Assassination of Benigno Aquino, Jr.

The assassination of Benigno Aquino, Jr., former Philippine Senator, took place on Sunday, August 21, 1983 at Manila International Airport. Aquino, also a longtime political opponent of Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos, had just landed in his home country after a 3-year self exile in the United States when he was shot in the head while being escorted from an aircraft to a vehicle that was waiting to transport him to prison. Also killed was Rolando Galman, who was later implicated in Aquino's murder. Aquino was elected to the Philippine Senate in 1967 and shortly thereafter began speaking out against Marcos' authoritarian rule. He was imprisoned ontrumped up charges shortly after Marcos's 1972 declaration of martial law. In 1980, he suffered a heart attack in prison and was allowed to leave the country two months later by Marcos's wife, Imelda. He spent the next three years in exile near Boston before deciding to return to the Philippines. Aquino's assassination is credited with transforming the opposition to the Marcos regime from a small, isolated movement into a nationally unified crusade. It is also credited with thrusting Aquino's widow, Corazon Aquino, into the public spotlight and her running for president in the snap election of 1986. Though Marcos was officially declared the winner of the election, widespread allegations of fraud and illegal tampering on Marcos's behalf is credited with sparking thePeople Power Revolution, which resulted in Marcos fleeing the country and conceding the presidency to Corazon Aquino. Though many, including the Aquino family, maintain that Marcos ordered Aquino's assassination, this was never definitively proven. An official government investigation ordered by Marcos shortly after the assassination led to murder charges against 25 military personnel and one civilian; all were acquitted by theSandiganbayan (special court). After Marcos was ousted, another government investigation under Corazon Aquino's administration led to a retrial and the conviction of 16 military personnel, all of whom were sentenced to life imprisonment. Since their conviction, one of the convicts was pardoned, three died in prison, and the remainder had their sentences commuted at various times; the last convicts were released from prison in 2009.

References Macapagal, D. (n.d.). Diosdado Macapagals Inagural Address. Retrieved March 26, 2010, from Wikisource:http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Diosdado_Macapagals_Inaugural_Address Macapagal, D. (1962). Five-Year Integrated Socio-Economic Program for the Philippines. Manila. Macapagal, D. (1961). The Common Man. Manila.

Malacanang Museum. (n.d.). Retrieved March 27, 2010, from Malacanang Museum:http://www.op.gov.ph/museum/pres_macapagal.asp MArcos, F. E. (n.d.). Ferdinand Marcoss Second Inagural Address. Retrieved March 26, 2010, from Wikisource:http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Marcos_Second_Inaugural_Address Marcos, F. E. (1983). Toward a New Partnership. Manila: Marcos Foundation Inc. Philippine History Marcos Administration. (n.d.). Retrieved March 25, 2010, from Philippine Country.Com:http://www.philippinecountry.com/philippine_history/marcos_time.html Reynolds, Q. a. (1965). Macapagal: The Incorruptible. New York: David McKay Company Inc. The Philippines: The Marcos Years. (n.d.). Retrieved March 28, 2010, from gwu.edu:http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/publications/philippines/philippines.html The Two Leaders: The Marcos Biography. (n.d.). Retrieved March 27, 2010, from The Two Leaders:http://library.thinkquest.org/15816/thetwoleaders.article1.html Time. (n.d.). Retrieved March 28, 2010, from The Philippines: Marcos Martial Law:http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,906446,00.html Worcester, D. C. The Philippines: Past and Present (Volume 1 of 2). Spaeth, A. (January 6, 2008). A Matter of Trust. Time Asia. Retrieved March 24, 2010 fromhttp://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/501050613/story.html Tolentino, R. (July 23, 2009). UP CMCs assessment of the media under Macapagal-Arroyo regime. Retrieved March 24, 2010 fromhttp://risingsun.dannyarao.com/2009/07/23/up-cmcs-assessment-ofthe-media-under-macapagal-arroyo-regime/ IBON. (March 4, 2008). IBON: Corruption scandals under Arroyo cost Filipinos P7.3B. Retrieved March 24, 2010 fromhttp://www.gmanews.tv/story/83278/IBON-Corruption-scandals-under-Arroyo-costFilipinos-P73B Diokno, B. (July 27, 2009). Glorias 9th SONA: Apologetic, boastfulor both?. Retrieved March 24, 2010 from http://pcij.org/stories/glorias-9th-apologetic-boastful-or-both/ Office of the President. (n.d.). Executive Summary. Retrieved March 24, 2010 from http://www.ops.gov.ph/100days/exec_sum.htm Nicolas, S. (n.d.). Promises for the U.S., Power Firms. Retrieved March 24, 2010 from http://www.bulatlat.com/news/4-22/4-22-promises.html GMA News Research. (January 25, 2008). Hello Garci Scandal. Retrieved March 24, 2010 from http://www.gmanews.tv/story/27477/Hello-Garci-scandal

(n.d.). Gloria Arroyo. Retrieved March 24, 2010 fromhttp://www.mademan.com/chickipedia/gloriaarroyo/ Inquirer. (December 24, 2006). Timeline in Hello Garci scandal. Retrieved March 24, 2010 fromhttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/2006122440093/Timeline_in_%91Hello_Garci%92_scandal GMA News. (n.d.). Oakwood Mutiny. Retrieved March 24, 2010 fromhttp://images.gmanews.tv/html/research/2007/11/oakwood_mutiny_timeline.html GMA News. (April 8, 2008). Oakwood Mutiny backgrounder. Retrieved March 24, 2010 from http://www.gmanews.tv/story/33181/Oakwood-Mutiny-backgrounder ABS-CBN News. (November 24, 2008). Timeline: Exposing the ZTE Overprice. Retrieved March 24, 2010 from http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/11/24/08/timeline-exposing-zte-overprice Inquirer. (September 27, 2007). Length and breadth of broadband deal. Retrieved March 24, 2010 fromhttp://services.inquirer.net/print/print.php?article_id=90992 Esguerra, C. (August 14, 2009). Palace slams media to justify NY, DC dinners. Retrieved March 25, 2010 fromhttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20090814-220220/Palace-slamsmedia-to-justify-NY-DC-dinners Cebu Daily News. (August 10, 2009). Bishop slams GMAs P1M dinner in New York. Retrieved March 25, 2010 fromhttp://globalnation.inquirer.net/cebudailynews/news/view/20090810-219542/Bishop-slamsGMAs-P1M-dinner-in-New-York Villas, A. (August 8, 2009). Binay hits GMAs P960,000 dinner in US. Retrieved March 25, 2010 fromhttp://www.mb.com.ph/node/214983/binay-hit Newsbreak Online. (August 12, 2009). Another expensive US dinner for GMA. Retrieved March 25, 2010 fromhttp://newsbreak.com.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6590&Itemid=88889051 Dillon, D. (October 7, 2004). Arroyos Policies Disappoint. Retrieved March 25, 2010 fromhttp://www.heritage.org/Research/Commentary/2004/10/Arroyos-Policies-Disappoint Malacanang. (February 24, 2006). Proclamation No. 1017. Retrieved March 26, 2010 fromhttp://www.lawphil.net/executive/proc/proc_1017_2006.html GMA News. (February 21, 2008). Proclamation 1017. Retrieved March 26, 2010 from http://www.gmanews.tv/story/81634/proclamation-1017 Senate of the Philippines. (March 2, 2006). Press release PP1017, a disguise for martial law, must be stopped on its tracks Pimintel. Retrieved March 26, 2010 fromhttp://www.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2006/0302_pimentel1.asp

Velasco, F. (n.d.). President Arroyo Vows to continue pro-poor programs, hopes for their sustenance by next govt. Retrieved March 26, 2010 fromhttp://positivenewsmedia.net/am2/publish/Main_News_1/President_Arroyo_vows_to_continue_p ro-poor_programs_hopes_for_their_sustenance_by_next_gov_t.shtml Padilla, A. (June 18, 2009). Improved Employment Driven by Survival Instincts. Retrieved March 26, 2010 fromhttp://www.bulatlat.com/main/2009/06/18/improved-employment-driven-by-survivalinstincts-not-arroyos-programs/ GMA News. (July 24, 2006). CPP: Arroyos SONA to harp about false progress. Retrieved March 26, 2010 fromhttp://www.gmanews.tv/story/11459/CPP-Arroyos-SONA-to-harp-about-false-progress Esplanada, J. (December 10, 2009). Militants Urge Ampatuans to admit poll faud. Retrieved March 26, 2010 fromhttp://politics.inquirer.net/view.php?db=1&article=20091210-241207 KOMPIL 2. (November 28, 2000). Para sa Mahirap?. Retrieved March 25, 2010 from http://www.philsol.nl/A01a/Erap-Kompil-nov00.htm No Author. (n.d.). Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Retrieved March 26, 2010 from http://www.search.com/reference/Gloria_MacapagalArroyo#Executive_Order_No._464_and_calibrated_preemptive_response Malaya News. (n.d.). Anti-Poverty groups say Gloria in state of denial. Retrieved March 26, 2010 fromhttp://www.malaya.com.ph/mar22/news8.htm IFPRI. (n.d.). Philippine Agricultural and food policies. Retrieved March 24, 2010 from http://www.ifpri.org/publication/philippine-agricultural-and-food-policies Bayan. (July 27, 2008). The real state of the nation: GMA regime has put RP in ever worsening poverty and economic crisis Bayan. Retrieved March 26, 2010 from http://bayan.ph/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1217127867&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1& amp; (n.d.). Retrieved March 28, 2010, from Britannica Encyclopedia:http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/487536/Elpidio-Quirino Fajardo, R. (n.d.). The Masonic Life of Manuel Roxas. Retrieved March 28, 2010, from Famous Filipino Masons: http://www.glphils.org/famous-masons/fmroxas.htm Malacanang Museum. (n.d.). Retrieved March 28, 2010, fromhttp://www.op.gov.ph/museum/pres_roxas.asp Zaide, Gregorio F. (1984). Philippine History and Government. National Bookstore Printing Press. Zaide, Gregorio (1956). Philippine Political and Cultural History: the Philippines since British Invasion (1957 Revised ed.). Manila, Philippines: McCullough Printing Company.

http://www.philippinecountry.com/philippine_history/estrada_admin.html http://globalnation.inquirer.net/columns/columns/view/20090924-226724/Estradas-motive http://www.bsp.gov.ph/publications/regular_annual_99.asp http://www.gmanews.tv/story/52900/The-El-Ni&ntildeo-Phenomenon http://www.apmforum.com/columns/orientseas22.htm http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia/1412/article-34762.html http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20090414-199169/Trial-of-Estrada-cronyordered http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Joseph_Estrada%27s_Inaugural_Address http://coryaquino.ph/section.asp?id=45 http://www.dar.gov.ph/ar_history.html http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/features/07/21/09/timeline-events-life-cory-aquino http://www.asianpress.net/2009/08/03/timeline-events-in-the-life-of-cory-aquino/ http://www.angelfire.com/on/philpres/magsaysay.html http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/357732/Ramon-Magsaysay http://www.answers.com/topic/ramon-magsaysay http://www.bookrags.com/Ramn_Magsaysay http://www.globalpinoy.com/ch/ch_category.php?category=presidents&name=Ramon%20Magsaysay& table=ch_presidents&startpage=1&endpage=15 http://park.org/Philippines/government/presidents.ht Manuel quezon
Senator Joker Arroyo is at a loss why the Aquino administration and the Catholic hierarchy continue to quarrel over the reproductive health bill when the government and the Church leadership struck a compromise over two controversial issues in the past. The first one was in 1938 when then President Manuel L. Quezon vetoed a bill, approved by the then unicameral National Assembly, on religious instruction in the countrys public schools. A heated debate between Quezon and Church followed. The public joined the debate, zeroing in on the separation of Church and State. The National Assembly did not meet to override the presidential veto, Arroyo said in a statement. He said that 18 years later during the Magsaysay presidency in 1956, Senators Claro M. Recto and Jose P. Laurel introduced in the Senate a measure mandating the reading of national hero Jose Rizals Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo in all the countrys schools.

The Catholic Church opposed it and the controversy was heated and nationwide. The Church insisted that some passages in Rizals novels were derogatory to the Church and to make it required reading would be unfair, Arroyo said. He said a compromise was reached after weeks of heated debate. Among others, the unexpurgated version of Noli and Fili, which contain critical essays against the Church would not be required reading in the elementary and secondary schools. The original text will be taught in the college level, Arroyo said. He said that in the first two controversies, it looks like the Church lost in the religious instruction bill in 1938. It was a tie on the Noli-Fili controversy, Arroyo said. After 56 years Now comes the RH bill, the third one after 56 years. It is just as heated and acrimonious as the religious instruction and the Noli-Fili bills. But the period of debates in the RH bill is a lot longer, Arroyo said. Its some wonder why the RH bill cannot be resolved amicably by the contending parties like the Noli-Fili, he added. Norman Bordadora

Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/322537/sen-arroyo-cites-govt-church-compromise-over-past-controversialissues#ixzz2gRRlP8qo Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

Noynoy Aquino
1. Qualification on the Position First, let's admit the fact that he wasn't voted into office because of actual qualifications. He was a lackluster lawmaker in congress and didn't exactly make impressions in terms of his career. He coasted along until his mother died. Suddenly everybody thought it would be a good idea to vote him into office as president. It was what is expected of the son of the late Benigno and Cory Aquino, both great former presidents of the Philippines. He lacks charisma or even basic public speaking abilities. The media has a lot of bad comments especially when he speaks with the press. He commits a lot of stupid pronouncements and sometimes what he says is beyond comprehension. He should get himself a media coach to train him in handling himself around the press and the whole country. 2. Hacienda Luisita With the ascent of President Benigno Aquino III to the presidency, the future of Hacienda Luisita has become a focus of attention. This issue was supposed to be settled decades ago. But the Hacienda Luisita management failed to do their part on the agreement. Even though the agreement to settle the decades-old clash is included on the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), the present machinations of the management is seen as deceptive as they only opt to give more than 1,000 hectares of land plus cash instead of distributing to farmers the more than 4,000 hectares already designated by the Department of Agrarian Reform for distribution to farmerbeneficiaries. Theres a report on Noynoy Aquino saying hes got less than one percent share of the hacienda. Then, in another story, he was quoted as saying they could have gotten at

least P3 billion if the 4,500-hectare land were sold at P4.5 billion. In one story, Noynoy was quoted as saying that they would give up the land.
Seems like the whole Hacienda Luisita issue is compromising the ability of President Benigno Noynoy Aquino III to render with professional dignity his duties as leader of the Filipino people. The fate of control over the vast estate by the Aquino-Cojuangco clan in the face of deadlines to fully implement the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) by 2014 presents what could be the single biggest plausible motivation for the massively-funded engineering of a Second Aquino Administration from 2009 to 2010. Noynoy, being the culmination of that investment, is unfortunately living his worst nightmare finding himself face-to-face with a monumental roadblock to his singular mission as President: Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona who was appointed at the eleventh hour by former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. It seems that Noynoys presidential pitch to voters on the back of good intentions, as it turns out, masked a more practical agenda. A temporary restraining order (TRO) on the application of the CARP on HLI has been in effect since 2005 when tenant farmers mounted an almost successful bid to overturn a failed stock distribution scheme initiated by then President Corazon Cory Aquino. Thus a Noynoy presidency was apparently deemed critical to ensure that the right people were in the Supreme Court over the 2010-2016 presidential term, most likely to ensure that the SC in that period dished out rulings favourable to the presidential Kamaganak Inc which, of course, includes the owners of HLI. This likely inlcudes keeping the TRO in effect and buying enough time for HLI to get its sorry financial position back in the black. Its no wonder then that Noynoy threw a monumental fit when he first faced the prospect of a presidency under a Supreme Court led by Arroyo appointee Renato Corona. To Noynoy, Corona represented an absolute roadblock to the whole point his mission to his family while President of the Philippines. Unfortunately for Noynoy and his extended clansmen, a series of bumbles further aggravated his already thorny relationship with Corona. The culmination of the course Noynoy himself set towards the head-on with the SC which started when Noynoy first assumed the office in mid-2010 is the bald defiance by his Justice Secretary Leila De Lima of a temporary restraining order (TRO) on a travel-ban slapped by Malacaang on Arroyo. Shortly after, the High Court ordered the immediate distribution of Hacienda Luisita to all its eligible tenant farmers. The extent to which the Hacienda Luisita situation has now occupied the limited mind of the President is evident in the way he is now behaving. In a recent speech he delivered to the Makati Business Club at the National Criminal Justice Summit last Monday, he reportedly spent the better part of his time at the podium verbally assaulting the Supreme Court even as its Chief Justice sat just a couple of meters away

Sergio Osmea
GENTLEMEN OF THE CONGRESS: Today, a moment of great historic significance, the voice of our people, muted throughout the long dreary night of enemy enslavement, is to be heard again in the halls of this Congress, through their duly elected representatives. It has been a long lapse of time since that day in November, 1941, when you were elected, to this day when you gather in your first session. We can hardly recognize our country after the cataclysm that has engulfed it. The war has left its livid scars everywhereon our buildings as well as on mens souls. Probably nothing can more starkly summarize our present plight than the fact that the Executive and Legislative branches of our Government have to meet today in a borrowed house because our Legislative Building is a heap of rubble and ashes, mute witness to the savage desperation of the beaten enemy.

The tragedy that has afflicted our nation has lacerated our hearts. We all miss today many dear and familiar faces that are no more. But perhaps no sorrow has touched us more deeply than the passing of our beloved leader, Manuel L. Quezon. I know, however, that you feel as I do that his immortal spirit abides with us in this hour of trial and crisis, encouraging us to proceed with the arduous tasks that lie ahead. This great man, who dedicated his entire life to his country, died as he would have wanted to diein line of duty. Soon his mortal remains, kept at the Arlington National Cemetery at Virginia, will be brought back to the Philippines, and we shall all have the opportunity of rendering him our last homage of admiration and affection. We shall erect him a monument so that we and our generations yet unborn may keep his memory enshrined in our hearts. The Philippines is the one territory under the American flag which has suffered the most at the invaders hands. Not only are its war casualties the highest in proportion to population, not only have its cities and towns been destroyed and looted, its countrysides and farms laid waste, and its whole economic structure ruined, but its people have undergone more physical pain and mental anguish than in any other part of the United States. As early as December 8, 1941, a few hours after her felon attack on Pearl Harbor, Japan sent bombers and task forces to the Philippines. Unavoidably turned into a battlefield, our country suffered heavily in men and property, especially in Bataan, where the Filipino-American Army battled the Japanese forces for four long months. Then followed a period of enemy occupation, cruel and humiliating. No sooner had the fighting in Bataan ended than the enemy began the systematic looting of our country. There was no limit to what he could requisition with his worthless money. Even our barest necessities were commandeered. And when we tried to stand by our rights, force, ruthless force, immediately intervened. With or without cause, people by the scores were arrested and sent to prison and concentration camps some to be tortured, others to be executed. As time went on, we became more impoverished, while the enemy became still more cruel and arrogant. After undergoing three years of enemy domination, no people was a more pitiful sight than the Filipinoslean, ragged and famished. I wish to stress the fact that the extreme suffering of the Filipinos and the widespread destruction wrought on our country has been due, in a large measure, to their unwavering loyalty to the United States. No people, I believe, has given so much proof of fidelity to the cause of the mother country as the Filipinos. When Japan invaded the Philippines, the American flag was here. Even without that flag, Japan would probably have launched her attack. But as long as the Philippines remained under American sovereignty, the responsibility for the defense of the Islands lay with the United States. For forty odd years, in our continuous preparation for self-government, we exercised jurisdiction over matters of education, public works, sanitation and other functions of public administration, but never over our national defense. This function remained in the hands of the United States as the sovereign power. It is true that as soon as the Commonwealth was established, we started giving our citizens military training and building up a modest army, but these steps were in preparation, not for war, but for the fulfillment of our peaceful duties as an independent nation. Notwithstanding these facts, the Filipino people rallied to the defense of the American flag, paying no heed to the cost and consequences. The sad moment came when it had to be admitted that the battle was lost, since a relief force could not be sent to the Philippines. But far from wavering, the Filipino soldier, side by side with his American comrade, fought on harder than ever until he was overwhelmed by superior numbers. Unwilling to bow to the enemy, the Filipino people valiantly took up the struggle with all the strength they could muster. Patriotic groups soon sprang up throughout the length and breadth of the Archipelago. At first eluding the enemy, the guerrillas took to the mountains, but with the active support of the civilian population they quickly grew in number and strength to become a virtual challenge to the enemy. The story of the guerrilleros and of the civilian patriots who helped them, is an epic of heroism, loyalty and

sacrifice. As far as possible they should be given recognition. Recognized guerrilla units have already been incorporated into the Philippine Army. As stated in Leyte, in praising the guerrillas we should not be forgetful of the loyal civilians who were left behind and, at the risk of their lives, supported the resistance movement. Included among these civilians were those who, at the beginning of the war, were civil service employees or holders of subordinate positions in the government, and who remained at their posts to protect the people and extend to them all possible aid and comfort. They should, as a general principle, be recalled as soon as their services should be needed; only for strong reasons should they be deprived of their privilege to serve. This policy applies as well to elected provincial and municipal officials who were chosen in the election of 1940, thus giving due consideration to the will of the people as expressed at the polls. Filipino loyalty to America is an incontestable fact. It is the more remarkable when we consider that right from the start of the war the Filipinos were subjected to a terrific barrage of anti-American propaganda. Claiming invincibility and professing a brotherly spirit toward the Philippines, Japan declared that she had come to our country to free us from the American yoke, and offered us a place of honor in here much vaunted Co-Prosperity Sphere. But we contrasted these soothing words with the factual, liberal and generous record of America. Against the obviously empty promises of Tojo was the solemn pledge of President Roosevelt to the Filipinos that their freedom would be redeemed and their independence established and protected. This pledge was later enlarged to include the promise that the Philippines would be assisted in the full repair of the ravages caused by the war. It was in quest of the fulfillment of the promises of President Roosevelt that President Quezon and his Cabinet accepted his invitation to transfer the Commonwealth Government to Washington. In the course of this session, I shall have occasion to report to you the activities of our government in the United States. In this message I propose to discuss only the salient phases of that labor. When we reached the United States, this country was entirely preoccupied with the problems of her mighty war effort and her attention was concentrated on the European front. She was straining all her means and resources towards the fulfillment of her resolution to crush Nazi Germany first. It was then extremely difficult to divert American attention to the Pacific, but determined to present our cause before the American people, President Quezon held conferences with President Roosevelt and appeared before the Senate and House of Representatives. In spite of the delicate state of his health, he worked ceaselessly during the first year of his stay in Washington, delivering important speeches and repeatedly broadcasting to the Philippines in an effort to maintain the faith of his people. In active support of the President, the members of his Cabinet also made speeches throughout the United States, inviting the attention of the people of America to the loyal stand of the Filipinos and urging prompt efforts for their early redemption. The United States has kept her pledge. The Philippines is now liberated. This arduous campaign of eight months, beginning at Leyte Gulf, has ended with the current final phase of mopping up in Mindanao and Northern Luzon. Only the mountain corridor of Cagayan Valley, a trap from which there is no escape, remains under Japanese occupation. Yet, in the flush of victory, we are apt to take for granted the monumental effort which the United States has had to exert to liberate us. Into the Southwest Pacific Area the Japanese General Staff had poured a tremendous amount of troops, planes and ships. Estimates place the Japanese, military forces in the Philippines as comprising an entire army area, two army corps, at least 22 divisions and brigades, and a large number of service troops, totaling at least 450,000 men. Merchant marine, laborers and hastily drafted civilians swelled this locust plague of armed of occupation forces. Enormous distances had to be traversed, but within the framework of a master plan that took everything into considerationclimate, terrain and an enemy who preferred suicide to capture operations stretching over 3,000 miles were relentlessly pursued throughout the bitter years of 1942, 1943 and 1944,

until the brilliant goal is within inescapable reach in 1945. The main goal of these far-flung operations was the liberation of the Philippines. Enemy losses in the Philippines to date exceed 380,000, a mortal wound inflicted on the Japanese army. With relatively low losses to ourselves, we have before us another example of the brilliant strategy of that genial military leader, General of the Army Douglas MacArthur. The strategic effect of the liberation of the Philippines has been to set the stage for ultimate Japanese defeat at home and in the south, two areas now severed from each other. Filipinos have done their part in this work by giving lavishly of their men and resources to the United States. But the fight is not yet over, and so I have offered to General MacArthur one division of Filipino troops, under Filipino officers, for the final assault on Japan. Words alone cannot express our gratitude to the United States for all it has done for us, and I take this opportunity to repeat the offer made by President Quezon in 1941 to the people of Americathat the men and resources of the Philippines are unconditionally at the service of the United States. While our Government in Washington did its utmost to present before the American people the political aspect of the struggle in the Philippines, it did not neglect the economic phase, fully aware that the war would produce serious dislocations in the economic life of our country. President Quezon initiated personally the negotiations with the Federal Government to obtain the necessary economic assistance after the war. He did not stop negotiating directly with that Government until, because of his health, he had to retire temporarily from active labor. To proceed with the work already commenced, he created a Post War Planning Board. This Board held sessions continuously and completed its preliminary work. This served as the basis for a program which was finally submitted by the representatives of our Government on the Filipino Rehabilitation Commission presided over by Senator Tydings. I am presenting to you with this message the reports which have been submitted to me by the Filipino group of this Commission. Upon their examination you will find that the program of relief and rehabilitation, as prepared by our representatives in Washington, is very comprehensive. I wish on this occasion to praise the work done by our group. Our men there accomplished a difficult task within very limited means. Now that there is available to me a wealth of human material, it is my purpose to appoint to this Commission new representatives, among whom will be members of this Congress. When I assumed office as President of the Philippines, I considered it my duty to exert every possible effort to obtain the active personal interest of the President of the United States in our problems. But when I was prepared to confer with President Roosevelt on his return from Quebec last October, I received an urgent request from General MacArthur, to join him and the forces of liberation that were poised to retake the Philippines. Because of this urgent request, I was able to have only a short conference with President Roosevelt, but I promised him that I would return to the United States as soon as possible to continue our conversations. After the reestablishment of the Commonwealth Government in Leyte, I returned to the United States. President Roosevelt being then out of Washington and, on the other hand, finding myself in urgent need of submitting to a physical examination, I went to Jacksonville, Florida. Everything was in readiness for my hospitalization there when I received another telegram from General Macarthur urging me to join him in Luzon immediately. Reaching Lingayen on the very day I was expected, I rejoined General MacArthur in his headquarters and with him I entered Manila. Upon resuming my functions in this Capital, I endeavored to convene the Congress, but due to the military situation, it was not possible to do so. I then decided to return to the United States to renew my conferences with President Roosevelt. We met on April 5th and reached an agreement on some of our basic problems. We further agreed to meet again in Washington. Unfortunately, the President died on the 12th. Shocked by the sad news, I hastened to express to his successor the most profound condolences of the Filipino people. I flew to Washington to attend the funeral services. In the passing of President Roosevelt we, with the entire world, have suffered an irreparable loss. I recommend the erection, by public

subscription, of a national library to be named Franklin D. Roosevelt Memorial Library as a lasting tribute to him who was a true friend of the Filipinos and a great champion of human rights and liberties. President Roosevelt had suggested that our next meeting be at the White House on April 19. On that date President Truman received me and we conferred in the presence of the Secretaries of State, War, Navy and the Interior. This was followed by another conference the next week in which President Truman accepted as his own President Roosevelts commitments with respect to the Philippines and decided, with my concurrence, to send Senator Tydings of Maryland as his special envoy to the Philippines. The object, of the Tydings Mission was not to collect data here, since all the necessary statistical and other information were already available to Senator Tydings before he left Washington. The mission desired, firstly, to obtain a personal impression of the situation in which the war had left us, and secondly, to contact personally the officials of the Philippine Government, the Military Command and other interested parties, with a view to coordinating their suggestions and fitting them into the rehabilitation plans already under consideration. Deeply moved by what he saw in Manila, Senator Tydings decided to return immediately to Washington to report to the President of the United States. Indicative of the sympathy, zeal and industry of the Tydings Mission is the four-point program for the rehabilitation of the Philippines which it has publicly announced. I am confident that action on this and other programs will soon be forthcoming. First and foremost in our minds, as Filipinos, is the question of our political future. In this matter, no greater and nobler message has been given to the Filipino people than that of President Roosevelt when, on August 13, 1943, reiterating his previous promises on independence made on December 28, 1941, he expressed himself in the following words: On December 28, 1941, three weeks after the armies of the Japa nese launched their attack on Philippine soil, I sent a proclamation to you, the gallant people of the Philippines. I said then: I give to the people of the Philippines my solemn pledge that their freedom will be redeemed and their independence established and protected. The entire resources in men and materials of the United States stand behind that pledge. We shall keep this promise just as we have kept every promise which America has made to the Filipino people. Soon after, on the initiative of President Quezon, steps were taken to obtain congressional sanction for these pledges. If President Quezon did nothing but this in his political career and his political record can hardly be surpassed it alone would entitle him to the eternal gratitude of his people. Senate Joint Resolution No. 93, which President Quezon and I asked for and accepted, is the culmination of our joint congressional efforts. This legislation authorizes the President of the United States to advance the date of independence provided in the Independence Law. It also provides, through the maintenance by the United States of bases in the Philippines, for full security for the Philippines, for the mutual protection of the Islands and the United States, and for the future maintenance of peace in the Pacific. So that the import of this new legislation, and the responsibility which we Filipinos have assumed thereby, may be better understood, it is necessary that we review past events even if we have to walk again on well-trodden paths. National independence was the goal which our revolutionaries of 1896 and 1898 set for themselves. When the fortunes of war were adverse to our arms and American sovereignty was established in 1898, individual liberties were recognized, among them the right of free assembly. Under the protection of this

freedom, two political groups came into existence: the Federalistas, who declared themselves in favor of the annexation of the Philippines to the United States so as to constitute, in due time, a state of the Union; and the Nacionalistas, who advocated the ideal of independence which the Filipino revolutionaries had proclaimed but were not able to achieve in war. The aspiration to be free, nurtured in an atmosphere of peace, was received with sympathy in the United States. The legitimacy of this aspiration was recognized by Dr. Jacob G. Schurman, President of the first American Commission sent by President McKinley to the Philippines, in these memorable words: The watchword of progress, the key to the future of the political development of the archipelago, is neither colonialism nor federalism, but nationalism. The destiny of the Philippine Islands is not to be a State or territory in the United States of America, but a daughter republic of ours a new birth of liberty on the, other side of the Pacific, which shall animate and energize those lovely islands of the tropical seas, and, rearing its head aloft, stand as a monument of progress and a beacon of hope to all the oppressed and benighted millions of the Asiatic continent. On their part the Filipino people, who had elected a majority of Nacionalistas to the first Philippine Assembly, which met in 1907, repeatedly reiterated their confidence in them in successive elections, until the Congress approved in 1934 the Tydings-McDuffie Act creating the present Commonwealth. This law was accepted, first by the Legislature and then directly by the people, thus binding America and the Philippines to a virtual covenant by which the United States formally committed itself to withdraw its sovereignty from the Philippines and proclaim our independence on July 4, 1946. The ten-year transition period was not established to delay the proclamation of independence, but only to prepare the Philippines adequately for the responsibilities of nationhood. We were well advanced in our preparations for independence when we became the object of an unjust aggression by Japan. But Japans military occupation of the Philippines had not affected the independence program agreed upon between the United States and the Philippines. When President Roosevelt invited the President of the Government of the Commonwealth and his Cabinet to evacuate to the United States, he did not do so merely to preserve the constitutional integrity of the Philippine Government but also to assure the realization, in due time, of the program of independence. With this fundamental idea in mind, the United States took the initiative of considering the Philippines as possessing all of the attributes of complete and respected nationhood. I cannot give you a more authoritative statement concerning the status of our Government in Washington than that which President Roosevelt himself made in his broadcast to the Philippines on August 13, 1943: The Philippine Government is a signatory of the Declaration by the United Nations, along with thirty-one other nations. President Quezon and Vice President Osmea attend the meetings of the Pacific War Council, where the war in the Pacific is charted and planned. Your government has participated fully and equally in the United Nations Conference on Food and Agriculture, and a Philippine representative is a member of the Interim Commission created by that Conference. And, of course, the Philippine Government will have its rightful place in the conference which will follow the defeat of Japan. In confirmation of this status we are now participating, among the free and independent nations of the world, in the United Nations Conference on International Organization now taking place in San Francisco. This war, which has ravaged the world and which is yet to be won in the Pacific, has brought to the Philippines a permanent blessing. I refer to the fundamental change in Americas policy with regard to the outside world, namely, her abandonment of the attitude of isolation and her frank acknowledgment of her duty, as one of the most powerful nations on earth, to preserve for all mankind liberty, justice, peace and security.

In conformity with this new, well-asserted ideology, Congress approved in 1944 Joint Resolutions 93 and 94 which provide, among other things, for the permanent security of the Philippines. America will not only acknowledge our independence as soon as it is possible after the Japanese have been expelled from our soil but will provide, besides, protection for that independence. When the Philippine Assembly in 1907 formulated the first official petition of the Filipino people that it be granted independence, it did so fully aware of the responsibilities which the new status would impose on us with respect to our security. The Jones Law of 1916 offered us independence as soon as we had organized a stable government, and we accepted it in spite of the fact that such a law did not contain any promise giving us the protection of America after the attainment of our political freedom. In 1934 the Filipino people had occasion in a plebiscite to accept or reject an independence law without adequate American guarantee for its maintenance. The people accepted the offer by an overwhelming majority. With America now offering us protection which assures the permanency of our independence, it would be inconceivable for any Filipino to vacillate. The program of independence, initially written with the blood of the heroes and martyrs of our history, which took root in the days of the first Philippine Assembly in 1907, which acquired consistency throughout the long period of Filipino-American collaboration resulting in the approval of the Jones Law in 1916 and the establishment of the Commonwealth in 1935, is a program definitely accepted by the Filipino people. Those of us who are temporarily in charge of the affairs of state are mere trustees of the sacred ideal of our people. We have no right to turn back we shall not turn backcowed by imaginary dangers or swayed by the desire to lead a life of ease and plenty. We cannot sell our liberty for a mess of pottage. When Andres Bonifacio and his men uttered their now historic First Cry of Balintawak, they were not held back by fear of the enemy, or by any love of earthly goods. When we took over the banner of liberty from those that fell in the night of our defeat, we asked only for freedom and for nothing more. When we were asked in 1934 if we preferred liberty to prosperity, our people answered overwhelmingly that they desired liberty above everything else. Now that the United States, in recognition of our role in this war, has declared itself our ally and, with liberty, offers us security, it is our duty and our choice to accept. So I say to every Filipino and to all other elements in our state, that the die is cast. Our course is straight and inflexible. We are going forward to the achievement of our national aspiration. Gentlemen of the Congress: You are gathered today under the most trying circumstances. There are many serious problems ahead of us. But we who have so long and ardently clamored for self-government must prove to the world that we are equal to the most exacting tasks of public administration. That great and distinguished friend of the Filipino people, General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, once said that they are only fit to live who are not afraid to die. Our people have shown on the battlefield that they are not afraid to die. But the tasks of peace are at times more exacting than those of war. We are administering the affairs of eighteen million people just delivered from three long years of enslavement. To them we owe justice, order and the means to live in contentment and happiness. I am aware that our means at the moment are inadequate. We are not able to provide our people with as much as they deserve. But we shall not falter in the line of duty. Let us get together in one mighty effort. Let us set aside selfish considerations and forget petty differences. Only in unity can there be strength. To the experienced, I turn for advice. From the youth of the land, I ask for its enthusiasm and energies. My faith in our people is unbounded. Over the ruins of our cities and barrios we shall build anew. In this most crucial hour of our history, I look forward to our destiny unafraid, confident that, God willing, ours will be a happy, progressive and prosperous land.

In closing, permit me to congratulate you most heartily for being the first elective Congress to meet in a country liberated from the enemy, although the Philippines is among the last to be free from enemy occupation and control. I wish you all success in discharging the tremendous responsibility that is yours during the present emergency.

Manuel L. Quezon III

The Constitution tells us that Congress exists to enact laws. In the enactment of laws, members of the House of Representatives bring the interests and concerns of specific local districts to the table; members of the Senate represent a national perspective because they are elected at large. Every year, the most important law enacted by Congress is the General Appropriations Act, or the National Budget. This is what funds the operations of the entire national government for a given fiscal year, Jan. 1 to Dec. 31. The process begins with the President, as Chief Executive (the one tasked with administering the departments of the national government, and who implements laws enacted by Congress) submitting a proposed budget to Congress (Art. VII, Sec. 22). According to the Constitution, Congress is obliged to act on this proposed budget: they can only subtract items from it, and not add to it (Art. VI, Sec. 25, I). Furthermore, the budgetary process in Congress must begin with the House of Representatives (Art. VI, Sec. 24) , which has what is called the power of the purse, on the principle that as the representatives closest to the people, since they represent local districts, they are best qualified to authorize government expenditures. Congress both houses, first the House, then the Senate conducts budget deliberations through its sitting committees and in plenary (or as a whole for each chamber) exercises oversight, which is why budget hearings are conducted, in which departments and agencies are quizzed about the previous years activities and what they plan to do for the coming year. Once approved in committee, the proposed budget is then debated in plenary; then passed by that chamber. The process is repeated in the other chamber. If there are differences in the versions adopted by each chamber, the differences are resolved in the Bicameral Conference Committee (this is part of the internal checks and balances within Congress itself). Then, upon referral and approval by the respective chambers, the General Appropriations Act is submitted to the President for his signature. The President, as part of the principle of checks and balances, has a unique form of veto when it comes to the national budget or laws involving tariffs or revenues. So he can disapprove specific line items in the budget, in what is called a line-item veto (Art. VI Sec. 27, 2). When it comes to other laws, a President who disapproves of a proposed law must veto the entire thing, returning it to Congress, which, if it is unable to override the veto (overriding requires 2/3 majority in each chamber), must accept that the law is killed (Art. VI Sec. 27, 1). Congress can choose to override the Presidents line-item vetoes, or accept them. Once everyone House, Senate, President are OK with the proposed budget, then it becomes a law, known as the General Appropriations Act. And the government has funds to operate for that fiscal year. Let me repeat: Congressmen and Senators make laws; and the most important law they enact each and every year, is the national budget. Unlike the United States, our Constitution also says that if for whatever reason, a General Appropriations Act isnt passed in time for the new fiscal year, then the previous years budget is automatically reenacted (Art. VI, Sec. 25, 7). And this is where our discussion of the pork barrel and the changes announced by the President today, begins.

Consider the needs of your community. If it is a small 4th-Class Municipality. As an LGU, it has its own revenues, whether from business permits and other fees, and its proportional share of the revenues of the national government. But still, it can still lack the revenues to fund all the needs of those who live there: scholarships, for example. This is where the national government can, and should, step in. This is done through national programs carried out in local areas, including services and infrastructure. Again: all these programs, ranging from services to infrastructure, require funding. And they can only be funded by means of the national budget, which funds the fixed programs of the national agencies, and which also provides for funds that can be used for certain contingencies, such as calamities. And it is Congress composed of the House and Senate that authorizes the funding. These are the operating principles of government, ideally, how things work. As they say, the devil is in the details. Which brings us back to the Constitutional provision on reenacting the budget, and how this is a good way to kick off discussions on the pork barrel. As the President mentioned in his Statement today, in 2007, Congress managed to pass the national budget in April of that year, when it should have been enacted by December 31 of the previous year. Since there was no new budget when 2007 began, the 2006 budget was automatically reenacted to tide over the government. Here is the first opportunity for mischief that the President, then a Senator, identified: if, say, the 2006 budget had allocated funds in a province, but by 2007 the bridge had been built, the automatically reenacted 2006 budget would still contain a provision to build a bridge that had already been built. Since it existed, the government could then declare the redundant fund as savings, which means it could then be spent on something else. The second opportunity for mischief was pointed out by then-Senator Aquino, as the 2007 budget was nearing passage in April of that year: shouldnt the 2007 General Appropriations Act be minus the basically fixed expenses (salaries, etc. being a prime example) that had already been paid for, by the reenacted 2006 budget, for the months January to April? He was ignored on both counts, and so voted No to the budget. The amounts concerned were nothing to sneeze at: 36 billion pesos. And he had to ask, where did that money go? As we have seen with just one example of mischief the Napoles issue it takes a long time to do the detective work required, to figure out where public money went, under such a chaotic system with so many opportunities for mischief. COA Chairperson Grace Tan mentioned, during her press conference last week, that the spadework on the Special COA Report released last Friday, began in 2010, with the new administration. And as the President mentioned during the Q&A after he delivered his statement today, the Napoles revelations came to light, because it had the earliest, and most solid leads but that theres more to be uncovered. The Presidents example about the two opportunities for mischief in reenacting a budget is, of course, different from the Napoles scam but what they have in common, what both required, is something the President pointed out: you need a conspiracy to get away with all these scams. Normally, the Constitutional checks and balances within Congress (between its two chambers), between the Legislative (Congress) and the Executive (the President, and the departments under him), and watchdog institutions such as COA and the Ombudsman should work to make violating both the spirit and the letter of our laws difficult to escape. But if all conspire together, whether actively, or by turning a blind eye, or being timid, then you can get away with fiscal murder. I wont go into the grisly details of the Napoles scheme, but will only point out that it required not just willing accomplices but also a lot of other criminal activity, from forging documents (letters from LGUs) to creating dummy NGOs, etc. But the whole Napoles scam brings us to PDAF itself and we need to look at a little history.

In the first place, most people wonder why, if the job of Congress is to pass laws (but dont forget oversight!) what business do representatives or senators have, in identifying projects? The simple answer is that it is part of their function as lawmakers as they determine the provisions of the national budget during their vetting of the proposals of the Executive branch for projects and programs. In the past, projects and programs in specific parts of the country were itemized that is, they appeared as line items in the national budget. If you look at this excerpt from the General Appropriations Act for 1937 (here is the section on Public Works and the National Assembly, the unicameral legislature at the time: Prewar GAA for National Assembly and Public Works) programs of the government were enumerated item by item; even individual employees were enumerated. This meant that members of Congress would all come to the table with their proposals for their localities, and these would be threshed out within Congress and with the Executive, and the final list laid out in the national budget, for implementation in that budget. But this involved a tremendous amount of discussion, and negotiations, resulting in Congressional earmarks in the budget. But as the population grew, and the size of Congress grew,and the funds involved grew, shortcuts became more and more tempting. Instead of line item appropriations, lump-sum appropriations started featuring (the difference say, between enumerating every bridge to be built in every barangay in every province in every region, and simply saying x million pesos is appropriated for bridges in Luzon). Furthermore, if some areas have less clout for whatever reason party affiliation, or simply less effective representation some areas might get more than others. Solution? PDAF, which set aside minimum lump sums for each representative and senator, to use for projects. As weve seen, this system has been abused because being broadly defined, and, until 2010, open -ended (that is, with a minimum quota, so to speak, for each legislator but no cap on what each could get), and furthermore, requiring the participation of the legislator not just in the determination of the budget, but in the execution of projects, it fostered collusion between legislators, friends in the private sector, and obliging bureaucrats. So, PDAF has to go. Again: Napoles is just the best-laid-out case. There are others being investigated. You cannot wait for all the cases to be rolled out because there is now hard evidence of how obscene the scams have become. So what is the solution? Two: first, find, prosecute, and punish those who broke the law. Second, stop the flawed system, and replace it with a new system that actually addresses the needs of the public instead of filling the pockets of officials. Any solution, just as a reminder, must conform to the Constitution and the role given to legislators and the Executive; and it is all laid out in the national budget, the most important law enacted by Congress each year, based on the proposals submitted by the President. Which is why the President, with the Senate President and Speaker flanking him, laid out what the system will be henceforth, taking into account innovations introduced since 2010, and lessons learned from the findings of COA (which, by the way, is part of a joint task force which is investigating, and prosecuting, cases involving PDAF). The innovations since 2010 include the Department of Budget and Management reporting, as data comes in, disbursements of the PDAF. The disbursements for 2009, for 2010, for 2011, for 2012, and for 2013 (to date) are online, searchable by legislator/party list representative. By the way, the COA itself publishes its Annual Report on Allotments, Obligations, and Disbursements of National Government Agencies. It also included making the allocations, even if lump-sum, more transparent by enumerating them in the budget (for a crash course in making sense of the budget, see Budget 101 in fact). Third, by limiting the categories under which the funds can be spent. You can explore the budget by visiting Budget ng Bayan. Here is a handy info graphic on the new system (click to enlarge):

The ultimate check and balance on government as a whole is public opinion. And here it follows a pattern. A good example is how, in 1945, Congress, which hadnt even convened during the entire Japanese Occupation, paid itself back wages. The public, in disgust, voted members of Congress out of office wholesale. The result was a purge: and then the new crop, over the following two decades, hit upon staggering benefits paid out to themselves, by instituting something unheard of before World War II: the system of Congressional allowances. Yet, by the eve of martial law, public disgust had mounted to the extent that when Guadencio Antonino, campaigning on an anti-allowances platform, died on the eve of elections, the national electorate voted his widow into office. This is what were seeing taking place in terms of the PDAF. What started out as an arguably improved way to ensure an equitable allocation of resources to all areas, became a giant honey trap. So now its been scrapped, and in a sense, having proven that too much leeway or discretion leads to wrongdoing, that discretion has been taken away from members of Congress and bureaucrats who may be willing to oblige racketeers. Politics is like Newtons First Law of Motion: an object is at rest unless acted upon by outside force.

JOSE P. LAUREL

The Collaboration/Puppet Government Issue

The presidency of Dr. Jose P. Laurel remains to be one of the most controversial issues in Philippine history. Following the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 8, 1941, Dr. Laurel was ordered to remain in Manila by President Manuel L. Quezon, who fled to Corregidor and then to the United States to establish a Commonwealth government in exile. Dr. Laurel was appointed Secretary of Justice and was replaced by Jose Abad Santos in the Supreme Court. The Japanese Imperial Forces took over the country on January 2, 1942. Three weeks later, they created the Philippine Executive Commission to govern thePhilippines. They chose Jorge B. Vargas, former mayor of Manila and a member of Quezon's cabinet, to head it. They made Laurel Commissioner of Justice and later Commissioner of the Interior. His pre-war close relationship with Japanese officials (one of his sons studied at the Imperial Military Academy in Tokyo and Dr. Laurel received an honorary doctorate from Tokyo University), placed him in a good position to interact with the Japanese occupation forces. On September 25, 1943, the National Assembly made the decision to elect Dr. Laurel president and Benigno Aquino Sr. speaker. A week later, Dr. Laurel flew to Tokyo together with Benigno Aquino Sr. and Jorge Vargas to be awarded by the Emperor of Japan and to be informed by Premier Hideki Tojo of the guidelines of Philippine Independence. The Japanese wanted Dr. Laurel to declare war against the United States and Great Britain. As the Allied forces led by General Douglas MacArthur, commander of the Allied Powers, came closer to the Philippines in the campaign to liberate our archipelago, the Japanese became more insistent on having Dr. Laurel issue a declaration of war. Dr. Laurel stood his ground but after the first American air raid on Manila occurred, the Japanese gave Dr. Laurel an ultimatum, threatening to kill as many Filipinos if he did not agree. Dr. Laurel consulted Manuel Roxas and other Filipino leaders before issuing a proclamation that the Philippine Republic was in a state of war against the United States and Great Britain. But he made it very clear in the proclamation that the Japanese government would never conscript Filipinos into the Japanese military.

In October 14, 1943, the Japanese-sponsored Republic was inaugurated and it became an instrument of defense and a mighty fortress in the hands of President Laurel. He had all the Japanese guards and Japanese advisers ousted from Malacaang and asserted his right to the custody of Manuel Roxas, saying that they must first dispose of him before they could lay their hands on Roxas. As the end of Japanese rule in the Philippines came near, the Japanese ordered Dr. Laurel and other Filipino high government officials to leave Manila for Baguio with their families. They were then brought to Japan as hostages. Dr. Laurel and other top officials of the Second Republic were in Nara when Japan surrendered to the Allied forces on August 15, 1945. Two days later, Dr. Laurel dissolved the Japanese-sponsored Philippine Republic so that the government in Manila could be recognized. On September 14, he cabled General MacArthur and told him his whereabouts. The next day, officers were sent to arrest Dr. Laurel, ex-Speaker Aquino and Jose B. Laurel III. On September 15, 1945, Dr. Laurel was imprisoned in Japan. He was not allowed to have any reading material except The World in 2030 A.D., a book by the Earl of Birkenhead given to him as a gift by his son, Salvador. Deprived of writing instruments, Dr. Laurel used this book to surreptitiously write his War Memoirs. In Manila, Dr. Laurel, charged with collaboration, had to face the Peoples Court. His trial and those of the other accused Filipinos dragged on. When Manuel Roxas was elected president of the Third Philippine Republic, he issued a proclamation on January 28, 1948 granting amnesty to political and economic collaborationists. Hence, Dr. Jose P. Laurel, Claro M. Recto, Camilo Osias, Jorge B. Vargas and many others regained their freedom. In the years after his release Dr. Laurel was still suspected of being a collaborationist. Those who disliked him, including Americans displeased by his stand against the parity-amendment in the Philippine Constitution (granting Americans the same economic rights as Filipinos), used the media to calumniate him. Most likely the result of the anti-Laurel campaign as well as of massive cheating, Dr. Laurel lost when he ran for presidency under the Nacionalista Party against Elpidio Quirino of the Liberal Party in the 1949 elections. Dr. Laurel continued being a senator until 1957 when he retired from political life and concentrated on being an educator.

Pork barrel and the limits of Aquinos boldness.

The Philippines, long known as the sick man of Asia, has recently turned into the regions star performer, posting high growth rates that, at least in the first quarter of the year, have even surpassed those of Chinas. The effects of this economic boom, however, have not yet been felt by the ordinary Filipino. Even so, people in the country are generally upbeat. Despite having high expectations, they remain patient with the pace of development. Indeed, President Benigno S. Aquino III remains extremely popular. Hes the onlypost-EDSA president to maintain stratospheric trust ratings even half-way into his six-year term. He is almost

above the fray, simply because he is widely seen to have impeccable moral credentials. He doesnt have the same gravitas as his father, but he has the ability to inspire. Hence, when he asks people to make sacrifices like to pay more for train fares or to settle their taxes they oblige. This is why revelations regarding the misuse of the Priority Development Assistance Funds (PDAF) allocated to members of Congress have sparked unprecedented public outage. Its true that the amount involved is staggering, but I suspect the real cause of public anger is the fact that the controversy hits people in the face: It reminds them that, despite their optimistic mood about the country, things pretty much remain the same corruption remains endemic. And President Aquinos response to the controversy doesnt live up to the high standards he has set for himself. Im afraid President Aquino is underestimating the extent of public anger over this issue. The spontaneously-planned Million-Man March protests in major cities on August 26 isnt something to be merely cool about. As the recent widespread protests in Brazil have shown, economic growth and popular governments dont guarantee continued stability. Unmet expectations, especially in emerging countries like the Philippines, could spark social upheaval. To be sure, violent protests in the Philippines over the pork barrel scam remain unlikely, since the outrage appears to be concentrated on the middle class; but President Aquino should be reminded that the last time the Filipino middle class had been genuinely outraged, a popular president was deposed. President Aquinos initial reaction has been to dismiss the significance of the controversy by saying that corruption under his notorious predecessor had been worse. When various groups, including some of his own allies like Senate President Franklin Drilon, began calling for the abolition of the PDAF, the President was quick to defend it, saying that it has its good uses which is of course obvious but misses the point. To be sure, the government acted swiftly on the case. A manhunt was immediately ordered against the alleged mastermind of the scam, Janet Lim-Napoles. Within twenty-four hours, her passport was revoked and her assets frozen. Justice Secretary Leila de Lima promptly ordered the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to conduct its probe and has promised to file charges against Mrs. LimNapoles and the congressmen involved. Out of propriety, the administration has also decided to withhold the release of PDAF this fiscal year pending the completion of the said investigation. Compared with the impressive zeal with which the President went against his political nemeses, however, his response to the pork barrel issue still looks timid. From a pragmatic point of view, this, of course, is understandable. The pork barrel, after all, has been an effective tool for President Aquino to control Congress, as it had been to all his predecessors. It proved to be very useful, for instance, in getting the House of Representatives to

impeach the tainted Chief Justice Renato C. Corona and to push for the approval of the controversial Reproductive Health Law. Abolishing the pork barrel could be tantamount to a declaration of war against Congress, just as the impeachment of Chief Justice Corona and the push for reproductive health reform had triggered a political war with Padre Faura and the Catholic Church, respectively. The President probably thinks that this is something he could ill-afford, especially in light of the legislative agenda he needs to push through in Congress before his term ends, like the proposed amendments to the Cabotage Law, the rationalization of the Fiscal Incentives and Land Administration Reform bills, and the approval of a Bangsamoro Charter, to name a few. But abolishing the PDAF could prove to be an equally important political reform, one that has farreaching implications that could cement President Aquinos legacy and signify real progress in the Philippine political system. As many a political scientist has pointed out, abolishing congressional pork barrel could put an end not only to wide-scale plunder but also to the culture of patronage and rent-seeking in Congress, which prevents a real party system from taking root in the country. This is a task more important than prosecuting a demonstrably corrupt former president; and given his enormous political capital, President Aquino is perhaps the only leader who can pursue this. After all, the President has shown boldness many times, turning the rules of the political game upside down when he rammed Chief Justice Coronas impeachment, defied the bishops on the issue of reproductive health, and stood up to the Chinese on maritime disputes. Waging a war with Congress over the pork barrel would no doubt be very costly, but, given the extent of public outrage over the PDAF scandal, and the administrations popularity, the President has a fighting chance. But alas, President Aquinos boldness has its limits. And by refusing to be bold enough, he might be running the risk of losing the overwhelming public support he currently enjoys. In our next post, we argue that reforming the manner with which the pork barrel is dispensed will not solve the problem, simply because the problem is the pork barrel itself. Please see Pork Barrel: Its Not Just About Corruption, Its About Patronage.