EDSA People Power 1986: Fading Luster and Revisionist History

Twenty six years ago today, a failed military coup that morphed into a popular uprising finally ousted and forced the flight of the dictator Ferdinand Marcos and his close family members and associates to Hawaii after four days.

Notwithstanding the presence of armed soldiers on both sides, the uprising was largely non-violent and introduced ‘people power’ into popular and academic discourse.  While it is understandable that some Filipinos claim we invented ‘non-violent revolution,’ perhaps we should be modest enough to acknowledge the pioneering efforts of Mahatma Gandhi and his followers.  The Indians were unable though to expel the British colonists from the sub-continent.  

Gandhi leading the Salt March in defiance of British authorities

However, a military-civilian uprising peacefully ousted the 50-year old regime of President Antonio de Oliveira Salazar of Portugal–an event now known in history as the Carnation Revolution–in 1975, some 11 years before EDSA I.

A military rebel during Portugal’s Carnation Revolution

Perhaps, Filipino pride in EDSA People Power is justified because it was the first of its kind in Asia and is said to have inspired the fall of the Soviet Union and its allies through similar peaceful popular uprisings–events which completed the end of the Cold War.

Not a few Filipinos may consider today’s celebrations as ‘just one of those things.’  I suspect that this attitude is true among many of our youth.  An appreciation of EDSA 1986 requires some historical knowledge of martial law and the upsurge of the anti-dictatorship movement after the assassination of former Senator Benigno Aquino, Jr. as well as the four days of EDSA 1986.  History textbooks at the secondary level are relatively blank on these periods.  It is almost as if martial law is still in place.

It is this blind spot that invites historical revisionism.  It is expected that the Marcos family, led by its current spokesperson, Senator Bongbong Marcos, will deny any wrong-doing on the part of the family patriarch during martial law.  In today’s papers, Senator Marcos is reported to have demanded a stop to blaming his father for the country’s problems.

Senator Bongbong Marcos at the firing range

To be fair to Senator Marcos, he has a point.  It is indeed not right to censure his father for all of the nation’s woes.  Post-Marcos presidents share part of the failures.

However, none of the nation’s chief executives, save Ferdinand Marcos, concentrated political power in himself and a narrow coterie of family members and associates.  Such concentration of political power gave rise  to imprisonment of political opponents, human rights violations (including disappearances and torture), and conspicuous consumption.

I recently learned of a story written by Ed Lingao (http://pcij.org/stories/a-different-edsa-story/) at the website of the Philippine Center of Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) that reported a rather intriguing take on EDSA 1986.  It  is about a video-ala-Powerpoint presentation authored by somebody who calls himself Baron Buchocoy.   I actually saw this production before but ignored it until Lingao’s story.  

Among other things, Buchocoy alleges that the only reason why EDSA 1986 was peaceful and non-violent was because Marcos himself ordered his men not to fire upon the rebel  soldiers and assembled crowds of civilians.  Perhaps, he will offer as proof the TV footage of Marcos admonishing a trigger-happy AFP chief of staff Fabian Ver before Malacanang was cut off the air.

Marcos ordering Ver not to fire on EDSA crowds

Let’s examine Buchocoy’s allegations.  If indeed there was no order to attack, why was a column of Philippine Marines tanks and armored personnel carriers (APCs) sent to EDSA?  According to Buchocoy, the Marines were sent to arrest the rebel officers and soldiers holed out in Camp Aguinaldo.  The idea apparently is to convince the rebels not to resist arrest given the overwhelming superiority of the Marines force.

What happens if the military rebels resist arrest?

What if they make a last stand?

These are hanging questions but I guess the Marine commander will have to consult with higher authority.

As  things happened, hundreds of thousands of non-threatening civilians inserted themselves between the Marines and the military rebels.  As a result, the Marines never got near Camp Aguinaldo to accomplish their mission, whatever that was.

Marine with civilian women in front of armored personnel carriers

To accomplish their mission, the Marines will have to plow through the crowd with their armored vehicles. But every time they move, they were stymied by the crowd.  The most effective ‘anti-tank weapons’ were kneeling nuns praying the rosary.

Tank-stopping nuns

In many non-violent people power revolutions, we hear of orders for soldiers to fire upon or bomb the crowds of peaceful protesters.  These revolutions remained non-violent because officers and soldiers refuse to obey such orders.  Those who offered testimony after the fact answered that a key reason for hesitation and defiance is the probability that family members, friends, and neighbors might be in the crowd.

A professional military unit may hesitate, may be puzzled or flummoxed, when confronted by non-aggressive and unarmed civilians that stand in its way to accomplish a mission.

Also, in a situation where the military is divided and the fate of the country’s leader is on the balance, military units may hedge and decide to wait and see or dissemble as if following orders.

In a March 2007 international conference on people power held in Oxford where I presented a paper on EDSA 1986, one of my discussants, former US ambassador to the Philippines (1984-87) Stephen Bosworth revealed that Marcos was warned by his government not to attack the military rebels and unarmed civilians.

US ambassador Stephen Bosworth

Thus, the nonviolent character of EDSA 1986 does not lie on an alleged Marcos decision not to attack.  

What intrigues me to this day is Marcos’ failure to attack when he still had the upper hand.  He got an early warning of the attempted coup the failure of which sent the rebels scurrying to Camp Aguinaldo at the first day of EDSA 1986.   This was when the rebels were most vulnerable.  Their estimated strength was 400-600 and they were yet to be cocooned by a crowd.  

Was Marcos still gathering information?  Was he conducting a loyalty check within the military and consolidating his loyalists first? Or was he caught between a rock and a hard place because of the US pressure?    

Now to my last point.  I mentioned earlier that many Filipinos think February 25 is just one of those commemorations.  While some would invoke a so-called ‘spirit of EDSA’ to carry out deep reforms, others (Senator Bongbong Marcos included) complain that EDSA has not meant a better life for Filipinos.

At the risk of demeaning EDSA 1986, I submit that it is not a revolution in the full sense of the word.  It was participated in by millions of Filipinos who were united on a single issue: Marcos and his cohorts must go so political power can be freely contested.  No unity exists among the many Filipinos massed in EDSA beyond this issue: workers want wage hikes while capitalists would not be in favor of that; some wanted the ouster of the US military bases while others do not. And so on.

The legacy of EDSA 1986 is concretized in the 1987 Constitution.  Through the Constitution, we can carry on and frame our struggles for needed change.  If we deem it necessary, we can amend the charter.  To the extent that we can do all these things, we owe them to EDSA 1986.

(Footnote on Buchocoy: He sees EDSA 1986 in a negative way that one cannot be faulted from thinking that he would have wanted Marcos to issue orders to fire upon the military rebels and civilian crowds to prevent his ouster and the ascent to power of Cory Aquino.)

On Marcos: e-mail from Evanston, Illinois

 

From: Jeffrey Winters winters@northwestern.edu

To: Bong Mendoza amado.mendozajr@gmail.com

date		Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 9:31 PM

 

Dear Bong et. al.,

First, the Philippines allowed Imelda back in, as well as the wretched daughter Imee (remember Archie Trojano anyone?).

Then Marcos’s body was let back into the country.

That was the error of errors. At that point they might as well just given him the hero’s burial, because the battle was lost.

Imelda and all the kids were allowed to run for office and they have won repeatedly at the congressional, governor, and now even senator level.

Don’t be surprised if the next stop for Bong Bong is a reasonably successful run for the presidency.

Rather than debating whether to bury Marcos as a hero, it would be much more fun to switch the terms of the conversation to whether his crimes are so heinous as to deserve a second exile.

Push Bong Bong, Imelda, and the rest of the crony oligarchs back on their heels by asserting that it was an error to allow him back in the first place.

Start the campaign now.

Gather signatures to eject him a second time.

Get it in the headlines that the now-dead Marcos has two weeks to leave voluntarily or he will be placed in the cargo bay of a FedEx transport plane.

Send Imelda the shipping bill.

This is a matter of framing now.

Rather than debate whether he is a hero or not (as if that’s even a remotely reasonable discussion), switch it to “is he wicked enough to merit a second exile?”

Cheers,

Jeffrey Winters

Dept of Politics

Northwestern University

 

___________________________________

Note from Bong Mendoza:

 

I sent an electronic of the previous blog written by Ed Maranan on the burial-of-Ferdinand Marcos-issue to Prof. Jeffrey Winters of Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois (near Chicago), among many others.  This was his response cc-ed all the others. 

I asked if I could post his “elegant riposte” and he responded:

“Certainly.  It is a national tragedy that FM and his clan are even on Philippine soil”.

 

_______________________________________________________________

Who is Achie Trajano?

From Wikipedia:

In a university open forum conducted by Ms. Imee Marcos on August 1977, Archimedes Trajano was forcibly taken by Imee Marcos’ personal guards after he posed a question which embarrassed Ms. Marcos. Archimedes Trajano’s body was found several days later, tortured and beaten to death.^[10]

Trajano’s family was among those awarded by the U.S. Federal Court in Hawaii, for damages for human rights violation covering torture, disappearances, and murder attributed to the military or the Marcos family during the Marcos dictatorship.

The Trajano family meanwhile (as of 25 September 2006) has yet to see a penny of this compensation.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

The Wiki source numbered [10] above reports thus:

http://www.melonwater.com/malia/trajano.htm

Although a United States judge has ruled that the Marcos estate owes billions of dollars to victims and families of victims who suffered torture, death and other atrocities during the rule of the Ferdinand Marcos’ regime, the victims have yet to see a penny of what’s believed to be the largest award for human rights violations anywhere in the world.

A U.S. court ruled that in August, 1977, two months before his 22nd birthday, Archimedes Trajano was beaten, tortured and killed for asking a question in a public forum of Imee Marcos, eldest daughter of the late Ferdinand Marcos. Trajano was one of thousands of Filipinos who lost their lives under the Marcos dictatorship.

“My son just asked a question in an open forum. Open forum you can ask a question, yeah? And they should answer. But I think that Imee didn’t like the question. Right then and there he was forcibly taken by the security guards,” said Agapita Trajano, Archimedes´ mother.

At the time of his death, Archie’s mother was told he had been in a dormitory fight and Philippine newspapers reported he had “run amok.” But witnesses came forward later to testify that her son had been forcibly removed from the university forum by Imee Marcos’ security guards and that was the last they had seen of him.

“He was covered in a white sheet, laying on a table. And when I opened the sheet…I saw him blue-black….I could not talk… nothing… but I think my heart hardened. I said, my God, why him?” Agapita Trajano said.

In 1993, A U-S Federal Court in Honolulu awarded Agapita Trajano and ten thousand other Filipinos two billion U.S. dollars in damages for human rights violations covering torture, disappearance and murder under the Marcos regime. Despite a federal court decision to award the victims compensation, they’re not likely to see any money soon. The Phiippines government has its own idea about what to do with the Marcos assets.

The Philippine government has passed legislation mandating use of the Marcos’ “ill-gotten wealth” for the country’s agrarian reform program. But Philippine government officials say the law could be ammended to allow for some compensation to human rights victims.

The Marcos’ amassed more than one billion U.S. dollars during Ferdinand Marcos’ 14-year rule. Three hundred fifty-six million dollars of that is frozen in Swiss bank accounts.

Meanwhile, the Philippine government drew up a contract with the Marcos family that allows the Marcos to keep 25 percent of the money. Seventy-five percent would go to the Philippine government. No action to carry out the agreement has yet been taken, but in the eyes of many of the victims and their families, this deal is seen as underhanded cooperation between the Philippines government and the Marcoses.

“I think it’s troubling that they would enter into an agreement, the intent of which would be to deny citizens of their own country, who are the victims of torture, summary execution and disappearance under the Marcos dictatorship; that they would enter into an agreement to deliberately deny those people compensation,” Sherry Broder, Plaintiff’s attorney.

“These agreements were being negotiated but they never materialized – they were never concluded. And the President of the Philippines, was, never, he did not give authority for those agreements. So, um, while there may have been attempts to negotiate, the Marcos’ set up impossible conditionalities, that are probably not even worth negotiating about,” said Solita M. Aguirre, Philippines Consul General – Honolulu.

While nearly everyone agrees that those who suffered under Ferdinand Marcos’ dictatorship should be compensated, the attorneys, Philippines government and Marcos family continue their maneuverings — and lengthy court proceedings — for their piece of the money. With these competing interests the victims may not see anywhere near the two billion dollars they were awarded… if they see any compensation at all.

“The judgment in itself is already a victory for the victims So, I think on a more realistic attitude, we have to see what is a real attainable amount,” said Solita M. Aguirre, Philippines Consul General – Honolulu.

“I wish they would have it in their hearts to think of all these people that suffered. They have money. They [should] share it with these unfortunate people who lose their children… son, daughter or whatever. They have the money, they can afford it,” said Agapita Trajano.

“Marcos fled the Philippines in 1986 and this is already almost 10 years later. And I think that it’s really time the families of people who were executed and who disappeared and who are living without their breadwinner or without their mother, that those people should be entitled to compensation now. Time is really running out for compensating them,” said Sherry Broder, Plaintiff’s Attorney.

In a hearing on June 29, 1995, U.S. Federal Judge Manuel Real ordered that Mrs. Marcos and Bongbong Marcos sign papers that would give the victims access to deposits in Swiss bank accounts. He also ordered that if the Marcoses fail to take this action, a federal court clerk will sign for them.

He further fined the Oklahoma law firm representing the Marcos estate $114,000 for accepting deposits and making payment for the estate, in violation of court order.

From ED MARANAN: On burying Marcos as a hero

Ed Maranan

to bcc amado.mendozajr@gmail.com

date Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 12:03 PM

subject: Lest we forget: Kleptocracy 101

mailed-by gmail.com signed-by gmail.com hide details 12:03 PM (1 hour ago)

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Dear folks,

More than 200 congressmen recently signed a petition passed around by Marcos loyalist Rep. Salvador Escudero for the remains of the late dictator to be interred at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. Nothing unusual about that. These so-called representatives of the people are elected mainly on the basis of political patronage and the crumbs that they allow to trickle down to the masses, on the false hopes that they feed to people whose poverty in material life often leads to acceptance of the status quo. Some of these representatives are also known to have won through chicanery and occasional terrorism. But the bottom line is that these privileged creatures who fatten up at the feeding trough of Congress are very likely Marcosian wannabes at heart.

They may already have their Imeldas and mistresses, but not the Marcos billions. So no conscience at all to be bothered in blithely signing the petition. (As the late former Speaker Monching Mitra was supposed to have quipped, pass around a roll of toilet paper and ask the honorables to put their signatures on it, and sign they will…)

However, it is disturbing to note that in a recent SWS survey of 1,200 respondents on the issue of whether to allow burying Marcos at the Libingan, the result was 51% yes and 49% no, which flies in the face of standard wisdom that the excesses of martial law, the assassination of Aquino, and the triumph of EDSA I would have buried forever whatever mystique the Strongman possessed.

Any of several conclusions, serious or otherwise, could be arrived at: a) the survey by the otherwise competent SWS was flawed or skewed (did they perhaps interview mostly young respondents with no memories of martial law? or, did many of the respondents happen to be unrepentants who had benefited from the reign of Marcos?); b) Filipinos do have very short memories, c) Filipinos are flawed Christians who have a complete misunderstanding of what forgiveness really is all about; d) Filipinos, contrary to what Ninoy believed, are not worth dying for; in fact they’re worth abandoning and immigrating from, or e) the twin problem of having a divided country which is also overpopulated could probably be solved by an asteroid wiping out the loyalist half, but truly I jest with this last one.

These are unhappy and even unkind conclusions.

But the issue of burying Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani is very real to many of us.

So let’s go back to basics, and no better illustration of what kind of ‘leader’ the loyalists want to be remembered as a hero can be made than this comparative chart of the five worst kleptocrats in recent history:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/the-top-five-kleptocrats-and-what-they-stole/article1926084/

As far as I am concerned, it is rather moot or contestable whether the Libingan ng mga Bayani is really hallowed ground.

Recently, an Arroyo official who literally self-destructed was interred there despite revelations about the role he played in the financial shenanigans of the past administration (costing the Filipino people possibly billions in more stolen wealth, a legacy of what I call our Marcorroyo political culture, an elaboration perhaps of the term kleptocracy).

Some genuine heroes and noble citizens may be buried there. If Marcos’ remains finally get to be accommodated, the place gets downgraded to being simply a Libingan ng mga Patay. Jokes like this abound. We could indeed change the name of the cemetery. Libingan ng mga Bayani at Bantay-Salakay. Libingan ng mga Bayani at Diktador. Libingan ng mga Bayani at Tiwali.

The world does not end if he (Ferdinand Edralin Marcos) eventually gets buried there. Other–perhaps more painful–anomalies and injustices abound in this country, such as the unknown whereabouts, the secret graves, of the genuine heroes of the people like Jonas Burgos, James Balao, UP students Karen Empeño and Sherlyn Cadapan, and so many ‘disappeared’ Filipino patriots and idealistic youth.

Wherever their state-appointed murderers have buried them is a libingan ng mga bayani. We may never know the exact location of their remains or their bones, but forevermore shall they lie at rest, if not yet in peace, in that most hallowed ground of all–in the hearts of their loved ones, and in the hearts of the Filipino people whom they loved more than life itself.

Ed Maranan

Rule of law I

In today’s Inquirer op-ed pages, I just read two fascinating if apparently unconnected pieces. The first is Patricia Evangelista’s “Assault on reason” in her ‘Method to Madness’ column.

Patricia Evangelista

The second is the piece entitled “Revolution betrayed” by Ukrainian opposition leader Yuliya Timoshenko.

Yulia Tymoshenko

Evangelista’s piece is on a botched raid by the police (particularly by operatives of the Philippine National Police-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group or PNP-CIDG) last February 3 on what Patricia described as “high-end relaxation spa in the Metrowalk Ortigas Center on Meralco Avenue”. The clients (mostly men, including two British nationals) and staff (mostly female) of iSpa (yes, that is the [un]imaginative name of the relaxation oasis in Metrowalk) were hauled to the CIDG headquarters in Camp Crame without so much of a by-your-leave.

Patricia reports that a Chief Inspector Trajano of CIDG said that “the raid was a result of a tip-off from a source”; that “the police suspected that some masseurs had faulty papers”; and that “it was standard operating procedure to take everyone from the site and bring them to Camp Crame for validation” (BM: emphasis mine).

Patricia goes on: “Asked why validation could not be done on site, why it was necessary to bring these men and women to the police headquarters unprotected, she (BM: meaning Trajano) said it was because there would be too many people asking too many questions” (BM: emphasis mine).

Excuse me for a moment!

I need to LOL!

I need to LMAO!

Chief Inspector Trajano: Your SOP sucks! No search or arrest warrants were presented. The ‘suspects’ were not Mirandized (read of their rights, including rights against self-incrimination and the right to counsel, and if a private attorney cannot be afforded, then lawyers from the Public

Too many people asking too many questions!

If twenty seven people are to be brought to police headquarters without so much of a by-your-leave by sanctimonious armed men in plainclothes shouting “Dapa! Dapa!” (On the floor! On the floor!), wouldn’t you think that questions would be flying all over the place? And rightfully so?

The Dapa! Dapa! routine is usually and rightfully used if ‘suspects’ are armed (or suspected to be armed).

But the masseurs were suspected only to have “faulty papers”.

LOL!

Last time I checked, “faulty papers” are not deadly weapons!

As it turned out, the raid was not successful since the tip was proven false, that all the papers were in order, and the police did not file any charges against any of the 27 people taken to the CIDG headquarters.

If we are to learn any lesson from this botched raid, all of the concerned twenty seven people should file the appropriate charges against the CIDG personnel who participated in the raid. If they cannot afford the services of legal counsel, then the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) should take up their cause. Of course, the British Embassy should act in behalf of its nationals.

A particular charge should be filed against Chief Inspector Trajano.

The charge of being aggravatingly funny.

The charge of being ridiculously ignorant and stupid.

The charge of being a master of rubbing salt on open wounds.

To paraphrase my favorite Senadora Miriam, “What were you thinking”?

And you think the bad news is over?

Unfortunately, NO!

Patricia reports of her eventful encounter with a thick-skinned “Police Superintendent Emma Libunao, chief of CIDG’s Women and Child Protection Division” who is furiously contemplating charges of her own against Patricia.

Assault on a person of authority!

Assault by questions!

Assault by many questions!

Trajano and Libunao are proof positive that some CIDG officers are quite allergic to questions.

Ayaw pa kasing umamin na nag-kamali sila, eh! (Why don’t they just admit they erred?)

BIG TIME!

Dalhin nga sila sa presinto! (Bring them to the police precinct for questioning!)

Ay, taga-presinto nga pala sila! (Ehe, they are from the precinct itself!)

These two police officers, plus the mindless CIDG raiders are the latest reminders of the conundrum that faces all civilized societies.

Who will guard our (armed) guardians?

How will (unarmed) citizens check them?

In civilized societies, the only corrective to abusive guardians is the rule of law.

In the next entry, I will discuss Timoshenko’s piece.