1986 People Power Movement_group1.pptx

1986 People Power Movement Group 1

Reports on the 1986 Snap Elections by International Observers

Internal Criticism

External Criticism

●

● ●

Published at: Washington, D.C. : National Democratic Institute for International Affairs : National Republican Institute for International Affairs, [1986] Print, book By international observer delegation, national democratic institute for international affairs and national republican institute for international affairs

● ● ● ● ● ● -

How close was the author to the event being studied? They are at the Philippines during the Snap Election When was the account made 1986 Who was the recipient of the accounts? Filipinos Is there bias to be accounted for? None Does informed common sense make the account probable? Yes Is the account corroborated by other accounts? Yes

Delegates

Executive Summary 1. The delegation concludes that the election of February 7 was not conducted in a free and fair manner.

Executive Summary 2. The delegation concludes that the February 15 Batasang.proclamation naming Ferdinand Marcos and Arturo Tolentino the winners of the February 7 election was invalid.

Executive Summary 3. The election succeeded in providing a vehicle through which the national will of the Philippines was ultimately expressed.

Executive Summary 4. There is no single piece of "smoking-gun" evidence which leads to our determination that the election failed to meet a "free-and-fair" standard; there are instead many "smoking-guns." They include the following:

--The campaign period was marked by numerous violations of the provisions designed to curb improper campaign practices and to limit the Government's use of its power to influence the election;

Executive Summary --The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) did not carry out its responsibility under the election code to provide equal access to the television media during the campaign period. As a result, Marcos benefited greatly from the partisanowed and influenced television and radio media, though the opposition had reasonable access to alternative (radio and print) media. --COMELEC officials were unable or unwilling to deal with the problem of fraudulent registration. Safeguards designed to guard against double voting, including indelible ink applied to voters' fingers, were in many areas either ignored or unenforced. The combination of these two factors contrioutd to an undetermined amount of double voting.

Executive Summary --An estimated 3.5 million voters were disenfranchised on election day ,when they could not find their names on the voting register. This resulted in a voter turnout of only 76% in this important presidential election, as compared to 89% in the 1984 Batasang election. This is a major drop off, especially considering the absence of a well-organized boycott for this election.

Executive Summary --Disenfranchisement appears to have occurred in opposition-oriented provinces or cities. For example, in the ten cities and provinces which had the highest voter turnout, the winner was the ruling party, while in the ten cities and provinces which had the lowest turnout, the opposition won in eight out of ten. Even more striking is that in the cities or provinces where the ruling party won by a margin of 150,000 votes or more, the turnout ranged between 82% and 96% of the vote. On the other hand, in areas where the opposition's margin of victory was greater than 50,000, the turnout ranged between 71 and 81 percent.

Executive Summary --Virtually all members of the delegation observed or were told by credible sources that voters were being paid on election day to vote for the Marcos-Tolentino ticket. In many areas, carbonized sample ballots were used as proof of an individual's vote and as a receipt for payments ranging between 25 to 500 pesos. --Numerous instances of intimidation of voters were recorded by the delegation; members of the military, the Civil Home Defense Forces, and Barangay officials were commonly implicated. --Pollwatchers from the designated opposition UNIDO party and the accredited citizen's arm, NAMFREL, were not permitted access to polling places in many provinces.

Executive Summary --Problems relating to the counting of votes occurred during all phases of the process. Major discrepancies between the count kept by NAMFREL --based on hard copies of precinct tally forms signed by all members of the Board of Election inspectors --and COMELEC recurred throughout the week following the election, evidencing attempts to manipulate the vote count. --Delegation members reported numerous instances wherein precincts recorded zero votes for Aquino despite the claim of the UNIDO poll watchers present at the precinct that they voted for Aquino.

Executive Summary --Hard evidence was uncovered of "ghost" precincts, or fictional polling places, wherein the vote was completely fabricated. In one municipality of Southern Leyte, three such precincts were discovered over and above the 55 authorized. In the 55 legitimate precincts, the vote was 6,371 for Marcos and 5,876 for Aquino. In the three ghost precincts, the vote was 900 for Marcos and 9 for Aquino. --While we have no direct evidence, we believe that the interference with the counting process which occurred after election day was not simply a dispute between COMELEC and NAMFREL over their "quick count" agreement; rather we believe this was part of an effort by the Government and its supporters to buy time so that the above mentioned fraud could be undertaken.

Executive Summary 5. The above-listed violations were perpetrated by national and local officials who supported the Marcos-Tolentino ticket. While we cannot exclude the possibility, our delegation did not observe a single election code violation by supporters of the opposition party despite efforts undertaken to monitor their activities.

Illustration from: A Path to Democratic Renewal in 1986

Post-Election Statement of CBCP by Archbishop Ricardo J. Cardinal Vidal February 13, 1986

External Criticism ●

● ●

The statement was drafted on February 13 ,1986 and was issued to the public on February 15, 1986. Source: Language: English

Internal Criticism ●

How close was the author?

The snap election happened in Manila, "post election statement" was drafted in CBCP Headquarters in Intramuros. The statement was drafted few days after the election and the declaration of the new President. ● ●

●

How was the account made? It was drafted by Bishops Claver, Escaler, and Bcani, and with the helped of four theologians namely Father Lambino, Father de Achutegui, Father Gomez, and Father Miranda. There was also a guideline sent by the Vatican State Agostino Cardinal Casaroli which was followed.

●

Who was the recipient? The recipients of the account were not only the political bodies, but also the nation, to make them realize how dirty the snap election was.

●

Is there bias? There is no bias

●

Does informed common sense make the account probable?

Yes ●

Is the account corroborated by other accounts? Yes, the statement was made in relation to the snap elections and was based on the results declared by NAMFREL and COMELEC.

Introduction. The people have spoken. Or have tried to. Despite the obstacles thrown in the way of their speaking freely, we, the bishops, believe that on the basis of our assessment as pastors of the recently concluded polls, what they attempted to say is clear enough.

The Conduct of the Polls. In our considered judgment, the polls were unparalleled in the fraudulence of their conduct. And we condemn especially the following modes of fraudulence and irregularities.

The systematic disenfranchisement of voters. The sheer scrambling of the voters’ lists made it impossible for vast number of our people to express their proper preference of candidates.

● There was fraudulence in conduct.

The widespread and massive vote-buying. The vote-buyers in their cynical exploiting of the people’s poverty and deep, if misguided, sense of utang na loob deprived a great many of any real freedom of choice.

The deliberate tampering with the election returns. The votes of the people, even when already duly expressed and counted, were altered to register choices other than their own.

Intimidation, harassment, terrorism and murder. These made naked fear the decisive factor in people not participating in the polls or making their final choice. These and many other irregularities point to a criminal use of power to thwart the sovereign will of the people. Yet, despite these evil acts, we are morally certain the people’s real will for change has been truly manifested.

● There was fraudulence in conduct. ● It was a government in possession of power thus, it has the obligation to right the wrong.

Government Based on the Polls. According to moral principles, a government that assumes or retains power through fraudulent means has no moral basis. For such an access to power is tantamount to a forcible seizure and cannot command the allegiance of the citizenry. The most we can say then, about such

a government, is that it is a government in possession of power. But admitting that, we hasten to add: Because of that very fact, that same government itself has the obligation to right the wrong it is founded on. It must respect the mandate of the people. This is precondition for any reconciliation.

● There was fraudulence in conduct. ● It was a government in possession of power thus, it has the obligation to right the wrong. ● If the government does not correct the wrong then the people should take action but not in violent means or in a “non-violent struggle for

justice”.

Response in Faith. If such a government does not of itself freely correct the evil it has inflicted on the people then it is our serious moral obligation as a people to make it do so.

We are not going to effect the change we seek by doing nothing, by sheer apathy. If we did nothing we would be party to our own destruction as a people. We would be jointly guilty with the perpetrators of the wrong we want righted.

Neither do we advocate a bloody, violent means of righting this wrong. If we did, we would be sanctioning the enormous sin of fratricidal strife. Killing to achieve justice is not within the purview of our Christian vision in our present context.

● There was fraudulence in conduct. ● It was a government in possession of power thus, it has the obligation to right the wrong. ● If the government does not correct the wrong then the people should take action but not in violent means.

● The means should be peaceful and in the manner of Christ.

The way indicated to us now is the way of nonviolent struggle for justice.

This means active resistance of evil by peaceful means — in the manner of Christ. And it's one end for now is that the will of the people be done through ways and means proper to the Gospel.

We therefore ask every loyal member of the Church, every community of the faithful, to form their judgment about the February 7 polls. And if in faith they see things as we the bishops do, we must come together and discern what appropriate actions to take that will be according to the mind of Christ. In a creative, imaginative way, under the guidance of Christ’s Spirit, let us pray together, reason together, decide together, act together, always to the end that the truth prevail, that the will of the people be fully respected.

● There was fraudulence in conduct. ● It was a government in possession of power thus, it has the obligation to right the wrong. ● If the government does not correct the wrong then the people should take action but not in violent means.

● The means should be peaceful and in the manner of Christ. ● There were examples of “non-violent struggle for justice”.

Conclusion. These last few days have given us shining examples of the nonviolent struggle for justice we advocate here: • The thousands of NAMFREL workers and volunteers who risked their very lives to ensure clean and honest elections; • The COMELEC computer technicians who refused to degrade themselves by participating in election frauds. • The poll officials — registrars, teachers, government workers who did their duty without fear or favor; • The millions of ordinary voters who kept the sanctity of their ballot untarnished, their dignity intact. • Radio Veritas and fearless press people who spoke and reported the truth at all times.

Men and women of conscience, all. We cannot commend them highly enough.

● There was fraudulence in conduct. ● It was a government in possession of power thus, it has the obligation to right the wrong. ● If the government does not correct the wrong then the people should take action but not in violent means.

● The means should be peaceful and in the manner of Christ. ● There were examples of “non-violent struggle for justice”. ● It is time to repair the wrong systematically and that the bishops are

with the people in doing so.

There are thousands of their kind among government officials in the Batasan, the military, the COMELEC, among the millions of our people who in the face of overwhelming odds voted and acted as their conscience dictated. Are there other men and women of conscience who will stand up like them and courageously confess their Christianity?

Now is the time to speak up. Now is the time to repair the wrong. The wrong was systematically organized. So must its correction be. But as in the election itself, that depends fully on the people; on what they are willing and ready to do. We, the bishops, stand in solidarity with them in the common discernment for the good of the nation. But we insist: Our acting must always be according to the Gospel of Christ, that is, in a peaceful, non-violent way.

May He, the Lord of justice, the Lord of peace, be with us in our striving for that good. And may the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Queen of Peace, and patroness of our country, assist us in this time of need.

For the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines: (Sgd.)+RICARDO J. CARDINAL VIDAL Archbishop of Cebu President, CBCP February 13, 1986 Manila

People from all walks of life gather at EDSA to protect the mutineers.

Photo by: Pete Reyes

Extract of the Transcript of Press Conference by Defense minister Juan Ponce Enrile and Deputy Chief of Staff Fidel V. Ramos

External Criticism ● ● ●

●

Radio Transcript, February 22,1986 Released from Camp Aguinaldo, Quezon City The account was made during the Press Conference of Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile and Deputy Fidel V. Ramos. Primary Source

Internal Criticism ● ● ● ● ● ●

The author wrote informations that he hears from the press conference. This account or transcript was made on February 22,1986. The recipients of the account are the Filipino people. Yes, there is a bias for the filipino people. Yes Yes

Extract of the Transcript of Press Conference by Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile and Deputy Chief of Staff Fidel V. Ramos: On the resignation of Defense Minister Enrile and Deputy Chief of Staff Ramos, the order to arrest members of Lt. Col. Honasan’s Reform the Armed Forces Movement, the divide in the Armed Forces, and the possibility of a renewed proclamation of Martial Law [Released from Camp Aguinaldo, Quezon City, February 22, 1986]

Q: Good evening, sir. DEFENSE MINISTER JUAN PONCE ENRILE: How are you? Q: Good evening, sir. ENRILE: This evening, I do not know whether this will be a good evening, but anyway—gentlemen, we are ready to answer your questions. Q: Sir, is it true that the President has ordered your arrest? ENRILE: Well, I would prefer this by saying that there was an¬¬ information to round up members of the Reform Movement. And this afternoon, my boys came to my house and caused me to get out and come to this place because we might all be rounded up. I said information reached us that there was a supposed-to-be an effort to arrest all the members of the Reform Movement and this afternoon, some of my boys came to my house and asked me to move to Camp Aguinaldo because we have to group there because there is a possibility that we will all be rounded up. Q: Were you worried that your life is in dangers, sir?

ENRILE: I must preface your question that as far back as 1982, we have been getting persistent reports that there were efforts to eliminate us and the information was that they brought in some elements from Mindanao to undertake the job. And, it was at that point that we decided a group to protect ourselves. And, this is actually what is now known as the AFP Reform Movement. Q: How much of the military do you represent? How long do you intend to be here and what your demands will be?

ENRILE: Well, I do not know how long we will be here. It all depends upon the situation. I hope that the situation will come out better. If not, then, we will make a stand here. And, if we have to go down, all of us will have to go down. Q: Sir, are you fearful for your life? ENRILE: Well, we are in a camp and we have some people out there who might assault us. Q: A lot of troops are around the perimeter of the camp. Does that mean you’re controlling the General Headquarters of the army of the Philippines?

Q: Minister, what will your demands be? ENRILE: Well, we are in the Ministry of National Defense. As of now, I’m still the Minister of National Defense, and that is why I came here because we have no intention to harm anybody, but the fact is that there was a report that we are going to be arrested—all of us. And, if we are going to be arrested, we know what that means.

ENRILE: Well, we want that the will of the people must be respected. Q: [Inaudible]

Q: Would that include General Ramos and you?

ENRILE: Well, for myself, if I may say this, I believe that the mandate of the people does not belong to the present regime. And I know it is for a fact, that there had been some anomalies committed during the elections; and I search my conscience; and I felt that I could not serve a government that is not expressive of the sovereign will.

ENRILE: I think General Ramos.

Q: Did you have any contact with Mrs. Aquino?

DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FIDEL V. RAMOS : I am with Minister Enrile. And, the reason for my being here, ladies and gentlemen, is that because the Armed Forces of the Philippines has ceased to be the real Armed Forces of the Philippines which is supposed to be the defender of public safety and enforcer of the law and what has developed is that there has become an elite armed forces within the Armed Forces of the Philippines that no longer represents the rank and file and the officer corps of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.

ENRILE: We have not had any contact with Mrs. Aquino.

Q: Who is us, Sir? ENRILE: The members of the Reform Movement.

Q: Mr. Minister, what are your demands going to be? Will you stay here until Mr. Ver steps out? Will you stay here until Mr. Marcos steps out? ENRILE: [To General Ramos] Are you resigning? Did you resign? I was going to tender my resignation on Monday. Q: Irrevocable?

ENRILE: Yes, I can no longer serve the government.

ENRILE: No, I did not. I did not discuss this with anybody.

Q: How about you, General Ramos? Did you tender an irrevocable resignation?

Q: Are you saying that you no longer recognize President Marcos as President?

RAMOS: I have tendered my offer of retirement on many occasions. But, at the moment as the chief of the Constabulary and Integrated National Police as well as the Vice-Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, I would like to direct the troops under my command as well as all other elements of the Armed Forces of the Philippines that are professional-minded, that are dedicated to the military service—in the sense of the military service being the protector of the people—the defender of public safety, and the enforcers of the law in our country, to be with me as well as the Minister of National Defense, in our effort to bring about a more normal situation where our people once more can live freely and pursue the aspirations that they have in life.

ENRILE: As of now, I cannot in conscience recognize the President as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. And, I am appealing to my brother-members of the Cabinet to head the will of the people expressed during the last election. Because in my own region, I know that we cheated the elections to the extent of 350,000 votes.

Q: Is the Army and Navy and Air Force against you? ENRILE: Well, not quite. We have some friendly forces in the Navy, Army and Air Force, even the Marines. Q: [Inaudible]

Q: Are you going to stay and serve under Mrs. Aquino? ENRILE: No, I will not. I will not serve under Mrs. Aquino even if she is installed as the president. I do not know whether she can be installed as a president. But, I am talking of a country and people, and not men. Our loyalty is to the Constitution, to the Filipino people, to our country. And, I am calling on all decent elements in the government, the decent Filipinos, and the decent soldiers and officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines who are trained to respect the Constitution, and to protect the welfare of this nation and its people, to wake up and support this movement.

Q: General Ramos, will you recognize Marcos as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces?

Q: Have you heard of any plans against Cory Aquino or the opposition? ENRILE: No. What plans are you asking?

RAMOS: I think the President of 1986 is not the same President that we used to know before to whom we pledged our loyalty and to whom we dedicated our service. But, it is clear that he no longer is the able and capable Commander-in-Chief that we count upon because he has put his personal interest—his family interest. I would like to appeal likewise as Minister Enrile has done to the fair-minded, to the dedicated, and people-oriented members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Integrated National Police to join us in this crusade for better government. I would like to appeal to our personnel in the thirteen regions of this country, however, to avoid any bloodshed; to maintain calm, and be able to influence the people’s power in our country to support this appeal of Minister Enrile and myself, because…

ENRILE: You know, we realized the gravity of the situation as far as our lives our concerned, and if it should come to pass that we will lose our lives in this particular moment, we will gladly do it in the service of our people and our nation for that is the oath that we have taken when we entered the public service. It is our duty to see to it that the sovereign will of the Filipino people expressed through the ballot must be respected.

Q: The same way they did to you, that they are going to arrest you… ENRILE: I do not know whether there is any such plan, but I heard that there was a meeting in Malacañang sometime two weeks ago. I think there where some members of the—some generals were present and there was a plan to arrest all the leaders of the opposition, in fact, even some members of the Parliament. And in fact, I just talked to the RUC Commander from the South and I understand certain, some hit men or hit list, directed against UNIDP leaders have been prepared. And, I do not know why this thing is happening in this country. Q: Can you tell us, sir, what you know about the cheating during the last election—what you personally know about? ENRILE: In my region, the President obtained 233,000 margin in Cagayan. In Isabela, he got 164,000 votes. In Kalinga, Apayao, he barely made it. In Quirino—I do not know the results there. He lost in Ifugao and in Batanes. I am bothered by my conscience that we have done this to our people. Because under the Constitution, powers of government are supposed to emanate from the sovereign will of our people, and yet, we do not respect the will of our people. The question that I asked myself before I came before you is: Is it worth living to serve a government that does not really represent the will of the people?

Q: Mr. Minister, are you willing to accept the authority of Mrs. Aquino as president? ENRILE: I am not making any conclusion, whoever is considered by the Filipino people to be representative of their will must be respected. Q: Is coup d’etat a part of your options? ENRILE: We never had any plans to stage a coup d’etat. What we are doing is to defend ourselves against an assault that is quite imminent and apparent. Q: How can the situation be resolved? ENRILE: I do not know. It is only the President who can resolve this. RAMOS: I am willing to dialogue with the President, ladies and gentlemen, to express the feelings of those in the Armed Forces of the Philippines. And in fact, that is my primary and only approach.

ENRILE: They can kill all of us here. We are all gathered in this holding and in this camp, but the blood that they will shed will be the blood of Filipinos who love their country more than any man. And, we are not here to serve a man but to serve a republic and a people. Q: Sir, how many are you in here? ENRILE: I cannot tell you our number. Q: General Ramos, have you ordered your troops to come and get you? RAMOS: I am only appealing to the troops now to do what is right by the Constitution and to do what is right under our laws. And, I would like once more to address an appeal to the Commander-in-Chief to allow us to peacefully negotiate and talk to him. I have transmitted to the President in many occasions in writing as well as face-to-face conversation the feelings of the smaller as well as my humble perceptions of the worsening situation in our country. But as you will know, he has largely ignored these appeals and he has not acted on the very serious problems that confront the country today insofar as peace and order are concerned.

ENRILE: The Armed Forces of the Philippines is no longer the armed forces of the Filipino people as it should be. There is already an attitude on the part of some people that they own the Armed Forces of the Philippines; they own the country; they own everybody. The say that General Ver was retired on Sunday only to be reinstated again; only to be retired again, and they announced General Ramos to be an Acting Chief of Staff but there is a secret order saying that the Chief of Staff must continue until such time that they will announce his retirement. We can no longer live under this condition. This is no longer a civilized country if this is the way we are running our affairs.

Q: How does Mrs. Marcos figure in this trouble?

Q: [Inaudible]

ENRILE: I do not know. I have not talked to her.

ENRILE: If they will kill us, I think they will find that the situation in the land will no longer be governable.

Q: Mr. Minister, what can you say about the presence of US military warships here?

Q: When you talk with the President, you and General Ramos, will you ask that he step down…

ENRILE: I do not know why they are here. Q: Minister Enrile, in this situation where the two of you are holed up in a building with a certain number of men around you, are you causing a split in the military right now? ENRILE: I think right now, we have a split in the military. Q: May we have the names of the commanders of major services who are against you?

ENRILE: I think the commanders of the armed services are all with the President and I suppose they have to serve him. But, we are confident that the decent elements in the ranks, in the lower ranks, will know how to deal with the situation. If they will fire their guns against us, so be it, but we have committed this final act in order to bring to the world and to our Filipino people that the sad situation in the country is now coming to pass. And, the day of reckoning is now approaching.

ENRILE: I think we should respect the will of the people. Personally, I believe that the President did not win this election. He was proclaimed by the Batasan in a hasty manner. And, I felt embarrassed when I was sitting there watching the proceedings. I had to raise my hand to show that I voted for him, but inside me, it bothered me that I had raised my hand. And, I am sorry to say this because I had served him well over the years, but I am a Filipino over and above anything else. Q: Will you call on the people to support you and General Ramos? Will you ask that he step down… ENRILE: It’s up to them, if they want to support us. We are here to take a stand. If anyone of us will be killed—I think all of us must be killed.

Q: Sir, has there been any communication with the other provinces? Do they know what is happening now? ENRILE: No, we have not communicated with them, but I talked to several military commanders and they feel that the situation must be handled because we cannot split the Armed Forces of the Philippines. Q: With this development, will the President proclaim martial law? ENRILE: I do not know what he will do. I am not privy to his thinking at this moment. Q: What can you say if the President proclaims Martial Law? ENRILE: Well, if they will arrest us, we are willing to be arrested if they will arrest us. After all, martial law has never really left us. Q: Will you resist the Proclamation of Martial Law? ENRILE: I will. I will because it is going to be against the interests of our people. I think that it will just be a matter of time before the outbreak of violence if the President will miscalculate the situation. Q: Mr. Minister, will you resist arrest? ENRILE: I will cross the bridge when I come to it.

PEOPLE POWER. People start gathering in EDSA in the evening of Feb 22, 1986, when then Vice Chief of Staff Fidel Ramos and Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile announced their withdrawal from the Marcos government.

Photo by: Romeo Mariano

Minister of Defense Juan Ponce Enrile (right) and General Fidel Ramos announced their break from the Marcos administration in a press conference at the Ministry office in the evening of Saturday, Feb. 22, 1986. The move caught everyone by surprise. (Photo by Peter Charlesworth)

Ang Bayan Ko Lyrics: Jose Corazon de Jesus and Music: Constancio de Guzman.

External Criticism

●

● ●

The poem-lyrics was published and compiled in Jose Corazon de Jesus' book, Mga Dahong Ginto (1920) in Malolos library and in Halimuyak: Katipunan ng mga Piling Tula ni Jose Corazon de Jesus, edited by Antonio B. Valeriano, 1979. Originally written by General Jose Alejandrino then translated by Jose Corazon de Jesus. Language: Tagalog

Internal Criticism How close was the author to the event being studied? The author, Jose Corazon de Jesus was and lived in the Philippines during the era of the America. How was the account made? Bayan ko was composed by Jose Corazon de Jesus as a poem in 1928, the purpose was to campaign for the independence from the reign of America in the Philippines. Who was the recipient of the account? The Filipinos was the recipient of the account.

Is there bias to be accounted for? No, because it was written based on historical facts.

Does informed common sense make the account probable? Yes.

Is the account corroborated by other account? Bayan ko or Nuestra Patria was originally written in Spanish for Severino Reyes Zarzuela, “walang sugat” in 1989. It was written by General Jose Alejandrino to expressed opposition against the ongoing American occupation in the Philippines.

Jose Corazon de Jesus (Huseng Batute) •November 22 1896 – May 26 1932

•A poet that writes poem that shows opposition against the American Government in the Philippines. •His first work is “Pangungulila” when he was 17, and among his famous works are AngPusoKo, Ang Pamana, Ang Panday, Ang Manok Kong Bulik, Ang Pagbabalik, and Sa Halamanan ng Dios ay madalas basahin sa mga unibersidad at kolehiyo. •King of balagtasan

Bayan Ko by Jose Corazon de Jesus Ang bayan kong Pilipinas,

Ibon mang may layang lumipad,

lupain ng ginto’t bulaklak.

kulungin mo at umiiyak!

Pag-ibig ang sa kaniyáng palad

Bayan pa kayáng sakdal-dilag,

nag-alay ng ganda't dilág.

ang ‘di magnasang makaalpas?

At sa kaniyáng yumi at ganda,

Pilipinas kong mimutya,

dayuhan ay nahalina.

pugad ng luhá ko’t dalita,

Bayan ko, binihag ka,

aking adhika:

nasadlak sa dusa.

makita kang sakdal laya!

José Cándido Alejandrino y Magdangal •December 1, 1870 – June 1, 1951 •Filipino General during the Spanish and American War •Member of the propaganda movement and a contributor to La Solidaridad

Nuestra Patria by Gen. Jose Alejandrino Nuestra Patria Filipina,

Aún el ave libre en su volar,

cuya tierra es de oro y púrpura.

llora cuando en la jaula está,

Tantos tesoros guarda en su lar

cuanto más nuestra Patria de amor

que tientan al hurtador.

al verse sin paz ni dignidad.

Y es por eso que el anglosajón,

Filipinas de mi corazón,

con vil traición la subyuga;

tus hijos jamás permitirán

Patria mía en prisión,

que así te robe

sacúdete del traidor.

tu bienestar y libertad.

STORMING THE PALACE. Upon hearing news that Marcos left the country, people storm the gates of the Malacañan Palace on February 25, 1986. Anger was replaced by joy and renewed hope for a better life. Photo by: Romeo Mariano