RPH MIDTERM
justifications behind the revolution against Spain.
Reading the "Proclamation of the Philippine
Independence
 Philippine Independence proclaimed on 12 June
1898, in the province of Cavite.
 significant turning point in the history of the
country because it signaled the end of the 333
years of Spanish colonization
 Document reveals on the rationale and
circumstances of that historical day in Cavite.
 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.
 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 forces in the same provinces. The revolt also reached
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 of a decision being rendered without a
hearing of the persons accused."
The above passage demonstrates the
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
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 and 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 he 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 day, 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 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.
Analysis of the "Proclamation of the Philippine
Independence"
As mentioned earlier, a re-examination of the
document on the declaration of independence can
reveal some often overlooked historical truths about
this important event in Philippine history. Aside from
this, the document reflects the general revolutionary
sentiment of that period. For example, the abuses
specifically mentioned in the proclamation like friar
abuse, racial discrimination, and inequality before the
law reflect the most compelling sentiments represented
by the revolutionary leadership. However, no mention
was made about the more serious problem that
affected the masses more profoundly (i.e., the land and
agrarian crisis felt by the numerous Filipino peasants in
the nineteenth century). This is ironic especially when
renowned Philippine Revolution historian, Teodoro
Agoncillo, stated that the Philippine Revolution was an
agrarian revolution. The common revolutionary soldiers
fought in the revolution for the hope of owning the
lands that they were tilling once the friar estates in
different provinces like Batangas and Laguna dissolve, if
and when the revolution succeeded. Such aspects and
realities of the revolutionary struggle were either
unfamiliar to the middle class revolutionary leaders like
Emilio Aguinaldo, Ambrosio Rianzares-Bautista, and
Felipe Buencamino, or were intentionally left out
because they were landholders themselves.
Treaty of Paris
 Agreement signed between Spain and the
United States of America regarding the
 ownership of the Philippine Islands and other within the circumstance of this production. Studying
Spanish colonies in South America one historical subject, thus, entails looking at multiple
 agreement ended the short-lived Spanish- primary sources and pieces of historical evidences in
American War order to have a more nuanced and contextual analysis
 Signed on 10 December 1898, six months after of our past.
the revolutionary government declared the
Philippine Independence.
 Philippines was sold to the United States at $20
million and effectively undermined the
sovereignty of the Filipinos after their
revolutionary victory.
 Americans occupied the Philippines
immediately which resulted in the Philippine-
American War that lasted until the earliest
years of the twentieth century.

The proclamation also gives us the impression

on how the victorious revolutionary government of
Aguinaldo historicized the struggle for independence.
There were mentions of past events that were seen as
important turning points of the movement against
Spain. The execution of the GOMBURZA, for example,
and the failed Cavite Mutiny of 1872 was narrated in
detail. This shows that they saw this event as a
significant awakening of the Filipinos in the real
conditions of the nation under Spain. Jose Rizal's
legacy and martyrdom was also mentioned in the
document. However, the Katipunan as the pioneer of
the revolutionary movement was only mentioned once
toward the end of the document. There was no mention
of the Katipunan's foundation. Bonifacio and his co-
founders were also left out. It can be argued, thus, that
the way of historical narration found in the document
also reflects the politics of the victors. The enmity
between Aguinaldo's Magdalo and Bonifacio's
Magdiwang in the Katipunan is no secret in the pages of
our history. On the contrary, the war led by Aguinaldo's
men with the forces of the United States were
discussed in detail.

The point is, even official records and

documents like the proclamation of independence,
while truthful most of the time, still exude the politics
and biases of whoever is in power. This manifests in the
selectiveness of information that can be found in these
records. It is the task of the historian, thus, to analyze
the content of these documents in relation to the
dominant politics and the contexts of people and
institutions surrounding it. This tells us a lesson on
taking primary sources like official government records
2ND TOPIC Barcelona the crown because it is not his to
begin with.
A Glance at Selected Philippine Political Caricature in
Alfred McCoy's Philippine Cartoons: Political 2nd
Caricature of the American Era (1900-1941)

Political cartoons and caricature

 Art form, which veered away from the classical

art by exaggerating human features and poking
fun at its subjects.
 Became a part of the print media as a form of
social and political commentary, which usually
targets persons of power and authority.
 Became an effective tool of publicizing opinions
through heavy use of symbolism, which is
different from a verbose written editorial and
opinion pieces.
 Represents opinion and captures the audience's  Published by The Independent on 16 June
imagination is reason enough for historians to 1917.
examine these political cartoons. Commentaries  drawn by Fernando Amorsolo
in mass media inevitably shape public opinion  Aimed as a commentary to the workings of
and such kind of opinion is worthy of historical Manila Police at that period.
examination.  Here, we see a Filipino child who stole a skinny
chicken because he had nothing to eat. The
Philippine Cartoons: Political Caricature of the
police officer was relentlessly pursuing the said
American Era (1900-1941) (book)
child. A man wearing a salakot, labeled Juan de
 Alfred McCoy, together with Alfredo Roces, la Cruz was grabbing the officer, telling him to
 Compiled political cartoons published in leave the small-time pickpockets and thieves
newspaper dailies and periodicals in the and to turn at the great thieves instead. He was
aforementioned time period. pointing to huge warehouses containing bulks
of rice, milk, and grocery products.

1st example 3RD

 P
ublished in The Independent on May 20, 1916.
 Shows a politician from Tondo, named Dr.
Santos, passing his crown to his brother-in-law,  Commentary on the unprecedented cases of
Dr. Barcelona. A Filipino guy (as depicted colorum automobiles in the city streets.
wearing salakot and barong tagalog) was trying  Philippine Free Press published this
to stop Santos, telling the latter to stop giving commentary when fatal accidents involving
 colorum vehicles and taxis occurred too often
already.
4TH
 Depicts a cinema.
 A blown-up police officer was at the screen
saying that couples are not allowed to neck and
make love in the theater. Two youngsters
looked horrified while an older couple seemed
amused.
5TH
 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.
6th
 Published by Lipang Kalabaw on 24 August 1907
 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 during the
American Period
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 changed. For example, a cartoon depicted how police
opinion of certain media outfits about the Philippine authorities oppress petty Filipino criminals while turning
society during the American period but also paint broad a blind eye on hoarders who monopolize goods in their
image of society and politics under the United States. In huge warehouses (presumably Chinese merchants). The
the politics, for example, we see the price that Filipinos other cartoon depicts how Americans controlled
paid for the democracy modeled after the Americans. Filipinos through seemingly harmless American objects.
First, it seemed that the Filipino politicians at that time By controlling their consciousness and mentality,
did not understand well enough the essence of Americans got to control and subjugate Filipinos.
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 was 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
3RD TOPIC
Revisiting Corazon Aquino's Speech before the U.S.
Congress
Corazon "Cory" Cojuangco Aquino functioned as the
symbol of the restoration of democracy and the
overthrow of the Marcos Dictatorship in 1986. The
EDSA People Power, which installed Cory Aquino in the
presidency, put the Philippines in the international
spotlight for overthrowing a dictator through peaceful
means. Cory was easily a figure of the said revolution, as
the widow of the slain Marcos oppositionist and former
Senator Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino Jr. Cory was hoisted as
the antithesis of the dictator. Her image as a mourning,
widowed housewife who had always been in the
shadow of her husband and relatives and had no
experience in politics was juxtaposed against Marcos's
statesmanship, eloquence, charisma, and cunning
political skills. Nevertheless, Cory was able to capture
the imagination of the people whose rights and
freedom had long been compromised throughout the
Marcos regime. This is despite the fact that Cory came
from a rich haciendero family in Tarlac and owned vast
estates of sugar plantation and whose relatives occupy
local and national government positions.
The People Power Revolution of 1986 was widely
recognized around the world for its peaceful character.
When former senator Ninoy Aquino was shot at the
tarmac of the Manila International Airport on 21 August
1983, the Marcos regime greatly suffered a crisis of
legitimacy. Protests from different sectors frequented
different areas in the country. Marcos's credibility in the
international community also suffered. Paired with the
looming economic crisis, Marcos had to do something
to prove to his allies in the United States that he
remained to be the democratically anointed leader of
the country. He called for a Snap Election in February
1986, where Corazon Cojuangco Aquino, the widow of
the slain senator was convinced to run against Marcos.
The canvassing was rigged to Marcos's favor but the
people expressed their protests against the corrupt and
authoritarian government. Leading military officials of
the regime and Martial Law orchestrators themselves,
Juan Ponce Enrile and Fidel V. Ramos, plotted to take
over the presidency, until civilians heeded the call of
then Manila Archbishop Jaime Cardinal Sin and other
civilian leaders gathered in EDSA. The overwhelming
presence of civilians in EDSA successfully turned a coup
into a civilian demonstration. The thousands of people
who gathered overthrew Ferdinand Marcos from the
presidency after 21 years.
On 18 September 1986, seven months since Cory
became president, she went to the United States and
spoke before the joint session of the U.S. Congress. Cory
was welcomed with long applause as she took the
podium and addressed the United States about her
presidency and the challenges faced by the new
republic. She began her speech with the story of her
leaving the United States three years prior as a newly
widowed wife of Ninoy Aquino.
She then told of Ninoy's character, conviction, and
resolve in opposing the authoritarianism of Marcos. She
talked of the three times that they lost Ninoy including
his demise on 23 August 1983. The first time was when
the dictatorship detained Ninoy with other dissenters.
Cory related:
"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 a threat of a sudden midnight execution over
his head. Ninoy held up manfully under all of it. I barely
did as well. For forty-three 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."
Cory continued that when Ninoy survived that first
detention, he was then charged of subversion, murder,
and other crimes. He was tried by a military court,
whose legitimacy Ninoy adamantly questioned. To
solidify his protest, Ninoy decided to do a hunger strike
and fasted for 40 days. Cory treated this event as the
second time that their family lost Ninoy. She said:
"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 40th day."

Ninoy's death was the third and the last time that Cory
and their children lost Ninoy. She continued:
"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
and the courage and faith by which alone they could be
free again. The dictator had called him a nobody. Yet,
two million people threw aside their passivity and fear
and escorted him to his grave."
Cory attributed the peaceful EDSA Revolution to the
martyrdom of Ninoy. She stated that the death of
Ninoy sparked the revolution and the responsibility of
"offering the democratic alternative" had "fallen on
(her) shoulders." Cory's address introduced us to her
democratic philosophy, which she claimed she also
acquired from Ninoy. She argued:
"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."
Cory talked about her miraculous victory through the
people's struggle and continued talking about her
earliest initiatives as the president of a restored
democracy. She stated that she intended to forge and
draw reconciliation after a bloody and polarizing
dictatorship. Cory emphasized the importance of the
EDSA Revolution in terms of being a "limited revolution
that respected the life and freedom of every Filipino."
She also boasted of the restoration of a fully
constitutional government whose constitution gave
utmost respect to the Bill of Rights. She reported to the
U.S. Congress:
"Again as we restore 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 elections for both national and local
positions. So, within about a year from a peaceful but
national upheaval that overturned a dictatorship, we
shall have returned to full constitutional government."
Cory then proceeded on her peace agenda with the
existing communist insurgency, aggravated by the
dictatorial and authoritarian measure of Ferdinand
Marcos. She asserted:
"My predecessor set aside democracy to save it from a
communist insurgency that numbered less than five
hundred. Unhampered by respect for human rights he
went at it with hammer and tongs. By the time he fled,
that insurgency had grown to more than sixteen
thousand. I think there is a lesson here to be learned
about trying to stifle a thing with a means by which it
grows."
Cory's peace agenda involves political initiatives and re-
integration program to persuade insurgents to leave the
countryside and return to the mainstream society to
participate in the restoration of democracy. She invoked
the path of peace because she believed that it was the
moral path that a moral government must take.
Nevertheless, Cory took a step back when she said that
while peace is the priority of her presidency, she "will
not waiver" when freedom and democracy are
threatened. She said that, similar to Abraham Lincoln,
she understands that "force may be necessary before
mercy" and while she did not relish the idea, she "will
do whatever it takes to defend the integrity and
freedom of (her) country."
Cory then turned to the controversial topic of the
Philippine foreign debt amounting to $26 billion at the
time of her speech. This debt had ballooned during the
Marcos regime. Cory expressed her intention to honor
those debts deprived despite mentioning that the
people did not benefit from such debts. Thus, she
mentioned her protestations about the way the
Philippines was of choices to pay those debts within the
capacity of the Filipino people. She lamented:
"Finally may I turn to that other slavery, our twenty-six
billion dollar foreign debt. I have said that we shall
honor it. Yet, the means by which we shall be able to do
so are kept from us. Many of the conditions imposed on
the previous government that stole this debt, continue
to be imposed on us who never benefited from it."
She continued that while the country had experienced
the calamities brought about by the corrupt
dictatorship of Marcos, no commensurate assistance
was yet to be extended to the Philippines. She even
remarked that given the peaceful character of EDSA
People Power Revolution, "ours must have been the
cheapest revolution ever." She demonstrated that
Filipino people fulfilled the "most difficult condition of
the debt negotiation," which was the "restoration of
democracy and responsible government."
Cory related to the U.S. legislators that wherever she
went, she met poor and unemployed Filipinos willing to
offer their lives for democracy. She stated:
"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 give them work that will put dignity in their
lives. But I feel the pressing obligation to respond
quickly as the leader of the people so deserving of all
these things."
Cory proceeded in enumerating the challenges of the
Filipino people as they tried building the new
democracy. These were the persisting communist
insurgency and the economic deterioration. Cory
further lamented that these problems worsened by the
crippling debt because half of the country's export
earnings amounting to $2 billion would "go to pay just
the interest on a debt whose benefit the Filipino people
never received." Cory then asked a rather compelling
question to the U.S. Congress:
"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
want it by themselves and need only the help to
preserve it."
Cory ended her speech by thanking America for serving
as home to her family for what she referred to as the
"three happiest years of our lives together." She
enjoined America in building the Philippines as a new
home for democracy and in turning the country as a
"shining testament of our two nations' 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 at 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
attribution 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 dominant 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 of her predecessor by expressing
her commitment to a democratic constitution drafted
by an independent commission. She claimed that such
constitution upholds and adheres to the rights and
liberty of the Filipino people. Cory also hoisted herself
polarizing as the reconciliatory agent after more than
two decades of an 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
communist rebels to the mainstream Philippine
society). Cory claimed that her main approach to this
problem was through peace 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 Marcos'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 with the alliance between the
Philippines and the United States and effectively
implemented an essentially similar foreign policy to that
of the dictatorship. For example, Cory recognized that
the large sum of foreign debts incurred by the Marcos
regime never benefitted the Filipino people.
Nevertheless, Cory expressed her intention 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 of
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.
Chapter 3
Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and
Controversies
Two key concepts that need to be defined before
proceeding to the historical analysis of problems in
history are interpretation and multiperspectivity.
Making Sense of the Past: Historical Interpretation
History
 Study of the past, but a more contemporary
definition is centered on how it impacts the
present through its consequences.
Geoffrey Barraclough
 Defines history as "the attempt to discover, on
the basis of fragmentary evidence, the
significant things about the past."
 Notes "the history we read, though based on
facts, is strictly speaking, not factual at all, but a
series of accepted judgments." Such judgments
of historians on how the past should be seen
make the foundation of historical
interpretation.
Code of Kalantiaw
 Mythical legal code in the epic history
Maragtas.
 Before it was revealed as a hoax, it was a
source of pride for the people of Aklan.
In fact, a historical marker was installed in the town of
Batan, Aklan in 1956, with the following text:
"CODE OF KALANTIAW. Datu Bendehara Kalantiaw,
third Chief of Panay, born in Aklan, established his
government in the peninsula of Batang, Aklan Sakup.
Considered the First Filipino Lawgiver, he promulgated
in about 1433 a penal code now known as Code of
Kalantiaw containing 18 articles. Don Marcelino Orilla
of Zaragoza, Spain, obtained the original manuscript
from an old chief of Panay which was later translated
into Spanish by Rafael Murviedo Yzamaney."
It was only in 1968 that it was proved a hoax, when
William Henry Scott, then a doctoral candidate at the
University of Santo Tomas, defended his research on
pre-Hispanic sources in Philippine history. He attributed
the code to a historical fiction written in 1913 by Jose E.
Marco titled Las Antiguas Leyendas de la Isla de
Negros. Marco attributed the code itself to a priest
named Jose Maria Pavon. Prominent Filipino historians
did not dissent to Scott's findings, but there are still
some who would like to believe that the code is a
legitimate document.
Historians utilize facts collected from primary sources of
history and then draw their own reading so that their
intended audience may understand the historical event,
a process that in essence, "makes sense of the past."
The premise is that not all primary sources are
accessible to a general audience, and without the
proper training and background, a non-historian
interpreting a primary source may do more harm than
good-a primary source may even cause
misunderstandings; sometimes, even resulting in more
problems.
Interpretations of the past, therefore, vary according to
who reads the primary source, when it was read, and
how it was read. As students of history, we must be well
equipped to recognize different types of
interpretations, why these may differ from each other,
and how to critically sift these interpretations through
historical evaluation. Interpretations of historical
events change over time; thus, it is an important skill
for a student of history to track these changes in an
attempt to understand the past.
"Sa Aking Mga Kabata"
 Poem purportedly written by Jose Rizal when he
was eight years old
 Probably one of Rizal's most prominent works.
 There is no evidence to support the claim that
this poem, with the now immortalized lines
"Ang hindi magmahal sa kanyang salita/mahigit
sa hayop at malansang isda" was written by
Rizal, and worse, the evidence against Rizal's
authorship of the poem seems all unassailable.
There exists no manuscript of the poem handwritten by
Rizal. The poem was first published in 1906, in a book
by Hermenegildo Cruz. Cruz said he received the poem
from Gabriel Beato Francisco, who claimed to have
received it in 1884 from Rizal's close friend, Saturnino
Raselis. Rizal never mentioned writing this poem
anywhere in his writings, and more importantly, he
never mentioned of having a close, friend by the person significant facts about their subject, which makes the
of Raselis. interpretation unbalanced. Historians may impose a
certain ideology to their subject, which may not be
Further criticism of the poem reveals more about the
appropriate to the period the subject was from.
wrongful attribution of the poem to Rizal. The poem
Historians may also provide a single cause for an event
was written in Tagalog and referred to the word
without considering other possible causal explanations
"kalayaan." But it was documented in Rizal's letters
of said event. These are just many of the ways a
that he first encountered the word through a Marcelo
historian may fail in his historical inference, description,
H. del Pilar's translation of Rizal's essay "El Amor
and interpretation. With multiperspectivity as an
Patrio," where it was spelled as "kalayahan."
approach in history, we must understand that historical
While Rizal's native tongue was Tagalog, he was interpretations contain discrepancies, contradictions,
educated in Spanish, starting from his mother, Teodora ambiguities, and are often the focus of dissent.
Alonso. Later on, he would express disappointment in
Exploring multiple perspectives in history requires
his difficulty in expressing himself in his native tongue.
incorporating source materials that reflect different
The poem's spelling is also suspect-the use of letters "k" views of an event in history, because singular historical
and "w" to replace "c" and "u," respectively was narratives do not provide for space to inquire and
suggested by Rizal as an adult. If the poem was indeed investigate. Different sources that counter each other
written during his time, it should use the original may create space for more investigation and research,
Spanish orthography that was prevalent in his time. while providing more evidence for those truths that
these sources agree on.
Many of the things we accept as "true" about the past
might not be the case anymore; just because these
were taught to us as "facts" when we were younger
does not mean that it is set in stone-history is, after all,
a construct. And as a construct, it is open for
interpretation. There might be conflicting and
competing accounts of the past that need one's
attention, and can impact the way we view our
country's history and identity. It is important, therefore,
to subject to evaluation not only the primary source,
but also the historical interpretation of the same, to
ensure that the current interpretation is reliable to
support our acceptance of events of the past.

Multiperspectivity

 Way of looking at historical events,

personalities, developments, cultures, and
societies from different perspectives.

This means that there is a multitude of ways by which

we can view the world, and each could be equally valid,
and at the same time, equally partial as well. Historical
writing is, by definition, biased, partial, and contains
preconceptions. The historian decides on what sources
to use, what interpretation to make more apparent,
depending on what his end is. Historians may
misinterpret evidence, attending to those that suggest
that a certain event happened, and then ignore the rest
that goes against the evidence. Historians may omit