Chapter 2

Content and Contextual Analysis of Selected Primary Sources in Philippine History

Learning Objectives:

To familiarize oneself with the primary documents in different historical periods of the
Philippines. To learn history through primary sources. To properly interpret primary sources
through examining the content and context of the document.

To understand the context behind each selected document. In the preceding chapter, we have
discussed the importance of familiarizing oneself about the different kinds of historical
sources. The historian's primary tool of understanding and interpreting the past is the
historical sources. Historical sources ascertain historical facts. Such facts are then analyzed
and interpreted by the historian to weave historical narrative. Specifically, historians who
study certain historical subjects and events need to make use of various primary sources in
order to weave the narrative. Primary sources, as discussed in the preceding chapter, consist
of documents, memoir, accounts, and other materials that were produced at the period of the
event or subject being studied.

Using primary sources in historical research entails two kinds of criticism. The first one is the
external criticism, and the second one is the internal criticism. External criticism examines
the authenticity of the document or the evidence being used. This is important in ensuring
that the primary source is not fabricated. On the other hand, internal criticism examines the
truthfulness of the content of the evidence. However, this criticism requires not just the act
establishing truthfulness and/or accuracy but also the examination of the primary sources in
terms of the context of its production. For example, a historian would have to situate the
document in the period of its production, or in the background of its authors. In other words,
it should be recognized that facts are neither existing in a vacuum nor produced from a blank
slate. These are products of the time and of the people.

In this chapter, we are going to look at a number of primary sources from different historical
periods and evaluate these documents' content in terms of historical value, and examine the
context of their production. The primary sources that we are going to examine are Antonio
Pigafetta's First Voyage Around the World, Emilio Jacinto's "Kartilya ng Katipunan," the
1898 Declaration of Philippine Independence, Political Cartoon's Alfred McCoy's Philippine
Cartoons: Political Caricature of the American Era (1900–1941), and Corazon Aquino's
speech before the U.S. Congress. These primary sources range from chronicles, official
documents, speeches, and cartoons to visual arts. Needless to say, different types of sources
necessitate different kinds of analysis and contain different levels of importance. We are
going to explore that in this chapter.

A Brief Summary of the First Voyage Around the World by Magellan by Antonio
Pigafetta
This book was taken from the chronicles of contemporary voyagers and navigators of the
sixteenth century. One of them was Italian nobleman Antonio Pigafetta, who accompanied
Ferdinand Magellan in his fateful circumnavigation of the world. Pigafetta's work instantly
became a classic that prominent literary men in the West like William Shakespeare, Michel
de Montaigne, and Giambattista Vico referred to the book in their interpretation of the New
World. Pigafetta's travelogue is one of the most important primary sources in the study of the
precolonial Philippines. His account was also a major referent to the events leading to
Magellan's arrival in the Philippines, his encounter with local leaders, his death in the hands
of Lapulapu's forces in the Battle of Mactan, and in the departure of what was left of
Magellan's fleet from the islands.

Examining the document reveals several insights not just in the character of the Philippines
during the precolonial period, but also on how the fresh eyes of the Europeans regard a
deeply unfamiliar terrain, environment, people, and culture. Locating Pigafetta's account in
the context of its writing warrants a familiarity on the dominant frame of mind in the age of
exploration, which pervaded Europe in the fifteenth and sixteenth century. Students of history
need to realize that primary sources used in the subsequent written histories depart from
certain perspectives. Thus, Pigafetta's account was also written from the perspective of
Pigafetta himself and was a product of the context of its production. The First Voyage
Around the World by Magellan was published after Pigafetta returned to Italy.

For this chapter, we will focus on the chronicles of Antonio Pigafetta as he wrote his
firsthand observation and general impression of the Far East including their experiences in
the Visayas. In Pigafetta's account, their fleet reached what he called the Ladrones Islands or
the "Islands of the Thieves." He recounted:

"These people have no arms, but use sticks, which have a fish bone at the end. They are poor,
but ingenious, and great thieves, and for the sake of that we called these three islands the
Ladrones Islands."

The Ladrones Islands is presently known as the Marianas Islands. These islands are located
south-southeast of Japan, west-southwest of Hawaii, north of New Guinea, and east of
Philippines. Ten days after they reached Ladrones Islands, Pigafetta reported that they
reached what Pigafetta called the isle of Zamal, now Samar but Magellan decided to land in
another uninhabited island for greater security where they could rest for a few days. Pigafetta
recounted that after two days, March 18, nine men came to them and showed joy and
eagerness in seeing them. Magellan realized that the men were reasonable and welcomed
them with food, drinks, and gifts. In turn, the natives gave them fish, palm wine (uraca), figs,
and two cochos. The natives also gave them rice (umai), cocos, and other food supplies.
Pigafetta detailed in amazement and fascination the palm tree which bore fruits called cocho,
and wine. He also described what seemed like a coconut His description reads:

"This palm produces a fruit named cocho, which is as large as the head, or thereabouts: its
first husk is green, and two fingers in thickness, in it they find certain threads, with which
they make the cords for fastening their boats. Under this husk there is another very hard, and
thicker than that of a walnut. They burn this second rind, and make with it a powder which is
useful to them. Under this rind there is a white marrow of a finger's thickness, which they eat
fresh with meat and fish, as we do bread, and it has the taste of an almond, and if anyone
dried it he might make bread of it (p. 72)."
Pigafetta characterized the people as "very familiar and friendly" and willingly showed them
different islands and the names of these islands. The fleet went to Humunu Island
(Homonhon) and there they found what Pigafetta referred to as the "Watering Place of Good
Signs." It is in this place where Pigafetta wrote that they found the first signs of gold in the
island. They named the island with the nearby islands as the archipelago of St. Lazarus. They
left the island, then on March 25th, Pigafetta recounted that they saw two ballanghai
(balangay), a long boat full of people in Mazzava/ Mazaua. The leader, who Pigafetta
referred to as the king of the ballanghai (balangay), sent his men to the ship of Magellan. The
Europeans entertained these men and gave them gifts. When the king of the balangay offered
to give Magellan a bar of gold and a chest of ginger, Magellan declined. Magellan sent the
interpreter to the king and asked for money for the needs of his ships and expressed that he
came into the islands as a friend and not as an enemy. The king responded by giving
Magellan the needed provisions of food in chinaware. Magellan exchanged gifts of robes in
Turkish fashion, red cap, and gave the people knives and mirrors. The two then expressed
their desire to become brothers. Magellan also boasted of his men in armor who could not be
struck with swords and daggers. The king was fascinated and remarked that men in such
armor could be worth one hundred of his men. Magellan further showed the king his other
weapons, helmets, and artilleries. Magellan also shared with the king his charts and maps and
shared how they found the islands.

After a few days, Magellan was introduced to the king's brother who was also a king of
another island. They went to this island and Pigafetta reported that they saw mines of gold.
The gold was abundant that parts of the ship and of the house of the second king were made
of gold. Pigafetta described this king as the most handsome of all the men that he saw in this
place. He was also adorned with silk and gold accessories like a golden dagger, which he
carried with him in a wooden polished sheath. This king was named Raia Calambu, king of
Zuluan and Calagan (Butuan and Caragua), and the first king was Raia Siagu. On March 31st,
which happened to be Easter Sunday, Magellan ordered the chaplain to preside a Mass by the
shore. The king heard of this plan and sent two dead pigs and attended the Mass with the
other king. Pigafetta reported that both kings participated in the mass. He wrote:

"...when the offertory of the mass came, the two kings, went to kiss the cross like us, but they
offered nothing, and at the elevation of the body of our Lord they were kneeling like us, and
adored our Lord with joined hands."

After the Mass, Magellan ordered that the cross be brought with nails and crown in place.
Magellan explained that the cross, the nail, and the crown were the signs of his emperor and
that he was ordered to plant it in the places that he would reach. Magellan further explained
that the cross would be beneficial for their people because once other Spaniards saw this
cross, then they would know that they had been in this land and would not cause them
troubles, and any person who might be held captives by them would be released. The king
concurred and allowed for the cross to be planted. This Mass would go down in history as the
first Mass in the Philippines, and the cross would be the famed Magellan's Cross still
preserved at present day.

After seven days, Magellan and his men decided to move and look for islands where they
could acquire more supplies and provisions. They learned of the islands of Ceylon (Leyte),
Bohol, and Zzubu (Cebu) and intended to go there. Raia Calambu offered to pilot them in
going to Cebu, the largest and the richest of the islands. By April 7th of the same year,
Magellan and his men reached the port of Cebu. The king of Cebu, through Magellan's
interpreter, demanded that they pay tribute as it was customary, but Magellan refused.
Magellan said that he was a captain of a king himself and thus would not pay tribute to other
kings. Magellan's interpreter explained to the king of Cebu that Magellan's king was the
emperor of a great empire and that it would do them better to make friends with them than to
forge enmity. The king of Cebu consulted his council. By the next day, Magellan's men and
the king of Cebu, together with other principal men of Cebu, met in an open space. There, the
king offered a bit of his blood and demanded that Magellan do the same. Pigafetta recounts:

“Then the king said that he was content, and as a greater sign of affection he sent him a little
of his blood from his right arm, and wished he should do the like. Our people answered that
he would do it. Besides that, he said that all the captains who came to his country had been
accustomed to make a present to him, and he to them, and therefore they should ask their
captain if he would observe the custom. Our people answered that he would; but as the king
wished to keep up the custom, let him begin and make a present, and then the captain would
do his duty.”

The following day, Magellan spoke before the people of Cebu about peace and God. Pigafetta
reported that the people took pleasure in Magellan's speech. Magellan then asked the people
who would succeed the king after his reign and the people responded that the eldest child of
the king, who happened to be a daughter, would be the next in line. Pigafetta also related how
the people talked about, how at old age, parents were no longer taken into account and had to
follow the orders of their children as the new leaders of the land. Magellan responded to this
by saying that his faith entailed children to render honor and obedience to their parents.
Magellan preached about their faith further and people were reportedly convinced. Pigafetta
wrote that their men were overjoyed seeing that the people wished to become Christians
through their free will and not because they were forced or intimidated.

On the 14th of April, the people gathered with the king and other principal men of the
islands. Magellan spoke to the king and encouraged him to be a good Christian by burning all
of the idols and worship the cross instead. The king of Cebu was then baptized as a Christian.
Pigafetta wrote:

“To that the king and all his people answered that thy would obey the commands of the
captain and do all that he told them. The captain took the king by the hand, and they walked
about on the scaffolding, and when he was baptized he said that he would name him Don
Charles (Carlos), as the emperor his sovereign was named; and he named the prince Don
Fernand (Fernando), after the brother of the emperor, and the King of Mazavva, Jehan: to the
Moor he gave the name of Christopher, and to the others each a name of his fancy."

After eight days, Pigafetta counted that all of the island's inhabitant were already baptized.
He admitted that they burned a village down for obeying neither the king nor Magellan. The
Mass was conducted by the shore every day. When the queen came to the Mass one day,
Magellan gave her an image of the Infant Jesus made by Pigafetta himself. The king of Cebu
swore that he would always be faithful to Magellan. When Magellan reiterated that all of the
newly baptized Christians need to burn their idols, but the natives gave excuses telling
Magellan that they needed the idols to heal a sick man who was a relative to the king.
Magellan insisted that they should instead put their faith in Jesus Christ. They went to the
sick man and baptized him. After the baptismal, Pigafetta recorded that the man was able to
speak again. He called this a miracle.
On the 26th of April, Zula, a principal man from the island of Matan (Mactan) went to see
Magellan and asked him for a boat full of men so that he would be able to fight the chief
named Silapulapu (Lapulapu). Such chief, according to Zula, refused to obey the king and
was also preventing him from doing so. Magellan offered three boats instead and expressed
his desire to go to Mactan himself to fight the said chief. Magellan's forces arrived in Mactan
in daylight. They numbered 49 in total and the islanders of Mactan were estimated to number
1,500. The battle began. Pigafetta recounted:

“When we reached land we found the islanders fifteen hundred in number, drawn up in three
squadrons; they came down upon us with terrible shouts, two squadrons attacking us on the
flanks, and the third in front. The captain then divided his men in two bands. Our musketeers
and crossbow-men fired for half an hour from a distance, but did nothing, since the bullets
and arrows, though they passed through their shields made of thin wood, and perhaps
wounded their arms, yet did not stop them. The captain shouted not to fire, but he was not
listened to. The islanders seeing that the shots of our guns did them little or no harm would
not retire, but shouted more loudly, and springing from one side to the other to avoid our
shots, they at the same time drew nearer to us, throwing arrows, javelins, spears hardened in
fire, stones, and even mud, so that we could hardly defend ourselves. Some of them cast
lances pointed with iron at the captain-general.”

Magellan died in that battle. The natives, perceiving that the bodies of the enemies were
protected with armors, aimed for their legs instead. Magellan was pierced with a poisoned
arrow in his right leg. A few of their men charged at the natives and tried to intimidate them
by burning an entire village but this only enraged the natives further. Magellan was
specifically targeted because the natives knew that he was the captain general. Magellan was
hit with a lance in the face. Magellan retaliated and pierced the same native with his lance in
the breast and tried to draw his sword but could not lift it because of his wounded arm.
Seeing that the captain has already deteriorated, more natives came to attack him. One native
with a great sword delivered a blow in Magellan's left leg, brought him face down and the
natives ceaselessly attacked Magellan with lances, swords, and even with their bare hands.
Pigafetta recounted the last moments of Magellan:

“Whilst the Indians were thus overpowering him, several times he turned round towards us to
see if we were all in safety, as though his obstinate fight had no other object than to give an
opportunity for the retreat of his men.”

Pigafetta also said that the king of Cebu who was baptized could have sent help but Magellan
instructed him not to join the battle and stay in the balangay so that he would see how they
fought. The king offered the people of Mactan gifts of any value and amount in exchange of
Magellan's body but the chief refused. They wanted to keep Magellan's body as a memento of
their victory.

Magellan's men elected Duarte Barbosa as the new captain. Pigafetta also told how
Magellan's slave and interpreter named Henry betrayed them and told the king of Cebu that
they intended to leave as quickly as possible. Pigafetta alleged that the slave told the king that
if he followed the slave's advice, then the king could acquire the ships and the goods of
Magellan's fleet. The two conspired and betrayed what was left of Magellan's men. The king
invited these men to a gathering where he said he would present the jewels that he would
send for the King of Spain. Pigafetta was not able to join the twenty-four men who attended
because he was nursing his battle wounds. It was only a short time when they heard cries and
lamentations. The natives had slain all of the men except the interpreter and Juan Serrano
who was already wounded. Serrano was presented and shouted at the men in the ship asking
them to pay ransom so he would be spared. However, they refused and would not allow
anyone to go to the shore. The fleet departed and abandoned Serrano. They left Cebu and
continued their journey around the world.

Analysis of Pigafetta's Chronicle

The chronicle of Pigafetta was one of the most cited documents by historians who wished to
study the precolonial Philippines. As one of the earliest written accounts, Pigafetta was seen
as a credible source for a period, which was prior unchronicled and undocumented.
Moreover, being the earliest detailed documentation, it was believed that Pigafetta's writings
account for the "purest” precolonial society. Indeed, Pigafetta's work is of great importance in
the study and writing of Philippine history. Nevertheless, there needs to have a more nuanced
reading of the source within a contextual backdrop. A student of history should recognize
certain biases accompanying the author and his identity, loyalties, and the circumstances that
he was in; and how it affected the text that he produced. In the case of Pigafetta, the reader
needs to understand that he was a chronicler commissioned by the King of Spain to
accompany and document a voyage intended to expand the Spanish empire. He was also of
noble descent who came from a rich family in Italy. These attributes influenced his narrative,
his selection of details to be included in the text, his characterization of the people and of the
species that he encountered, and his interpretation and retelling of the events. Being a scholar
of cartography and geography, Pigafetta was able to give details on geography and climate of
the places that their voyage had reached.

In reading Pigafetta's description of the people, one has to keep in mind that he was coming
from a sixteenth century European perspective. Hence, the reader might notice how Pigafetta,
whether implicitly or explicitly, regarded the indigenous belief systems and way of life as
inferior to that of Christianity and of the Europeans. He would always remark on the
nakedness of the natives or how he was fascinated by their exotic culture. Pigafetta also
noticeably emphasized the natives' amazement and illiteracy to the European artillery,
merchandise, and other goods, in the same way that Pigafetta repeatedly mentioned the
abundance of spices like ginger, and of precious metals like gold. His observations and
assessments of the indigenous cultures employed the European standards. Hence, when they
saw the indigenous attires of the natives, Pigafetta saw them as being naked because from the
European standpoint, they were wearing fewer clothes indeed. Pigafetta's perspective was too
narrow to realize that such attire was only appropriate to the tropical climate of the islands.
The same was true for materials that the natives used for their houses like palm and bamboo.
These materials would let more air come through the house and compensate for the hot
climate in the islands.

It should be understood that such observations were rooted from the context of Pigafetta and
of his era. Europe, for example, was dominated by the Holy Roman Empire, whose loyalty
and purpose was the domination of the Catholic Church all over the world. Hence, other
belief systems different from that of Christianity were perceived to be blasphemous and
barbaric, even demonic. Aside from this, the sixteenth century European economy was
mercantilist. Such system measures the wealth of kingdoms based on their accumulation of
bullions or precious metals like gold and silver. It was not surprising therefore that Pigafetta
would always mention the abundance of gold in the islands as shown in his description of
leaders wearing gold rings and golden daggers, and of the rich gold mines. An empire like
that of the Spain would indeed search for new lands where they could acquire more gold and
wealth to be on top of all the European nations. The obsession with spices might be odd for
Filipinos because of its ordinariness in the Philippines, but understanding the context would
reveal that spices were scarce in Europe and hence were seen as prestige goods. In that era,
Spain and Portugal coveted the control of Spice Islands because it would have led to a certain
increase in wealth, influence, and power. These contexts should be used and understood in
order to have a more qualified reading of Pigafetta's account.

The KKK and the "Kartilya ng Katipunan"

The Kataastaasan, Kagalanggalangang Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan (KKK) or

Katipunan is arguably the most important organization formed in the Philippine history.
While anti-colonial movements, efforts, and organizations had already been established
centuries prior to the foundation of the Katipunan, it was only this organization that
envisioned (1) a united Filipino nation that would revolt against the Spaniards for (2) the
total independence of the country from Spain. Previous armed revolts had already occurred
before the foundation of the Katipunan, but none of them envisioned a unified Filipino nation
revolting against the colonizers. For example, Diego Silang was known as an Ilocano who
took up his arms and led one of the longest running revolts in the country. Silang, however,
was mainly concerned about his locality and referred to himself as El Rey de Ilocos (The
King of Ilocos). The imagination of the nation was largely absent in the aspirations of the
local revolts before Katipunan. On the other hand, the propaganda movements led by the
ilustrados like Marcelo H. del Pilar, Graciano López Jaena, and Jose Rizal did not envision
a total separation of the Philippines from Spain, but only demanded equal rights,
representation, and protection from the abuses of the friars.

In the conduct of their struggle, Katipunan created a complex structure and a defined value
system that would guide the organization as a collective aspiring for a single goal. One of the
most important Katipunan documents was the Kartilya ng Katipunan. The original title of the
document was "Manga [sic] Aral Nang [sic] Katipunan ng mga A.N.B." or "Lessons of the
Organization of the Sons of Country." The document was written by Emilio Jacinto in the
1896. Jacinto was only 18 years old when he joined the movement. He was a law student at
the Universidad de Santo Tomas. Despite his youth, Bonifacio recognized the value and
intellect of Jacinto that upon seeing that Jacinto's Kartilya was much better than the
Decalogue he wrote, he willingly favored that the Kartilya be distributed to their fellow
Katipuneros. Jacinto became the secretary of the organization and took charge of the short-
lived printing press of the Katipunan. On 15 April 1897, Bonifacio appointed Jacinto as a
commander of the Katipunan in Northern Luzon. Jacinto was 22 years old. He died of
Malaria at a young age of 24 in the town of Magdalena, Laguna.

The Kartilya can be treated as the Katipunan's code of conduct. It contains fourteen rules that
instruct the way a Katipunero should behave, and which specific values should he uphold.
Generally, the rules stated in the Kartilya can be classified into two. The first group contains
the rules that will make the member an upright individual and the second group contains the
rules that will guide the way he treats his fellow men.

Below is the translated version of the rules in Kartilya:

 I. The life that is not consecrated to a lofty and reasonable purpose is a tree without
a shade, if not a poisonous weed.
II. To do good for personal gain and not for its own sake is not virtue.
III. It is rational to be charitable and love one's fellow creature, and to adjust one's
conduct, acts and words to what is in itself reasonable.
IV. Whether our skin be black or white, we are all born equal: superiority in
knowledge, wealth and beauty are to be understood, but not superiority by nature.
V. The honorable man prefers honor to personal gain; the scoundrel, gain to honor.
VI. To the honorable man, his word is sacred.
VII. Do not waste thy time: wealth can be recovered but not time lost.
VIII. Defend the oppressed and fight the oppressor before the law or in the field.
IX. The prudent man is sparing in words and faithful in keeping secrets.
X. On the thorny path of life, man is the guide of woman and the children, and if the
guide leads to the precipice, those whom he guides will also go there.
XI. Thou must not look upon woman as a mere plaything, but as a faithful companion
who will share with thee the penalties of life; her (physical) weakness will
increase thy interest in her and she will remind thee of the mother who bore thee
and reared thee.
XII. What thou dost not desire done unto thy wife, children, brothers and sisters, that
do not unto the wife, children, brothers and sisters of thy neighbor.
XIII. Man is not worth more because he is a king, because his nose is aquiline, and his
color white, not because he is a priest, a servant of God, nor because of the high
prerogative that he enjoys upon earth, but he is worth most who is a man of
proven and real value, who does good, keeps his words, is worthy and honest; he
who does not oppress nor consent to being oppressed, he who loves and cherishes
his fatherland, though he be born in the wilderness and know no tongue but his
own.
XIV. When these rules of conduct shall be known to all, the longedfor sun of Liberty
shall rise brilliant over this most unhappy portion of the globe and its rays shall
diffuse everlasting joy among the confederated brethren of the same rays, the lives
of those who have gone before, the fatigues and the well-paid sufferings will
remain. If he who desires to enter has informed himself of all this and believes he
will be able to perform what will be his duties, he may fill out the application for
admission.

As the primary governing document, which determines the rules of conduct in the Katipunan,
properly understanding the Kartilya will thus help in understanding the values, ideals,
aspirations, and even the ideology of the organization.

Analysis of the "Kartilya ng Katipunan"

Similar to what we have done to the accounts of Pigafetta, this primary source also needs to
be analyzed in terms of content and context. As a document written for a fraternity whose
main purpose is to overthrow a colonial regime, we can explain the content and provisions of
the Kartilya as a reaction and response to certain value systems that they found despicable in
the present state of things that they struggled against with. For example, the fourth and the
thirteenth rules in the Kartilya are an invocation of the inherent equality between and among
men regardless of race, occupation, or status. In the context of the Spanish colonial era where
the indios were treated as the inferior of the white Europeans, the Katipunan såw to it that the
alternative order that they wished to promulgate through their revolution necessarily
destroyed this kind of unjust hierarchy.

Moreover, one can analyze the values upheld in the document as consistent with the
burgeoning rational and liberal ideals in the eighteenth and nineteenth century. Equality,
tolerance, freedom, and liberty were values that first emerged in the eighteenth century
French Revolution, which spread throughout Europe and reached the educated class of the
colonies. Jacinto, an ilustrado himself, certainly got an understanding of these values. Aside
from the liberal values that can be dissected in the document, we can also decipher certain
Victorian and chivalrous values in the text. For example, various provisions in the Kartilya
repeatedly emphasized the importance of honor in words and in action. The teaching of the
Katipunan on how women should be treated with honor and respect, while positive in many
respects and certainly a significant stride from the practice of raping and physically abusing
women, can still be telling of the Katipunan's secondary regard for women in relation to men.
For example, in the tenth rule, the document specifically stated that men should be the guide
of women and children, and that he should set a good example, otherwise the women and the
children would be guided in the path of evil. Nevertheless, the same document stated that
women should be treated as companions by men and not as playthings that can be exploited
for their pleasure.

In the contemporary eyes, the Katipunan can be criticized because of these provisions.
However, one must not forget the context where the organization was born. Not even in
Europe or in the whole of the West at that juncture recognized the problem of gender
inequality. Indeed, it can be argued that Katipunan's recognition of women as important
partners in the struggle, as reflected not just in Kartilya but also in the organizational
structure of the fraternity where a women's unit was established, is an endeavor advanced for
its time. Aside from Rizal's known Letter to the Women of Malolos, no same effort by the
supposed cosmopolitan Propaganda Movement was achieved until the movement's eventual
disintegration in the latter part of the 1890s.

Aside from this, the Kartilya was instructive not just of the Katipunan's conduct toward other
people, but also for the members' development as individuals in their own rights. Generally
speaking, the rules in the Kartilya can be classified as either directed to how one should treat
his neighbor or to how one should develop and conduct one's self. Both are essential to the
success and fulfillment of the Katipunan's ideals. For example, the Kartilya's teachings on
honoring one's word and not wasting time are teachings directed toward self-development,
while the rules on treating the neighbor's wife, children, and brothers the way that you want
yours to be treated is an instruction on how Katipuneros should treat and regard their
neighbors.

All in all, proper reading of the Kartilya will reveal a more thorough understanding of the
Katipunan and the significant role that it played in the revolution and in the unfolding of the
Philippine history, as we know it.

Reading the “Proclamation of the Philippine Independence"

Every year, the country commemorates the anniversary of the Philippine Independence
proclaimed on 12 June 1898, in the province of Cavite. Indeed, such event is a significant
turning point in the history of the country because it signaled the end of the 333 years of
Spanish colonization. There have been numerous studies done on the events leading to the
independence of the country but very few students had the chance to read the actual
document of the declaration. This is in spite of the historical importance of the document and
the details that the document reveals on the rationale and circumstances of that historical day
in Cavite. Interestingly, reading the details of the said document in hindsight is telling of the
kind of government that was created under Aguinaldo, and the forthcoming hand of the
United States of America in the next few years of the newly created republic. The declaration
was a short 2,000-word document, which summarized the reason behind the revolution
against Spain, the war for independence, and the future of the new republic under Emilio
Aguinaldo.

The proclamation commenced with a characterization of the conditions in the Philippines

during the Spanish colonial period. The document specifically mentioned abuses and
inequalities in the colony. The declaration says:

"...taking into consideration, that their inhabitants being already weary of bearing the
ominous yoke of Spanish domination, on account of the arbitrary arrests and harsh treatment
practiced by the Civil Guard to the extent of causing death with the connivance and even with
the express orders of their commanders, who sometimes went to the extreme of ordering the
shooting of prisoners under the pretext that they were attempting to escape, in violation of the
provisions of the Regulations of their Corps, which abuses were unpunished and on account
of the unjust deportations, especially those decreed by General Blanco, of eminent
personages and of high social position, at the instigation of the Archbishop and friars
interested in keeping them out of the way for their own selfish and avaricious purpose,
deportations which are quickly brought about by a method of procedure more execrable than
that of the Inquisition and which every civilized nation rejects on account of a decision being
rendered without a hearing of the persons accused.”

The above passage demonstrates the justifications behind the revolution against Spain.
Specifically cited are the abuse by the Civil Guards and the unlawful shooting of prisoners
whom they alleged as attempting to escape. The passage also condemns the unequal
protection of the law between the Filipino people and the “eminent personages.” Moreover,
the line mentions the avarice and greed of the clergy like the friars and the Archbishop
himself. Lastly, the passage also condemns what they saw as the unjust deportation and
rendering of other decision without proper hearing, expected of any civilized nation.

From here, the proclamation proceeded with a brief historical overview of the Spanish
occupation since Magellan's arrival in Visayas until the Philippine Revolution, with specific
details about the latter, especially after the Pact of Biak-na-Bato had collapsed. The document
narrates the spread of the movement "like an electric spark” through different towns and
provinces like Bataan, Pampanga, Batangas, Bulacan, Laguna, and Morong, and the quick
decline of Spanish forces in the same provinces. The revolt also reached Visayas; thus, the
independence of the country was ensured. The document also mentions Rizal's execution,
calling it unjust. The execution, as written in the document, was done to "please the greedy
body of friars in their insatiable desire to seek revenge upon and exterminate all those who
are opposed to their Machiavellian purposes, which tramples upon the penal code prescribed
for these islands." The document also narrates the Cavite Mutiny of January 1872 that caused
the infamous execution of the martyred native priests Jose Burgos, Mariano Gomez, and
Jacinto Zamora, "whose innocent blood was shed through the intrigues of those so-called
religious orders” that incited the three secular priests in the said mutiny.

The proclamation of independence also invokes that the established republic would be led
under the dictatorship of Emilio Aguinaldo. The first mention was at the very beginning of
the proclamation. It stated:

"In the town of Cavite Viejo, in this province of Cavite, on the twelfth day of June eighteen
hundred and ninety-eight, before me, Don Ambrosio Rianzares Bautista, Auditor of War and
Special Commissioner appointed to proclaim and solemnize this act by the Dictatorial
Government of these Philippine Islands, for the purposes and by virtue of the circular
addressed by the Eminent Dictator of the same Don Emilio Aguinaldo y Famy."

The same was repeated toward the last part of the proclamation. It states:

“We acknowledge, approve and confirm together with the orders that have been issued
therefrom, the Dictatorship established by Don Emilio Aguinaldo, whom we honor as the
Supreme Chief of this Nation, which this day commences to have a life of its own, in the
belief that he is the instrument selected by God, in spite of his humble origin, to effect the
redemption of this unfortunate people, as foretold by Doctor Jose Rizal in the magnificent
verses which he composed when he was preparing to be shot, liberating them from the yoke
of Spanish domination in punishment of the impunity with which their Government allowed
the commission of abuses by its subordinates."

Another detail in the proclamation that is worth looking at is its explanation on the Philippine
flag that was first waved on the same day. The document explained:

“And finally, it was unanimously resolved that this Nation, independent from this day, must
use the same flag used heretofore, whose design and colors and described in the
accompanying drawing, with design representing in natural colors the three arms referred to.
The white triangle represents the distinctive emblem of the famous Katipunan Society, which
by means of its compact of blood urged on the masses of the people to insurrection; the three
stars represent the three principal Islands of this Archipelago, Luzon, Mindanao and Panay, in
which this insurrectionary movement broke out; the sun represents the gigantic strides that
have been made by the sons of this land on the road of progress and civilization, its eight rays
symbolizing the eight provinces of Manila, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, Nueva Ecija, Bataan,
Laguna and Batangas, which were declared in a state of war almost as soon as the first
insurrectionary movement was initiated; and the colors blue, red and white, commemorate
those of the flag of the United States of North America, in manifestation of our profound
gratitude towards that Great Nation for the disinterested protection she is extending to us and
will continue to extend to us.”

This often overlooked detail reveals much about the historically accurate meaning behind the
most widely known national symbol in the Philippines. It is not known by many for example,
that the white triangle was derived from the symbol of the Katipunan. The red and blue colors
of the flag are often associated with courage and peace, respectively. Our basic education
omits the fact that those colors were taken from the flag of the United States. While it can
always be argued that symbolic meaning can always change and be reinterpreted, the original
symbolic meaning of something presents us several historical truths that can explain the
subsequent events, which unfolded after the declaration of independence on the 12th day of
June 1898.

Analysis of the “Proclamation of the Philippine Independence"

As mentioned earlier, a re-examination of the document on the declaration of independence

can reveal some often overlooked historical truths about this important event in Philippine
history. Aside from this, the document reflects the general revolutionary sentiment of that
period. For example, the abuses specifically mentioned in the proclamation like friar abuse,
racial discrimination, and inequality before the law reflect the most compelling sentiments
represented by the revolutionary leadership. However, no mention was made about the more
serious problem that affected the masses more profoundly (i.e., the land and agrarian crisis
felt by the numerous Filipino peasants in the nineteenth century). This is ironic especially
when renowned Philippine Revolution historian, Teodoro Agoncillo, stated that the
Philippine Revolution was an agrarian revolution. The common revolutionary soldiers fought
in the revolution for the hope of owning the lands that they were tilling once the friar estates
in different provinces like Batangas and Laguna dissolve, if and when the revolution
succeeded. Such aspects and realities of the revolutionary struggle were either unfamiliar to
the middle class revolutionary leaders like Emilio Aguinaldo, Ambrosio Rianzares-Bautista,
and Felipe Buencamino, or were intentionally left out because they were landholders
themselves.

The Treaty of Paris was an agreement signed between Spain and the United States of
America regarding the ownership of the Philippine Islands and other Spanish colonies in
South America. The agreement ended the short-lived Spanish-American War. The Treaty was
signed on 10 December 1898, six months after the revolutionary government declared the
Philippine Independence. The Philippines was sold to the United States at $20 million and
effectively undermined the sovereignty of the Filipinos after their revolutionary victory. The
Americans occupied the Philippines immediately which resulted in the Philippine-American
War that lasted until the earliest years of the twentieth century.

The proclamation also gives us the impression on how the victorious revolutionary
government of Aguinaldo historicized the struggle for independence. There were mentions of
past events that were seen as important turning points of the movement against Spain. The
execution of the GOMBURZA, for example, and the failed Cavite Mutiny of 1872 was
narrated in detail. This shows that they saw this event as a significant awakening of the
Filipinos in the real conditions of the nation under Spain. Jose Rizal's legacy and martyrdom
was also mentioned in the document. However, the Katipunan as the pioneer of the
revolutionary movement was only mentioned once toward the end of the document. There
was no mention of the Katipunan's foundation. Bonifacio and his co-founders were also left
out. It can be argued, thus, that the way of historical narration found in the document also
reflects the politics of the victors. The enmity between Aguinaldo's Magdalo and Bonifacio's
Magdiwang in the Katipunan is no secret in the pages of our history. On the contrary, the war
led by Aguinaldo's men with the forces of the United States were discussed in detail.

The point is, even official records and documents like the proclamation of independence,
while truthful most of the time, still exude the politics and biases of whoever is in power.
This manifests in the selectiveness of information that can be found in these records. It is the
task of the historian, thus, to analyze the content of these documents in relation to the
dominant politics and the contexts of people and institutions surrounding it. This tells us a
lesson on taking primary sources like official government records within the circumstance of
this production. Studying one historical subject, thus, entails looking at multiple primary
sources and pieces of historical evidences in order to have a more nuanced and contextual
analysis of our past.

A Glance at Selected Philippine Political Caricature in Alfred McCoy's Philippine

Cartoons: Political Caricature of the American Era (1900-1941)

Political cartoons and caricature are a rather recent art form, which veered away from the
classical art by exaggerating human features and poking fun at its subjects. Such art genre
and technique became a part of the print media as a form of social and political commentary,
which usually targets persons of power and authority. Cartoons became an effective tool of
publicizing opinions through heavy use of symbolism, which is different from a verbose
written editorial and opinion pieces. The unique way that a caricature represents opinion and
captures the audience's imagination is reason enough for historians to examine these political
cartoons. Commentaries in mass media inevitably shape public opinion and such kind of
opinion is worthy of historical examination.

In his book Philippine Cartoons: Political Caricature of the American Era (1900–1941),
Alfred McCoy, together with Alfredo Roces, compiled political cartoons published in
newspaper dailies and periodicals in the aforementioned time period. For this part, we are
going to look at selected cartoons and explain the context of each one.

The first example shown above was published in The Independent on May 20, 1916. The
cartoon shows a politician from Tondo, named Dr. Santos, passing his crown to his brother-
in-law, Dr. Barcelona. A Filipino guy (as depicted wearing salakot and barong tagalog) was
trying to stop Santos, telling the latter to stop giving Barcelona the crown because it is not his
to begin with.
The second cartoon was also published by The Independent on 16 June 1917. This was drawn
by Fernando Amorsolo and was aimed as a commentary to the workings of Manila Police at
that period. Here, we see a Filipino child who stole a skinny chicken because he had nothing
to eat. The police officer was relentlessly pursuing the said child. A man wearing a salakot,
labeled Juan de la Cruz was grabbing the officer, telling him to leave the small-time
pickpockets and thieves and to turn at the great thieves instead. He was pointing to huge
warehouses containing bulks of rice, milk, and grocery products.

The third cartoon was a commentary on the unprecedented cases of colorum automobiles in
the city streets. The Philippine Free Press published this commentary when fatal accidents
involving colorum vehicles and taxis occurred too often already.

This fourth cartoon depicts a cinema. A blown-up police officer was at the screen saying that
couples are not allowed to neck and make love in the theater. Two youngsters looked
horrified while an older couple seemed amused.
The next cartoon was published by The Independent on 27 November 1915. Here, we see the
caricature of Uncle Sam riding a chariot pulled by Filipinos wearing school uniforms. The
Filipino boys were carrying American objects like baseball bats, whiskey, and boxing gloves.
McCoy, in his caption to the said cartoon, says that this cartoon was based on an event in
1907 when William Howard Taft was brought to the Manila pier riding a chariot pulled by
students of Liceo de Manila. Such was condemned by the nationalists at that time.

The last cartoon was published by Lipang Kalabaw on 24 August 1907. In the picture, we can
see Uncle Sam rationing porridge to the politicians and members of the Progresista Party
(sometimes known as the Federalista Party) while members of the Nacionalista Party look on
and wait for their turn. This cartoon depicts the patronage of the United States being coveted
by politicians from either of the party.
Analysis of the Political Caricatures during the American Period

The transition from the Spanish Colonial period to the American Occupation period
demonstrated different strands of changes and shifts in culture, society, and politics. The
Americans drastically introduced democracy to the nascent nation and the consequences were
far from ideal. Aside from this, it was also during the American period that Filipinos were
introduced to different manifestations of modernity like healthcare, modern transportation,
and media. This ushered in a more open and freer press. The post-independence and the post-
Filipino-American period in the Philippines were experienced differently by Filipinos coming
from different classes. The upper principalia class experienced economic prosperity with the
opening up of the Philippine economy to the United States but the majority of the poor
Filipino remained poor, desperate, and victims of state repression.

The selected cartoons illustrate not only the opinion of certain media outfits about the
Philippine society during the American period but also paint a broad image of society and
politics under the United States. In the arena of politics, for example, we see the price that
Filipinos paid for the democracy modeled after the Americans. First, it seemed that the
Filipino politicians at that time did not understand well enough the essence of democracy and
the accompanying democratic institutions and processes. This can be seen in the rising
dynastic politics in Tondo as depicted in the cartoon published by The Independent.
Patronage also became influential and powerful, not only between clients and patrons but also
between the newly formed political parties composed of the elite and the United States. This
was depicted in the cartoon where the United States, represented by Uncle Sam, provided
dole outs for members of the Federalista while the Nacionalista politicians looked on and
waited for their turn. Thus, the essence of competing political parties to enforce choices
among the voters was cancelled out. The problem continues up to the present where
politicians transfer from one party to another depending on which party was powerful in
specific periods of time.

The transition from a Catholic-centered, Spanish-Filipino society to an imperial American-

assimilated one, and its complications, were also depicted in the cartoons. One example is the
unprecedented increase of motorized vehicles in the city. Automobiles became a popular
mode of transportation in the city and led to the emergence of taxis. However, the laws and
policy implementation was mediocre. This resulted in the increasing colorum and unlicensed
vehicles transporting people around the city. The rules governing the issuance of driver's
license was loose and traffic police could not be bothered by rampant violations of traffic
rules. This is a direct consequence of the drastic urbanization of the Philippine society.
Another example is what McCoy called the "sexual revolution” that occurred in the 1930s.
Young people, as early as that period, disturbed the conservative Filipino mindset by
engaging in daring sexual activities in public spaces like cinemas. Here, we can see how that
period was the meeting point between the conservative past and the liberated future of the
Philippines.

Lastly, the cartoons also illustrated the conditions of poor Filipinos in the Philippines now
governed by the United States. From the looks of it, nothing much has changed. For example,
a cartoon depicted how police authorities oppress petty Filipino criminals while turning a
blind eye on hoarders who monopolize goods in their huge warehouses (presumably Chinese
merchants). The other cartoon depicts how Americans controlled Filipinos through seemingly
harmless American objects. By controlling their consciousness and mentality, Americans got
to control and subjugate Filipinos.

Revisiting Corazon Aquino's Speech Before the U.S. Congress

Corazon “Cory” Cojuangco Aquino functioned as the symbol of the restoration of democracy
and the overthrow of the Marcos Dictatorship in 1986. The EDSA People Power, which
installed Cory Aquino in the presidency, put the Philippines in the international spotlight for
overthrowing a dictator through peaceful means. Cory was easily a figure of the said
revolution, as the widow of the slain Marcos oppositionist and former Senator Benigno
“Ninoy" Aquino Jr. Cory was hoisted as the antithesis of the dictator. Her image as a
mourning, widowed housewife who had always been in the shadow of her husband and
relatives and had no experience in politics was juxtaposed against Marcos's statesmanship,
eloquence, charisma, and cunning political skills. Nevertheless, Cory was able to capture the
imagination of the people whose rights and freedom had long been compromised throughout
the Marcos regime. This is despite the fact that Cory came from a rich haciendero family in
Tarlac and owned vast estates of sugar plantation and whose relatives occupy local and
national government positions.

The People Power Revolution of 1986 was widely recognized around the world for its
peaceful character. When former senator Ninoy Aquino was shot at the tarmac of the Manila
International Airport on 21 August 1983, the Marcos regime greatly suffered a crisis of
legitimacy. Protests from different sectors frequented different areas in the country. Marcos's
credibility in the international community also suffered. Paired with the looming economic
crisis, Marcos had to do something to prove to his allies in the United States that he remained
to be the democratically anointed leader of the country. He called for a Snap Election in
February 1986, where Corazon Cojuangco Aquino, the widow of the slain senator was
convinced to run against Marcos. The canvassing was rigged to Marcos's favor but the people
expressed their protests against the corrupt and authoritarian government. Leading military
officials of the regime and Martial Law orchestrators themselves, Juan Ponce Enrile and Fidel
V. Ramos, plotted to take over the presidency, until civilians heeded the call of then Manila
Archbishop Jaime Cardinal Sin and other civilian leaders gathered in EDSA. The
overwhelming presence of civilians in EDSA successfully turned a coup into a civilian
demonstration. The thousands of people who gathered overthrew Ferdinand Marcos from the
presidency after 21 years.

On 18 September 1986, seven months since Cory became president, she went to the United
States and spoke before the joint session of the U.S. Congress. Cory was welcomed with long
applause as she took the podium and addressed the United States about her presidency and
the challenges faced by the new republic. She began her speech with the story of her leaving
the United States three years prior as a newly widowed wife of Ninoy Aquino.

She then told of Ninoy's character, conviction, and resolve in opposing the authoritarianism
of Marcos. She talked of the three times that they lost Ninoy including his demise on 23
August 1983. The first time was when the dictatorship detained Ninoy with other dissenters.
Cory related:

“The government sought to break him by indignities and terror. They locked him up in a tiny,
nearly airless cell in a military camp in the north. They stripped him naked and held a threat
of a sudden midnight execution over his head. Ninoy held up manfully under all of it. I barely
did as well. For forty-three days, the authorities would not tell me what had happened to him.
This was the first time my children and I felt we had lost him.”

Cory continued that when Ninoy survived that first detention, he was then charged of
subversion, murder, and other crimes. He was tried by a military court, whose legitimacy
Ninoy adamantly questioned. To solidify his protest, Ninoy decided to do a hunger strike and
fasted for 40 days. Cory , treated this event as the second time that their family lost Ninoy.
She said:

“When that didn't work, they put him on trial for subversion, murder and a host of other
crimes before a military commission. Ninoy challenged its authority and went on a fast. If he
survived it, then he felt God intended him for another fate. We had lost him again. For
nothing would hold him back from his determination to see his fast through to the end. He
stopped only when it dawned on him that the government would keep his body alive after the
fast had destroyed his brain. And so, with barely any life in his body, he called off the fast on
the 40th day.”

Ninoy's death was the third and the last time that Cory and their children lost Ninoy. She
continued:

“And then, we lost him irrevocably and more painfully than in the past. The news came to us
in Boston. It had to be after the three happiest years of our lives together. But his death was
my country's resurrection and the courage and faith by which alone they could be free again.
The dictator had called him a nobody. Yet, two million people threw aside their passivity and
fear and escorted him to his grave."

Cory attributed the peaceful EDSA Revolution to the martyrdom of Ninoy. She stated that the
death of Ninoy sparked the revolution and the responsibility of "offering the democratic
alternative” had "fallen on (her) shoulders.” Cory's address introduced us to her democratic
philosophy, which she claimed she also acquired from Ninoy. She argued:

“I held fast to Ninoy's conviction that it must be by the ways of democracy. I held out for
participation in the 1984 election the dictatorship called, even if I knew it would be rigged. I
was warned by the lawyers of the opposition, that I ran the grave risk of legitimizing the
foregone results of elections that were clearly going to be fraudulent. But I was not fighting
for lawyers but for the people in whose intelligence, I had implicit faith. By the exercise of
democracy even in a dictatorship, they would be prepared for democracy when it came. And
then also, it was the only way I knew by which we could measure our power even in the
terms dictated by the dictatorship. The people vindicated me in an election shamefully
marked by government thuggery and fraud. The opposition swept the elections, garnering a
clear majority of the votes even if they ended up (thanks to a corrupt Commission on
Elections) with barely a third of the seats in Parliament. Now, I knew our power."

Cory talked about her miraculous victory through the people's struggle and continued talking
about her earliest initiatives as the president of a restored democracy. She stated that she
intended to forge and draw reconciliation after a bloody and polarizing dictatorship. Cory
emphasized the importance of the EDSA Revolution in terms of being a "limited revolution
that respected the life and freedom of every Filipino." She also boasted of the restoration of a
fully constitutional government whose constitution gave utmost respect to the Bill of Rights.
She reported to the U.S. Congress:

“Again as we restore democracy by the ways of democracy, so are we completing the

constitutional structures of our new democracy under a constitution that already gives full
respect to the Bill of Rights. A jealously independent constitutional commission is
completing its draft which will be submitted later this year to a popular referendum. When it
is approved, there will be elections for both national and local positions. So, within about a
year from a peaceful but national upheaval that overturned a dictatorship, we shall have
returned to full constitutional government."

Cory then proceeded on her peace agenda with the existing communist insurgency,
aggravated by the dictatorial and authoritarian measure of Ferdinand Marcos. She asserted:

"My predecessor set aside democracy to save it from a communist insurgency that numbered
less than five hundred. Unhampered by respect for human rights he went at it with hammer
and tongs. By the time he fled, that insurgency had grown to more than sixteen thousand. I
think there is a lesson here to be learned about trying to stifle a thing with a means by which
it grows."

Cory's peace agenda involves political initiatives and re-integration program to persuade
insurgents to leave the countryside and return to the mainstream society to participate in the
restoration of democracy. She invoked the path of peace because she believed that it was the
moral path that a moral government must take. Nevertheless, Cory took a step back when she
said that while peace is the priority of her presidency, she “will not waiver" when freedom
and democracy are threatened. She said that, similar to Abraham Lincoln, she understands
that "force may be necessary before mercy” and while she did not relish the idea, she "will do
whatever it takes to defend the integrity and freedom of (her) country.”

Cory then turned to the controversial topic of the Philippine foreign debt amounting to $26
billion at the time of her speech. This debt had ballooned during the Marcos regime. Cory
expressed her intention to honor those debts despite mentioning that the people did not
benefit from such debts. Thus, she mentioned her protestations about the way the Philippines
was deprived of choices to pay those debts within the capacity of the Filipino people. She
lamented:
"Finally may I turn to that other slavery, our twenty-six billion dollar foreign debt. I have said
that we shall honor it. Yet, the means by which we shall be able to do so are kept from us.
Many of the conditions imposed on the previous government that stole this debt, continue to
be imposed on us who never benefited from it."

She continued that while the country had experienced the calamities brought about by the
corrupt dictatorship of Marcos, no commensurate assistance was yet to be extended to the
Philippines. She even remarked that given the peaceful character of EDSA People Power
Revolution, “ours must have been the cheapest revolution ever." She demonstrated that
Filipino people fulfilled the "most difficult condition of the debt negotiation," which was the
“restoration of democracy and responsible government."

Cory related to the U.S. legislators that wherever she went, she met poor and unemployed
Filipinos willing to offer their lives for democracy. She stated:

"Wherever I went in the campaign, slum area or impoverished village. They came to me with
one cry, democracy. Not food although they clearly needed it but democracy. Not work,
although they surely wanted it but democracy. Not money, for they gave what little they had
to my campaign. They didn't expect me to work a miracle that would instantly put food into
their mouths, clothes on their back, education in their children and give them work that will
put dignity in their lives. But I feel the pressing obligation to respond quickly as the leader of
the people so deserving of all these things.”

Cory proceeded in enumerating the challenges of the Filipino people as they tried building
the new democracy. These were the persisting communist insurgency and the economic
deterioration. Cory further lamented that these problems worsened by the crippling debt
because half of the country's export earnings amounting to $2 billion would "go to pay just
the interest on a debt whose benefit the Filipino people never received.” Cory then asked a
rather compelling question to the U.S. Congress:

“Has there been a greater test of national commitment to the ideals you hold dear than that
my people have gone through? You have spent many lives and much treasure to bring
freedom to many lands that were reluctant to receive it. And here, you have a people who
want it by themselves and need only the help to preserve it."

Cory ended her speech by thanking America for serving as home to her family for what she
referred to as the "three happiest years of our lives together.” She enjoined America in
building the Philippines as a new home for democracy and in turning the country as a
“shining testament of our two nations' commitment to freedom.”

Analysis of Cory Aquino's Speech

Cory Aquino's speech was an important event in the political and diplomatic history of the
country because it has arguably cemented the legitimacy of the EDSA government in the
international arena. The speech talks of her family background, especially her relationship
with her late husband, Ninoy Aquino. It is well known that it was Ninoy who served as the
real leading figure of the opposition at that time. Indeed, Ninoy's eloquence and charisma
could very well compete with that of Marcos. In her speech, Cory talked at length about
Ninoy's toil and suffering at the hands of the dictatorship that he resisted. Even when she
proceeded talking about her new government, she still went back to Ninoy's legacies and
lessons. Moreover, her attribution of the revolution to Ninoy's death demonstrates not only
Cory's personal perception on the revolution, but since she was the president, it also
represents what the dominant discourse was at that point in our history.

The ideology or the principles of the new democratic government can also be seen in the
same speech. Aquino was able to draw the sharp contrast between her government and of her
predecessor by expressing her commitment to a democratic constitution drafted by an
independent commission. She claimed that such constitution upholds and adheres to the
rights and liberty of the Filipino people. Cory also hoisted herself as the reconciliatory agent
after more than two decades of a polarizing authoritarian politics. For example, Cory saw the
blown-up communist insurgency as a product of a repressive and corrupt government. Her
response to this insurgency rooted from her diametric opposition of the dictator (i.e.,
initiating reintegration of communist rebels to the mainstream Philippine society). Cory
claimed that her main approach to this problem was through peace and not through the sword
of war.

Despite Cory's efforts to hoist herself as the exact opposite of Marcos, her speech still
revealed certain parallelisms between her and the Marcos's government. This is seen in terms
of continuing the alliance between the Philippines and the United States despite the known
affinity between the said world super power and Marcos. The Aquino regime, as seen in
Cory's acceptance of the invitation to address the U.S. Congress and to the content of the
speech, decided to build and continue with the alliance between the Philippines and the
United States and effectively implemented an essentially similar foreign policy to that of the
dictatorship. For example, Cory recognized that the large sum of foreign debts incurred by
the Marcos regime never benefitted the Filipino people. Nevertheless, Cory expressed her
intention to pay off those debts. Unknown to many Filipinos was the fact that there was a
choice of waiving the said debt because those were the debt of the dictator and not of the
country. Cory's decision is an indicator of her government's intention to carry on a debt-
driven economy.

Reading through Aquino's speech, we can already take cues, not just on Cory's individual
ideas and aspirations, but also the guiding principles and framework of the government that
she represented.

References:

Aquino, C. (1986). "Restoring Democracy by the Ways of Democracy.” In •

http://www.coryaquino.ph/index.php/works/article/353689da-f2dc11df-b3cf-001617d76479.
Retrieved 18 May 2017.

Bautista, A. (1898). "Declaration of the Philippine Independence.” trans. Sulpicio Guevarra

in The Laws of the First Philippine Republic 1972.Manila: National Historical Commission.

Jacinto, E. (1896). "Kartilya ng Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan." trans. Gregorio Nieva,
1918. Text from Philippine Center for Masonic Studies,
http://www.philippinemasonry.org/kartilya-ng-katipunan.html. Retrieved 18 October 2017.
McCoy, A., & Roces, A. (1985). Philippine Cartoons: Political Caricature of the American
Era, 1900–1941. Quezon City: Vera-Reyes.

Pigafetta, A. (1874). The First Voyage Around the World by Magellan. trans. Lord Stanley of
Alderley. London: Hakluyt Society.