we shall pay. And yet,
should we have to wring the payments from the sweat of our men’s faces
and sink all the wealth piled up by the bondsman’s two hundred fifty years
of unrequited toil?
Yet to all Americans, as the leader of a proud and free people, I address
this question: has there been a greater test of national commitment to the
ideals you hold dear than that my people have gone through? You have
spent many lives and much treasure to bring freedom to many lands that
were reluctant to receive it. And here you have a people who won it by
themselves and need only the help to preserve it.
Three years ago, I said thank you, America, for the haven from oppression,
and the home you gave Ninoy, myself and our children, and for the three
happiest years of our lives together. Today, I say, join us, America, as we
build a new home for democracy, another haven for the oppressed, so it
may stand as a shining testament of our two nation’s commitment to
freedom.
 

ANALYSIS OF CORY AQUINO'S SPEECH

      Cory Aquino’s speech was an important event in the political and
diplomatic history of the country because it has arguably cemented the
legitimacy of the EDSA government in the international arena. The speech
talks of her family background, especially her relationship with her late
husband, Ninoy Aquino. It is well known that it was Ninoy who served as
the real leading figure of the opposition of that time. Indeed, Ninoy’s
eloquence and charisma could very well compete with that of Marcos. In
her speech, Cory talked at length about Ninoy’s toil and suffering at the
hands of the dictatorship that he resisted. Even when she proceeded
talking about her new government, she still went back to Ninoy’s legacies
and lessons. Moreover, her attributions of the revolution to Ninoy’s death
demonstrates not only Cory’s personal perception on the revolution, but
since she was the president, it also represents what the document
discourse was at that point in our history.
     The ideology or the principles of the new democratic government can
also be seen in the same speech. Aquino was able to draw the sharp
contrast between her government and her predecessor by expressing her
commitment to a democratic constitution upholds and adheres to the rights
and liberty of the Filipino people. Cory also hoisted herself as the
reconciliatory agent after more than two decades of a polarizing
authoritarian politics. For example, Cory saw the blown-up communist
insurgency as a product of a repressive and corrupt government. Her
response to this insurgency rooted from her diametric opposition of the
dictator. (i.e. initiating reintegration of the communist rebels to the
mainstream Philippines society.) Cory claimed that her main approach to
this problem was through pace and not through the sword of war.
      Despite Cory’s efforts to hoist herself as the exact opposite of Marcos,
her speech still revealed certain parallelisms between her and the Marco’s
government. This is seen in terms of continuing the alliance between the
Philippines and the United States despite the known affinity between the
said world super power and Marcos. The Aquino regime, as seen in Cory’s
acceptance of the invitation to address the U.S. Congress and to the
content of the speech, decided to build and continue the alliance between
the Philippines and the United States and effectively implemented an
essentially similar foreign policy to that of dictatorship. For example, Cory
recognized that the large sum of foreign debts incurred by the Marcos
regime never benefited the Filipino People. Nevertheless,                 
      Cory expressed her intentions to pay off those debts. Unknown to many
Filipinos was the fact that there was a choice of waiving the said debt
because those were the debt of the dictator and not the country. Cory’s
decision is an indicator of her government’s intention to carry on a debt
driven economy.
      Reading through Aquino’s speech, we can already take cues, not just
on Cory’s individual ideas and aspirations, but also the guiding principles
and framework of the government that she represented.