HISTORY 100

7:30 – 9:30 WSAT

Submitted by:
Babtoog, Rubiree A.
Cadiogan, Joshua R.
Gabertan, Lalaine Flores
Herry, Jomar Salbino
Oriondo, Christian
Manao, Jim Paul B.

UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS

College of Arts and Sciences
EMILIO AGUINALDO: BAYANI O GANGSTER
Emilio Aguinaldo , the first President and the head of a fully functioning
government of an independent country , not a pseudo – government as what
American invaders claimed . He was also elected President of the revolutionary
government in the controversial Tejeros convention in Cavite in 1897 and led the
Philippine resistance when U.S. invaded the country. But his name was tainted by
the deaths of Andres Bonifacio and his brother Procopio and of General Antonio
Luna that he ordered their executions. Even the allegations for selling the revolution
to Spain for 400,00 Mexican peso and his Japanese collaborations in this case he is
known to be a gangster by Filipinos.
But for me, he is a hero, the history of Emilio Aguinaldo largely covers the
good things he had done for the country and that somehow is unfortunate. Emilio
Aguinaldo was a great General, he won many battles because of his war tactic, the
unconventional guerilla warfare. We have to give him also the credit of
independence that he proclaimed in 1898, that was the climax in the Philippine
revolution and his leadership was instrumental in establishment of Asia’s First
Republic. It was during his term that the national anthem and the national flag were
made and become a very essential part of Philippine legacy. Perhaps, we have to
weigh what good things and bad things he has done for the country and maybe our
decision will be base there. Instead of judging him as a saint or somebody that is
perfect. Maybe we could look him as somebody who is just human just like us who
made mistakes but cope up with these mistakes with success. Anyway , the foreign
conquerors will always be our first enemies.
PEDRO PATERNO: TRAYDOR O BAYANI
Pedro paterno is the first "original" balimbing in the Philippines says historian
Ambeth Ocampo. He was "first Spanish side the worked this way to power to
become President of Malolos Convention in 1899. Pedro Paterno (1858-1911) is
widely re-garded as a "traitor" to the Philippine nation. That reputation has it's
origin in his role in the negatiation of the Philippine revolutionaries and the Spanish,
under which th former agreed to abondon their struggle and collaborate with the
colonial administration. Then when the USA in 1898 declared war on Spain, Paterno
ugred the revolutionaries to defend Spanish rule against the Americans , and
continue to urge resistance to the USA during the Philippine - American war.
President of the Consultative Assembly. He has long been an easy target for
nationalist historians. This paper is not intended to re-examine his political
trajectory. Rather, it focus on Pedro Paterno as a scholar ,as the author of a
considerable number of works of history and seeks to place him in his intellectual
context an ilustrado who compromised with both colonialism and nationlism with
loyalties spilt between Spain and the Philippines.
THE ASSASINATION OF GENERAL ANTONIO LUNA
I. Overview and Background
The issue has been one of the most debated historical topics in today’s
society. The question arises whether the killing of General Antonio Luna was a good
move or a big mistake in the history of the Philippines. In this incident, some
historians claim that the evidence is unclear to what really happened during that
time and what have been the motives of both Pedro Janolino and Felipe Buencamino
who were known to lead the assassination due to the lack of basis and concrete
answers to point out the real culprit, the question also arises about Emilio
Aguinaldo’s role during the incident on whether he ordered his soldiers including
both high ranking officials to end the general’s life. The situation began when
Antonio Luna was invited for a meeting with Emilio Aguinaldo at Cabanatuan which
was 100 kilometers away from his base in Bayambang. Upon his arrival, the general
got upset when he was told that the president had left earlier in the day. At the
same time, Luna was met by Felipe Buencamino with whom he had previous
disagreements, he also met Captain Pedro Janolino including the Kawit presidential
body guards reinstated by Emilio Aguinaldo after Luna had them disarmed. At that
moment, Luna together with his aide Colonel Paco Roman was killed, the general
acquired 30 wounds from bolos, bayonets and bullets that were used as weapons by
the soldiers. However, Luna was able to stagger out of the building calling his
murderers as traitors before falling lifeless on the ground. Afterwards, Luna and his
aide were given a proper military burial. In this situation, critics and historians are
still puzzled on what really happened on this event and questions are still being
asked regarding its flaws. Historical sources have claimed different versions on what
happened before Antonio Luna was assassinated giving confusion to people at this
present generation. But at the end, there is only one outcome that history has
provided on the minds of the people and that is the death of the general itself.
II. Historical claims based on Primary and Secondary Sources
According to the book that is entitled “The Rise and Fall of Antonio Luna” the
person to blame for Luna’s death is none other than Emilio Aguinaldo. The book
stated that the president selected a number of guards to stab General Antonio
Luna fearing that the “insolent” general would take his place as president and that
he would gain the power of being a supreme leader. At the end, Felipe Buencamino
and soldiers who were involve in Luna’s assassination escaped the blame or were
not subjected to the killing. The author (Vivencio R. Jose) described it as an event
that shows the worst attitude of the Filipino people in the times of hardship that can
be reflected today. Another source that was published from Washington stated that
the General (Antonio Luna) and his Colonel (Paco Roman) visited Aguinaldo’s
headquarters at Cabanatuan for the purpose of procuring Aguinaldo’s authority to
imprison Filipinos suspected of being friendly to the United States and there, he met
Captain Pedro Janolino who was the leader of the Kawit sentries designated by the
president Emilio Aguinaldo himself . Luna asked for the presence of Aguinaldo
however, the captain replied “I don’t know” in an insolent manner. Luna instantly
drew his revolver out and fired at the Captain and Janolino returned fire but both
shots missed. The Colonel interfered, whereupon the sergeant of a guard stabbed
Luna with a bayonet. The entire guards then attacked both Luna and Roman with
bolos, bayonets and muskets killing them both. The source indicated that Captain
Pedro Janolino protected himself from being killed by the general and the guards
have responded on Luna’s action to what they call as “unjustifiable”

A book written by Jose P. Santos entitled “ Si Apolinario Mabini Laban kay

Antonio Luna” emphasized how the president’s assistant is secretly disdained
against Luna bringing up the idea that the general was acting like a “despota” who
does not know his rights as an army officer. Aside from blasting Luna, Mabini was
described in the book as a traitor who advised Aguinaldo to let his men kill Luna
because he fears that he might just disrupt the chain of command. Lastly, Joel
Arandang a historian of the University of the Philippines claimed that the
assassination of Luna was caused by jealousy and anger by whom he had conflict or
misunderstanding with, including Felipe Buencamino and Pedro Janolino through
which he had an issue with and thus resulting them as the sender of the telegram
impersonating themselves as Emilio Aguinaldo in order to deceive Luna to travel to
Cabanatuan.
III. Answers to the Issue
From the sources that I have referred to, the assassination of Antonio Luna
remains unclear since some questions are clearly unanswered based on concrete
evidence that would strengthen the claim of the author of the specified source
which include the following: Who really ordered the murder of Luna? Is Janolino’s
claim of defending himself from being killed justifiable? Did Apolinario Mabini
sparked the idea of the assassination? Was the telegram truly sent by Aguinaldo or
sent by somebody such as Buencamino? Was Antonio Luna summoned to a meeting
with Aguinaldo? If so, why was not Aguinaldo there? And why were Aguinaldo’s
Kawit bodyguards left behind, when their job was to secure the President at all times?
Through all these questions it is difficult to point out the true motive of these killers
and it is difficult to determine if whether the assassination was planned by Aguinaldo
himself. Based on the references that were indicated, the killing of Antonio Luna was
committed by the same people including Felipe Buencamino, Pedro Janolino, and The
Kawit Sentries but have different versions on its roots. Afterall, the assassination of
General Luna was a bad move due to its aftermath (Filipino strategic plans were
useless, many Filipino soldiers especially the Ilocanos and Kapampangans have lose
faith and surrendered to the Americans) and the things that the General would have
accomplished if he continues to be alive, one of his works would include the
establishment of a massive fort in the mountains of the Cordilleras that would
probably give problems to the American soldiers to attack, and creating better
strategies to ward off the Americans. The assassination showed how Filipinos are
against one another especially when hardship and struggle is present. In my case, I
believe that the assassination was planned in spite of the claim that the evidence is
unclear. There is a doubt that Emilio Aguinaldo’s absence proves the point that he
assigned and ordered his men to kill the general in a way that he called on Luna in the
first place for a meeting at Cabanatuan but did not show up at the end. I also believe
that his assassination was caused by jealousy by the likes of Mabini that Luna might
become a supreme leader or would become powerful in a way that the so called
“brains” would loss his power. At the end, the death of Antonio Luna reflects how
Filipinos are being a traitor against their fellow Filipinos.
Jose P. Laurel: A “Hero” or a “Traitor”?
I. Overview/Background
Jose Paciano Laurel, (1891—1959), a Filipino lawyer, politician, and jurist
became the president of the Philippines Second Republic (1943–45), or also known
as the "Puppet Government". He was considered as the third president of the
Philippines and labeled as a collaborator, a hero and to some a traitor because of
siding with the Japanese by declaring war against the United States. But, is Jose P.
Laurel a hero or a traitor?
II. Counter Argument (Traitor)
1) When the Japanese came, he chose the Japanese government than the American
to have a new independent country. -Before the war Laurel was well acquainted
with the Japanese and actually had ties with many Japanese officials. Therefore, it is
no wonder that he didn’t completely mind that they were occupying as he agreed
with many of their ideals. Laurel was constantly commenting on how he was
disappointed at how the Filipino people were living, which he viewed as both
wasteful and detrimental, he was not content with some of the traits of his own
culture, which he felt lacked discipline, control and purpose. He was drawn in by the
features of the Japanese societal structure which he saw as beneficial to the Filipino
people. Laurel believed that the integrity and compactness of the Japanese family
was a source of communal strength because of the present authority and
responsibility of the heads of families.
2) Laurel would be more powerful and influential with the side of the Japanese
government. This will satisfy his political will. -When the Japanese invaded, they
quickly named the fifty-years-old associate justice of the Philippine Supreme Court
as the Commissioner of Justice in the temporary government.
3) Laurel admires the Japanese -Laurel admired Japan, not only for its rapid
economic growth but it assertion of Pan-Asian unity. He admired seeing the
domestic tranquility, in which all classes appeared to accept willingly their
respective places in the social order, and he admired the way the Japanese system
of education focused on service to the state. The controlled system implied by the
enforced education of the masses may give a Filipino observer the impression that
the system is undemocratic. Laurel believed that the truth, however, was education
is needed and not democracy.
4) He couldn’t offer his life to defend our country during the war which disqualifies
him to be considered as a hero. -He couldn't offer his life for he and his family were
threatened by the Japanese if he won't cooperate.
5) He chose to be controlled by the Japanese government in running our country
during those times.
6) Laurel did not refuse to declare war against the United States as ordered by the
Japanese Government. -At the head of the new Republic stood the wartime
President Jose P. Laurel. Brilliant, reckless, and uncompromisingly anti- American,
Laurel was the ideal president of the Japanese puppet state. His Opposition to U.S.
rule reflected memories of the American invasion in 1898. Resentment of American
cultural impact on traditional Philippine society and disdain for the weakness of
American democratic institutions. Conclusions confirmed during three years of
study at Yale Law School from 1917 to 1920. From his office in the Malacañang
Palace, Laurel gave full voice to his opposition to decades of American rule.
“Because I like my country to be free,” he announced, “I do not like America to
come back.” “We are wearing with the pretensions of the “White man’s burden".
7) He tried to channel a peace treaty between Philippines and the Japanese.

III. Argument (Hero)

1) Laurel is an archetype of genuine patriotism and proven loyalty, he only wanted
to lighten the blow that might wound the Filipino people which makes him a patriot
for having the foresight to shield the Filipino from danger, torture or even death. As
what Laurel said, “I was not an aspirant, I did not like to be a President” but he is
forced into the position it would make him seem as if he were intentionally
collaborating the Japanese. However, he accept the presidency to present himself
because he knew if he did not accept the position not only would the Japanese harm
him and his family and just put a Japanese official into office making the Filipino
suffer greater. To him it was simply, a sacrifice for his country.
2) Laurel did not, by his own free will, accept the occupation of the Japanese and its
power; he made decisions that were for the greater good of the citizens. It was a
mock collaboration, so to speak, to keep the Japanese from venting their anger to
the innocent citizens.
3) The administration of Quezon gave Laurel an order to do whatever it could take
to protect the welfare of the Filipino people.To Laurel’s argument, the Japanese
might require or compel those who remain to do many things which might be
inimical to the government, Quezon replied after consulting MacArthur that Laurel
should do what the Japanese asked. of him except one thing, to take an oath of
allegiance to Japan.

4) When Laurel became the president of the Japanese funded government, he

decided to try and alter the constitution of the Philippines as well as the Filipino
people into a Japanese standard. As he became president, the continued
collaboration with the Japanese revealed that it became more and more apparent
that he was using his newly appointed position to enter his own political and
national ideals into the newly constructed Filipino government. Laurel was someone
who remained in the background of the political stage yet didn’t prevent him from
having his own thoughts about what the politicians should really be addressing so
when Laurel became president, he saw the chance to begin making the Philippines
into his own image. Going back to his inauguration speech, there are traces of
Laurel's forthcoming agenda inscribed all throughout it. In one instance, Laurel talks
about how the citizens of the Philippines should be in their new independent state.

5) The executive commission during the Japanese regime was ready to obey the
order of the Japanese army in order to protect the people and not to sell out to the
invader with one goal, "maintenance of peace and order and the promotion of the
well-being of our people”. From this, it is inferable that the government was just
trying to protect the people and not to sell them out to the invaders.

6) During the occupation of the Japanese, Laurel is relentlessly pressured by the

authorities to declare war against America. It was Laurel’s intention to pursue the
last option and not declare war but a state of war or martial law in the country,
which is actually a mere description of his executive power and not a pledge of
fealty to Japan which some misunderstood.
IV.Conclusion
As what Laurel wrote while he was interned in 1945 by the Americans in
Japan, the collaboration people were talking about was "ex necessitate re
necessitate re" which means “forced collaboration was not collaboration. Voluntary
collaboration as a means of national survival and to tide over our people to better
times is not perishable”. Laurel doesn’t want to see his people to suffer more, so he
made a decision for the sake of the Filipino, the forced collaboration. And it is a risk
for him because he might be accused that he betrayed his country, and it
happened. We have concluded that Jose P. Laurel was an ally because he never
betrayed motherland, it is her sons who misunderstood him.
DOES FERDINAND MARCOS DESERVE A HEROES BURIAL?
OVERVIEW
Yes. Former President Ferdinand Marcos deserved to be buried in the
Libingan Ng Mga Bayani (LNMB). On November 8, 2016, the Supreme Court of the
Philippines just ruled that former dictator Ferdinand Marcos may be buried in the
LNMB. Chief Justice Diosdado Peralta, who is the Associate Justice during that time,
wrote the decision, which was concurred in by Justices Arturo Brion, Lucas
Bersamin, Presbitero Velasco Jr., Jose Perez, Mariano del Castillo, Jose Mendoza,
Teresite de Castro, and Estela Perlas-Bernabe.
SUPPORTING DETAILS
According to the Supreme Court decision General Register No. 225973,
petitioners did not dispute that Marcos was a former President and Commander-in-
Chief, a legislator, a Secretary of National Defense, a military personnel, a veteran,
and a Medal of Valor awardee which are some of the qualifications or eligibilities to
be interred in the LNMB as stated in the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP)
Regulation No. G161-375.
During his time as the President, Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law
because of increasing student demonstrations, the threats of the Communist Party
of the Philippines, and the Muslim separatist movement of the Moro National
Liberation Front (MNLF). Some may say that the martial law is completely a bad
thing but according to Borlaza (n.d.), the regime was able to reduce violent urban
crime, collect unregistered firearms, and suppress communist insurgency in some
areas. This also begins the story of about 70,000 people who were imprisoned and
34,000 people tortured, according to Amnesty International, while 3,240 people
were killed from 1972 to 1981 (Francisco, 2016). Balisacan (2018) stated that
Marcos holds the dubious title of being the most corrupt Philippine president.
For his alleged human rights abuses and corrupt practices, we may disregard
Marcos as a President as a President and Commander-in-Chief, but we cannot deny
him the right to be recognized or acknowledged based on the other positions he
held or the awards he received.
Marcos possessed none of the disqualifications stated in AFP Regulations
G161-375. He was neither convicted by final judgment of the offense involving
moral turpitude nor dishonorable separated, reverted, or discharged from active
military service. It cannot be conveniently claimed that Marcos’ ouster from the
presidency during the EDSA Revolution is equal to his dishonorable separation,
reversion, or discharge from the military service. Dishonorable discharge through a
successful revolution is an extra-constitutional and direct sovereign act of the
people which is beyond the power of judicial review, let alone a mere administrative
regulation.

WHY DO WE HAVE SOCIAL ILLNESS?

Filipinos have social illness due to the fact that they want to become better
than others and they don’t want to get outworked by their fellow countrymen. They
also develop a new set of attitude that limits their progress most of the time where
many Filipinos become ignorant of their own actions.
One of the social illness we have here in the Philippines are the so called
Crab Mentality. It is derived from a pattern of behavior noted in crabs when they are
trapped in a bucket. While any one crab could easily escape,its efforts will be
undermined by others, ensuring the group's collective demise.
People with crab mentality are everywhere. You can encounter them on
social media, where they are always busy criticizing instead of appreciating the
news and stories about the achievements of Filipinos.This attribute is also one of
the major causes why our country is not progressing. And the first step to eradicate
this negative trait from us is to be aware of it.
We, Filipinos are said to have a crab mentality or Talangka trait. This
mentality is taking place when somebody wants himself to be the greatest one
always, to be he highest of all , and that no one is better than his opinions and
abilities . Then , if someone is on top of him , the first thought he would have is how
to bring that person down , spreading fake news or rumors about the successful
person to ruin his reputation . Most likely a person who has this mentality feels envy
on the success of others instead of being happy for him. Simple as , If i can't have
it? , why should you?!
This trait is one of the reasons why our country belongs to the third world ,
that even in government all they do most of the time is how to throw stones to each
other , how they can file a case against each other and worst is how to take an
official out of the picture . Instead of helping each other to make new laws and
programs for the benefit of all Filipinos , all you can see on the news are hot topics
about how one official will fight against another one . Even in presidency , no one
among the past and present presidents had received just praises and appreciation
to what they have done to the country . The tendency of Filipinos are always to
negate or be against what the government wants to do , one great example is
having a rally , all they do is shout , holding placards , putting themselves to danger
by fighting with the police officers . What if we just try to give government a
chance? , what if we try to agree ? maybe we'll see a better outcome for the whole
Philippines
Lastly, let's always take someone else's achievement as a source of
inspiration , let it be our motivation to improve ourselves and better version so we
can be all successful. It's not bad to dream high and goal for success to be on top .
But let's not forget responsibility , humility , and unity so we can have success not
only for ourselves but for the whole nation.

References:

Book:
Cruz, C. (1998) Jose P. Laurel: his life and work: a primer. Intramuros, Manila:
Lyceum of the Philippines.
Vivencio, J. (1995). The Rise and Fall of Antonio Luna. Manila: Trademark Pub.
Journal:
Laurel, Jose P. (1962). The Belligerent Occupation of the Philippines: The War
Memoirs of Jose P. Laurel. PILJ, 4, 451.
Steinberg, D. (1965). Jose P. Laurel: A collaborator misunderstood. Journal of Asian
Studies, 24, 651-665.
Online:
Agpalo, R. (n.d.) Pro Deo Et Patria: the political philosophy of Jose P. Laurel.
Retrieved from: https://asj.upd.edu.ph

Angsioco, E. (2018). The Killing of Gen. Antonio Luna. Retrieved from

https://manilastandard.net/mobile/article/281251

Balisacan, R. (2018). Remembering Ferdinand Marcos’ History of Corruption is

Relevant to the Philippines’ Present Anticorruption Efforts. Retrieved from
https://globalanticorruptionblog.com/2018/01/15/remembering- ferdinand-marcos-
history-of-corruption-is-relevant-to-the-philippines- present-anticorruption-efforts/
Borlaza, G. (n.d.). Martial Law. Retrieved from
https://www.britannica.com/place/Philippines/Martial-law
Capozzola, C. (1945). A Tale of Two Treasons: Adjudicating War Crimes and
Collaboration in Manila. Retrieved from:
https://legalhistoryblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/capozzola-on-aslh-panel.html?m=1
Dumindin, A. (2020). Philippine-American War 1899-1902. Retrieved from.
https://www.filipino-american war.com/lunaassassination.htm.Retrieved on March 6,
2020
Escabusa, C. (n.d.). Jose P. Laurel: an enemy or ally. Retrieved from:
https://www.academia.edu/15436878/Jose_P._Laurel_An_Enemy_or_an_Ally_A_Case_
Study_
Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. (2020). Philippine pacific war. Retrieved from:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/philippines/history-ww2.html
Francisco, K. (2016). Martial Law, the dark chapter in Philippine history. Retrieved
from https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/146939-martial-law- explainer-victims-
stories
Malajito Y. (2018). Pedro Paterno. Traitors in the Philippines who are only loyal to
one thing. Retrieved from https://nolisoli.ph/39688/traitors-philippine-history/
Ocampo, A. (2015). Who Really Ordered Luna’s Murder. Retrieved from
https://opinion.inquirer.net/85501/who-really-ordered-lunas-murder. Retrieved on
March 5, 2020
Peralta, D. (2016). G.R. No. 225973. Retrieved from
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2016novemberdecisions.php?id=93 0
Sembrano, E. (2019). Hero or heel? Historians weigh in on Emilio Aguinaldo.
Retrieved from https://lifestyle.inquirer.net/329150/hero-or-heel-historians-weigh-in-
on-emilio-aguinaldo/amp/?
fbclid=IwAR2TbjaTvtsaFc8yB3y6B6m_I72CiE7wZXErecFJPM5qTJdS9dCVZHkckfk.
Retrieved on March 5, 2020