THE CONTINUING CRISIS

by Aaron F. San JoseHISTORY OF THE FILIPINO PEOPLE: CHAPTER 26

Diosdado Pangan Macapagal

• September 28, 1910 – April 21, 1997

• Born and raised in Lubao, Pampanga

• 6th Vice-President (1957 – 1961)

• 9th President of the Philippines (1961 – 1965)

• 5th President of the Third Republic

1961 National Election

ELECTIONNOISE

VULGARITY

MUD-SLINGING

EXPENSENovember 14, 1961

Candidate PartyResults

Votes %

Diosdado Macapagal Liberal 3,554,840 55.05%

Carlos P. Garcia Nacionalista 2,902,996 44.95%

Alfredo Abcede Federal 7

0.00%

German P. Villanueva Independent 2

Gregorio L. Llanza Independent 2

Praxedes Floro Independent 0

Valid votes 6,457,817 95.8%

Invalid votes 280,988 4.2%

Votes cast 6,738,805 79.4%

Registered voters 8,483,568 100.00%

What Infuriated the People?

CAUSE

Hoarding and black-marketing

of rice

Natural calamities that affected rice

production

Macapagal’s Socio-Economic Program

Immediate restoration of economic stability

Alleviating the plight of the common man

Establishing a dynamic basic for future growth

GOALS

Macapagal’s Socio-Economic Program

OBJECTIVES1. The solution of the problem of unemployment;

2. The attainment of self-sufficiency in the staple food of ourpeople, namely, rice and corn;

3. The creation of conditions that will provide more income toour people – income for those who have none and moreincome for those whose earnings are inadequate for theirelemental needs;

Macapagal’s Socio-Economic Program

4. The establishment of practices that will strengthen the moralfiber of our nation and reintroduce those values that wouldinvigorate our democracy; and

5. The launching of a bold but well-formulated socio-economicprogram that shall place the country on the road to prosperityfor all our people.

OBJECTIVES

Macapagal’s Socio-Economic Program

• Macapagal promoted “honesty, uprightness and simpleliving.”

• But people realized that simple living was only meant forthose who could not afford three meals a day.

The “Midnight” Appointments

• Carlos P. Garcia appointed 200 of his and his fellowers’protégés to important positions in government.

• Former Secretary of Finance Dominador Aytona as CentralBank Governor

but Macapagal countered by replacing him with hisown man, Andres Castillo and both appointees held office.

The “Midnight” Appointments

• January 2, 1962 – Philippine Constabulary Rangers besiegedthe Central Bank building “to throw out Aytona”, as called inby Castillo through the courtesy of National Defense, MacarioPeralta.

• Then, Aytona filed with the SC an appeal for the issuance of awrit of prohibition and mandamus with preliminaryinjunction to pull out Castillo from his position

The “Midnight” Appointments

• In another decision involving Garcia’s appointee to theReforestation Administration, Commision on Appointments:(1) declared null and void the House of Representatives’resolution reorganizing its membership in the Commissionwithout the concurrence of the Nacionalista members of thechamber; and

The “Midnight” Appointments

• (2) declared illegal Macapagal’s ad interim appointment ofJorge Tan, Jr. as deputy administrator of the ReforestationAdministration and consequently ordered Tan to vacate theposition and turn it over to Garcia’s appointee.

The “Midnight” Appointments

• EFFECTS:

POSITIVE NEGATIVE

Established the reputation of the SC

as the bulwak of democracy and the

rule of law

State of confusion; endangered political

animosity

L OH NLI ETS

S HL INE LTO

S LI HOE LNT

S IH LEN LOT

The Stonehill Controversy

• Harry S. Stonehill – an American

expatriate with a $50-million

business empire in the Philippines.

The Stonehill Controversy

• March 3, 1962 – Secretary of Justice Jose W. Diokno orderedthe NBI to raid the offices of the Industrial and BusinessCorporation on San Luis Street (now Teodoro M. Kalaw St.)

• Stonehill with his associates, John L. and Robert P. Brookswere arrested due to charges of bribery, tax evasion,smuggling, misdeclaration of imports, blackmail, influencepeddling, economic sabotage and corruption of publicofficials.

The Stonehill Controversy

• Seized during the raids were “enormous amounts of cash anda large quantity of assorted documents which could havefilled three six-by-six trucks. The government agents alsoconfiscated electronic devices, which included telephone-tapping instruments, tape-recording machines, a walkie-talkieand a telephone-jamming device.” – Filemon V. Tutay, “TheStonehill Case,” Philippine Free Press, July 20, 1963, p. 4.

The Stonehill Controversy

• Blue Book – a small orange book containing the names ofpersons (some congressmen, senators, cabinet members,newspapermen and other high government officials) in andoutside the government, who allegedly received various sumsfrom Stonehill.

The Stonehill Controversy

• Instead of having trials, Stonehill’s case was dismissed andsubject to deportation and Diokno was relieved byMacapagal.

The Stonehill Controversy

• “With the Stonehill precedent, any influential alien couldcommit crime in the Philippines and then escape punishmentby agreeing to be deported. It is very strange that PresidentMacapagal is unduly anxious to place Mr. Stonehill beyondthe reach and control of Philippine courts and congressionalauthorities.” –Senator Arturo M. Tolentino

The Stonehill Controversy

• "How can the government now prosecute the corruptedwhen it has allowed the corrupter to go?“ –Secretary Jose W.Diokno

Independence Day: June 12

• 6 months after his election, he had his Executive Ordershifting the Philippine Independence from July 4 to June 12(as in 1989, the Declaration of Philippine Independence wasread at Kawit, Cavite)

• Republic Act No. 2166 – 1964

The Land Reform Code

• Macapagal savored calling himself the "Poor boy from Lubao”and seen poverty and peasant degradation. He saw the needof radical changes in the economic and social status ofpeasants.

The Land Reform Code

Per Year

78.4% earn less than Php2,000 17.1% earn less than Php5,000

AGRICULTURAL AREA NON-AGRICULTURAL AREA

6.4 million people 4.5 million people

The Land Reform Code

Percentage of Employment

Employed

Unemployed

8.2 million

3 million

The Land Reform Code

• It delineates the policy of the State as follows:

1. To establish owner-cultivatorship and the economic family-size farm as the basis of Philippine agriculture, and as aconsequence, divert landlord capital in agriculture toindustrial development;

2. To achieve a dignified existence for the small farmers freefrom pernicious institutional restraints and practices;

The Land Reform Code

3. To create a truly viable social and economic structure inagriculture conducive to greater productivity and higher farmincomes;

4. To apply all labor laws equally and without discrimination toboth industrial and agricultural wage earners;

5. To provide a more vigorous and systematic land resettlementprogram and public land distribution; and

The Land Reform Code

6. To make the small farmers more independent, self-reliant andresponsible citizens, and a source of genuine strength in ourdemocratic society.

The Land Reform Code

• Republic Act No. 3844 – August 8, 1963– provided for the purchase of private farmlands with the intention of

distributing them in small lots to the landless tenants on easy termof payment.

– It abolished tenancy and established a leasehold system in whichfarmers paid fixed rentals to landlords, rather than a percentage ofharvest. It also established the Land Bank of the Philippines to helpwith land reform, particularly the purchase of agricultural estates fordivision and resale to small landholders, and the purchase of land bythe agricultural lessee.

Initial Results

• Macapagal’s program was encouraging.

• Plaridel, Bulakan – first land reform area

The overwhelming bulk of Plaridel respondents in a Robot-Gallup survey showed that land reform in their view had materially improved local living conditions

-Manila Times

Initial Results

• January 1966 – Macapagal’s second SONA (he said that hewould implement the law)

• Land reform projects totaled 29,000 ha., an insignificantnumber compared with 940, 591 ha. being worked by420,000 palay and corn share-tenants.

Initial Results

• Land Bank provided for by the LRC to finance the program butonly good on paper.

• 1966 – Marcos ordered the sale of six government propertiesto raise something like P50,000,000 to start the Land Bank.

1965 National Election

• People perceived that the Macapagal administration wasinept due to continued rise in the prices of consumer goods,insoluble problems of peace and order, graft and corruptionand smuggling of goods.

• Macapagal could not convince that his friends had cleanhands and people suspected him for tolerating graft andcorruption.

1965 National Election

• In 1961, Macapagal gave way to Marcos by not running forreelection in 1965 so he would support him but changed hismind so he could continue still the Land Reform and for theroyal powers of Malakanyang in his hands.

1965 National Election

• This is the dirtiest, noisiest, longest, most expensive and mostvicious of all political campaigns in the Philippines.

Mudslinging

Fact-twistingChicanery

Money flowed like spring waterBack-stabbing

1965 National Election

• Rumors had it that:

– Marcos was the fair-haired boy of the American Department ofDefense

– Macapagal – fair-haired boy of the Department of State

– Raul Manglapus – candidate of the Catholic hierarchy of thePhilippines

1965 National Election

• This election was also a contest of personalities and politicalgimmickry.

• Some Filipinos stake their lives on their candidates notbecause they love the politicos but their future economicstability depends on the victory of their candidates.

1965 National Election

• Iglesia ni Kristo was accused of supporting Marcos and otherpolitical candidates which was violation of the Constitutionprohibiting any church from interfering with the affairs ofstate.

• Catholics were divided into two camps: Macapagal andManglapus supporters – which led to confusion in Catholicsector.

Candidate PartyResults

Votes %

Ferdinand Marcos Nacionalista 3,861,324 51.94%

Liberal 3,187,752 42.88%

Raul Manglapus Progressive 384,564 5.17%

Gaudencio Bueno New Leaf 199

0.01%

Aniceto A. Hidalgo NLP 156

Segundo B. Baldovi Partido ng Bansa 139

Nic V. GarcesPeople’s Progressive Democratic

130

German F. Villanueva Independent 106

Guillermo M. Mercado Labor 27

Antonio Nicolas Jr. Allied 27

Blandino P. RuanPhilippine Pro-Socialist

6

Praxedes Floro Independent 1

Valid votes 7,434,431 97.7%

Invalid votes 175,620 2.3%

Votes cast 7,610,051 76.4%

Registered voters 9,962,345 100.00%

1965 National Election

• Macapagal lost the election from the first counting.

• Manglapus made a very poor showing – a fact which provesthe so-called Catholic votes a myth.

S

T

L

N

OC

E

OI

O R

C

R

O

N

SL

O

IO

T E

I

T

O

R

OC

O

SL

N E

I

N

S

R

OC

O

OL

T E

Ferdinand Emmanuel Edralin Marcos

• September 11, 1917 – September 28, 1989

• Born in Sarrat, Ilocos Norte

• 10th President of the Philippines (

• December 30, 1965 – February 25, 1986)

• 11th President of the Senate of the Philippines

• (April 5, 1963 – December 30, 1965)

Intriguing Facts About Marcos

He was baptized in Aglipayan church

Intriguing Facts About Marcos

He changed religion in order to marry Imelda in a Catholic church

Intriguing Facts About Marcos

He was a memory whiz

Intriguing Facts About Marcos

He bought the Kalayaan Island in

Spratlys for 1 peso.

Intriguing Facts About Marcos

He launched the first Philippine-made

rocket

Marcos Program

• January 24, 1966 – Marcos admitted that the country was in crisis.

Today, I come to Congress as a partner in a great enterprise. –Marcos

Daily Income of Government Expenditure

P4 million P6 million

Marcos Program

• By the end of 1965 – the cash position of governmentdecreased by P228 million.

• Philippine National Bank was nearly bankrupt: its unpaidloans to government corporations amounted more than P400million.

• Development Bank of the Philippines lost more than P5million in 1965

Marcos Program

• Marcos admitted candidly “The crime clock indicates murderand homicide every hour, theft every 30 minutes, roberryevery hour, sexual offenses, estafa and falsification every 2hours.”

• There were 80,000 pending criminal cases in courts.

Marcos Program

• Program Objectives:

1. Self-sufficiency in the production of rice and thediversification of crops;

2. Implementation of the land reform program; and

3. Intensification of the community development program inorder to “strengthen further our social, economic andpolitical base.”

Marcos Program

• To attain these objectives, he proposed the enactment ofthe law to:

1. Adjust to more realistic and rewarding levels the floor of thegovernment buying price for rice and corn;

2. Provide legislative authority to borrow funds abroad tofinance the construction of irrigation systems;

3. Recognize governmental agricultural agencies to achieve areduction in operational costs in order to attain efficiencyand maximum coordination in all levels of governmentalplanning and implementation.

The Vietnam Aid Law

• The most acrimonious controversy that arose during the firstyear and a half of Marcos’ administration.

• Before the end of his term in 1965, President Macapagalpersuaded Congress to send troops to South Vietnam.However this proposal was blocked by the opposition led bySenate President Marcos who deserted Macapagal's LiberalParty and defected to the Nacionalista Party.

The Vietnam Aid Law

• April 23, 1964 – “More Flags” Program by Lyndon Johnson

• Mid 1966 – PHILCAG (Philippines Civic Action Group)

– 1966 – 1970 – 10,000 Filipino soldiers

– 1968 – 1,600 troops

• House of Senate (controlled by Liberal Party) in 1965supported the law; House of Senate (Nacionalistas) declined.

The Vietnam Aid Law

• After inauguration as president, Marcos reversed his plans.

• “Anti” arguments:

1. the Constitution renounces war as an instrument of nationalpolicy, and so the sending of a military contingent to SouthVietnam was tantamount to an act of war;

2. the country was, and is still, too poor to waste P35,000,000 ayear to support the battalion to be sent to South Vietnam;

3. the money could be better spent in constructing irrigationsystems to increase the rice yield and in constructing schoolhouses and roads;

The Vietnam Aid Law

• “Anti” arguments:

4. the war in South Vietnam was, and still, an American war andthat the Philippines had and has, no business meddling in theinternal affairs of another country; and

5. the United States wanted the Philippines to join the war inorder to show the world that the war in Vietnam was and still isnot a racial war (the white American waging a relentless waragainst the colored Vietnam people), but a war for thepreservation of democracy in Southeast Asia; hence the entryofthe Philippines in the war.

The Vietnam Aid Law

• “Pros” arguments:

• The Philippines should help extinguish the communist fire in aneighboring country before it reached the Philippines

• The newspapers and magazines called the pros “Hawks” andthe antis “Doves”

• July 14, 1966 – Marcos signed the bill into a law.

Deterioration of Peace and Order

• Daily, newspapers publish in screaming headlines cases of

murderrape

homicide robbery

holdup smuggling

mayhem

Deterioration of Peace and Order

• Law officers become involve in many crimes includingbrutalities against peaceful citizens.

• Police brutalities led to formation of group of eminentlawyers (April 1967) Citizens Legal Assistance Committee toprotect the rights of the victims of abuse and brutality toaccuse and to testify against gangsters in police uniforms.

C MAS ESR A

C SMA AER S

M RAC SSA E

M CAS ESA R

Deterioration of Peace and Order

• Culatingan Massacre – Bo. Culatingan, Concepcion, Tarlac

– June 13, 1966, early morning hours

– 5 out of 7 farmers, accused as Huk members, were shot at the backby 3 Philippine Constabulary operatives; 2 escaped.

• The Constabulary said in a press release that the farmerswere Huks who fought a running battle with them.

Deterioration of Peace and Order

• The vice-mayor of Culatingan swore that the people killedwere peaceful farmers and some of them fought against Huksin 1949.

• Despite being unproved, Marcos promoted the operatives.

• Philippine Free Press, Weekly Graphic and newspapermenbelieved that the massacre was unjustified.

• The fevered indignation that followed the announcement ofthe promotion in rank of the Constabulary operatives led theDefense Department to recall the promotion.

Deterioration of Peace and Order

• The Culatingan Massacre was similar to Maliwalu and Masicomassacres perpetuated by government agents at the heightof the Huk rebellion in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s.

“Let the government show it cares about the farmer andhe will care about his government, will pick up that gunand fight off the subversive.”

– Tarlac Gov. Benigno Aquino, Jr.

Deterioration of Peace and Order

• Lapiang Malaya Massacre – May 21, 1967

Deterioration of Peace and Order

• The two massacres underscored the failure of thegovernment to understand the economic and social causes ofmass discontent – that a mentally sick man could commandthe respect and loyalty of men and women from differentprovinces in the Philippines, show the extent of thegovernment to provide for the poor and illiterate people, withfreedom of fear and hunger.

Deterioration of Peace and Order

• Marcos’ answer to Huk resurgence was a combination of themailed-fist policy and socio-economic program geared to therehabilitation of the Central Luzon peasants, later calledCentral Luzon Development Program

• Luis Taruc and Dr. Jesus Lava (former Huk leaders) suggestedto Marcos the amnesty of Huks.

Deterioration of Peace and Order

• Comm. Sumulong was also in favor of amnesty for the Huksbut he emphasized that:

(1) The social reforms promised by Marcos must be carried outfaithfully and sincerely; and

(2) The Huks who would surrender must be treated as humanbeings and after their surrender they must be protected by thegovernment in such a way that nobody would take advantage oftheir helplessness.

The Huk Resurgence

• Dr. Jesus Lava’s was captured (last “brains of the original Huk)

• 1965 – Huk stragglers began to show signs of life.

–Alibasbas (Cesareo Manarang) & Sumulong (Faustino delMundo) succedded in recruiting followers.

–Graft and corruption, smuggling, carabao rustling, crimesinvolving law agents and critical socio-economic conditionsled desperate peasants and people to join the Hukmovement.

The Huk Resurgence

• Even landlords established friendly relations with Huks who offered them protection from robbers, rustlers and abusive agents of the law, in exchange for cash or rice.

• For a time, there was a government within a government in Central Luzon, a situation brought about by the failure of the government to protect the life and property of peaceful and law-abiding citizens.

The Huk Resurgence

• Marcos noticed that the Constabulary and Army were in goodterms with the Huks so he warned everybody againstfraternizing with the Huks.

• Anti-Huk Mayors’ League – included town mayors ofPampanga. The Huks killed its president to challenge Marcos.

• Units of the Army and Constabulary of 1,000 armed men ranafter and machine-gunned Commander Delio’s house (allegedleader) in Candaba, but he escaped without their knowledge.

The Huk Resurgence

• Due to political campaigns in 1965, particularly in Pampangaand Tarlac, made Huks roam freely.

• Constabulary and Army officers were alleged to have liaisonwith the Huks under Comm. Alibasbas to help in campaigningMacapagal for re-election. But after Macapagal’s defeat,Alibasbas was murdered as ordered by the Constabulary oprevent him from exposing the politicking.

The Huk Resurgence

• The Congress sent its Senate Committee on National Defenseand Security led by Senator Manuel Manahan to the Hukterritory to study the efficacy of Marcos’ program. After 2months of intensive study, the Committee concluded that;

(1) The Central Luzon Development Program does not have itsown financing. It operates on the existing appropriations ofthe participating agencies which have been directed toconcentrate about 30% of their resources on Central Luzon;

The Huk Resurgence

(2) The only real function of the CLDP is to coordinate thefunctions of the agencies involved in the program;

(3) The CLDP is co-terminus with the Marcos administration…Thus, significant projects started by the CLDP may bediscontinued by succeeding administrations.

The Huk Resurgence

• RESULT:

–Marcos’ program did not appreciably change the pitiablecondition of the rural folk for the better.

The Manila “Summit”

• September 1966 – Pres. and Imelda Marcos went to the USfor a state visit, “not to beg”.

• All post-war Filipino presidents from Roxas to Marcos wereinvited for a pilgrimage, except Macapagal

• September 27 – while in Honolulu otw to Japan, Marcosannounced for a meeting of “Summit” in Manila in order tosolve the Vietnam problem.

The Manila “Summit”

• The only invited were those who had sent soldiers to Vietnamto fight with American soldiers – for material considerations.

• Pres. Johnson – the brains behind the “Summit” meeting.From “Asian Summit” it was changed to “Manila Summit” dueto criticisms at home and abroad.

The Manila “Summit”

• It was first put to date on October 28 but it was moved toOctober 24 and 25.

• Invited were Thailand, Australia, New Zealand, South Vietnamand South Korea.

The Manila “Summit”

• A six-point agenda was announced by Marcos:

(1) A review of the proposals for peace talks on the war in SouthVietnam;

(2) Evaluation in case of the rejection of these proposals by NorthVietnam;

(3) An assessment of the resistance and subversion in South Vietnam;

(4) A review and discussion of the economic stabilization andrehabilitation of South Vietnam;

(5) A discussion of political problems of South Vietnam; and

(6) A peaceful settlement of the war in Vietnam

The Manila “Summit”

• October 24 – first day of “Summit”, Marocs, in a conciliatorytone, told the chiefs of state in conferences assembled:

It will not do for any of the parties to be rigidly inflexible – tomake patently impossible demands and encourage clearlyunrealizable expectations. The posture of self-righteousness isinimical to a just and honorable solution. Herstures ofconciliation on the part of one side must immediately bematched by equivalent gestures from the other. But this has nothappened. The first requisite of agreement is to deescalate thewar of words.

The Manila “Summit”

• Marcos’ conciliatiory tone, viewed by the context of theVietnam situation was a success as an oratory, but a failure inthe sense that his peaceful proposal was viewed by theNational Liberation Front (political arm of Viet Cong) as afarce for the use of word “must.”

• Moreover, the NLF wanted the withdrawal of American troops fromVietnam as a sini qua non for talking peace, because the Americanswere the aggressors afterall who occupied the Vietnamese soil.

The “Summit” Documents

• The meeting at Malakanyang was a secret but “inside stories”leaked out – said that Johnson acted as a “big boss calling theshots,” and pounding the oval desk several times using “Youfolks,” “You boys” and “You fellows” which were expressionsof condescension.

• At one point he pounded the oval desk and said: If you have abetter diplomat than Dean Rusk or a better treaty writer thanHarriman, and if you can produce better proposals than wehave, then, I will follow you.”

The “Summit” Documents

The American president further told the Philipines andSouth Korea that “you cannot sit in the rocking chair” whileAmerican soldiers are dying in Vietnam. During the first day ofthe closed-door sessions, the proceedings were taped. On thesecond day – after President Johnson had spoken sharp words –the tape recorders were removed on request of the Americandelegation. American security officers are now looking for therecorded tapes. –”Check and Balance” by Amando E. Doronilla,Daily Column, Oct. 27, 1966

The “Summit” Documents

• When Marcos read the first draft of the communiqué, heexploded: “This is not a peace proposal, this is an ultimatum. Icannot sign this communiqué. I’d rather call of the Summit,wreck the Summit than sign it. it is provocative.”

The “Summit” Documents

• 3 documents

1. A joint communiqué;

2. A declaration on peace and progress in Asia and the Pacific;and

3. The goals of freedom

1. A Joint Communiqué

• It was a resume of discussions – minus the arrogant words ofJohnson – of the seven nations, with emphasis on conditionson South Vietnam, economic stability and progress, politicalevolution, the search for peace, cessation of aggression andcontinuing consultation among the participating nations.

2. Declaration on Peace and Progress in Asia and the Pacific

• May be described as ideals devoutly to be wished:

(1) Aggression must not succeed;

(2) We must break the bonds of poverty, illiteracy and disease;

(3) We must strengthen economic, social and culturalcooperation within the Asian and Pacific region; and

(4) We must seek reconciliation of peace throughout Asia

3. The Goals of Freedom

• It contained a commitment:

(1) To be free from aggression;

(2) To conquer hunger, illiteracy and diseases;

(3) To build a region of security, order and progress;

(4) To seek reconciliation and peace throughout Asia and thePacific.

The “Summit” Documents

• Though, these can only be achieved through hard work, self-reliance, honesty and integrity of the rulers and people ofAsia. No amount of money poured by the US into anyunderdeveloped Asian nation can make it progressive – ifthose who rule are corrupt, inept, unprincipled,opportunistic and greedy.

The “Summit” Documents

• Marcos inserted a phrase in section 3 of the first draft ofcommuniqué.

The “Summit” Documents

• It was he who insisted in inserting the phrase “and all otherefforts”, which, in the context, means not military but socialand economic aid to South Vietnam.

• He also inserted that any Philippine effort to increase her aidto South Vietnam shall be subject to constitutional andcongressional action.

The “Summit” Documents

• The section 4 of communiqué was clearly a belligerent stanceof the “summiteers.”

The “Summit” Documents

• The “summiteers” were having difficulty convincingthemselves that the North Vietnamese were the realaggressors for they, under the leadership of US, fight for theVietnamese soil and with Americans.

• Their demand that the North Vietnam surrender first beforethe “summiteers” would talk peace.

The “Summit” Documents

• The terms “North Vietnam” and “South Vietnam” are artificialand temporary, as expressly provided in the GenevaAgreement of 1954, the dividing line between the two sectors(not states) being the 17th parallel.

• Also under the agreement was an election in Vietnam in 1956in order to allow the Vietnamese people to exercise the rightof self-determination.

The “Summit” Documents

• The US propped up Ngo Dinh Diem to antagonize theVietnamese people and the Viet Cong until she find himuseless for her purpose and assassinated him with theknowledge of the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)

• No election was held in Vietnam since 1956 owing mainly toAmerican intervention.

The “Summit” Documents

• Former US Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower candidly admitted thathad there been an election, the communists under Ho ChiMinh would have won hands down. Hence, the Americanintervention in Vietnamese affairs.

• This explains why the Johnson administration had to persuadeher client nations in SEA to call the Manila “Summit”conference in order to make American intervention in purelyVietnamese affairs less unpalatable to American, as well as toAsian and European, critics.

The “Summit” Documents

• Liberal-minded Americans deplored the Americanmisadventure in South Vietnam and the American bombing –especially the use of napalm and other deadly weapons – ofthe helpless North Vietnamese, military as well as civilians,even as the Manila “Summit” was parading around the doveof peace.

The October 24 Anti-”Summit” Demonstration

• During the “Summit” preparation, preparation against it werealso being made by the students of Manila and the suburbsunder the leadership of those enrolled at UP and Lyceum ofthe Philippines.

• Teach-ins were conducted to acquaint everybody’s interest.

The October 24 Anti-”Summit” Demonstration

• October 24, 1966 (late afternoon) – no less than 3,000students and members of the nationalistic KabataangMakabayan protested before the American Embassy andlater, in front of Mania Hotel, where president L.B. Johnsonwas billeted.

• Then, Manila and Quezon City policemen readied themselvesagainst the peaceful and unarmed students.

The October 24 Anti-”Summit” Demonstration

• The polices got “advise” from American security agents:

–QC policemen stopped 18 buses loaded with UP studentsto prevent them from joining others from Agrifina Circle

–17 jeepneys loaded with demonstrators from a southernprovince were detained and harassed by the PhilippineConstabulary

The October 24 Anti-”Summit” Demonstration

• In front of American Embassy, an American photographer,thinking that he was in a colored town in the Southern UnitedStates, provoked the peaceful, though noisy demonstrators,by shoving his camera against their faces. On the other hand,the policemen removed their nameplates to preventidentification, and began brutalizing the peaceful andunarmed students by beating them up.

The October 24 Anti-”Summit” Demonstration

• One police shot a demonstrator with a placard saying:

The October 24 Anti-”Summit” Demonstration

• The policemen lost their temper when the students shoutedthat President Marcos and General Ricardo Papa, Manila’schief of police, were puppets.

• Some female demonstrators lost their shoes, while some hadbleeding faces. Undaunted, they sung the Philippine NationalAnthem, forcing the police to stand stiffly at attention.

The October 24 Anti-”Summit” Demonstration

• After that, they sung the popular song “Dahil Sa Iyo” (Becauseof You) followed by satirical parody “Dollars Sa Iyo”, leading tobeating them up by policemen.

• Demonstrators, decent people and newspapermendenounced the abuses and brutality of the police. The latterfiled cases against 41 students for breach of peace andassault.

The October 24 Anti-”Summit” Demonstration

• The UP and Lyceum teach-ins were ordered investigated andit was given up when the so-called intelligence agenciesrealized that the teach-ins were, and still are, something theyshould have attended to make them less military in theirthinking and behavior.

• Marcos ordered the dropping of charges against the studentsand investigation of the teaching but professional witch-hunters want the witch-hunt.

The October 24 Anti-”Summit” Demonstration

• The significance of the anti-”Summit” demonstration lies inthe fact that the students, formerly maligned during the early1950s for their indifference to national questions, have finallybecome aggressive and have become aware that it is part oftheir duty, as future leaders of the Philippines, to involvethemselves in national questions.

The October 24 Anti-”Summit” Demonstration

• Student demonstrators since 1950s were not Anti-Americansbut against the un-American principles of the Americangovernment in its relations with the Philippines and againstAmerican military personnel abuses.

The Witch-Hunt

• Three committees of Congress summoned some studentleaders allegedly to investigate police brutality, but it turnedout nothing than witch-hunting and name-calling.

• Students were shouted at, insulted, bamboozled and calledsubversives by some narrow-minded congressmen.

The Witch-Hunt

• National Intelligence Coordinating Agency (NICA)

– The highest intelligence agency in the country

– Utilized the services of discredited professional anti-communists tolibel the student demonstrators and some 30 or 40 universityprofessors by calling them “Reds”

– A frail student, amazed at the belligerent behavior of somecongressional probers, could not help exclaiming the harmless andcommon “Aba!” and found himself being beaten up by a securityguard of the Congressional Committee.

The Witch-Hunt

• Supreme Court Justice Jesus G. Barrera, the mild spoken butbrilliant and liberal jurist, in his speech “Nationalism and CivilLiberties,” delivered at the 2nd founding anniversary ofKabataang Makabayan that the curtailment of the militantyouth movement “might result in an uncontrollableoverflowing that would sweep us all in its angry rush.”

The Witch-Hunt

It seems to me that the ultimate goal of nationalism is thefreedom and ability of one nation to determine by itself its owndestiny and formulate for itself its own national policies.

Any nation that seeks protection from or permitsintervention by another nation in the conduct of its domestic orforeign affairs cannot be said to be truly independent,irrespective of its political status. In a situation such as this, thestruggle for nationalism in the protected or intervened stateattains top priority.

The Witch-Hunt

• The intelligence agencies, however, tried to salvage theirtattered image by connecting the October 24 demonstrationwith the youth association in China which extended aninvitation to some sixty students and a few professors of theUP to visit China, all expenses paid.

• UP president tossed the responsibility to the Secretary ofForeign Affairs who ordered his subordinates not to issuepassports to the students and professors going to China.

The Witch-Hunt

• The witch-hunting has been a favorite sport of somecongressmen and intelligence agencies, as again shown inApril 1967 – a congressman from Pampanga and brother offormer president, delivered a speech on the floor of theLower House and pointed out high officials (all appointees ofMarcos) as “security risks.”

MAGBUNYI (NANG KAUNTI) AT WAKAS NA!

GOOD LUCK SA FINALS!