NOT a few have observed how civil society has been silent on the raging issue of the alleged taped conversations between Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Comelec Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano. Chastised for such a stance, Arroyo’s allies in the NGO community during the Edsa II people power revolt that catapulted her to power have finally broken their silence with this collective statement issued yesterday, June 17, 2005:

Civil Society Statement on Electoral Fraud, Jueteng Scandal and Unfulfilled Promises

We are non-government organizations and people?’s organizations that form part of our country?’s civil society. We were part of People Power 2 and many of us supported President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo?’s candidacy in 2004 in the hope that she will fulfill the social and political reforms she committed to in her SONAs and other pronouncements.

However, after four years of her administration, we are deeply dissatisfied with the slow pace of her promised reforms including those in agrarian/aquatic reform and socialized housing. Quite the opposite of advancing pro-poor, sustainable policies and programs, she has aggressively promoted foreign corporation-dominated destructive mining and allowed an additional Board seat in the San Miguel Corporation for Danding Cojuangco?’s allies, strengthening his hold on SMC and other coconut levy funded institutions/assets. The political concessions she made and allowed has seriously compromised her ability to deliver on these reforms.

And now, we are troubled by the accusations of jueteng pay-offs to the President?’s immediate family members and wiretapped conversations about electoral fraud involving the President herself. While we still have to verify the veracity of the evidences presented, these are serious accusations that clearly affect the credibility of the President and her Administration’?s capacity to govern our nation.

The situation is not helped in any way by the President?’s continuing and deafening silence on the most simple and basic question: Was that her on the audiotaped conversation or not?

Unless these critical issues are resolved, the President?’s ability to govern is seriously impaired. The current political situation is precarious. Decisive actions are needed immediately to determine the truth and apply justice to those established guilty of these serious accusations.

We call on civil society, the churches and the business sector to jointly create an independent fact-finding commission to investigate the alleged wiretapped conversations concerning electoral fraud in the 2004 elections. The report of the commission should be made directly to the public within a month from its creation.

We urge the government to demonstrate its sincerity in establishing the truth by recognizing this commission and giving it full access to needed information and technical assistance from government agencies. If the outcome of this independent investigation confirms that the President was involved in manipulating the election results together with the COMELEC, she, Vice President Noli de Castro and the COMELEC should step down and face the legal consequences of their actions.

We demand the speedy and unimpeded filing and prosecution of cases against First Gentleman Mike Arroyo, Cong. Mikey Arroyo, Cong. Iggy Arroyo and other persons allegedly involved in the jueteng pay-offs. We strongly urge Cong. Iggy Arroyo to, at the very least, take an indefinite leave of absence.

We demand that the President immediately cleanse the government of appointees with strong ties to FG Mike Arroyo including those in PAGCOR, the Philippine National Police, Department of Public Works and Highways, the NAIA and others.

We believe that our country’?s problems will persist if the current system of elite domination and patronage politics is not challenged and changed. Soon after the immediate political crisis is resolved, we need a Constitutional Convention that will review our Constitution and pave the way for a federal and parliamentary system that will enable us to break out of the poverty and corruption trap by decentralizing political power, supporting local development initiatives and strengthening government accountability.

Finally, we call on the Filipino people to be vigilant against any attempt by any party to hide the truth or confuse the public through disinformation. We also call on the people to reject any attempt to forcibly grab power through undemocratic and extra constitutional means.

We in civil society will continue to responsibly assess the situation as it develops, make our position and take appropriate action as our collective judgment will dictate.

People’s Campaign for Agrarian Reform Now! (AR-NOW!) * Coalition for Bicol Development (CBD) * Caucus of Development NGO Networks (CODE-NGO) * Citizens Movement for a Federal Philippines (CMFP) * Cordillera Network of NGOs and POs (CORDNET) * Gaston Z. Ortigas Peace Institute (GZOPI) * Institute for Political and Electoral Reform (IPER) * Institute for Popular Democracy (IPD) * Konsyensyang Pilipino (KP) * Local Governance Citizens Network (LGCNet) * Mindanao Coalition of Development NGOs (MINCODE) * National Confederation of Cooperatives (NATCCO) * National Council for Social Development (NCSD) * National Peace Conference (NPC) * People?s Alternative Study Center for Research and Education in Social Development (PASCRES) * Philippine Community Organizers Society (PhilCOS) * Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources in Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA) * Partnership of Philippine Support Service Agencies (PhilSSA) * Visayas Network of Development NGOs (VISNET) * Women?’s Action Network for Development (WAND)

71 Responses to Civil society breaks its silence



June 18th, 2005 at 8:25 pm

This is my own thought! We’ve got different thoughts and opinions…

I think Filipinos are “balimbing” (swinging back and fro from one decision to the other and the likes). If Filipinos will be like this forever, our economy will not go up, rather go down. We should support and cooperate with each other. THINK ABOUT THAT!



June 18th, 2005 at 10:19 pm

The Wrong Moves.
The current JuetengGate and GloriaGate crisis engulfing the administration of Philippine “President” Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (GMA) is slowly turning into a boiling powder keg.

And all this development is definitely not because of any strategic moves by a fractured and divided Political Opposition and a weary and apathetic people.

This pressure cooker is mainly powered by the “wrong moves” of GMA and her crew. Starting with her (forgive me for adapting this overused the term) “deafening silence” on the matter which smacks of seeming guilt and / or indifference, to the actions of her Justice Secretary, her NBI (local FBI) chief, and her Police Generals who are bent on arresting everyone who just makes a peep on the issue. The past few days saw warnings, threats and charges brought against the people who voice out their concern and indignation on the matter.

The latest persons to be called for questioning by the police will only add more steam to the boiling vat. Actor Rex Cortez ( an FPJ supporter and very visible Anti-GMA critic) and Laarni Enriquez, a mistress of former President Joseph Estrada (a.k.a. ERAP – who is in jail and on trial for corruption) are being summoned to answer charges of inciting to sedition.
Surely, Erap will not take this harrasment to her favorite mistress and mother of several of his children lightly. Knowing that he still enjoys the popular support of the masses (40 % +++ according to the recent surveys as compared to a “very” negative rating for GMA), he just might throw all his cards on the table and force a bloody and disastrous confrontation.

Hopefully, all this will still result in a scenario that I personally pray for ….The resignation of GMA and a snap “Run-Off” Election held before the year is over, plus the adaption of a Federal -Presidential form of government.

Then maybe the Filipino people can take the lid off the pot before it explodes and hope for a rebirth. This time, making the “right moves”.



June 19th, 2005 at 12:20 am

The right moves will happen if Civil Society will remain united from now on. For the country’s sake, this United Civil Society must maintain political neutrality forever. It is the only political grouping that has a shred of credibility left, I hope they succeed. I hope they remain non-govermental in order to lead the government in the right direction.

Who listens to the political opposition anyway? Who believes Gloria at all anyway?

Divide & conquer is what Gloria had done to break the moral high ground of Civil Society. I hope they learned their lesson well.

Divide & conquer is what Gloria is trying to do to the country now. Have you listened to her in her campaign sorties lately speaking in dialects? Have you noticed how some politicians boldy proclaim that they will push for a Mindanao Republic and an Ilocos Republic and yet the DOJ don’t call it inciting to sedition?

The spectre of civil war is the GMA administration’s answer to the threat of People Power or the call to Snap Elections. What great leadership!

Gloria believes in The Triumph of Politics over the People’s Will. She must be proven wrong for her errors will be repeated by her future successors. Let’s correct this error called “Gloria” for the sake of our children. While we still have the moral courage to do so.

Whoever coined the term “Gloriagate” should be commended. Gloria is, indeed, the biggest scandal to hit Philippine electoral politics. She is the biggest crisis this country is facing.






June 19th, 2005 at 1:25 am

civil society is a euphemism for fence-sitting upper middle class folks who want to have enough money so they can migrate to the US when the shit hits the fan.


jay cynikho

June 19th, 2005 at 2:19 am

I have been reading a lot of good and politically correct comments. the spectre of a blood bath is what makes everybody scared and cautious. will continue this when i returned from Batman begins.



June 19th, 2005 at 3:31 am


Many of the things you said are valid and were conveyed with impressive articulation and astute critical thinking.

However, I must state that you need to be more circumspect in stating, rather arrogantly, generalities specifically when you said: “Who lisens to the political opposition, anyway? Who believes Gloria at all, anyway?”

Whether you are officially in the opposition or not or whether you are pro-Gloria or not, somehow, your conviction will represent one side or the other. And it is obvious that you’re talking like an oppositionist or it appears that you believe what they are espousing at the moment.

I am not from the political opposition. Neither am i an apologist for Gloria. I simply feel that as a fellow Filipino, I have the obligation to remind you: Bawas-bawasan mo ang yabang, brod!

By the way, next time you suggest a color, please come up with something fresh, not recycled. Yellow belongs to history. Many Filipinos remember it as the color of non-performance. Oops, dapat nga pala hindi mayabang ang dating. Sorry. Peace!




June 19th, 2005 at 7:20 am

People will say or do anything so that other people will listen to them. Some people call themselves “experts”. Others call themselves “consultants”. Others call themselves “civil society”, obviously trying to establish that their opinion is from a high moral ground.

However, the truth is: Their opinion is just as good as anybody else’s!



June 19th, 2005 at 1:46 pm

Gee, I never realized that “CIVIL SOCIETY” consisted of those individuals and organizations that have benefited from GMA’s illegitimate reigns I and II, especially the reciipients of a billion peso bribe, such as CODE-NGO.


So what are people to make of this? That everyone who so far has not been silent is not “civil society”.

Good grief PCIJ…you’re own elitist slips are showing here, in my humble opinion.


Alecks Pabico

June 19th, 2005 at 5:56 pm

Rizalist, we didn’t invent the term “civil society.” If I remember right, it entered media parlance in the mid-1990s as a collective term to refer to development and advocacy groups, grassroot organizations, and independent institutions working outside the formal structures of governance. The operative term is nongovernment, so any group not working within government ought to be part of civil society. But unfortunately or not, the term has stuck with such groups.

Definitely, there’s no slip here, “elitist” or otherwise.


jay cynikho

June 19th, 2005 at 7:43 pm

sorry about that Batman Begins, meron katungkulan sa mga apo. naidaos din. this film shows Gotham City is not so unlike many cities in the Philippines, quickon its way to become sodom and gomorra. puedeng irrecommendang panoorin sa mga sumusulat dito sa Inside PCIJ.

anyway, tuloy ko yung sinabi ko sa itaas. my point is takot ang mga Pinoy. sa tingin ko. hindi tayo hinubog ng espanya na maging barbaric para pugutan ng ulo yung mga masamang kalahi. seguro pati yung mga tunay na pinoy, ating mga katutubo tulad ng Aetas, Mangyan at mga taga mountain province di rin mahilig sa blood shed at revolusyon. ayos naman ang buhay noon – may disciplina sa mga tribo.

marami sa atin humahanap ng dahilan bakit lumala ang katakawan at kasamaan ng mga may utak at ari-arian (read elite) pa naman. salin-salin yan, mga anak at mga apo (sino ba ang elite noong panahon ng kastila, di ang mga pari at autoridad?) at saka ang nakararami ay duwag (sino ba yung kano noong panahon ni Marcos nagsabi: Philippines is a country of 60 million cowards (suckers yata?) and one son of a bitch).

matagal pa, malayo pa seguro, not in our lifetime na magkaroon ng tunay na paglilinis ng ating lahi na ang tao at hindi Diyos magsasakatuparan. the other thing that can happen is Sodom and Gomorra na napilitan na ang Diyos ang kumilos. Si Lot lang at misis niya ang inatasan lumikas. Sagad na kasi ang kasamaan ng lahat ng tao doon. Dito sa Pilipinas, sa mga probinsiya, sa mga siyudad at mga barangay ilang porsiyento na kaya ang grabeng mangurakot, magnakaw. at mang api. gaano karami na ba ang libre sa batas? mula sa pangulo, sa senador, pababa sa janitor ang hindi sumusunod sa batas? Yung mga millionaryong negosyante pababa sa mga nagka-kareton hindi na rin ba sumusunod sa batas? Mamahalin restoran at bahay ng aliw na lang ba ang kumikita? Mga sinyales yan na malapit na ang Pilipinas maging biblical. Ang pananaw ni Rizal sa Noli, sumablay din, walang effect si Ibarra, kaya lumitaw si Simon para lagyan ng asin ang sugat, libakin, insultuhin ang pinoy para magising. Nagising naman pero antukin hanggang ngayon.

hindi yata pari o obispo ang nagsabi na ang Diyos lang ang hindi natutulog.


jay cynikho

June 19th, 2005 at 7:45 pm

tungkol sa civil society hindi yata media natin ang nag imbento niyan. meron sa state niyan, wala sa Pinas niyan. meron sa atin Evil Society so aptly coined by our gallant columnists.



June 19th, 2005 at 9:25 pm

I’m no sectarian and didn’t mean to quibble over the term “civil society” But it is a code word of sorts that is used somewhat ambiguously in media and commentary. For now the interesting thing is that it does represent the organized faction of GMA’s support at Edsa Dos and contains many personalities who control important social and economic resources out of all proportion to their actual numbers. I guess I tend to subsitute the term “elites” for the term “civil society” because the latter is too euphemistic, while the former is, in my opinion, more accurately descriptive. Maybe the deeper concern has to do with “people power” with which “civil society” is even more intimately related. When the administration and its outright allies in media (likes of Alex Aquino, Bel Cunanan) were gloating triumphally after just one week of the controversy that “people power had failed to materialize” at San Carlos Seminary and eagerly dissecting why, I realized it was because “people power” is truly not a “mass movement”, but can only be conjured up by “civil society” — meaning precisely these elites. I think their rather tepid, elliptical statement full of hemming and hawing is purely a function of how many laptops and websites and “projects” (as Ibanez in the Fili would catalogue them) have been directly funded by their connections with Malacanang through shepherds like Dodi Limcaoco and Soc Villegas. Anyway, it’s not PCIJ’s fault or slip, since the title, I noticed, was lifted from an Inquirer story.



June 19th, 2005 at 9:50 pm

Just a small correction, I meant to say “Alex Magno” and not “Alex Aquino” in Comment #12. sorry.



June 19th, 2005 at 10:32 pm

i dont know what alex magno’s connection to gma but bel cunanan has benefited a lot from the administration: her husband is now sss head honcho and the two of them got on board a presidential chartered plane and received vip treatment to the papal funeral, remember? i think there’s also a special place in hell for her. i hope she doesnt represent the rest of the flock at opus dei.



June 19th, 2005 at 11:32 pm

asar ako kay magno. feeling marunong, bopols naman.



June 20th, 2005 at 1:01 am

magno is gloria’s speech writer. he wrote one of the SONA’s. he is an intellectual whore. he should learn a thing or two from randy david. it’s a shame he’s from UP.



June 20th, 2005 at 1:08 am

i meant, sayang at galing pa naman sa UP. by the way, the same goes for max soliven and belinda cunanan — akala mo kung sino.



June 20th, 2005 at 1:17 am

There should come a time in every society, when the body politic reacts to the errant ways of public officials, much as biological systems do to viruses and other infectious organisms, meaning to say with the alacrity of an immune system. I can’t believe that we tolerate malevolent and mean-spirited people like Sec. Raul Gonzales and his continuing crimes of obstruction of justice. He should get it like Haldemann and Ehrlichman, if God is just.

As it is, our body politic is already in a state of multiple organ failure for being long dominated by such aberrant forces. A social cancer metastasized and running amuck, even in the “brain.” We are forced to rely too much on heroes and heroic means, because like physical diseases, big problems start in small things, and we are both a headless and a heedless people.

For example, the overthrow of Erap by “Civil Society” as a Constitutionally allowed thing is usually described by a formulaic chant: “a military backed popular uprising” but in which three men, Angelo Reyes, Hilario Davide, Cardinal Sin and the lady they installed as president, were actually the decisive elements manipulating the prejudices of a perfumed and fuming Mob. In many ways they still are, along with those that helped them organize a mere four days of demonstrations that resulted in the overthrow of a President (one who admittedly did nasty things like pee on his lovers.)

In politically correct circles, no one accepts that this was actually an unConstitutional coup d’etat. Yet the people surely never envisioned a situation in which the President, no matter how evil, should spend four years in jail without being convicted of any crime, after being overthrown in such a fit of moral outrage as Edsa Dos was. If his guilt was so obvious and the process of removal wholly “Constitutional” as claimed by the Supreme Court, why isn’t he finished yet? It is perhaps their bad consciences, and an awareness of irony, that makes them fear the same thing will happen to them.

Not to worry, for the powers-that-be long ago coopted the forces capable of mounting such a putsch in Constitutional clothing. Or did they? Can Civil Society summon the same fervor it had at Edsa Dos to remove a President who looks like them, talks like them, and gives them their fat NGO budgets in surreptitious ways? I serioiusly doubt it, but I hope so because if not, we may see this time I think, just how bloody people power can really get. The pessimistic predictions of Pilosopong Tacio may yet be fulfilled, God forbid.

By the way, I do hate the fact that Jose Rizal’s birthday has been turned into “Fathers’ Day”…the only reason for this greedy imposition upon your bandwidth and a possible overstay of your gracious welcome. More power to PCIJ!



June 20th, 2005 at 2:47 am


Pwede ba ito idagdag sa Gloria joke?

Gloria sa paaralan: Magna Cum Laude

Gloria sa sambayanan: Magna Nakaw




June 20th, 2005 at 3:02 am


I hope you research well about opus dei before casting aspersions on this institution. For your info, Opus Dei’s main objective is to bring sanctification where we are engaged in our daily existence: WORK. The institution’s charism is as simple as that.

I really don’t know what you mean by: “I hope she doesn’t represent the rest of the flock at opus dei”. Why? What has been your experience in Opus Dei that gives you seeming confidence to reject it? If your only basis is hearsay and external signs or misimpressios, then I have one suggestion to make but you have to be sincere enough to experience it and that is: attend some of the means of personal formation given by various centers of Opus Dei catering to professional men and women.
By doing that, you will be able to avoid expressing misleading and unfair conclusions about Opus Dei.

You might even be positively influenced by the teachings of its founder, St. Josemaria Escriva especially on the virtue of prudence and honesty.




June 20th, 2005 at 5:41 am

Alecks: You did not invent the term “civil society”, yes, but you do not need to use the term to refer to them, too.


jay cynikho

June 20th, 2005 at 6:34 am

Noong takip silim ng martial law napansin ko, kakaunti ang mga NGO, matatapang sila at nangunguna sa pagtatanggol sa karapatan pangtao, tahimik ang mga NGO, walang pera, tumutulong sa mahirap kahit papano lang. SA utak at sipag sila nakikilala. Mga payat sila at luma ang damit nila. Kung may busog man at matataba hindi ko naman nakadaupang palad.

Nag OCW (OFW na ngayon) ako, matagal din. Nang umuwi ako matapos ni Cory, at Kuya Tabako, aba’y dumami ang mga NGO parang tipaklong na nanagasa sa kaluntian ng bansa.

Naisip ko masama na talaga ang kalagayan ng trabaho. Itong NGO naging employment refuge na yata ng mga walang trabaho. Isang magaling na imbemto na ang pera ay galing din sa gobierno, galing sa mga instrumento ng colonialismo (ito ang sabi ng mga radikal).

NGO hindi dapat na kumuha ng pera sa gobieno o kaya ay sa buwis at dugo ng tao. NGO naging larangan ng mga may pangalan sa lipunan. Noong lumindol sa Bagyo, nineteen ninet-two yata, may mga namatay sa isang workshop ng NGO. Nakalulungkot dahil doon pumanaw ang isang kaibigan.

May pagkakaiba ba ang mga taga civil society at ng NGO? Overlap lang seguro ng kanilang miembro. NGO Non-governmental Organization daw, isa yatang alimo um na nakakabalisawsaw sa bayag ng bayan.


jay cynikho

June 20th, 2005 at 7:22 am

ako’y nangangailangan ng payo at paalaala.
usapan dito sa talaan ng PCIJ nakakabahala.

mga pangalang binabanggit ay pawang kilala
pangalang kakabit ay tanggapan at samahang
parang bagang siyang may pagkukulang, may kasalanan
parang siyang pinagbubuhatan ng kamalian
ng ngayon ay pinagtatalunan.

Mga ito ba ay mga patalim tulad ng simbahang katoliko
El Shaddai, Opus Dei , NGO at Iglesia ni Kristo.
Pamantasang UP at Ateneo?
Itong mga ito ba ang naging instrumento ng ngayon at dito?

Sabi ng mga ninuno, ang taong nagigipit sa
patalim man ay kumakapit. Bansang bang
patigok-tigok, dapat kumapit sa patalim?
Daming patalim, Sangkatutak ang mga anak
ng Patalim – sila ba at wala nang ibang
magbibagay ng pagasa.

Paki comment naman.

Are these institutions the knives of plunder
and eventual demise of a nation?
Are their sons, the sons of knives
that will save it?



June 20th, 2005 at 8:33 am

Mabuhay ka Jay cynikho…
ibunyag sa lahat
ang ating panata
na gawing dakilang dula
at mataginting na tula
ang landas ng ating bansa
Sa iyong ibinigay, ginoong iskeptiko
Heto po ang aking humahangang saludo!



June 20th, 2005 at 9:12 am


Naman naman g3! Kulay lang pinatulan mo pa. Yellow belongs to spectrum not history! More than that, Yellow is an allussion to Ninoy, Cory and People Power 1—and therefore consistent with the ideological affiliation of this thing called Civil Society.

Remember that my preference is for Civil Society members to NOTaccept ANY political appointments from present or future administrations to remain credible. Just because my line is oppositionist does not mean I support the official opposition groups. As I said, politicians have, generally, no credibility in this country, be they administration or administration. What we really need, is a Leader or a Group who can unite the people in indignation, and I do not mean that this Leader or Group should be politician/s.

I represent the desperate class in our society who desperately tries to believe that, somehow, there’s hope for this country.

As for the Yabang comment, Look Who’s Talking! Resident critic ka ba dito pare? Anyway, I respect your beliefs, views, opinions, comments, suggestions and style. Wag ka lang maging judgemental pare. But if you want to be judgemental, make my day. At least we have a representative pala of the Opus Dei here thereby everybody can see how an Opeus Dei member/sympathizer treat other people’s views and opinions.

Remember this. Hindi porke mayabang ako, kung mayabang nga ako, ay mali na ako. At hindi porke mali ako, kung mali nga ako, ay tama ka na.

If you want to argue, argue on facts and logic, or just be content to express your contray views.



June 20th, 2005 at 9:20 am

ooops! I should have said “…be they administration or opposition…”

As for Jay Cynikho, saludo din po ako sa inyo!




June 20th, 2005 at 12:21 pm

That there is a need to coin the term “civil society” is an indication of how civility has become more the exception than the rule in the Philippines.

We cannot tell people when or when not to use it or whether or not it should be used at all. It will simply be part of the lingo until the Philippines truly becomes a civilised society.

Visit Get Real Philippines! for more views like this!



June 20th, 2005 at 1:40 pm

nanangkupu! napunta na tayo sa raison d’etre ng opus dei. haha.

sya sya bago ito ma brand na meta discussion and out of respect for the authors of this blog, i will try to explain the bel cunanan/opus dei hirit.

here goes. the sentence in question is “i hope she doesnt represent the rest of the flock at opus dei.” nowhere in this sentence did i question opus dei’s aims. bel cunanan being uhm.. how do it put it diplomatically…let’s just say, an extremely pro administration opinion columnist, is such a disappointment and is becoming a joke of sorts for her continued defense of her and her husband’s current patron, GMA. as such, all i’m saying nay hoping is that there be no more like her in opus dei. now there. does that still offend? i’m talking about the people not the instution. and i have only “cast aspersions” on one

now g3,

that being said, i would probably go to an opus dei means of formation as soon as you read In God’s Name: An Investigation into the Murder of Pope John Paul I by David A. Yallop. it’s a fachinating book. i highly recommend it to everybody.

you imply i need prudence. interesting. well maybe you need it too. you revealed yourself as a member, perhaps a cooperator, of opus dei. you are now marked as such and everytime you comment, it would be a reflection on thousands of members of opus dei and on the institution itself. like it or not, you’re now an opus dei representative in this blog.




June 20th, 2005 at 4:12 pm

Dear Cabinet Members, Military Officers and Other Government Leaders,

Marami na pong mga Pilipino ang nakarinig ng tapes ni GMA at Garci. Kami pong mga ordinaryong mamamayan ay naniniwala na sina GMA, Garci, Mike Arroyo at iba pa ang mga taong nag-uusap sa tapes.

Alam namin na alam din ninyo ang katotohonan na tunay na boses nina GMA ang nasa tapes dahil kasama ninyo sila most of the time diyan sa Malacanang. Pero bakit tahimik kayo at nililihis pa ninyo ang atensyon namin sa isyu? Ito ba ang inyong itinuturo sa inyong mga anak at kasambahay, na ayos lang magsinungaling at mandaya para sa kapangyarihan.

Sana po ay alalahanin ninyo na hindi lang dito nagtatapos ang ating buhay sa daigdig. Tayong lahat ay haharap at sasagot sa ating DIYOS kung ano ang ating mga ginawa habang nabubuhay.

Maaari kayong tanungin ng PANGINOONG HESUS kung ano ang inyong ginawa ng lumabas ang isyu tungkol sa tapes.

Dalawa po ang inyong pagpipilian:

1. Ako ay tumahimik at patuloy na sinuportahan si GMA dahil sinabi niya na “The LORD put me here” and “I have a clear mandate”?

2. Ginawa ko ang tama at nararapat. Ako ay nagsalita at sinabi ang katotohanan na si GMA, Garcillano, Mike Arroyo at iba pa ang nasa tapes. Pinaalalahanan ko din sila tungkol sa INYONG ikatlong utos:

Third Commandment (Exodus 20:7): You shall not take the name of the Lord Your God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that takes His name in vain.

At ako po ay sumuporta sa pagtawag sa pagresign ni GMA at ng iba pang mga liders na hindi karapat-dapat na maglingkod sa gobyerno. Aking sinuportahan ang mga taong may takot sa DIYOS at tapat na pusong maglingkod at pamunuan ang bansang Pilipinas.

Dalangin po namin na sundin ninyo ang tama at nararapat para po sa inyong kabutihan at sa kinabukasan ng ating bansang Pilipinas at ng mga Pilipino.

Isang Pamilyang Pilipinong Nagmamahal sa Pilipinas,




June 20th, 2005 at 4:23 pm

To Alecks and Friends at PCIJ,

Pwede nyo bang tagalugin ang “Civil Society Statement on Electoral Fraud, Jueteng Scandal and Unfulfilled Promises” para sa mga masang Pilipino? Malaki ang maitutulong nito para maliwanagan sila.

More Blessings to You and PCIJ!



June 20th, 2005 at 5:47 pm

These are difficult hours for our society but this position now taken by the signatory organizations is the writing on the wall that GMA should heed.

If it is true that the leak of the wiretapped GMA-Garcillano phone conversations was triggered, among others, by the move by shortlived AFP Chief of Staff Abu’s attempt to clip the wings of ISAFP, such clearly confirms the long suspected vertical and horizontal splits in the politicized military.

This gesture by the civil society groups is a laudable attempt for them to reassert a moral high ground and remove the perception that they had, one way or another, been co-opted when some of their prominent leaders or members accepted positioons in the Macapagal administration.

Our people must resolutely take a peaceful path of change while holding to account those who have brought our society to this latest crisis. May the Lord keep watch over us.



June 20th, 2005 at 6:16 pm

max soliven and alex magno??? … pleaseeeee. fence sitter galore mga yan.. d ba obvious? feeling moralista pero parang simpleng corrupt naman… parang mala GMA ang dating.

Sayang si TEddy Benigno. Sa kanya naniniwala pa ako. kaya nga kinuha na nang dyos kasi mabait e. Naawa siguro si Lord kasi masakit na ang puso ni teddyman dahil sa nangyayari sa bayan natin.

Sayang… Mr Benigno… I know that this is what you have been wishing for the Filipino people before you died.. na tatayo sila para ipaglaban ang katiwalian ng GMA regime.

I think the fall of GMA will be the start of a new and renewed republic.


jay cynikho

June 20th, 2005 at 6:46 pm

interesado ba kayo sa open letter ni FPJ, na matagal ng sinulat pero di nalathala, dami kasing nanlilibak at nang iinsulto sa kanya noon. medio mahaba nga lang pero doon sa mababang masyado ang tingin sa kanya baka magbago pag nabasa kahit patay na siya. HETO SA IBABA ang sulat niya kuno:

Nov 28, 2002

I like to make public my feelings about the attacks on my person and my family because I have announced my candidacy for the Presidency of our dying country.

In my hours of solitude before sleep takes my consciousness and upon waking up at dawn, my thoughts no longer brings back happy days of my youth or the feelings of achievements at middle age. Like a persistent intruder trying to dominate my thoughts, forebodings of anxities and doubts of my ability to serve my country seemed to seize my mind. This is because of so many comments that come from some many people who I thought should have shown more love of country because God had given them ample chances while holding positions of power while serving either the government or the business sector.

Why are so many people so vicious and so afraid of me? I was only a high school drop out. I was so ordinary that I got drunk once in a while and had a good eye for beauties during my youth. I live a quiet life and tried to be friends to everyone. I helped the needy who asked for help with little money I got from honest toil. I think I am a better citizen than most people in the executive branch, the judiciary and the Congress. I have made honest millions from entertaining mostly our poor people. To see my movies, the poor have to shell out hard earned pesos from sidewalk vending, from selling cigarettes in the streets, and from their cheated minimum wage. The poor and I share the same pride of making an honest buck. Maraming kahig para lang sa isang tuka. What I earned in a lifetime multiplied a thousand times can be earned now by some people through a cellphone call, or a signature or by a friendly threat. People know and they seeth and burn inside.

The viciousness of the attacks and the palpable fear against my winning the elections are caused by reasons uncivil to contemplate. Is it because I am not a thief of the people’s money? Is it because of my integrity as a person? Is it because I am not one of them? Is it because there is no record of how much is my price and they are afraid I can not be bought? Is it because I am not an intellectual and will never be accepted among intellectual thieves? Is it because of respectability and credibility that I possess, commodities so rare among our leaders in government and in big business? Is it because, once in power they are afraid I will be overtaken by greed and be like one of them surrounded by a new cabal of respectable criminals?

I think I am too old to change. As they said you can not teach old dogs new tricks. In the same manner that attitudes are hardened by old age. You don’t need to compare me with anyone. I am not perfect and may have lots of faults. I was not brought up with the trappings of a good life: exclusive schools, late model cars, vacation houses, expensive clothes. I had to work my butt black and blue to earn a few pesos. In other words, I did not grew up greedy keeping up with the rich neighbors. My past life style defines my wants and needs. I can not be a leader for greed and corruption, a model that my supporters shall try to surpass. In my movies, my role preferences were almost boring, always “bida” protector of the weak, supporter of the good, and a symbol of love of country. Don’t ask me why, but I did not like playing President, or Governor or Mayor. But that did not mean I don’t know how to lead or govern.

Yes I also like to share with you my thoughts about my ability to perform the duties of a President. To be President to me is to be a leader more than to be a manager. In the movie industry I had more than 40 years experience in both managing and leading and was competent in the industry’s politics. Yes I have no experience in politics of greed and corruption in the Philippines and my attitude towards greed I have made clear above. I am too old for that.

When business leaders voiced their incredible fears about my candidacy, they fear not for their country or business in general. They are afraid their past shady deals might be discontinued by a new group of advisers. They have their own surveys of their part in corruption. They know there is always a first time against history of recycled corrupt officials. This first time will come in my time.

I was an actor performing and essaying specific tasks and responsibilities to make a movie a whole. I was like a government employee performing major tasks. I was a movie director thinking and creating parts and putting them together to make a coherent whole. I need to know a concept of drama against the concept of an action film. I can conceptualize from beginning to end any endeavor. They say to be a good manager one must see both the trees and the forest. As an actor I was among the trees and as movie director, I have a grasp of the whole forest.

The leader many times needs to follow his followers when they pursue fairness and justice. Follow the leader is bad advice when the leader is corrupt and unjust. I will chose good followers who will serve close to me. My Erap friend was criticized for lack of qualifications and his advisers but our people were better off and the economy healthier than during the time of Cory, Ramos, and Arroyo. Erap and his advisers and followers were better leaders and followers than his predecessors.

Countries in the world gain international respect not because their leaders have doctorates or can deliver brilliant speeches. If elected leader of my country, I shall walk and talk with international leaders with pride and confidence knowing that they know I am not nor any member of my family or my cabinet are greedy and corrupt. Against pomp and splendor of international gathering, world leaders know who among them are respected or hated by their people. In the small world of world leaders, when Mahathir or John Howard shake your hand and look you in the eye, they know how you stand with your people. They will show more admiration and respect to a leader who is illiterate but is loved by a happy people than to an intellectual leader who is a product of image builders and beautifully packaged to hide the lies and dirt of politics.

Lastly, I think my detractors are afraid not because I will win but because I am not a thief. Majority of our people knows this. Poor people wrong or not have their own understanding of who are corrupt and who are not. Business leaders should not worry about me. I will protect good business because this will mean more employment and income for our people.


Alecks Pabico

June 20th, 2005 at 7:00 pm

dsaint, I could ask them for a Filipino (Tagalog if you wish) version of their statement, if there is one.



June 20th, 2005 at 8:56 pm


Thanks for picking up my comment on your mention of Bel Cunanan and Opus Dei and enlightening me about your real intent. Sorry if I was not able to read between the lines. Thanks for sparing Opus Dei.

But you know what, Bel Cunanan could well be one of us and maybe her being Opus Dei (if it is so, I am not sure as I don’t belong to the women’s group, now you know my gender) may even be a big help for her to stop being extremely pro-administration as she is now. Maybe, she’ll see the light with the help of her being in touch with Opus Dei, hopefully. I think the likes of Bel Cunanan may be found in many organizations, if the reference is her being fanatically loyal.

As to my being marked as an Opus Dei in this site, as you said either a member or a Cooperator, that’s fine with me. Nothing risky about being “markado”. If people in this site now want to pounce on me because of that, no problem. That is part of our daily grind. Just bear in mind that when I comment on politics or personal topics, I speak as an individual and do not wish to drag Opus Dei in any of my personal views, correct or otherwise. When I speak of personal formation and spiritual matters, I still will not represent Opus Dei as well but will only refer to what I learned in my association with that Prelature. If I commit improprieties, Opus Dei is out of it. Kaya walang problema boss. Proud pa nga ako even if I stumble once in a while. Sometimes, we need a dose of humbling experiences to learn humility and to receive some calumnies to develop one’s conviction, di ba? I accept that reality.

The book you mentioned as an exchange deal for you to find out more about Opus Dei may be worth investigating but I am hoping that it is not a fiction like the Da Vinci Code. For me, anything is worth investigating provided in the end, I end up a stronger believer of the Faith that I practice. I will treat anything contrary to truth as pure entertainment. I will check out the book in National Book Store. As to your part of the deal, my wife has a list of the different centers where you can go for personal formation. Do you want the addresses? If so, feel free to post your mailing address here and she’ll gladly send you the list.





June 20th, 2005 at 11:04 pm


I feel flattered that you are explaining yourself in great detail especially on what you meant by the generality you stated. Well, at least, you are redeeming yourself and that is very good. Thank you indeed.

As to my comment on yellow, you don’t have to justify your choice of color. Anyway, you are always entiltled to your personal choice. As for my comments about yellow, it is likewise my choice. It might be a consolation for you to note that I ended my piece with two appeasing terms. Go back to my email and you will note that I mentioned: Sorry, Peace.

Kaya huwag ka nang maging uptight kasi ma-o-overlook mo some details if you stiffen up. Relax lang brod. It will help if we stop taking ourselves too seriously once in a while, para matawanan naman natin ang ating mga sarili at mag-enjoy instead of getting hyper. We are all vulnerable to criticism and as such our attitude should be one of openness.

As to Opus Dei, any personal comments and views I post on this site may not necessarily reflect the standards of Opus Dei and should be charged to me exclusively. If I become harsh or rash in some of my comments, that is me, not Opus Dei. You can leave Opus Dei alone. When I deal with you or anybody else in this site, I deal with you as a plain citizen, walang tatak. That is because the human faculties I use to make judgements and observations are mine and mine alone (my eyes, my ears, my mind, my reasoning, etc.).

That is why I need others (people like you) to point out my errors. However, I will stand by the observations and opinions that I make if I know that, deep in my heart and conscience, they are true and correct.

As to my being referred to as resident critic, hindi naman siguro. Active participant lang. As to your labelling me judgemental, I hope you realize that this mere act of calling me judgemental makes you one, too.

Sometimes, naked truth can make a person defensive and overly sensitive. An acid test whether you are victim of my being judgemental is for you to show your “civil society” email to your friends without identfying yourself and then try to elicit some candid comments. Then tell me honestly about both sides, good and bad. Sometimes, naked truth can make a person defensive and overly sensitive.

Elias, I’ll say it again here as I did last time. Peace!




June 20th, 2005 at 11:19 pm


Thanks very much for the explanation. Sorry if I sounded judgemental. No intention whatsoever. I was simply sharing an honest observation since that was how I saw it while reading your comments. If it was a mistaken observation and you are not speaking from an arrogant stance, pardon me.





June 20th, 2005 at 11:37 pm

Ang term na “civil society” para sa kaalaman ng lahat ay hindi bagong imbensyon. Ito ay konseptong ginamit bago pa ang panahon ni Marx (early 1800s) at ito ay ginamit na maraming pilosopo at teorista sa pagsusuri ng lipunan. Ang kaakibat na konsepto nito ay ang “state” o “estado”. Ang kontribusyon ni Marx na konsepto (ang “mode of production”) ay ang kanyang pinaniwalaang motor ng “civil society.”

Sa pagkalaos ng marxismo, nabuhay lang ulit ang mga kategoryang ito. Nakakadiri nga lang ang pag-appropriate ng mga ilang grupo sa konseptong ito.



June 20th, 2005 at 11:41 pm

Thanks Alecks! I’ll post the tagalog version in other blogs for the Masang Pinoy. Isa na ang nanay ko sa maliliwanagan, binoto nya si FPJ pero kinuha na nga ng DIYOS. Alam ko matutuwa siya dahil alam nya na nandaya si GMA. Isa na lang ang natitirang kandidato na binoto ko ng eleksyon na maaari nating suportahan, si BRO. EDDIE VILLANUEVA.

More Blessings to You and PCIJ!



June 21st, 2005 at 12:03 am

To anybody,

Gusto sanang malaman kung ang civil society as it is known in the philippines is open to having collaborators from opposing groups, that means different ideologies, but who have a common onjective with that of the present members.

Ibig sabihin, halimbawa sa tawag na magpaliwanag ang Pngulo sa Gloria-Garci tapes or to step down, maaari bang maghalu-halo na ang mga iba’t ibang klaseng ideolohiya upang magkaisa sa layuning magkaroon ng pagbabago?

Imagine, a group where you’ll see the various religious groups getting together, then you have a mixture of lawmakers both from the opposition and the administration, the rich and the poort, the learned and the under-educated, the elite and the masses, etc.

Salamat kung sinuman ang mag-comment.




June 21st, 2005 at 6:16 am

FISKING CUNANAN: In her Political Tidbits column today, (
Bel Cunanan quotes liberally from “the June 14 paper of ATR-Kim Eng Securities, a foreign equities research group”. She uses these quotations to try to prove that foreign investors have not lost faith in the GMA administration.

But the “A” in ATR stands for “Arnaiz” and the “T” for Tordesillas, “R” is a Singaporean partner (?). Actually ATR Kim Eng has been the financial advisor of record of the BCDA for the last 4 years, and guess who one of its principal partners are: Diosdado Macapagal, Jr. (“Boboy”) — the President’s younger brother and confidant, and who was school chum of “T”. It seems Ma’m Bel is not an opinion columnist with much integrity. But you guyz already knew that!

It’s Orson Welles’ 1984 all over again.


Abe N. Margallo

June 21st, 2005 at 8:48 am


In one of the threads here, I have attempted to make some formulations of “civil society” verus “Civil Society” and other cognate terms as follows – –

When institutions (civil society), which mediate between families and the State, assert their primacy, the result could be their collectivization into Civil Society. Whereas elitism is the rule of the “privileged minority,” civil society governance is the rule by “minorities.” Civil Society, on the other hand, is a monopoly of the legitimate use of power by the “great majority.” In this context, Civil Society equates with the sovereign will—supreme and absolute. Therefore, Civil Society, theoretically, no less than People Power, empirically, is the conception of the State itself.

To illustrate this, the political system instituted in the American constitution by its founding fathers was a compromise, based on distrust, between, on the one hand, the numerical majority (the masses) together with the minorities (some idealistic elites and middle-class Americans who supported the “leveling” sentiments) and, on the other, the privileged minority (the merchants, financiers, manufacturers, and certain wealthy landholders) as to who, what and when to exercise the monopoly of the powers of Civil Society. The paramount question then was whether to vest the monopoly of those powers in the many at the expense of the few or vice versa.

People Power democracy, on the other hand, is the exercise by the people—the Civil Society—of the republican principle of the “last say” which may result to replace (as in People Power I) or keep (as in People Power II) the existing system. It does not decide particular issues for that would notionally be “direct democracy.” The triumph of People Power democracy should be measured not upon its physical manifestation that successfully brought about the immediate change desired, which is an end in itself, but when the consensus formed by civil society or civil societies—those politically informed, active and diverse minorities groups such as the business sectors, political alliances, labor unions, religious organizations, and the like—is brought to be reckoned with by those formally vested with policymaking. It is thus a continuing “transformative” citizenship. Whenever civil societies are marginalized in the governance process, the result could either the rule by the privileged minority (or the oligarchy) or by the multitude, irrespective of the agreed upon formalities of governance.

In another breadth, the conception of people power represents a critical challenge from civil society groups who have asserted their misgivings with inefficient and ineffectual institutions in our version of democracy and with the rank subservience of those institutions to the dominant segments of our society. In such regard, people power configures an oppositional culture that has affected a broad spectrum of the civil society. The dimension of the challenge is as significant as that of the threat of a rival ideology such as communism or authoritarianism or as real as the menace of terrorism. The concomitant fear that it is a malady in the body politic rather than a curative force in a dysfunctional structure is then understandable from the standpoint of status quo defenders.

Writing more recently about the state of affairs of the “politicized middle class” in the Philippines (, January 10, 2004), Prof. Randy David has deplored that its “activism is however weakened by the lack of sustained follow-through . . . (folding) its banners as soon as a crisis has passed, leaving the traditional politicians to mismanage the political investment they have made.” Prof. David however believes that the “politicized middle class could be the key to the transformation of the poor into a potent force for peaceful and meaningful change. And this can happen, in Randy David’s opinion, “(t)hrough popular organizing and education, and through the formation of mass-based political parties . . . (to)help the poor recover their voices and expand their participation in the nation’s life.”



June 21st, 2005 at 1:02 pm


My comment was just a quip, an admittedly not-so-innocent one just to provoke. Here’s some more.

Ideas taken out of their historical contexts tend to become canonical, enshrined, and universal. And my fear is that your exposition, however elegant and nuanced, has fallen into this trap.

The concept of civil society is never expounded as intelligently as in Gramsci’s exposition. But even then, Gramsci was more Hegelian (more accurately, Crocean) than Marxian. As a caveat, Gramsci was a foremost historicist—meaning, study the facts first, then do your theoreticals, and not the reverse.

Ok enough with preliminaries.

The main problem I have with your exposition is my fear that here again is another analysis that apprehends Philippine social phenomena with the currently fashionable theoretical constructs. Then, it was the base-superstructure paradigm of the mode of production, now it is the civil society with small caps and all caps. When shall Philippine society be analyzed according to its own logic and trajectory, a logic and trajectory it surely must have given its own special history and circumstance?

Don’t misunderstand what I’m saying. I don’t mean to disparage ideals like democracy, as imports unworkable here. Sure they are. I just deplore the tendency among noted Filipino intellectuals past and present to swallow every Enlightenment ideal hook, line and sinker, and pass all these transmogrifications to generations of unwitting Filipino students. Truly sad.

Have we really come up with an analysis of Edsa I to enlighten our way with the forthcoming Edsa 4 or 5 or 6? I fear not. I have a tip for all of you: study first David Sturtevant “Popular Uprisings in the Philippines” and you’ll have some clues.

Don’t take anybody’s word as ex cathedra, Prof. Randy David’s included. There is a lot of educated ignorance of real facts in this country. That’s my final tip.

As Lao Tzu allegedly used to quip, “all that i know is that i know nothing.” That’s the beginning of wisdom.



June 21st, 2005 at 3:40 pm

People’s struggle is always associated with movements. Movements is led by leaders. We have to accept the fact that today, the Filipino people, have no movement\s or leaders that they can identify themselves in the struggle for truth and justice.

We may say that with the nationa issues confronting our country now, from the alleged electoral fraud and juetengate, the majority of the people could find from the present leaders — both in the civil society or in the oppostion to lead them to make collective actions.

Even the present members of the civil society admit this when they said in their statement:

“we call on the Filipino people to be vigilant against any attempt by any party to hide the truth or confuse the public through disinformation. We also call on the people to reject any attempt to forcibly grab power through undemocratic and extra constitutional means.

The civil socity is afraid of “extra constititional means” because they are aware that there is no leader in sight that could replace GMA in case of another people power.

It is not surprising that in the last elections, half of the Filipino people pinned their hopes to a legendary leader and action hero represented by FPJ. People voted for him because of the failure of Civil Society, the NGOs and the political parties to develop a leader that can lead the country to greater heights.

Oneday, all the politcal leaders will wake up that we are now under a military regime, headed by General Lomibao.


third wind

June 21st, 2005 at 4:21 pm

Yes, the “civil society” finally broke its silence. But why it took them so long to do so raises some questions. Totoo bang nagsalita na sila dahil galit na rin sila sa mga lumalabas na katiwalian ni GMA at handa na silang patalsikin ang “mandarayang” pangulo? Hindi kaya napahiya lang sila sa mga komentaryo ng PDI columnist na si Conrado de Quiros (There’s the Rub) regarding their own version of “deafening silence”?




June 21st, 2005 at 7:38 pm

it’s inevitible! some tried to cover it up and even betting their @$$?$ to save the issues. They know that if they keep quiet, they will hurt the country even more. And we all know that sooner or later the gloriagate issue will get bigger and worser than it is right now.



June 22nd, 2005 at 3:22 am

The problem with the Civil Society as mentioned have been identified themselves with Gloria and are beneficieries of her largesse. Baka sila pa kasali doon sa mga dagdag bawas na napasama sa Party List ni Gloria.

The other members of NGOs and Civil Society, who are identified with the people, have distanced themselves with Gloria.



June 22nd, 2005 at 9:36 am

alam nyo yang “civil society” kuno na tinatawag nyo ang nagluklok ke GMA kaya nagkakaganito ngaun ang bansa natin. Dahil ang bumubuo sa diumanong civil society na yan ay yung mga mayayaman, yung mga may mataas na pinagaralan (daw), yung mga mas nakakaintindi(daw), but i wonder kung nararanasan din ba nila yung mga paghihirap na dinaranas ng mga masa, yung mga wala halos makain sa araw-araw at yung mga taong sinasabi nilang walang pinagaralan. Look, nung Edsa2 karamihan dun ung mga mayayaman at ung mga taong nagtratrabaho sa makati, ung mga nagaaral sa exclusive schools, kaya kahit di naman sila ang nakararaming pilipino ay napatalsik nila si Erap, kasi kayang paganahin ng salapi ang tao, pero nung Edsa3 kahit sabihin pang milyun-milyon ang dumalo at mula pa sa ibat-ibang lugar sa pilipinas di nila pinansin, bakit?, kasi sino ba naman sila kundi mga walang kwentang mamamayan dahil walang pera at walang pinagaralan. Sino kaya ngaun ang mukhang walang pinagaralan, yung presidente na nakapagtapos ng pagaaral sa ibang bansa o yung mga taong di nakapagaral ngunit ipinaglalaban kung ano ang tama at ang kanilang karapatan???



June 22nd, 2005 at 9:58 am

Nawala na kasi ang middle class sa pinas. Either nasa nasa lugar ng mayaman ka o nasa below poverty level ka na( eksakto lang kita para sa pang araw araw). Baka ang “civil society” nandoon na ang dating middle class na basically part na ng nasa poverty line at mga nasa ilalim non.


Abe N. Margallo

June 22nd, 2005 at 10:08 am


Sorry, I didn’t see your post right away. But anyway, I’m re-posting here an old commentary (now part of BUILD or PERISH!) which was actually a reaction to one of Prof. David’s pieces in his Philippine Inquirer column, Public Views. (As you see, part of my post above has been lifted from it.)

There are a couple of reasons why I’m doing this instead of directly answering the points you have raised: 1) while I’m one of those who considers David’s writings (at least those that have appeared in Public Views) to be very insightful, I don’t take his views ex cathedra, 2) I would like to ask you two questions: a) Do you really see in the above post or in the following one something that suggests the philosophies of the Enlightenment thinkers should be swallowed hook and sinker by “unwitting Filipino students,” and b) Do you find anything in this post (or in my June 17, 2005 post in “Exercise your constitutional rights and distribute the tape” thread) that may indicate that perhaps we are coming from the same wavelengths?

Here’s the commentary that was originally titled “People Power as Realpolitik”.


ANM to Randy: You appeared to have downgraded People Power as rather romantic and “utopian,” in your column of August 24, 2002 when you stated that—

“(People Power II), a reprise of the romantic impulses of 1986, gives the nation a second chance to reinvent itself into a modern functioning democracy. But two powerful currents challenge the spirit of People Power II.

“The first comes from the same grizzled practitioners of patronage politics who got a new life after 1986 and now say that the key to stability is not to rock the boat. Their trajectory is 2004. The second comes from the politicized poor, whom Estrada had unwittingly awakened, who demand their just share of the fruits of growth. Their needs are so urgent and their anger so raw as to incline government once again to rely on the same dole?out approach that works in the short?term but perpetuates the old vicious culture of dependence and patronage.
“Which way will President Gloria Macapagal?Arroyo go? Forward or backward?”

It may be worth recalling that on the 16th anniversary of the first People Power, the EDSA shrine, arguably the most preeminent symbol of the historic uprising, was ordered closed by the Catholic Church to political activity. Then, seemingly in sync with the decision made by the Church, former presidents Fidel V. Ramos and Corazon Aquino who were at the center stage of both the 1986 and 2001 People Power revolts, now think people power could be bad for democracy. The task of removing undemocratic leaders, according to Ramos, should be left to the political institutions in accordance with the Constitution so that democracy may be allowed to mature; whereas Aquino has cautioned against making a habit out of People Power. Many other well?meaning political observers have also expressed their apprehension about the “excesses of people power.”

In one breadth, People Power represents a critical challenge from civil society groups who have asserted their misgivings with inefficient and ineffectual institutions in our version of democracy and with the rank subservience of those institutions to the dominant segments of our society. In such regard, People Power configures an oppositional culture that has affected a broad spectrum of the civil society. The dimension of the challenge is as significant as that of the threat of a rival ideology such as communism or authoritarianism or as real as the menace of terrorism. The concomitant fear that it is a malady in the body politic rather than a curative force in a dysfunctional structure is then understandable from the standpoint of status quo defenders.

In a constitutional sense, what seems lost in the apparent efforts to tame People Power even by those who have been direct beneficiaries of it, is the fact that People Power is now an insert in our legal order as a consequence of the first uprising. That our constitutional regime could now be said to have accommodated people power democracy as having been integrated in our borrowed form of republicanism finds support in Article XIII, Sections 15 and 16 of the Constitution defining the role and rights of people’s organizations separately from the right peaceably to assemble or to petition the government for redress of grievances as well as in Article VI, Sections1 and 32 in relation to Article XVII, Section 2 thereof reserving to the people the power of initiative and referendum. The intended consultative character of the governance system is supposed to inform a continuing consensus proceeding from the first enactment of the power to its second and possibly subsequent exercises.

One real value of People Power, it should be acknowledged, is the fulfillment of the democratic dreams even if broader participation does not necessarily produce better decisions whether in the particular choice of the succeeding leadership or in ordinary policy matters. Those dreams are somehow served by the developmental benefit of participation in terms of educating the people in civic consciousness as was seen in the impeachment trial that had been precipitated by the various crosscurrents of People Power.

When People Power is enacted, it creates the perception that it delegitimizes traditional authorities which protect the accumulation process, a state function that favors a narrow group. So, at the other extreme is the anti-ideology that citizens should be retarded into passivity and participation reduced, in order for economic liberalism and “democracy” to work. According to certain defenders of the status quo, the wealth?creating process is more important than the rhetoric of participation. To them, restoring and preserving the “governability of democracy” require the depoliticalizing of the citizens. And depoliticalization can be accomplished by cooption of People Power practitioners, obtaining consensual subjugation through suasion by people of prestige, or by oppression.

The witting or unwitting partisans of deferential politics, set apart from the “irrational mob,” are thus exposed by their penchant for social control, obedience to hierarchy and hence, their enmity to democratic ideals. What this also means is that the powers that be could not trust the people to protect their (the people’s) self?interest even as the former oblige everybody to have faith that the pursuit of rational self?interest by the privileged few will ultimately redound to the general welfare. This creed is at the heart of “liberal democracy” which both People Power revolutions have threatened to transform.

What could be so wasteful about this nostalgia for blind deference to traditions is how easily a handful of individuals of prestige, abetted by the media, can use their influence in order to induce the reversal of the democratic surge, or deny it even its symbolism such as the representation of the EDSA Shrine. It attempts to reinforce the fallacy that while the powers of government are derived from the people, the people are powerless to govern themselves. The attitude in favor of such a political myth, as People Power will continue to uncover, is to all intents and purposes anti?democratic.

“Forward or backward,” however, offers a choice and invites inquiry and discourse. As the critical sense is challenged, it allows the operation of the democratic imagination, minimizing in the process the physical manifestation of People Power and the uncertainties attendant to it. Deliberative exchange retains and symbolizes the power but it does not emaciate it. Deliberation also avoids the frontal clash between the desire to accumulate (which justifies economic liberalism) and the need to legitimate (which demands democracy).

Consequently, the maturing of democracy depends not in domesticating People Power or exaggerating its risk but upon the creative exercise of the power—removed from the utopian pursuit—in countless specific ways, limited only by the expanse of the imagination. The democratic imagination, accordingly, transcends mere rhetoric because there are concrete avenues by which to make the imagination happen.

For example, instead of employing People Power to decimate the accumulation process in the Marxist formulation, it could be used as a touchstone to democratize the process, such as by way of industrial stewardship in lieu of theoretical socialism, co?determination and co?partnership instead of syndicalism (the control and management by workers of industries), or by the devolution of power in the concept of federalism or genuine local autonomy instead of uncritical adherence to the notion of centralization and hierarchy, or to the rigidity of an implanted proceduralism and formal democracy which ignore indigenous culture and perspectives. Empowerment in the workplace is yet another democratic experiment that has resulted in accumulative benefits, and has been seen by serious scholars to be as revolutionary as the invention of the airplane, plastic, and computer.

These democratic aspirations and experiments are not quixotic as the unleashing of the energy of People Power is now hastened by the unprecedented advancement in technology, including the miracle that allows this thesis to be posted and published, and permits people, although separated by a great distance, to criticize it in a matter of seconds.

Thus, instead of continually and dialectically contrasting the strengths and weaknesses of democracy by participation and democracy of experts, or of accumulation and legitimation, People Power must be wielded imaginatively but realistically to close up the polarities and harmonize the philosophical contradictions, both in the political and in the economic spheres, in a manner that maximizes practical outcomes for the general good.


Btw, isn’t the quip about wisdom Socratic?



June 22nd, 2005 at 10:11 am

wala na talagang pag asa ang pilipinas hanggang ang mga politiko ay pansariling kapakanan ang iniisip.



June 22nd, 2005 at 11:12 pm

dear Abe,

Sorry for any misimpression my quips have created. For one, don’t relate my quips with any of your earlier posts on this thread or elsewhere here in pcij. I just made them as points of information. Please don’t take this as patronizing in any way but i find your writing and ideas trenchant, indicative of a critical mind. In that spirit, here are more quips to add some fuel to the fire.

I share your appreciation of Randy David’s insightful views. I am even more appreciative of the fact that he is the first (and only! so far) prominent Filipino intellectual to voice out his thoughts on the Gloria tapes in a forceful, unequivocal manner. I am a former student, in fact, though not formally, of his writings and ideas alongside with the writings and ideas of other intellectuals that in the late 80s like him used to revolve around Dodong Nemenzo—the likes of Jojo Abinales, the once-radical Alex Magno, and the lesser theoretical lights.

However, I am a student more of actual Philippine history than powerful elegant theories. And here is where I will answer your Question A.

The mere formulation of your discourse on people power, its challenges and potentials (parts of which appeared earlier in your book) is to me essentially problematic. To be blunt about it, it was as prosaic as a sociological discourse. Of course, Prof. David is a sociology professor well versed with the classics and the latest works. However, here lies the problem: up to now, NO theory in the country has yet fully explained why the first People Power phenomenon occurred in the first place. At best, there are descriptive narrations, half-baked attempts at analysis and journalistic accounts making up the tome of literature on People Power.

And so, for the longest time, intellectuals just assumed it as a given. It then assumed the realm of the self-evident when Edsa Dos and Edsa Tres happened. And now with an impending Quatro or Sinco, as a given, the concept is being wielded left and right by anybody with an agenda to accomplish. And honestly, I was not a bit surprised when I read your post about civil society in caps and lowercase and found the concept of people power as a fulcrum idea.

The basis of all these counterpoints is nothing but Philippine history unrehearsed. As a sample, I mentioned Sturtevant’s book “Popular Uprisings in the Philippines” because in it he surveyed all the past uprisings by millenarian prophets in Philippine history in the past century. I said the book will give you clues because People Power as a phenomenon is easily unravelled by the lives and dreams and struggles of Papa Isio, Felipe Salvador and Valentin Delos Santos than by any elegant universal theoretical formulation. Please read it, all you interested.

Also, I used to follow the writings of an obscure writer who tried to investigate and found the connection between these groups and the 1986 People Power Revolution, a connection that goes all the way back to the 1896 Revolution and even farther back. Unfortunately, after a few provocative manuscripts, he stopped all his works and preferred even more obscurity by completely withdrawing from all intellectual activity. I have his copies of his works and if you are interested to read some of them, contact me at

I hope I have confused you more than I have clarified. I still think the “i know nothing” phrase is Taoist. If in case it’s Socratic, no problem. After all, the dialectical method was first elucidated by that grand old man. ciao!



June 23rd, 2005 at 8:37 am

If Alanis Morissette is a Filipina,then she might be seen already singing her song in the streets or In EDSA: ” All I Really Want” from her successful album : Jagged Little Pill

here’s the lyric of that song:

Do I stress you out
My sweater is on backwards and inside out
And you say how appropriate
I don’t want to dissect everything today (Until I hear the GLoriagate and Jueteng scandal and read the manuscript)
I don’t mean to pick you apart you see
But I can’t help it
There I go jumping before the gunshot has gone off (Ong’s testimony)
Slap me with a splintered ruler
And it would knock me to the floor if I wasn’t there already
If only I could hunt the hunter

And all I really want is some patience (Susan and ex Prexy Cory)
A way to calm the angry voice (voice of the Masses)
And all I really want is deliverance

Do I wear you out
You must wonder why I’m relentless and all strung out
I’m consumed by the chill of solitary
I’m like Gloria
I like to reel it in and then spit it out
I’m frustrated by your apathy
And I am frightened by the corrupted ways of this land (Since Birth)
If only I could meet the Maker (Must be Gloria and other Corruption University graduate alumni)
And i am fascinated by the spiritual man (Cardinal Sin)
I am humbled by his humble nature (Kudos Cardinal Sin and Condolence)

What I wouldn’t give to find a soulmate
Someone else to catch this drift
And what I wouldn’t give to meet a kindred

Enough about me, let’s talk about you for a minute
Enough about you, let’s talk about life for a while (Poverty,Hunger,Unemployment,Crisis, Enviromental Degradation, Political Unrest, Mindanao Conflict, Peso devaluation and etc.)
The conflicts, the craziness and the sound of pretenses
Falling all around…all around (Look around you, Filipinos, don’t give up!!! )

Why are you so petrified of silence (Why Gloria? Why Garci?)
Here can you handle this?
Did you think about your bills, you ex, your deadlines (your 1 Million Votes margin, your heirloom to your grand grand children )
Or when you think you’re gonna die (how young are you?)
Or did you long for the next distraction (destruction or People Power)
And all I need now is intellectual intercourse (debates, PCIJ, webbloggers,crusades,parades,rally, investigations and probing)
A soul to dig the hole much deeper
And I have no concept of time other than it is flying
If only I could kill the killer

All I really want is some peace man
A place to find a common ground
And all I really want is a wavelength
All I really want is some comfort
A way to get my hands untied
And all I really want is some justice.. (Justice delayed is Justice denied)

The congress and senate are two damn lazy bodies of the Government… Ask these people to have a vacation abroad…sing bilis pa ng kidlat kung makaalis…


Abe N. Margallo

June 23rd, 2005 at 10:26 am


That was a lethal digression from the “prosaic.”

Hi Pedro,

The formulations that you find problematic are restated here:

1. When institutions (civil society), which mediate between families and the State, assert their primacy, the result could be their collectivization into Civil Society.

2. Civil Society, People Power and the State are for the purposes used here synonymous terms. (I’ve however omitted to mention an equally identical abstraction, the Public, which will be used in the theses that follow more liberally.)

Let me try to explain the foregoing formulations in the context that you seem to prefer, i.e., the historical.

First this question: Was there an equivalent phenomenon during the Philippine Revolution to what today is referred to as civil society (the small caps)?

I believe there was. To name some key players: 1) the propagandists (possibly the equivalent today of bloggers, if you will, but at that time mostly expatriates) which produced La Solidaridad, 2) the La Liga Filipina which attempted to configure a loose Philippine bureaucracy (founded by Rizal), 3) the Cuerpo de Campromisarios, 4) the Masonic Brotherhood and 5) the Katipunan (the resurrected La Liga Filipina, founded by Bonifacio).

Doesn’t the above list look almost like the one in the top post?

Well, then, as now, there was however a class conflict among the players, and to simplify, I will call the conflict as only between the middle-class (or the ilustrado) and plebeians, the former preferring to just institute reforms within the existing Public, the latter being intent to form a new Public.

To create a new Public, or a State (or to upgrade to an uppercased Civil Society or People Power), Rizal provided alternatives through Noli and Fili: Reform or Revolution.

To succeed in either alternative, the key ingredients Rizal indicated were a) patriotism, and b) self-abnegation.

Ibarra was the epitome of patriotism (the building of a school house in Noli was symbolic of his passionate stewardship to liberate the primitivized indio youth, the “hope of the fatherland”) and Elias, of self-abnegation. Indeed, without both virtues, civil society would remain in lowercase, meaning inchoate and unorganized and therefore would be unable to grow or collectivize into Civil Society (the uppercase).

The persona of Ibarra and Elias was merged in the martyred Rizal, and for a while effaced the class conflict between the ilustrados and the plebeians. The cultured and the unlettered saw a common enemy – the Friar system. But revolution as a means to attain a new Public failed primarily because self-interest (thirst for power) in Aguinaldo had prevailed over the greater good when he ordered the execution of Bonifacio (and later Luna) and dissipated the initial momentum of the revolution before the Americans had a chance to beguile the Filipinos.

As a leader, Aguinaldo failed to separate private interest from public interest. Also, while Aguinaldo was a patriot, he apparently lacked the self-abnegation of Elias and Rizal.

At the turn of the century, associated action powered by shared interests, born of the patriotism, self-abnegation and a sense of the public of, and championed by, the civil society of the old was thereupon befuddled by the promise of the “enduring truths” of market and democracy peddled by the new Master. On top of it, the Friar system was in fact re-instituted to Christianize (how often could this happen?) and civilize the “half-devil and half-child” in the Hollywood but more virulent form, thereby perpetuating the indio myth. As a consequence, civil society has had to struggle painfully to arise from a damaged ego.

Meanwhile, a self-content and laggard oligarchy under the backseat patriarchy of Big Uncle and its many instruments has taken the initiative from a civil society entrapped and enthralled in its lowercased cast.

Arguably, the Philippine Revolution had preceded Rizal and company in the same way that EDSA I preceded the murder at the tarmac. But just as the execution of Rizal had galvanized the full conception of the real enemy and whereupon the fusion of interests across class lines, the murder of Ninoy led to the coalition of the Left and the Right, the bankers and the farmers, the teachers and the learners, and the clergy and the faithfuls against a common enemy upon the realization that the under the conjugal dictatorship no one was really safe. Unfortunately, the people power “rebels” failed to form a new Public based on shared interests, not because they were not collectivized, but simply that they were collectivized only for a limited goal – to oust a dictator. It was then a short-lived break from pubescence or inchoateness. If at all, the public formed under the People Power Constitution of 1987 was based for all practical purposes on the inherited agencies of the old form.

Beyond any doubt, the struggle is far from over. It’s been a continuing one however, perhaps from way back or even before Gomburza. The nemesis remains potent and school houses are needed to be built, as Ibarra did, to uncover in Gramscian formulation the conspiracy of the unliberated mind.

The immediate challenge for civil society today, it seems, is how to internalize the true embodiment of the real enemy. Today, to make GMA face justice is an immediate goal. But the vision for the Civil Society has yet to be instantiated. To do so, civil society must be able to assert its primacy and thereupon form a new Public based upon Rizal’s recipe: a mix of patriotism and self-abnegation. If successful, the process has to be kept experimental. It has to be so, because the making and re-making of the Public ought not to be inflexible.

How easy it is to do?

If GMA resigns now, she could still be perceived to have imbibed the virtues of patriotism and self-abnegation, possibly enough to trigger a national catharsis. Would you agree that should that happen, it could be easier for the small letter to become a capital letter? If confidence is soon and thereby gained, it could be less difficult to experiment with other fonts of many sizes and forms, to stretch a bit more the alphabet metaphor.

Pedro, there is no Enlightenment philosophy involved here, no Prince, Leviathan or social contract construct, just the simple politics of the lower case and the upper case which, well, your curiosity could have given birth to. Congratulations! And thank you.

Take care, big guy.



June 23rd, 2005 at 9:39 pm

GMA is a damn fake and a damn lier… We knew it. We knew it even before. Remember the words “Hindi na ako tatakbo sa election.” and “Susugpuin ko ang corruption at katiwalian sa gobyerno sa loob ng isang taon.” and many many many more…



June 24th, 2005 at 4:23 pm

Dear Abe and Pedro,

Masarap and sharing ninyong dalawa. Kung sana ang mga intellectual na katulad ninyo at patuloy na maghahanap ng pilosopiya at ideyolohiya na siyang maging gabay ng ating mamamayan, marahil sa ngayon mas higit at mahusay ang pagkilos ng ating tulirong kababayan.

Sa hinahaba ng takbo ng ating kasaysayan mula sa panahon ni Rizal at Bonifacio, Recto (hindi si Ralph ito ha) at Constantino, Randy David at Alex Magno, hanggang sa ngayon, di pa rin nahubog ang isang kaisipan na siyang magng gabay natin sa pagkilos upang mailantad ang mga individual at sektor na nagsasasamantala sa mga pagkilos ng bayan na katulad ng people power at mga naganap na pagbabago ng lipunan.

Sa lahat ng pagkilos ng bayan, aminin natin, panalo ang mga uring katulad ni Gloria. Talo si Abe at Pedro.

Alam natin na dahil sa kawalan ng tamang linya at ideolohiya, naging biktima ang bayan sa laro ng mga mayayaman.

Marahil ang dapat gawin natin ay back to basics. Sa mga paaralan, sa mga discussion groups, isang masusing pag-aaral sa lipunan at kasaysayan. Magkaroon ng mga fora at paglalantad hindi lamang ang katiwalian ng pamahalaan, hindi lamang ang isyu ng jueteng, o kaya ang dayaan sa halalan, kundi ang balikan ang tunay na dahilan kung bakit ang bayan at patuloy na hawak ng iilan.

Marahil kailangan natin ibalik ang sigla ng talakayan sa mga paaralan at sa mga lansangan, mga estudyanteng nag-oorganisa at nakikisalamuha sa kanayunan.

At sa People Power 3 or 4, hindi si Gloria 2 ang iluluklok kundi isang lider na galing sa masang pinoy.

Wishful thinking pero nangyari ito sa mga bansang may kilusan na malinaw ang ideolohiya.



June 24th, 2005 at 11:41 pm

Abe at Bagabag,

Tama ang mga punto nyo, palagay ko, pero di lubos. Kaya lang eto ang tanong ko sa inyo, pati na rin sa lahat: kung babalikan ang Kasaysayan ng bansang ito, gaano tayo kasigurado na ang babalikan natin ay ang TAMANG kasaysayan?

Sa paglalahad ni Abe, ang sarap sanang isipin na ang litanya ng mga pangyayari at personalidad ay ang siya talagang nangyari at ang mga tunay na relasyon. Pero paano kung hindi talaga ganoon ang mga kaganapan? What if the actual history of this country did not proceed in such a neat, cogent manner?

Yan din ang tanong ko sa yo Bagabag. Madaling pumili ng ideolohiya bilang framework of analysis at tapos, i-aaplay ang mga ito sa Philippine setting. Ang legend nga ay nang sinusulat daw ni Joma ang PSR, dalawang libro lang ang pinagbatayan niya: ang kay Mao at ang kay Agoncillo. Sa loob ng ilang linggo lang daw, ayun tapos na ang PSR! Di ko sinasabi na ganito nga ang nangyari, ok, pero makikita nyo naman ang sinasabi ko: madaling gumawa ng pag-aaral sa kasaysayan batay sa kung ano ang gusto mong mangyari dito. Napakahirap na alamin ang tunay na kasaysayan dahil kadalasan ay ang mga victors ang pinapaniwalaan dito.

Eto ang isa sa mga batayan ko: kung ang pag-aaral natin ng Kasaysayan ay batay sa kasaysayan ng isang Agoncillo (pati na ang kanyang mga sakristan), malaki ang problema natin talaga (syempre, mas matindi pag kay Zaide lang tayo bumatay). Sa isang libro ni Agoncillo, may account siya sa huling sandali ni Bonifacio, batay daw sa salaysay ni Col. Makapagal: nang i-eexecute na daw si Bonifacio, bigla itong tumakbo at nagmakaawa (naglumuhod pa nga daw) kay Makapagal na huwag siyang patayin. Pero nasa libro rin na dahil sa mga taga sa katawan ni Bonifacio matapos siyang tagain nang hinuli silang magkakakapatid sa Indang, kinailangan siyang buhatin sa hammock. Isipin mo na lang: ikaw na sugatang grabe sa taga, kaya mo pa bang tumayo at tumakbo? Kalokohan talaga. Pero alam niyo ba ito: na ang pangalang Felipe A. Agoncillo ay ang nasa gitna ay Aguinaldo? Marami lang ang ayaw maglabas ng hinala na ang passion ni Agoncillo sa kasaysayang Filipino ay upang ipagtanggol ang ginawang paglikida kay Bonifacio ng kanyang lolo!

Isa lang yan. Eto pa: napakalaki daw ng koneksyon ng mga Propagandista kay Bonifacio na maituturing na “logical development” ng La Liga Filipina ang Katipunan: para bang si Bonifacio ay CEO lang ng Rebolusyon at ang mga propagandista ang Board of Directors. Tapos, nang nami-mismanage na ni Bonifacio ang Rebolusyon, natural lang na dapat syang palitan ni Aguinaldo bilang bagong CEO. Napakalaking kabalbalan yan! Kung ang “repudiation” na ginawa ni Bonifacio at Jacinto sa mga pilosopiya at balakin ng mga Propagandista ay synonymous sa “logical development”, pwede yang ganyang pananaw. Pero hindi e. Ang laki ng pagkakaiba nyan: sinlaki ng pagkakaiba ng “Republica Filipina” ni Aguinaldo at ng “Katagalugan” nina Bonifacio at Jacinto. Sinlaki ng pagkakaiba nina Aguinaldo, Cailles, Malvar atbp. na nagsisuko sa mga Amerikano at nina Sakay, Julian Montalan atbp. na nagpatuloy sa tunay na adhikain ng Rebolusyong 1896.

(Sa iyo, Abe, bagamat hindi hayag sa iyo ang Enlightenment philosophy sa panahong ito, eto’t nasasalikod ng konsepto ng Republica Filipina ang apotheosis nito.)

Alam nyo, noong 2004 eleksyon, nangilabot ako nang dinaya ang “Hari” (symepre si FPJ) sapagkat isang “hari” rin ang pinagkaisahan, dinaya at pinatay isandaang tao’t mahigit na ang nakalilipas: si Bonifacio na sa kasagsagan ng Rebolusyon ay ipinagbunyi rin bilang “Hari.”

At eto pa ang kakila-kilabot: ang Republica Filipina na naitayo sa puntod ng iniligpit na “Hari ng Katagalugan” ay eto ngayon at napipintong mabughos sa puntod ng dinayang makabagong “Hari.”

Sa panghuli, tandaan nyo, napakadaling humiram ng mga konsepto at framework of analysis. Madali ding gawing pamantayan ang “malinaw na ideolohiya” at “tamang linya.” Pero ang tanong ay gaano ka-efficacious o ka-epektibo ang mga ito?

Pagpasensyahan nyo ako, nakasumpong kasi ako ng ibang Kasaysayan ng bansang ito na kaibang-kaiba sa mga natututunan sa mga nakasulat na libro at mga eskwelahan. Noong una kong ginagagap ang Kasaysayang ito ay nasabi kong pambihira at di kapani-paniwala subalit nang magtagal ay nasabi kong, inspite of its obvious and commonplace nature, pambihirang hindi ito nasumpungan nga pinagpipitaganan nating historyador.

Salamat, at mabuhay kayong lahat!



June 25th, 2005 at 12:53 am

E si Renato Constantino? how accurate is he?



June 25th, 2005 at 1:45 am

Ang alam ko, si Renato Constantino ay first and foremost a political scientist and not a historian. Wala naman syang bagong pamamaraan o datos na inilahad sa kanyang “A Past Revisited.” Ang bago sa kanya ay ang pagtanaw sa mga datos na kung tutuusin ay ang karamihan ay nailahad na ni Agoncillo. Ito ay walang iba kundi ang “scholarly Marxist” na paglalahad ng pag-usad ng Filipinas bilang bansa.

Sa isang banda, maraming napukaw si Constantino at marami naman sya talagang nailahad na bagong pagtingin sa mga katiwalian sa mga naganap. Sa kabilang banda naman, marami syang pagkukulang sa tunay na pagtaya sa pinagmulan at patutunguhan ng kasaysayan ng bayang ito.

Ganito mo na lang isipin: dahil maraming banat si Constantino sa mga elitista sa kasaysayan, masasabi siyang kontra-elitista. Pero masasabi na ang kanyang pananaw ay elitista rin. Basahin mo ang pagtalakay niya sa KKKANB at kay Bonifacio, taas-kilay ang kanyang paghagod sa mga ito. Kaya palagay ko, kung inabot nya si FPJ bilang makabagong penomenon, medyo hindi maglala-layo ang pananaw nya sa taas-kilay na pananaw ng isang Toting Bunye na nagsabing “sino gusto nyong presidente, si Rez Cortez?”

Ang pinupunto ko ay ito lang sa ngayon: huwag nating asahan na ang alam nating Kasaysayan ay makapagbibigay kaliwanagan sa dinaranas ng bansa natin ngayon. Kasi kung ganito, aba e talagang mahihilo ka sa pagtataka kung bakit paikot-ikot na lang tayo at kahit siguro maka-Kwarenta tayo ng Edsa ay wala pa ring nangyayari sa bansang ito. Panahon na upang mas malaliman nating alamin ang tunay Kasaysayan ng bansang ito.

May isang interview noon si Sturtevant sa isang matandang Sakdalista, si Salud Algabre, na nagsabi ng ganito (na-translate na lang syempre sa Ingles): “No uprising fails. Each one is a step towards the right direction.”

Kung hindi nyo ito maintindihan o kung hindi nyo kilala ang mga Sakdalista o kung sino ba si Salud Algabre, patunay lang ang mga ito na hindi nyo pa nga kilala ang bansang ito.




June 25th, 2005 at 11:40 am

To Abe:

Behold the freedom of speech.It is a mere point of veracity.If one can see the welkin-eyed, it is my volition.Stop showing your shoddy and paroxysm. In the intellectual world of blogging no one is ever perfect,nor right or wrong..these are flowing of ideas… God given…self enriched…entendido?

To Manang GLo:

Sigmund Freud said “Mortals can keep no secret. If their lips are silent, they gossip with their fingers; betrayal forces its way through every pore”.

According to Wikipedia the meaning of stalemate is

Whether the leasing President of Malacañang keeps her silence..whether she say Yes or No to the Gloriagate scandal…She still has no choice anymore…Trap by the actions made due to power hunger…It is by no means an acceptable in the world of democracy…We proud Filipinos deserved to have a better country to live in and free from TRAPO and Corrupt Officials..



June 25th, 2005 at 11:56 am

estudyante said,
June 25, 2005 @ 12:53 am

E si Renato Constantino? how accurate is he?
si Renato constantino ay isang liberal na burgis.aminado naman siya.ibig sabihin nun, kahilera niya sina etta rosales, joel rocamora, RC jr, randy david, walden bello etc



June 26th, 2005 at 12:34 pm

I heard these people calling themselves “civil society” say people power is not the appropriate course of action in the face of the crisis besetting the Arroyo government.

Akala kasi ng mga taong ito sila ang nagpi-people power, kaya sila ang magdedesisyon kung kelan angkop ang people power at kelan hindi. Masyado naman yata silang bilib sa sarili.

Ang totoo, nakinabang sila nang malaki sa pagkakaluklok ng Arroyo regime at nag-aalala silang hindi na gano’n ang mangyayari kapag ibinagsak at pinalitan uli ng mamamayan ang gubyerno sa pamamagitan ng panibagong pag-aalsa.



June 26th, 2005 at 1:25 pm

hirap atang arukin ng pinagsasabi mo ah…

civil society – di ba’ puro elitista ang sinasabi mong miyembro niyan… katulad nila bill luz at ni joecon….

ang mas kilala ko eh ang “masa” iyung mga tao sa kalye at sa middleclass na nangunguna magmula noon pang martial law at nakita natin sa edsa 1….

lagi naman eh… pag tinanong mo ang mga burgis… iisa lang ang sagot niyan… wala akong paki-alam hanggang hindi nadadamay ang aking kayamanan…

subukan mong magka-ipitan at diyan lang gagalaw ang mga iyan…

hay naku kahit kelan huwag ka ng umasa pa… sasakit lang ulo mo…lol


Abe N. Margallo

June 27th, 2005 at 8:13 am

Hi guys,

BAGABAG: Masarap and sharing ninyong dalawa (Abe and Pedro). Kung sana ang mga intellectual na katulad ninyo at patuloy na maghahanap ng pilosopiya at ideyolohiya na siyang maging gabay ng ating mamamayan, marahil sa ngayon mas higit at mahusay ang pagkilos ng ating tulirong kababayan.

Sa hinahaba ng takbo ng ating kasaysayan mula sa panahon ni Rizal at Bonifacio, Recto (hindi si Ralph ito ha) at Constantino, Randy David at Alex Magno, hanggang sa ngayon, di pa rin nahubog ang isang kaisipan na siyang maging gabay natin sa pagkilos upang mailantad ang mga individual at sektor na nagsasasamantala sa mga pagkilos ng bayan na katulad ng people power at mga naganap na pagbabago ng lipunan.

ABE: I shudder at the thought of being called an intellectual because I am not. I’m probably just a student of events. If at all, I’d rather be considered an activist, or a hardblogger who steals away enormous time from my employer. . .haha.

Well, in “Build or Perish!” I did write that “what makes for true democracy is legitimate activism.” I also affirmed that even if we are right (and assuming that we are), we don’t make decisions for others because then we fall into the same trap of “patriarchy.” What then we need to strive for is “partnership” wherein each participant is co-responsible, through exchanges -like blogging in PCIJ – for defining the values, the immediate goals and the vision for a new Public.

BAGABAG: Sa lahat ng pagkilos ng bayan, aminin natin, panalo ang mga uring katulad ni Gloria. Talo si Abe at Pedro.

ABE: For now, yes. But as you know, the divine rights theory of monarchs, feudalism, and slavery as an economic system ultimately lost their foundations. Today, the “enduring truths” are “market” and “democracy.” If we keep on blogging respectfully, there is a chance the hypocrisy of those truths will be exposed and known beyond our thread. “If need be, one pinoy at a time” (and that’s also a chapter in my book).

BAGABAG: Alam natin na dahil sa kawalan ng tamang linya at ideolohiya, naging biktima ang bayan sa laro ng mga mayayaman.

Marahil ang dapat gawin natin ay back to basics. Sa mga paaralan, sa mga discussion groups, isang masusing pag-aaral sa lipunan at kasaysayan. Magkaroon ng mga fora at paglalantad hindi lamang ang katiwalian ng pamahalaan, hindi lamang ang isyu ng jueteng, o kaya ang dayaan sa halalan, kundi ang balikan ang tunay na dahilan kung bakit ang bayan at patuloy na hawak ng iilan.

Marahil kailangan natin ibalik ang sigla ng talakayan sa mga paaralan at sa mga lansangan, mga estudyanteng nag-oorganisa at nakikisalamuha sa kanayunan.

ABE: I share the same view, Bagabag. And here’s how I pontificated about it:

“There is no question that planting the seed of, and growing, “enlightened understanding” (which should be distinguished from “mental conditioning”) is a long process. But how long is a generation? 12? 18? 20 years? Think about it, it is doable even during our generational watch.

“Where do we start? First, we have to believe that political equality is directly related to education, that knowledge or information about issues has leveling effects is incontestable. The school is therefore a logical starting point besides the family. This is where presidential aspirant Raul Roco could have been of great help during his stewardship as education secretary. How difficult it really is to challenge the young minds to grow (“grow” because simply “planting” is not enough) in the belief that they are the source of the power, that if they don’t frustrate the process 12 years or so from now, when it’s time for them to make the big decision, the needed transformation could really happen? If this “civic education,” so to speak, alongside with the cultivation of scientific skills is given priority over, say, the rules of English grammar, is it worth it?”

x x x x x x x x x

“Committed citizenry is the price and prize of political maturity and freedom. Such commitment could be nurtured in public exchanges. On the other hand, continuing passiveness on the part of the citizenry owing to lack of information or to “miseducation” debilitates the norms of citizenship. As simpleminded onlookers of political, social and economic events, indifferent citizens would be unable to perceive and explore the probable possibilities. Their non-involvement eventually renders them susceptible to machinations and demagoguery. A political hack may delude the majority of the people through emotional entreaties and bombasts during elections. But the demagogue, once at the seat of power, would readily align himself with his political patrons in order to build and protect his own special privileges that come with power.

“One way to guard against the abuse of power . . . is to allocate leadership to the grassroots through representation by inclusion and participation, something that would be difficult to achieve, at least as borne out by the Philippine political experience, under a pernicious system of centralization and elitism. Another is to put the wielders of power on the defensive in open public exchanges.”

PEDRO: Tama ang mga punto nyo (Abe at Bagabag), palagay ko, pero di lubos. Kaya lang eto ang tanong ko sa inyo, pati na rin sa lahat: kung babalikan ang Kasaysayan ng bansang ito, gaano tayo kasigurado na ang babalikan natin ay ang TAMANG kasaysayan?

Sa paglalahad ni Abe, ang sarap sanang isipin na ang litanya ng mga pangyayari at personalidad ay ang siya talagang nangyari at ang mga tunay na relasyon. Pero paano kung hindi talaga ganoon ang mga kaganapan? What if the actual history of this country did not proceed in such a neat, cogent manner?

Yan din ang tanong ko sa yo Bagabag. Madaling pumili ng ideolohiya bilang framework of analysis at tapos, i-aaplay ang mga ito sa Philippine setting. Ang legend nga ay nang sinusulat daw ni Joma ang PSR, dalawang libro lang ang pinagbatayan niya: ang kay Mao at ang kay Agoncillo. Sa loob ng ilang linggo lang daw, ayun tapos na ang PSR! Di ko sinasabi na ganito nga ang nangyari, ok, pero makikita nyo naman ang sinasabi ko: madaling gumawa ng pag-aaral sa kasaysayan batay sa kung ano ang gusto mong mangyari dito. Napakahirap na alamin ang tunay na kasaysayan dahil kadalasan ay ang mga victors ang pinapaniwalaan dito.

ABE: Here’s what I remember learning about history. History is what “we” CHOOSE (the term therefore indicates a process of selection) to remember about the past, about people and events “we” as a nation consider memorable. As such, history becomes a “common” experience that binds us together as a people. As a heritage, “we” pass it on to the next generation.

Yes, Pedro, we should listen to false statements, the historical “spin” as we call it in present-day journalistic lingo (journalism is history after all written on the fast lane.) I share the view that the danger of a spun history is that when it is passed on by “learned” scholars like Zaide and Agoncillo, it becomes deadlier than the lies of Marcos. Fortunately, those distortions can be uncovered by “street” historians (please pardon this appellation for lack of a better term) like you.

What about when the FPJ crowd was given a “tight shot” during the campaign rallies or FPJ himself was relentlessly described by the media as a “high-school dropout” as if it were a title that should precede his name as a matter of course?

And look at the headlines of mainstream media on June 25, 2005, for example –

Manila Times: “Protesters fail to pass Welcome” “Demos fail to move Arroyo”

Philstar: Philippine forces lower alert status as anti-Arroyo March called off”

The Manila Bulletin On-line: “No permit, no rally – PNP”

Compare the above to the banner of Daily Tribune on the same date: “Anti-Gloria forces stage big rally, quit calls mount”.

My point is there’s DISTORTION right in our watch and when the mainstream media treads heavily along certain common talking points, one evident counterpoise could be the “posts” of bloggers, just as by you and myself here PCIJ.

So, the Spaniards “primitivized” the indios, and the Americans committed genocide during the Philippine Revolution. Should we now make the heirs of all the Father Damasos liable for the cruelties of the friars or lobby the U.S. Congress to impeach post mortem Pres. McKinley? Wouldn’t you consider this as a futile exercise in uprightness in the face of many of our kababayan scavenging a rich man’s trash to eke out a living. After framing the proper issues, we have to move on somehow, I guess.

PEDRO: Sa iyo, Abe, bagamat hindi hayag sa iyo ang Enlightenment philosophy sa panahong ito, eto’t nasasalikod ng konsepto ng Republica Filipina ang apotheosis nito.)

ABE: Think about it, now. Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau were essentially “bloggers,” weren’t they? And like many of the bloggers in this forum, they had their own agenda to advance.

Let’s look at Hobbes for a moment. Hobbes was a monarchist. Thus he used certain arguments for individualism to conclude in favor of absolutism. His thesis in Leviathan: Because people pursued self-interest, the ruler needed total power to keep the people under control. By way of “social contract,” people supposedly gave up their rights to a strong ruler. Thus, his preference for a government by what we now call as an “authoritarian” ruler, an absolute monarch.

What about Locke. Locke postulated that governmental powers come from the consent of the governed; the purpose of government is to protect “life, liberty and PROPERTY”; and if government fails to do, “citizens” have a right to overthrow it. It appears however that his context of “citizens” was the rising bourgeoisie of his time. The progeny of this is, I believe, “elitism.” The American founding fathers, who were inspired by Locke, attempted to avoid the anomaly by a clever spin: “life, liberty and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.” The profession of spin-doctors is an old one.

Rousseau? He was a plebeian, a son of watchmaker and he himself worked as an engraver before being recognized as a writer. He was passionately committed to individual freedom. His famous paradox was: “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” And so to him the only good government is the one FREELY formed by the people and guided by the “general will”. Hence, the concept of “direct democracy,” where all citizens have the right to participate in making laws, and the idea of liberty as “participation” instead of “freedom from state interference” which was the Lockean tradition of protecting property rights. Rousseau’s idea inspired the French Revolution and, from what I’ve been taught, Bonifacio and his adherents during the Philippine Revolution.

PEDRO: Sa panghuli, tandaan nyo, napakadaling humiram ng mga konsepto at framework of analysis. Madali ding gawing pamantayan ang “malinaw na ideolohiya” at “tamang linya.” Pero ang tanong ay gaano ka-efficacious o ka-epektibo ang mga ito?

ABE: Mahirap sagutin ito. Siguro masasagot ito kung tapos na ang istorya or historya ng mundo and a reincarnated Pedro will look back and fill up the tally sheet. One contemporary thinker, Francis Fukuyama, has once suggested that history ends with “liberal democracy.” Then, came 9/11. Mukhang na sa simula pa rin tayo. That’s why my position is to make and re-make our Public based on what works and what doesn’t, and not on any preconceived notion of governance based upon an ideation framed from a milieu different from ours, while in the process to recognize realities or operative facts we cannot control at the moment such as the underlying concept of nation-states or the dominant global economic order.

One fresh account: The Vietnamese revolution under the leadership of Ho Chi Minh has been seen by many as a successful one in many respects, but, the other day, Prime Minister Khai was in Washington asking Bush’s help for Vietnam to become a member of WTO, perhaps in the hope that the Vietnamese revolution will ultimately have a “revolutionary outcome.” Certainly China is another stark example.

PEDRO: Pagpasensyahan nyo ako, nakasumpong kasi ako ng ibang Kasaysayan ng bansang ito na kaibang-kaiba sa mga natututunan sa mga nakasulat na libro at mga eskwelahan. Noong una kong ginagagap ang Kasaysayang ito ay nasabi kong pambihira at di kapani-paniwala subalit nang magtagal ay nasabi kong, inspite of its obvious and commonplace nature, pambihirang hindi ito nasumpungan nga pinagpipitaganan nating historyador.

ABE: Please share with us in this forum what you have discovered. Forming of a community requires the publication of ideas, do you think so?

PEDRO: Ganito mo na lang isipin: dahil maraming banat si Constantino sa mga elitista sa kasaysayan, masasabi siyang kontra-elitista. Pero masasabi na ang kanyang pananaw ay elitista rin. Basahin mo ang pagtalakay niya sa KKKANB at kay Bonifacio, taas-kilay ang kanyang paghagod sa mga ito. Kaya palagay ko, kung inabot nya si FPJ bilang makabagong penomenon, medyo hindi maglala-layo ang pananaw nya sa taas-kilay na pananaw ng isang Toting Bunye na nagsabing “sino gusto nyong presidente, si Rez Cortez?”

ABE: As “makabagong phenomenon,” here’s what I blogged about FPJ when his citizenship was questioned during the presidential campaign:

“Rizal, like Ninoy Aquino, identified with his intellect and wisdom as a citizen rather than with the desire for power, wealth or personal safety. And both decided to return to their community from exile against the counsel that impending danger awaited their arrival. Rizal and Ninoy Aquino died in a state of virtue as political animals—the original Aristotelian conception of a citizen as someone owing his labor and loyalty to the polity—not knowing whether their individual sacrifices would attain the goals they had hoped for.

“Obviously, to draw in this current controversy any undue or unnecessary parallelism from the self-abnegation of Rizal and Aquino would be farfetched. But still, it is not easy for anyone not close enough to the popular movie actor to determine what motivations had obliged someone like FPJ with no experience, as others claim, about the intricacies, pitfalls or rewards of political governance, when finally he acceded to the importuning of people around him to run for president. Certainly many would be at a loss wondering why FPJ, already powerful, wealthy and personally secured, would sacrifice those hard-earned securities and his relatively private life for reasons other than possibly to give his labor and loyalty to the only country he has known, which made him powerful, wealthy and secured—however weird, hyperbolic or unrealistic those reasons, aspirations or motivations might be.

“I am not particularly enamored with the change alternative so far bared by the FPJ campaign, or by the opportunities offered by the other presidential aspirants as they present their challenge to the incumbent. Neither am I excited at all with the business-as-usual approach the administration of Macapagal-Arroyo is pursuing to confront the long-standing scourge of elite democracy that has tormented the nation and the Filipino people. But I believe it is the quest of FPJ for the presidency, more than the ambition of the other candidates, which is rewriting again the people’s narrative of People Power Democracy.”

PEDRO: Kung hindi nyo ito maintindihan o kung hindi nyo kilala ang mga Sakdalista o kung sino ba si Salud Algabre, patunay lang ang mga ito na hindi nyo pa nga kilala ang bansang ito.

ABE: Kilala mo rin ba si Res Cortes? Kumpare ko si Res at magkababayan kami. Mabait na bata ‘yan.

LETHAL: Behold the freedom of speech. It is a mere point of veracity. If one can see the welkin-eyed, it is my volition. Stop showing your shoddy and paroxysm. In the intellectual world of blogging no one is ever perfect, nor right or wrong..these are flowing of ideas… God given…self enriched…entendido?

ABE: I wasn’t at all disparaging your parody but just trying to take an impish snipe at Pedro (just playfully, Pete) by way of your post. I also write parodies and I like what you did. What follows is what I said about what you consider as “the intellectual world of blogging”::

“In a deliberative setting, all parties are a giver and a receiver of information. As long as mutual respect guides the exchange, the exercise is likely to result in reciprocally beneficial terms and, then, possibly in proaction driven by consensus. If no consensus is reached, they will come back some other time possibly in the hope that certain conditions have changed to allow for a fresher outlook or for a different perspective of looking at an issue.”



June 27th, 2005 at 5:22 pm

Bravo, Abe! Ang haba na ng narating natin ano? And to think, nagsimula lang tayo sa isang tongue-in-cheek na quip. Bagamat sana marami ang nakabasa at natuto kahit konti, mas maganda, para sa akin, kung marami rin ang naguluhan.

Eniwey, eto lang. When I cited the Republica Filipina as the apotheosis of the Enlightenment ideas current at that time, I did not have in mind particular thinkers of the social contract—Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau. What I had in mind was the notion of the “Republic” itself which was the direct legacy of the French Revolution which, in turn, was the direct product of the Age of Enlightenment which, of course, counted the 3 theorists as among the theoretical lights (but by no means the only thinkers of that time!).

Into the fray therefore because here in the shadowy origins of the Philippine Republic can the history that I know be brought to light.

Contrary to common perceptions, Rizal and the Propagandistas were, of course, republicans who wanted to eventually establish an independent republic here in islands. The fact that they don’t always appear to be such was a mere tactic on their part, they being expatriates in Spain. This much can be gleaned from their writings, especially Rizal and del Pilar. They have appropriated for themselves the label “Filipino” which hitherto was used to exclusively describe Spaniards born in the colony. So, conversely, a “Republica Filipina” was their social project. And a project which they would never put in operation because they all died before and immediately after the outbreak of the 1896 Revolution. Ultimately, it was carried out by the lesser men who gathered at the Tejeros Convention under very dubious circumstances.

These dubious circumstances all have something to do with the fate of Bonifacio and the Katipunan. The establishment of the “Republica Filipina” meant that the KKKANB can no longer be allowed to exist and the authority of Bonifacio can no longer be allowed to continue. According to accounts, the Cavite elite questioned Bonifacio’s republican commitment. According to them, Bonifacio wanted to establish a monarchy because he styled himself as “Hari ng Katagalugan,” a charge he certainly denied. In any case, the election pushed through and Bonifacio’s later repudiation of the Convention sealed his fate.

A lot of historians say that Bonifacio deserved his removal since he was an incompetent military leader. Nothing can be farther from the truth. Bonifacio’s military maneuvers in Manila failed because an earlier agreed flanking maneuver did not materialize just as the main force was attacking the polvorin in San Juan. And where was the flanking maneuver was supposed to come from? From Cavite, of course.

I submit that the 1896 Revolution is the “mother of all people power” this country has seen and will still see. Then, just as recently, it was hijacked by the elite. Then, just as recently, it was tailored to serve the needs of the elite.

But these are not the only lessons that can be learned. The key to all other lessons have something to do with the real nature of the Katipunan organization, hitherto always hidden from view of the conventional mind. If you ask me which among current groups is closest to the real nature of the KKKANB—it is not the civil society groups, not the various leftist groups, not the Opposition political parties. Surprise, surprise, it is the group that campaigned for the million signatures that convinced FPJ to run—peopled as it is by the common tao, unfettered by all high-sounding ideologies and frameworks of analysis. How this group will politically evolve is something I eagerly wait.

I wasn’t trying to be facile when I mentioned Rez Cortez and his kind. You know what he reminds me of? A century ago, when the Republica Filipina was wasting away the revolutionary legacy of 1896 by capitulating to the Americans, a lowly barber from Tondo who was among the Katipunan footsoldiers of Bonifacio and Jacinto refused to give up the idea of independence and nationhood. He remained in the hills, reconvened similar-minded revolutionaries, established a functioning government which issued edicts and enforced laws, and called his authority as proceeding from the “Republika ng Katagalugan.” Of course, the Americans branded him as a bandit. But for nearly a decade, they could not quell his government or militarily defeat it. They had to resort to trickery and guile before this lowly barber was finally hanged. That barber was Macario Sakay.

Of course, I’m not saying Rez Cortez and his kind will follow this route or schema. But you should get my drift. Those who laugh at people like him or don’t take them seriously always have gotten a terrible comeuppance in Philippine history.

What a terrible mystery this country really is! Haven’t you all noticed the mystical correlations of people and numbers? 1896 and 1986? Hari ng Katagalugan and his executioner, Major Makapagal? Hari ng Pelikulang Filipino and Pres. Gloria Macapagal? An agent named Doble? A Cardinal called Sin?


jay cynikho

July 2nd, 2005 at 5:48 pm

last comment here is dated June 27
can i post here again something
to update this section which should
generate more discussion?

People are in doubt about what’s next after G.ARROYO.
What’s life after G.ARROYO? THERE SEEMS TO



The formula comes from the mind of a poor
apolitical animal who knows much about
theory and practice of governance in our
country and overseas. This apolitical animal
came home from the cold, uncorrupted
and unscathed. So I am gladly sharing
with you his IGCRP. Read on…




Upon resignation or removal of Mrs. Gloria M. Arroyo, the people of the Republic of the Philippines shall request the UN Secretary General Kopi Anan through the UNDP resident representative to appoint immediately a UN Secretary General Representative
(SGR- R.P.) to the Philippines (just like in Timor Lorosae) to carry out the duty of organizing the Interim Government Council of the Republic of the Philippines (IGCRP) and the Interim Criminal Courts (ICCRP) to conduct the trial of violators of the election law and relevant laws during the 2004 elections.

The primary function of the (SGR-RP) thru the help of local UNDP staff and UN Volunteers from overseas shall be to help the various sectors of society select their representative to the Council (IGRCP) in terms of impartial policy and methodology, necessary administrative materials and administrative staff.

The Interim Government Council of the Republic of the Philippines (IGCRP) shall have a lifespan of one year unless extended by the UN Secretary General.

IGCRP’s primary function and responsibility shall be the preparation and conduct of a national election under UN supervision, nine (9) months after its formal creation and to issue interim policies to reform the bureaucracy. Its second important function is to organize an interim criminal court (ICC) to conduct trials of violators of the election law and if the IGCRP so decides to try those who have violated the Anti-graft Laws.

IGCRP shall effect the speedy reform of the Philippine bureaucracy by issuing policies governing resignation, compensation, and appointment to vacated positions.

IGCRP shall consider for decisions the possible resignation of the



The Interim Government Council of the Republic of the Philippines (IGCRP) shall be composed of eleven members who are citizens only of the Philippines, who shall represent eleven sectors of the society and shall have been selected by the sectoral organizations and communities. A chairman/woman shall be elected by the eleven members from among themselves.
The UN SGRP shall determine the modus operandi of the Council.

The eleven members (11) shall come from the following:

1) representative of all political parties, preferably non-elected and not appointed to any office by former Presidents Ramos, Estrada, and Arroyo;
2) representative of all NGOs which have not received any funding from the government from the time of former President Ramos;
3) representative of all business organizations who have not accepted any government position from the time of Prseident Ramos;
4) Representative of all Students Regent, Student Council Presidents of private and public Universities and Colleges;
5) Representative of Labor Organizations who have not held any elective or appointive position in the government from time of President Ramos;
6) Representative of the religious sector from the Catholic, Protestant, Iglesia ni Kristo and other sects;
7) Representative of Women’s Organizations who have held any elective or appointive office in the government
8) Representative of University Presidents of public and private universities who have not obtained their appointment from time of President Ramos;
9) Representative of the Employers Association of the Philippines who have no accepted any government position from the time of President Ramos;
10) Representative of Overseas Filipino Workers (OFW) who have worked as OFW for at least 5 years;
11) Representative of Philippine Arts representing dance, music, theatre, cinema, literature.etc. who have not accepted any government position from the time of President Ramos.


1) Members of IGCRP are not allowed to run for any elective office for at least two elections after the termination of IGCRP.
2) Members of IGCRP are prohibited from accepting any appointment in the government for at least five years from the termination of IGCRP.
3) As a reward for their patriotic service, IGCRP eleven members are automatically members or delegates to the constitutional convention IF CALLED BY by the elected officials in the first national election.

Something more follows:









July 4th, 2005 at 12:49 am

JAY, I like your idea, though i have the following reservation.

From the little that i know about the UN, it doesn’t usually intervene in the internal affairs of sovereign nations unless there has been much carnage and chaos already.

I personally believe, however, that our nation is on the brink of a civil war. So, sick as it may sound, i think your idea will have some use—in three or four years perhaps.

My personal advice to you is to spread the idea further. Don’t be discouraged or disappointed if people don’t buy it partly or in its entirety. Keep it aflame because this country will need thinking men and women in the near future. Survive the impending conflagration which will come as certain as the next day because the battle lines have already been drawn. No blogging on our part will prevent it.

Forgive my pessimism because as I am writing this, the lady in Malacanang is reportedly not budging a bit. If that’s the case, she’ll take the country down with her and plunge everything into the abyss of civil war.

Have hope, though. Old growth forests usually burn to the ground before the new one can ever grow. It has been that cycle for millenia and it is the coming cycle now.


jay cynikho

July 4th, 2005 at 6:49 am


If only GMA will resign, there will be no problem in organizing the council. UN NEW YORK, need not participate, UNDP Philippines, (the UN branch in the country) can help the problematic and critical part: to help the various sectors choose a patriot (with no record of corruption and thievery) as their representative to the Council. Selection should happen in no more than 15 days so the Council can make decisions on the restoration back to Ramon Magsaysay’s time of Democracy in our country.

Aside from the organization of the council there should be no major disturbances in the implementation of Philippine Laws and the operation of the bureaucracy even under the expected forced (by the people) mass resignation of GMA appointees..

I hope others will see IGCRP flaws and weaknesses. It aims to provide the respite and interregnum to abuse by persons in authority by the greedy members of the elite. The clean elections after eleven (11) months shall probably impetus the gradual restoration of previous political power alignments, so the elite need not be afraid of the Council. Only the rascals in our society should be scared.

It is counter productive at this time to talk of economic reform, of job creation, and of foreign investments. It is bull shit to talk of political theory, economic theory and human development. It is useless to talk of new techniques of heart transplant and heart by-passes. We need to apply the defibrillator to the chest of the patient, whose heart has stopped beating. That defibrillator is the IGCRP.

Let us avoid bloodshed if we can. It never happened to us before, BUT THERE IS ALWAYS A FIRST TIME. Remember EDSA 1? THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE FIRST TIME, if US did not intervene on time; the harshly victimized were already at the gates of Malacanang.

I think the powers-that-be should discern the hatred behind those placards. Plain graffiti and politicfking they are not anymore. Even the eyes and body language of Mahinhin Susan has changed.

The writing on the wall was there for years now, its blinding brightness could now cut the darkness and become the beacon which will draw the moths to the flame.

May the lord and Allah be with us in these most difficult times. Praise the Lord. Allahu Akbar.


INSIDE PCIJ: Stories behind our stories » Citizens’ Assembly for Truth: “Sorry not enough”

July 4th, 2005 at 4:13 pm

[…] THE Citizens’ Assembly for Truth was convened by the ‘civil society’ alliance Citizens for Truth (C4T), the Bishop-Businessmen’s Conference for Human Development (BBC-HD), Association of Major Religious Superiors of the Philippines (AMRSP), Pagbabago@Pilipinas, and other organizations which signed the June 17 ‘civil society’ statement. President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has finally admitted to being the voice on the so-called Garci Tapes. These tapes have engendered so much frustration and uncertainty among the people in as much they have become political capital of an opposition bereft of credibility and whose motives are therefore suspect. The admission came only after increasingly strident calls for disclosure, even from some of her closest supporters. While most of us commend her for apologizing for her “lapse of judgment”, belated though it may be, it leaves so much more questions unanswered. Foremost among these questions are: Did the President engage in electoral fraud in 2004? If there was fraud, who else were involved? What do these say about the moral authority of the President to continue to govern and about the competence and integrity of the COMELEC and our electoral system? Where did the tapes come from? […]


jay cynikho

July 5th, 2005 at 7:29 am

Dear Pedro

baka puedeng talakayin mo, kasi matunog at
malaman ang mga sinabi mo sa kasaysayan natin.

isa– tungkol sa Cambodia, ano kaya ngayon
ang mga survivors ng Killing fields. tumino na
kaya, at gumagawa ng mabuti sa bansa?
Pa- asenso na kaya sila, di tulad ng Pinas, Paatras.

dalawa– ang Tsina nagkaroon ng cultural revolution
noong 1968 nayari ng husto ang mga elite, pero karumal-
dumal naman ang ginawa sa mga nadamay lang.
May kinalaman ba ang cultural revolution sa
uma abanteng ekonomiya ngayon ng mga Chinese.

please lang, kasi di sapat ang alam ko.
Inyong talakayin para lumayo at
lumiwanag ang pananaw ng ating mga kababayan.
Basta’t alam ko, Palaging bina balanse
ng Diyos ang buhay ng tao.

salamat, maraming salamat.


INSIDE PCIJ: Stories behind our stories » MBC, NGOs ask Arroyo to resign

July 8th, 2005 at 2:55 pm

[…] This is the same group that issued a statement over a week after the tapes were first made public, then calling for the President to break her silence and asking the public to be vigilant. […]

Comment Form