BACKBENCHER
Rod P. Kapunan
9/29-30/2012
Former President Ferdinand Marcos was categorical in citing the Plaza Miranda bombing as the reason that impelled him to issue Proclamation 889 as amended by Proclamation No. 889-A, suspending the writ of habeas corpus.
One must observe that when Marcos placed the country under martial law, the government was still groping in knowing the identity of those behind the bombing of the Liberal Party's miting de avanse at Plaza Miranda.
Despite the admission made by a leading communist cadre, Ariel Almendral, that the bombing was the handiwork of the New People's Army identified as a certain Danny Cordero. Jose Ma. Sison and his ilk in the Communist Party of the Philippines not only refused to admit having masterminded the dastardly crime, but continued to point to Marcos to purposely discredit him from the ranks of the opposition. To this day, the Maoists and their mulching front organizations insist their liberties were curtailed while consistently denying that it was their crime that impelled Marcos to suspend the writ.
As an overtly ambitious politician, Jovito Salonga already had his eyes focused on the presidency. He had every reason to believe he would be the next president, for the fact that he consistently landed number one in the senatorial slate. Even after he came to know it was Sison and his gang that carried out the bombing, Salonga sought to delay the release of that information by the media for fear it would affect his presidential candidacy, which in fact happened—with Mrs. Imelda Marcos obtaining more votes than him in the 1992 presidential elections.
Second, judging the effects of martial law on a personal basis, and not from a collective point of view, would certainly elicit negative reaction. The conduct of the opposition to prejudge martial law on a personal basis exposed the truth that somehow many of them endorsed the criminal activities of the Maoist communists. Their campaign to resist martial law was revealing of their involvement. Not one from the opposition opened his mouth about the aborted arms landings at Digoyo Point in Palanan, Isabela, by MV Karragatan and by MV Andrea from May to July 1972 headed by Ibarra Tubianosa. One must bear in mind that martial law is a situation where the State has to take a defensive action to preserve the majesty of its authority. This part of the "Whereas" clause stated by Marcos in Proclamation 1081, and was confirmed by Gregg Jones in his book: Red Revolution: Inside the Philippine Guerrilla Movement.
Unfortunately, instead of the communists being brought to justice to face the consequence of their criminal acts, it was the government that was placed on the defensive with its hands tied to answering charges of human rights violation filed by the same group now claiming compensation—often with the help of the opposition.
Besides, even if we take it that isolated cases of human rights violations were committed, they happened not as a policy of the government, but an aberration committed by some zealot law-enforcing authorities. The government tried as much as possible to investigate all complaints, and if there was prima facie evidence, filed charges against those erring government officials. Marcos, no less, cited those complaints against military personnel tasked in enforcing martial law.
Marcos' decision to reduce the number, area, demand for rental and eventual termination of the US military bases on September 16, 1990; not to renew the Laurel-Langley Agreement beyond July 3, 1974; to open diplomatic relations with China, and the USSR; to actively participate in the Non-Aligned Movement or Group of 77; to embark on industrialization by his announcement of the eleven industrial projects; and to incorporate nationalistic provisions in the 1973 Constitution all contributed to cause the ire of the US. That could have bridged the ideological gap that separated the Maoists from Marcos. Alas, Sison would rather be credited alone in achieving them.
In retaliation, Washington then worked to isolate Marcos politically and economically, and human rights violation was its best instrument to discredit his administration. The Maoists, instead of maintaining a safe distance to avoid being manipulated, allowed themselves to be used when they could have stayed neutral. After all, US imperialism is a much bigger problem than in dealing with a "local tyrant." It was their opportunism that prevailed. They took advantage of the changing political wind that the US is now committed to removing its one-time ally, and daydreaming that his ouster would result in them being on top of the political saddle.
This explains why the Maoists could not escape from their clichés of calling every President a "dictator" without having second thoughts that they are tacitly endorsing another US-sponsored politician who would not give them an inch of political accommodation. The result is pathetic. Every time the government in power is ousted, it is always the so-called "progressive left" that ends up being politically marginalized, while the enemies they denounce gain further political and economic influence.
Their favorite strategy of "united front alliance" no sooner breaks up after the objective of ousting the one in power is accomplished. This was evident in what happened in the two Edsa "People Power" events. The net result is that American influence over the Aquino and Arroyo governments became more prominent. People had to blame them because they could only understand that they suffered more for failing to make good their promise of deliverance from poverty. This explains why after Marcos, the fad that brought the student activism to glory soon evaporated. Nothing in fact has changed. Adventurism only pushed them deeper into the pit of hopelessness.
Since, the US was committed in destroying the legacy of the only nationalist President this country ever had, it has to support the radical left on the issue of human rights violation. Unfortunately, the Maoists failed to read between the lines that the reason why the US courts admitted the list of claimants is that they too were interested in getting hold of those Marcos assets, and not for purposes of distributing them.
One must observe that when Marcos placed the country under martial law, the government was still groping in knowing the identity of those behind the bombing of the Liberal Party's miting de avanse at Plaza Miranda.
Despite the admission made by a leading communist cadre, Ariel Almendral, that the bombing was the handiwork of the New People's Army identified as a certain Danny Cordero. Jose Ma. Sison and his ilk in the Communist Party of the Philippines not only refused to admit having masterminded the dastardly crime, but continued to point to Marcos to purposely discredit him from the ranks of the opposition. To this day, the Maoists and their mulching front organizations insist their liberties were curtailed while consistently denying that it was their crime that impelled Marcos to suspend the writ.
As an overtly ambitious politician, Jovito Salonga already had his eyes focused on the presidency. He had every reason to believe he would be the next president, for the fact that he consistently landed number one in the senatorial slate. Even after he came to know it was Sison and his gang that carried out the bombing, Salonga sought to delay the release of that information by the media for fear it would affect his presidential candidacy, which in fact happened—with Mrs. Imelda Marcos obtaining more votes than him in the 1992 presidential elections.
Second, judging the effects of martial law on a personal basis, and not from a collective point of view, would certainly elicit negative reaction. The conduct of the opposition to prejudge martial law on a personal basis exposed the truth that somehow many of them endorsed the criminal activities of the Maoist communists. Their campaign to resist martial law was revealing of their involvement. Not one from the opposition opened his mouth about the aborted arms landings at Digoyo Point in Palanan, Isabela, by MV Karragatan and by MV Andrea from May to July 1972 headed by Ibarra Tubianosa. One must bear in mind that martial law is a situation where the State has to take a defensive action to preserve the majesty of its authority. This part of the "Whereas" clause stated by Marcos in Proclamation 1081, and was confirmed by Gregg Jones in his book: Red Revolution: Inside the Philippine Guerrilla Movement.
Unfortunately, instead of the communists being brought to justice to face the consequence of their criminal acts, it was the government that was placed on the defensive with its hands tied to answering charges of human rights violation filed by the same group now claiming compensation—often with the help of the opposition.
Besides, even if we take it that isolated cases of human rights violations were committed, they happened not as a policy of the government, but an aberration committed by some zealot law-enforcing authorities. The government tried as much as possible to investigate all complaints, and if there was prima facie evidence, filed charges against those erring government officials. Marcos, no less, cited those complaints against military personnel tasked in enforcing martial law.
Marcos' decision to reduce the number, area, demand for rental and eventual termination of the US military bases on September 16, 1990; not to renew the Laurel-Langley Agreement beyond July 3, 1974; to open diplomatic relations with China, and the USSR; to actively participate in the Non-Aligned Movement or Group of 77; to embark on industrialization by his announcement of the eleven industrial projects; and to incorporate nationalistic provisions in the 1973 Constitution all contributed to cause the ire of the US. That could have bridged the ideological gap that separated the Maoists from Marcos. Alas, Sison would rather be credited alone in achieving them.
In retaliation, Washington then worked to isolate Marcos politically and economically, and human rights violation was its best instrument to discredit his administration. The Maoists, instead of maintaining a safe distance to avoid being manipulated, allowed themselves to be used when they could have stayed neutral. After all, US imperialism is a much bigger problem than in dealing with a "local tyrant." It was their opportunism that prevailed. They took advantage of the changing political wind that the US is now committed to removing its one-time ally, and daydreaming that his ouster would result in them being on top of the political saddle.
This explains why the Maoists could not escape from their clichés of calling every President a "dictator" without having second thoughts that they are tacitly endorsing another US-sponsored politician who would not give them an inch of political accommodation. The result is pathetic. Every time the government in power is ousted, it is always the so-called "progressive left" that ends up being politically marginalized, while the enemies they denounce gain further political and economic influence.
Their favorite strategy of "united front alliance" no sooner breaks up after the objective of ousting the one in power is accomplished. This was evident in what happened in the two Edsa "People Power" events. The net result is that American influence over the Aquino and Arroyo governments became more prominent. People had to blame them because they could only understand that they suffered more for failing to make good their promise of deliverance from poverty. This explains why after Marcos, the fad that brought the student activism to glory soon evaporated. Nothing in fact has changed. Adventurism only pushed them deeper into the pit of hopelessness.
Since, the US was committed in destroying the legacy of the only nationalist President this country ever had, it has to support the radical left on the issue of human rights violation. Unfortunately, the Maoists failed to read between the lines that the reason why the US courts admitted the list of claimants is that they too were interested in getting hold of those Marcos assets, and not for purposes of distributing them.
