Corazon Aquino's Speech before the Joint session of the United

States Congress
Mr. Speaker, Senator Thurmond, Distinguished members of Congress, 3 years ago I left America in grief, to
bury my husband Ninoy Aquino. I thought I had left it also, to lay to rest his restless dream of Philippine
freedom. Today, I have returned as the President of a free people.
In burying Ninoy, a whole nation honored him. By that brave and selfless act of giving honor to a nation in
shame recovered its own. A country that had lost faith in its future, found it in a faithless and brazen act of
murder. So, in giving we receive, in losing we find, and out of defeat we snatched our victory.
For the nation, Ninoy became the pleasing sacrifice that answered their prayers for freedom. For myself and
our children, Ninoy was a loving husband and father. His loss, three times in our lives was always a deep and
painful one.
Fourteen years ago this month, was the first time we lost him. A President turned dictator and traitor to his
oath, suspended the constitution and shut down the Congress that was much like this one before which I’m
honored to speak. He detained my husband along with thousands of others - Senators, publishers, and
anyone who had spoken up for the democracy as its end drew near. But for Ninoy, a long and cruel ordeal
was reserved. The dictator already knew that Ninoy was not a body merely to be imprisoned but a spirit he
must break. For even as the dictatorship demolished one-by-one; the institutions of democracy, the press, the
congress, the independence of a judiciary, the protection of the Bill of Rights, Ninoy kept their spirit alive in
himself.
The government sought to break him by indignities and terror. They locked him up in a tiny, nearly airless cell
in a military camp in the north. They stripped him naked and held a threat of a sudden midnight execution over
his head. Ninoy held up manfully under all of it. I barely did as well. For forty-three days, the authorities would
not tell me what had happened to him. This was the first time my children and I felt we had lost him.
When that didn’t work, they put him on trial for subversion, murder and a host of other crimes before a military
commission. Ninoy challenged its authority and went on a fast. If he survived it, then he felt God intended him
for another fate. We had lost him again. For nothing would hold him back from his determination to see his
fast through to the end. He stopped only when it dawned on him that the government would keep his body
alive after the fast had destroyed his brain. And so, with barely any life in his body, he called off the fast on the
40th day. God meant him for other things, he felt. He did not know that an early death would still be his fate,
that only the timing was wrong.
At any time during his long ordeal, Ninoy could have made a separate peace with a dictatorship as so many of
his countrymen had done. But the spirit of democracy that inheres in our race and animates this chamber
could not be allowed to die. He held out in the loneliness of his cell and the frustration of exile, the democratic
alternative to the insatiable greed and mindless cruelty of the right and the purging holocaust of the left.
And then, we lost him irrevocably and more painfully than in the past. The news came to us in Boston. It had
to be after the three happiest years of our lives together. But his death was my country’s resurrection and the
courage and faith by which alone they could be free again. The dictator had called him a nobody. Yet, two
million people threw aside their passivity and fear and escorted him to his grave. And so began the revolution
that has brought me to democracy’s most famous home, the Congress of the United States.
The task had fallen on my shoulders, to continue offering the democratic alternative to our people.
Archibald MacLeish had said that democracy must be defended by arms when it is attacked by arms, and
with truth when it is attacked by lies. He failed to say how it shall be won.
I held fast to Ninoy’s conviction that it must be by the ways of democracy. I held out for participation in the
1984 election the dictatorship called, even if I knew it would be rigged. I was warned by the lawyers of the
opposition, that I ran the grave risk of legitimizing the foregone results of elections that were clearly going to
be fraudulent. But I was not fighting for lawyers but for the people in whose intelligence, I had implicit faith. By
the exercise of democracy even in a dictatorship, they would be prepared for democracy when it came. And
then also, it was the only way I knew by which we could measure our power even in the terms dictated by the
dictatorship.
The people vindicated me in an election shamefully marked by government thuggery and fraud. The
opposition swept the elections, garnering a clear majority of the votes even if they ended up (thanks to a
corrupt Commission on Elections) with barely a third of the seats in Parliament. Now, I knew our power.
Last year, in an excess of arrogance, the dictatorship called for its doom in a snap election. The people
obliged. With over a million signatures they drafted me to challenge the dictatorship. And I, obliged. The rest
is the history that dramatically unfolded on your television screens and across the front pages of your
newspapers.
You saw a nation armed with courage and integrity, stand fast by democracy against threats and corruption.
You saw women poll watchers break out in tears as armed goons crashed the polling places to steal the
ballots. But just the same, they tied themselves to the ballot boxes. You saw a people so committed to the
ways of democracy that they were prepared to give their lives for its pale imitation. At the end of the day
before another wave of fraud could distort the results, I announced the people’s victory.
Many of you here today played a part in changing the policy of your country towards ours. We, the Filipinos
thank each of you for what you did. For balancing America’s strategic interest against human concerns
illuminates the American vision of the world. The co-chairman of the United States observer team, in his
report to the President said, “I was witness to an extraordinary manifestation of democracy on the part of the
Filipino people. The ultimate result was the election of Mrs. Corazon Aquino as President and Mr. Salvador
Laurel as Vice-President of the Philippines.”
When a subservient parliament announced my opponent’s victory, the people then turned out in the streets
and proclaimed me the President of all the people. And true to their word, when a handful of military leaders
declared themselves against the dictatorship, the people rallied to their protection. Surely, the people take
care of their own. It is on that faith and the obligation it entails that I assumed the Presidency.
As I came to power peacefully, so shall I keep it. That is my contract with my people and my commitment to
God. He had willed that the blood drawn with a lash shall not in my country be paid by blood drawn by the
sword but by the tearful joy of reconciliation. We have swept away absolute power by a limited revolution that
respected the life and freedom of every Filipino.
Now, we are restoring full constitutional government. Again as we restore democracy by the ways of
democracy, so are we completing the constitutional structures of our new democracy under a constitution that
already gives full respect to the Bill of Rights. A jealously independent constitutional commission is
completing its draft which will be submitted later this year to a popular referendum. When it is approved, there
will be elections for both national and local positions. So, within about a year from a peaceful but national
upheaval that overturned a dictatorship, we shall have returned to full constitutional government.
Given the polarization and breakdown we inherited, this is no small achievement. My predecessor set aside
democracy to save it from a communist insurgency that numbered less than five hundred. Unhampered by
respect for human rights he went at it with hammer and tongs. By the time he fled, that insurgency had grown
to more than sixteen thousand. I think there is a lesson here to be learned about trying to stifle a thing with a
means by which it grows. I don’t think anybody in or outside our country, concerned for a democratic and
open Philippines doubts what must be done. Through political initiatives and local re-integration programs,
we must seek to bring the insurgents down from the hills and by economic progress and justice, show them
that which the best-intentioned among them fight. As president among my people, I will not betray the cause
of peace by which I came to power. Yet, equally and again, no friend of Filipino democracy will challenge this.
I will not stand by and allow an insurgent leadership to spurn our offer of peace and kill our young soldiers and
threaten our new freedom.
Yet, I must explore the path of peace to the utmost. For at its end, whatever disappointment I meet there is the
moral basis for laying down the Olive branch of peace and taking up the sword of war.
Still, should it come to that, I will not waiver from the course laid down by your great liberator.
“With malice towards none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us
finish the work we are in to bind up the nation’s wounds. To care for him who shall have borne the battle and
for his widow and for his orphans to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among
ourselves and with all nations.”
Like Abraham Lincoln, I understand that force may be necessary before mercy. Like Lincoln, I don’t relish it.
Yet, I will do whatever it takes to defend the integrity and freedom of my country.
Finally may I turn to that other slavery: our $26 billion foreign debt. I have said that we shall honor it. Yet, the
means by which we shall be able to do so are kept from us. Many of the conditions imposed on the previous
government that stole this debt, continue to be imposed on us who never benefited from it.
And no assistance or liberality commensurate with the calamity that was vested on us have been extended.
Yet ours must have been the cheapest revolution ever. With little help from others, we Filipinos fulfilled the
first and most difficult condition of the debt negotiation, the full restoration of democracy and responsible
government. Elsewhere and in other times, a more stringent world economic conditions, marshal plans and
their like were felt to be necessary companions of returning democracy.
When I met with President Reagan, we began an important dialogue about cooperation and the
strengthening of friendship between our two countries. That meeting was both a confirmation and a new
beginning. I am sure it will lead to positive results in all areas of common concern. Today, we face the
aspiration of a people who have known so much poverty and massive unemployment for the past 14 years.
And yet offer their lives for the abstraction of democracy.
Wherever I went in the campaign, slum area or impoverished village. They came to me with one cry,
democracy. Not food although they clearly needed it but democracy. Not work, although they surely wanted it
but democracy. Not money, for they gave what little they had to my campaign. They didn’t expect me to work
a miracle that would instantly put food into their mouths, clothes on their back, education in their children and
give them work that will put dignity in their lives. But I feel the pressing obligation to respond quickly as the
leader of the people so deserving of all these things.
We face a communist insurgency that feeds on economic deterioration even as we carry a great share of the
free world defenses in the Pacific. These are only two of the many burdens my people carry even as they try
to build a worthy and enduring house for their new democracy. That may serve as well as a redoubt for
freedom in Asia. Yet, no sooner as one stone laid than two are taken away. Half our export earnings, $2 billion
dollars out of $4 billion dollars which is all we can earn in the restrictive market of the world, must go to pay
just the interest on a debt whose benefit the Filipino people never received.
Still we fought for honor and if only for honor, we shall pay. And yet, should we have to ring the payments from
the sweat of our men’s faces and sink all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two-hundred fifty years of
unrequitted toil. Yet, to all Americans, as the leader to a proud and free people, I address this question, “Has
there been a greater test of national commitment to the ideals you hold dear than that my people have gone
through? You have spent many lives and much treasure to bring freedom to many lands that were reluctant to
receive it. And here, you have a people who want it by themselves and need only the help to preserve it.”
Three years ago I said, Thank you America for the haven from opression and the home you gave Ninoy,
myself and our children and for the three happiest years of our lives together. Today I say, join us America as
we build a new home for democracy; another haven for the opressed so it may stand as a shining testament
of our two nations’ commitment to freedom.
THE TWO FACES OF THE 1872 CAVITE MUTINY
By Chris Antonette Piedad-Pugay

The 12th of June of every year since 1898 is a very important event for all the Filipinos. In this
particular day, the entire Filipino nation as well as Filipino communities all over the world gathers to
celebrate the Philippines’ Independence Day. 1898 came to be a very significant year for all of us—
it is as equally important as 1896—the year when the Philippine Revolution broke out owing to the
Filipinos’ desire to be free from the abuses of the Spanish colonial regime. But we should be
reminded that another year is as historic as the two—1872.

Two major events happened in 1872, first was the 1872 Cavite Mutiny and the other was the
martyrdom of the three martyr priests in the persons of Fathers Mariano Gomes, Jose Burgos and
Jacinto Zamora (GOMBURZA). However, not all of us knew that there were different accounts in
reference to the said event. All Filipinos must know the different sides of the story—since this event
led to another tragic yet meaningful part of our history—the execution of GOMBURZA which in effect
a major factor in the awakening of nationalism among the Filipinos.

1872 Cavite Mutiny: Spanish Perspective

Jose Montero y Vidal, a prolific Spanish historian documented the event and highlighted it as
an attempt of the Indios to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines. Meanwhile, Gov.
Gen. Rafael Izquierdo’s official report magnified the event and made use of it to implicate the native
clergy, which was then active in the call for secularization. The two accounts complimented and
corroborated with one other, only that the general’s report was more spiteful. Initially, both Montero
and Izquierdo scored out that the abolition of privileges enjoyed by the workers of Cavite arsenal
such as non-payment of tributes and exemption from force labor were the main reasons of the
“revolution” as how they called it, however, other causes were enumerated by them including the
Spanish Revolution which overthrew the secular throne, dirty propagandas proliferated by
unrestrained press, democratic, liberal and republican books and pamphlets reaching the
Philippines, and most importantly, the presence of the native clergy who out of animosity against the
Spanish friars, “conspired and supported” the rebels and enemies of Spain. In particular, Izquierdo
blamed the unruly Spanish Press for “stockpiling” malicious propagandas grasped by the
Filipinos. He reported to the King of Spain that the “rebels” wanted to overthrow the Spanish
government to install a new “hari” in the likes of Fathers Burgos and Zamora. The general even
added that the native clergy enticed other participants by giving them charismatic assurance that
their fight will not fail because God is with them coupled with handsome promises of rewards such as
employment, wealth, and ranks in the army. Izquierdo, in his report lambasted the Indios as gullible
and possessed an innate propensity for stealing.

The two Spaniards deemed that the event of 1872 was planned earlier and was thought of it as
a big conspiracy among educated leaders, mestizos, abogadillos or native lawyers, residents of
Manila and Cavite and the native clergy. They insinuated that the conspirators of Manila and Cavite
planned to liquidate high-ranking Spanish officers to be followed by the massacre of the friars. The
alleged pre-concerted signal among the conspirators of Manila and Cavite was the firing of rockets
from the walls of Intramuros.

According to the accounts of the two, on 20 January 1872, the district of Sampaloc celebrated
the feast of the Virgin of Loreto, unfortunately participants to the feast celebrated the occasion with
the usual fireworks displays. Allegedly, those in Cavite mistook the fireworks as the sign for the
attack, and just like what was agreed upon, the 200-men contingent headed by Sergeant Lamadrid
launched an attack targeting Spanish officers at sight and seized the arsenal.

When the news reached the iron-fisted Gov. Izquierdo, he readily ordered the reinforcement of
the Spanish forces in Cavite to quell the revolt. The “revolution” was easily crushed when the
expected reinforcement from Manila did not come ashore. Major instigators including Sergeant
Lamadrid were killed in the skirmish, while the GOMBURZA were tried by a court-martial and were
sentenced to die by strangulation. Patriots like Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma. Regidor,
Jose and Pio Basa and other abogadillos were suspended by the Audencia (High Court) from the
practice of law, arrested and were sentenced with life imprisonment at the Marianas
Island. Furthermore, Gov. Izquierdo dissolved the native regiments of artillery and ordered the
creation of artillery force to be composed exclusively of the Peninsulares.

On 17 February 1872 in an attempt of the Spanish government and Frailocracia to instill fear
among the Filipinos so that they may never commit such daring act again, the GOMBURZA were
executed. This event was tragic but served as one of the moving forces that shaped Filipino
nationalism.

A Response to Injustice: The Filipino Version of the Incident

Dr. Trinidad Hermenigildo Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino scholar and researcher, wrote the
Filipino version of the bloody incident in Cavite. In his point of view, the incident was a mere mutiny
by the native Filipino soldiers and laborers of the Cavite arsenal who turned out to be dissatisfied
with the abolition of their privileges. Indirectly, Tavera blamed Gov. Izquierdo’s cold-blooded
policies such as the abolition of privileges of the workers and native army members of the arsenal
and the prohibition of the founding of school of arts and trades for the Filipinos, which the general
believed as a cover-up for the organization of a political club.

On 20 January 1872, about 200 men comprised of soldiers, laborers of the arsenal, and
residents of Cavite headed by Sergeant Lamadrid rose in arms and assassinated the commanding
officer and Spanish officers in sight. The insurgents were expecting support from the bulk of the
army unfortunately, that didn’t happen. The news about the mutiny reached authorities in Manila
and Gen. Izquierdo immediately ordered the reinforcement of Spanish troops in Cavite. After two
days, the mutiny was officially declared subdued.

Tavera believed that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as a powerful
lever by magnifying it as a full-blown conspiracy involving not only the native army but also included
residents of Cavite and Manila, and more importantly the native clergy to overthrow the Spanish
government in the Philippines. It is noteworthy that during the time, the Central Government in
Madrid announced its intention to deprive the friars of all the powers of intervention in matters of civil
government and the direction and management of educational institutions. This turnout of events
was believed by Tavera, prompted the friars to do something drastic in their dire sedire to maintain
power in the Philippines.

Meanwhile, in the intention of installing reforms, the Central Government of Spain welcomed
an educational decree authored by Segismundo Moret promoted the fusion of sectarian schools run
by the friars into a school called Philippine Institute. The decree proposed to improve the standard
of education in the Philippines by requiring teaching positions in such schools to be filled by
competitive examinations. This improvement was warmly received by most Filipinos in spite of the
native clergy’s zest for secularization.

The friars, fearing that their influence in the Philippines would be a thing of the past, took
advantage of the incident and presented it to the Spanish Government as a vast conspiracy
organized throughout the archipelago with the object of destroying Spanish sovereignty. Tavera
sadly confirmed that the Madrid government came to believe that the scheme was true without any
attempt to investigate the real facts or extent of the alleged “revolution” reported by Izquierdo and
the friars.

Convicted educated men who participated in the mutiny were sentenced life imprisonment
while members of the native clergy headed by the GOMBURZA were tried and executed by
garrote. This episode leads to the awakening of nationalism and eventually to the outbreak of
Philippine Revolution of 1896. The French writer Edmund Plauchut’s account complimented
Tavera’s account by confirming that the event happened due to discontentment of the arsenal
workers and soldiers in Cavite fort. The Frenchman, however, dwelt more on the execution of the
three martyr priests which he actually witnessed.

Unraveling the Truth

Considering the four accounts of the 1872 Mutiny, there were some basic facts that remained
to be unvarying: First, there was dissatisfaction among the workers of the arsenal as well as the
members of the native army after their privileges were drawn back by Gen. Izquierdo; Second, Gen.
Izquierdo introduced rigid and strict policies that made the Filipinos move and turn away from
Spanish government out of disgust; Third, the Central Government failed to conduct an investigation
on what truly transpired but relied on reports of Izquierdo and the friars and the opinion of the public;
Fourth, the happy days of the friars were already numbered in 1872 when the Central Government
in Spain decided to deprive them of the power to intervene in government affairs as well as in the
direction and management of schools prompting them to commit frantic moves to extend their stay
and power; Fifth, the Filipino clergy members actively participated in the secularization movement
in order to allow Filipino priests to take hold of the parishes in the country making them prey to the
rage of the friars; Sixth, Filipinos during the time were active participants, and responded to what
they deemed as injustices; and Lastly, the execution of GOMBURZA was a blunder on the part of
the Spanish government, for the action severed the ill-feelings of the Filipinos and the event inspired
Filipino patriots to call for reforms and eventually independence. There may be different versions of
the event, but one thing is certain, the 1872 Cavite Mutiny paved way for a momentous 1898.

The road to independence was rough and tough to toddle, many patriots named and
unnamed shed their bloods to attain reforms and achieve independence. 12 June 1898 may be a
glorious event for us, but we should not forget that before we came across to victory, our forefathers
suffered enough. As weenjoy our freeedom, may we be more historically aware of our past to have
a better future ahead of us. And just like what Elias said in Noli me Tangere, may we “not forget
those who fell during the night.”