Reading the “Proclamation of the Philippine Independence”

Every year, the country commemorates the anniversary of the Philippine Independence
proclaimed on 12 June 1898, in the province of Cavite. Indeed, such event is a significant turning
point in the history of the country because it signaled the end of the 333 years of Spanish
colonization. There have been numerous studies done on the events leading to the independence
of the country but very few students had the chance to read the actual document of the declaration.
This is in spite of the historical importance of the document and the details that the document
reveals on the rationale and circumstances of that historical day in Cavite. Interestingly, reading
the details of the said document in hindsight is telling of the kind of government that was created
under Aguinaldo, and the forthcoming hand of the United States of America in the next few years
of the newly created republic. The declaration was a short 2,000-word document, which
summarized the reason behind the revolution against Spain, the war for independence, and the
future of the new republic under Emilio Aguinaldo.
The proclamation commenced with a characterization of the conditions in the Philippines
during the Spanish colonial period. The document specifically mentioned abuses and inequalities
in the colony. The declaration says:
“… taking into consideration, that their inhabitants being already weary of bearing
the ominous yoke of Spanish domination, on account of the arbitrary arrests and
harsh treatment practiced by the Civil Guard to the extent of causing death with
the connivance and even with the express orders of their commanders, who
sometimes went to the extreme of ordering the shooting of prisoners under the
pretext that they were attempting to escape, in violation of the provisions of the
Regulations of their Corps, which abuses were unpunished and on account off the
unjust deportations, especially those decreed by General Blanco, of eminent
personages and of high social position, at the instigation of the Archbishop and
friars interested in keeping them out of the way for their own selfish and avaricious
purpose, deportations which are quickly brought about by a method of procedure
more execrable than that of the Inquisition and which every civilized nation rejects
on account of a decision being rendered without a hearing of the persons accused.”
The above passage demonstrates the justifications behind the revolution against Spain.
Specifically cited are the abuse by the Civil Guards and the unlawful shooting of prisoners whom
they alleged as attempting to escape. The passage also condemns the unequal protection of the law
between the Filipino people and the “eminent personages.” Moreover, the line mentions the avarice
and greed of the clergy like the friars and the Archbishop himself. Lastly, the passage also
condemns what they saw as the unjust deportation and rendering of other decision without proper
hearing, expected of any civilized nation.
From here, the proclamation proceeded with a brief historical overview of the Spanish
occupation since Magellan's arrival in Visayas until the Philippine Revolution, with specific details
about the latter, especially after the Pact of Biak-na-Bato had collapsed. The document narrates
the spread of the movement “like an electric spark” through different towns and provinces like
Bataan, Pampanga, Batangas, Bulacan, Laguna, and Morong, and the quick decline of Spanish
forces in the same provinces. The revolt also reached Visayas; thus, the independence of the
country was ensured. The document also mentions Rizal's execution, calling it unjust. The
execution, as written in the document, was done to “please the greedy body of friars in their
insatiable desire to seek revenge upon and exterminate all those who are opposed to their
Machiavellian purposes, which tramples upon the penal code prescribed for these islands.” The
document also narrates the Cavite Mutiny of January 1872 that caused the infamous execution of
the martyred native priests Jose Burgos, Mariano Gomez, and Jacinto Zamora, “whose innocent
blood was shed through the intrigues of those so-called religious orders” that incited the three
secular priests in the said mutiny.

9
Prepared by: M. G. Cardente
 The proclamation of independence also invokes that the established republic would be led
under the dictatorship of Emilio Aguinaldo. The first mention was at the very beginning of the
proclamation. It stated:
“In the town of Cavite Viejo, in this province of Cavite, on the twelfth day of June
eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, before me, Don Ambrosio Rianzares Bautista,
Auditor of War and Special Commissioner appointed to proclaim and solemnize
this act by the Dictatorial Government of these Philippine Islands, for the purposes
and by virtue of the circular addressed by the Eminent Dictator of the same Don
Emilio Aguinaldo y Famy.”

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

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

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

10
Prepared by: M. G. Cardente
Analysis of the “Proclamation of the Philippine Independence”

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

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

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

The proclamation also gives us the impression on how the victorious revolutionary
government of Aguinaldo historicized the struggle for independence. There were mentions of past
events that were seen as important turning points of the movement against Spain. The execution
of the GOMBURZA, for example, and the failed Cavite Mutiny of 1872 was narrated in detail.
This shows that they saw this event as a significant awakening of the Filipinos in the real conditions
of the nation under Spain. Jose Rizal’s legacy and martyrdom was also mentioned in the document.
However, the Katipunan as the pioneer of the revolutionary movement was only mentioned once
toward the end of the document. There was no mention of the Katipunan’s foundation. Bonifacio
and his co-founders were also left out. It can be argued, thus, that the way of historical narration
found in the document also reflects the politics of the victors. The enmity between Aguinaldo's
Magdalo and Bonifacio's Magdiwang in the Katipunan is no secret in the pages of our history. On
the contrary, the war led by Aguinaldo’s men with the forces of the United States were discussed
in detail.
The point is, even official records and documents like the proclamation of independence,
while truthful most of the time, still exude the politics and biases of whoever is in power. This
manifests in the selectiveness of information that can be found in these records. It is the task of the
historian, thus, to analyze the content of these documents in relation to the dominant politics and
the contexts of people and institutions surrounding it. This tells us a lesson on taking primary
sources like official government records within the circumstance of this production. Studying one
historical subject, thus, entails looking at multiple primary sources and pieces of historical
evidences in order to have a more nuanced and contextual analysis of our past.

11
Prepared by: M. G. Cardente
A Glance at Selected Philippine Political Caricature in
Alfred McCoy’s Philippine Cartoons: Political Caricature of
the American Era (1900-1941)
Political cartoons and caricature are a rather recent art form, which veered away from the
classical art by exaggerating human features and poking fun at its subjects. Such art genre and
technique became a part of the print media as a form of social and political commentary, which
usually targets persons of power and authority. Cartoons became an effective tool of publicizing
opinions through heavy use of symbolism, which is different from a verbose written editorial and
opinion pieces. The unique way that a caricature represents opinion and captures the audience’s
imagination is reason enough for historians to examine these political cartoons. Commentaries in
mass media inevitably shape public opinion and such kind of opinion is worthy of historical
examination.
In his book Philippine Cartoons: Political Caricature of the American Era (1900-1941),
Alfred McCoy, together with Alfredo Roces, compiled political cartoons published in newspaper
dailies and periodicals in the aforementioned time period. For this part, we are going to look at
selected cartoons and explain the context of each one.

The first example shown above was published in The Independent on May 20, 1916. The
cartoon shows a politician from Tondo, named Dr. Santos, passing his crown to his brother-in-law,
Dr. Barcelona. A Filipino guy (as depicted wearing salakot and barong tagalog) was trying to stop
Santos, telling the latter to stop giving Barcelona the crown because it is not his to begin with.

The second cartoon was also published by The Independent on 16 June 1917. This was
drawn by Fernando Amorsolo and was aimed as a commentary to the workings of Manila Police
at that period. Here, we see a Filipino child who stole a skinny chicken because he had nothing to
eat. The police officer was relentlessly pursuing the said child. A man wearing a salakot, labeled
Juan de la Cruz was grabbing the officer, telling him to leave the small-time pickpockets and
thieves and to turn at the great thieves instead. He was pointing to huge warehouses containing
bulks of rice, milk and grocery products.

12
Prepared by: M. G. Cardente
 The third cartoon was a commentary on the unprecedented cases of colorum automobiles
in the city streets. The Philippine Free Press published this commentary when fatal accidents
involving colorum vehicles and taxis occurred too often already.

This fourth cartoon depicts a cinema. A blown-up police officer was at the screen saying
that couples are not allowed to neck and make love in the theater. Two youngsters looked horrified
while an older couple seemed amused.

The next cartoon was published by The Independent on 27 November 1915. Here, we see
the caricature of Uncle Sam riding a chariot pulled by Filipinos wearing school uniforms. The
Filipino boys were carrying American objects like baseball bats, whiskey, and boxing gloves.
McCoy, in his caption to the said cartoon, says that this cartoon was based on an event in 1907
when William Howard Taft was brought to the Manila pier riding a chariot pulled by students of
Liceo de Manila. Such was condemned by the nationalists at that time.

13
Prepared by: M. G. Cardente
 The last cartoon was published by Lipang Kalabaw on 24 August 1907. In the picture, we
can see Uncle Sam rationing porridge to the politicians and members of the Progresista Party
(sometimes known as the Federalista Party) while members of the Nacionalista Party look on and
wait for their turn. This cartoon depicts the patronage of the United States being coveted by
politicians from either of the party.

Analysis of the Political Caricatures during the American Period

The transition from the Spanish Colonial period to the American Occupation period
demonstrated different strands of changes and shifts in culture, society, and politics. The
Americans drastically introduced democracy to the nascent nation and the consequences were far
from ideal. Aside from this, it was also during the American period that Filipinos were introduced
to different manifestations of modernity like healthcare, modern transportation, and media. This
ushered in a more open and freer press. The post-independence and the post-Filipino-American
period in the Philippines were experienced differently by Filipinos coming from different classes.
The upper principalia class experienced economic prosperity with the opening up of the Philippine
economy to the United States but the majority of the poor Filipino remained poor, desperate, and
victims of state repression.
The selected cartoons illustrate not only the opinion of certain media outfits about the
Philippine society during the American period but also paint a broad image of society and politics
under the United States. In the arena of politics, for example, we see the price that Filipinos paid
for the democracy modeled after the Americans. First, it seemed that the Filipino politicians at that
time did not understand well enough the essence of democracy and the accompanying democratic
institutions and processes. This can be seen in the rising dynastic politics in Tondo as depicted in
the cartoon published by The Independent. Patronage also became influential and powerful, not
only between clients and patrons but also between the newly formed political parties composed of
the elite and the United States. This was depicted in the cartoon where the United States,
represented by Uncle Sam, provided dole outs for members of the Federalista while the
Nacionalista politicians looked on and waited for their turn. Thus, the essence of competing
political parties to enforce choices among the voters was cancelled out. The problem continues up
to the present where politicians transfer from one party to another depending on which party was
powerful in specific periods of time.
The transition from a Catholic-centered, Spanish-Filipino society to an imperial American-
assimilated one, and its complications, were also depicted in the cartoons. One example is the
unprecedented increase of motorized vehicles in the city. Automobiles became a popular mode of

14
Prepared by: M. G. Cardente
transportation in the city and led to the emergence of taxis. However, the laws and policy
implementation was mediocre. This resulted in the increasing colorum and unlicensed vehicles
transporting people around the city. The rules governing the issuance of driver's license was loose
and traffic police could not be bothered by rampant violations of traffic rules. This is a direct
consequence of the drastic urbanization of the Philippine society. Another example is what McCoy
called the “sexual revolution” that occurred in the 1930s. Young people, as early as that period,
disturbed the conservative Filipino mindset by engaging in daring sexual activities in public spaces
like cinemas. Here, we can see how that period was the meeting point between the conservative
past and the liberated future of the Philippines.
Lastly, the cartoons also illustrated the conditions of poor Filipinos in the Philippines now
governed by the United States. From the looks of it, nothing much has changed. For example, a
cartoon depicted how police authorities oppress petty Filipino criminals while turning a blind eye
on hoarders who monopolize goods in their huge warehouses (presumably Chinese merchants).
The other cartoon depicts how Americans controlled Filipinos through seemingly harmless
American objects. By controlling their consciousness and mentality, Americans got to control and
subjugate Filipinos.

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

Corazon “Cory” Cojuangco Aquino functioned as the symbol of the restoration of

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

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

On 18 September 1986, seven months since Cory became president, she went to the United
States and spoke before the joint session of the U.S. Congress. Cory was welcomed with long

15
Prepared by: M. G. Cardente
applause as she took the podium and addressed the United States about her presidency and the
challenges faced by the new republic. She began her speech with the story of her leaving the United
States three years prior as a newly widowed wife of Ninoy Aquino.
She then told of Ninoy’s character, conviction, and resolve in opposing the authoritarianism
of Marcos. She talked of the three times that they lost Ninoy including his demise on 23 August
1983. The first time was when the dictatorship detained Ninoy with other dissenters. Cory related:
“The government sought to break him by indignities and terror. They locked him
up in a tiny, nearly airless cell in a military camp in the north. They stripped him
naked and held a threat of a sudden midnight execution over his head. Ninoy held
up manfully under all of it. I barely did as well. For forty-three days, the authorities
would not tell me what had happened to him. This was the first time my children
and I felt we had lost him.”
Cory continued that when Ninoy survived that first detention, he was then charged of
subversion, murder, and other crimes. He was tried by a military court, whose legitimacy Ninoy
adamantly questioned. To solidify his protest, Ninoy decided to do a hunger strike and fasted for
40 days. Cory treated this event as the second time that their family lost Ninoy. She said:
“When that didn't work, they put him on trial for subversion, murder and a host of
other crimes before a military commission. Ninoy challenged its authority and
went on a fast. If he survived it, then he felt God intended him for another fate.
We had lost him again. For nothing would hold him back from his determination
to see his fast through to the end. He stopped only when it dawned on him that the
government would keep his body alive after the fast had destroyed his brain. And
with barely any life in his body, he called off the fast on the 40th day.”
Ninoy’s death was the third and the last time that Cory and the children lost Ninoy. She
continued:
“And then, we lost him irrevocably and more painfully than in the past. The news
came to us in Boston. It had to be after the three happiest years of or lives together.
But his death was my country’s resurrection and the courage and faith by which
alone they could be free again. The dictator had called him a nobody. Yet, two
million people threw aside their passivity and fear and escorted him to his grave.”
Cory attributed the peaceful EDSA Revolution to the martyrdom Ninoy. She stated that the
death of Ninoy sparked the revolution and the responsibility of “offering the democratic
alternative” had “fallen on (her) shoulders.” Cory’s address introduced us to her democratic
philosophy which she claimed she also acquired from Ninoy. She argued:
“I held fast to Ninoy's conviction that it must be by the ways of democracy. I held
out for participation in the 1984 election the dictatorship called, even if I knew it
would be rigged. I was warned by the lawyers of the opposition, that I ran the
grave risk of legitimizing the foregone results of elections that were clearly going
to be fraudulent. But I was not fighting for lawyers but for the people in whose
intelligence, I had implicit faith. By the exercise of democracy even in a
dictatorship, they would be prepared for democracy when it came. And then also,
it was the only way I knew by which we could measure our power even in the
terms dictated by the dictatorship. The people vindicated me in an election
shamefully marked by government thuggery and fraud. The opposition swept the
elections, garnering a clear majority of the votes even if they ended up (thanks to
a corrupt Commission on Elections) with barely a third of the seats in Parliament.
Now, I knew our power.”

16
Prepared by: M. G. Cardente
 Cory talked about her miraculous victory through the people's struggle and continued
talking about her earliest initiatives as the president of a restored democracy. She stated that she
intended to forge and draw reconciliation after a bloody and polarizing dictatorship. Cory
emphasized the importance of the EDSA Revolution in terms of being a “limited revolution that
respected the life and freedom of every Filipino.” She also boasted of the restoration of a fully
constitutional government whose constitution gave utmost respect to the Bill of Rights. She
reported to the U.S. Congress:
“Again as we restore democracy by the ways of democracy, so are we completing
the constitutional structures of our new democracy under a constitution that
already gives full respect to the Bill of Rights. A jealously independent
constitutional commission is completing its draft which will be submitted later
this year to a popular referendum. When it is approved, there will be elections for
both national and local positions. So, within about a year from a peaceful but
national upheaval that overturned a dictatorship, we shall have returned to full
constitutional government.”
Cory then proceeded on her peace agenda with the existing communist insurgency,
aggravated by the dictatorial and authoritarian measure of Ferdinand Marcos. She asserted:
“My predecessor set aside democracy to save it from a communist insurgency that
numbered less than five hundred. Unhampered by respect for human rights he
went at it with hammer and tongs. By the time he fled, that insurgency had grown
to more than sixteen thousand. I think there is a lesson here to be learned about
trying to stifle a thing with a means by which it grows.”
Cory’s peace agenda involves political initiatives and re-integration program to persuade
insurgents to leave the countryside and return to the mainstream society to participate in the
restoration of democracy. She invoked the path of peace because she believed that it was the moral
path that a moral government must take. Nevertheless, Cory took a step back when she said that
while peace is the priority of her presidency, she “will not waiver” when freedom and democracy
are threatened. She said that, similar to Abraham Lincoln, she understands that “force may be
necessary before mercy” and while she did not relish the idea, she “will do whatever it takes to
defend the integrity and freedom of (her) country.”
Cory then turned to the controversial topic of the Philippine foreign debt amounting to $26
billion at the time of her speech. This debt had ballooned during the Marcos regime. Cory
expressed her intention to honor those debts despite mentioning that the people did not benefit
from such debts. Thus, she mentioned her protestations about the way the Philippines was deprived
of choices to pay those debts within the capacity of the Filipino people. She lamented:
“Finally may I turn to that other slavery, our twenty-six billion dollar foreign debt.
I have said that we shall honor it. Yet, the means by which we shall be able to do
so are kept from us. Many of the conditions imposed on the previous government
that stole this debt, continue to be imposed on us who never benefited from it.”
She continued that while the country had experienced the calamities brought about by the
corrupt dictatorship of Marcos, no commensurate assistance was yet to be extended to the
Philippines. She even remarked that given the peaceful character of EDSA People Power
Revolution, “ours must have been the cheapest revolution ever.” She demonstrated that Filipino
people fulfilled the “most difficult condition of the debt negotiation,” which was the “restoration
of democracy and responsible government.”
Cory related to the U.S. legislators that wherever she went, she met poor and unemployed
Filipinos willing to offer their lives for democracy. She stated:

17
Prepared by: M. G. Cardente
 “Wherever I went in the campaign, slum area or impoverished village. They came
to me with one cry, democracy. Not food although they clearly needed it but
democracy. Not work, although they surely wanted it but democracy. Not money,
for they gave what little they had to my campaign. They didn't expect me to work
a miracle that would instantly put food into their mouths, clothes on their back,
education in their children and give them work that will put dignity in their lives.
But I feel the pressing obligation to respond quickly as the leader of the people so
deserving of all these things.”
Cory proceeded in enumerating the challenges of the Filipino people as they tried building
the new democracy. These were the persisting communist insurgency and the economic
deterioration. Cory further lamented that these problems worsened by the crippling debt because
half of the country’s export earnings amounting to $2 billion would “go to pay just the interest on
a debt whose benefit the Filipino people never received.” Cory then asked a rather compelling
question to the U.S. Congress:
“Has there been a greater test of national commitment to the ideals you hold dear
than that my people have gone through? You have spent many lives and much
treasure to bring freedom to many lands that were reluctant to receive it. And here,
you have a people who want it by themselves and need only the help to preserve
it.”
Cory ended her speech by thanking America for serving as home to her family for what she
referred to as the “three happiest years of our lives together.” She enjoined America in building
the Philippines as a new home for democracy and in turning the country as a “shining testament
of our two nations’ commitment to freedom.”

Analysis of Corazon Aquino’s Speech

Cory Aquino’s speech was an important event in the political and diplomatic history of the
country because it has arguably cemented the legitimacy of the EDSA government in the
international arena. The speech talks of her family background, especially her relationship with
her late husband, Ninoy Aquino. It is well known that it was Ninoy who served as the real leading
figure of the opposition at that time. Indeed, Ninoy’s eloquence and charisma could very well
compete with that of Marcos. In her speech, Cory talked at length about Ninoy’s toil and suffering
at the hands of the dictatorship that he resisted. Even when she proceeded talking about her new
government, she still went back to Ninoy’s legacies and lessons. Moreover, her attribution of the
revolution to Ninoy’s death demonstrates not only Cory’s personal perception on the revolution,
but since she was the president, it also represents what the dominant discourse was at that point in
our history.
The ideology or the principles of the new democratic government can also be seen in the
same speech. Aquino was able to draw the sharp contrast between her government and of her
predecessor by expressing her commitment to a democratic constitution drafted by an independent
commission. She claimed that such constitution upholds and adheres to the rights and liberty of
the Filipino people. Cory also hoisted herself as the reconciliatory agent after more than two
decades of a polarizing authoritarian politics. For example, Cory saw the blown-up communist
insurgency as a product of a repressive and corrupt government. Her response to this insurgency
rooted from her diametric opposition of the dictator (i.e., initiating reintegration of communist
rebels to the mainstream Philippine society). Cory claimed that her main approach to this problem
was through peace and not through the sword of war.
Despite Cory’s efforts to hoist herself as the exact opposite of Marcos, her speech still
revealed certain parallelisms between her and the Marcos’s government. This is seen in terms of

18
Prepared by: M. G. Cardente
continuing the alliance between the Philippines and the United States despite the known affinity
between the said world super power and Marcos. The Aquino regime, as seen in Cory’s acceptance
of the invitation to address the U.S. Congress and to the content of the speech, decided to build
and continue with the alliance between the Philippines and the United States and effectively
implemented an essentially similar foreign policy to that of the dictatorship. For example, Cory
recognized that the large sum of foreign debts incurred by the Marcos regime never benefitted the
Filipino people. Nevertheless, Cory expressed her intention to pay off those debts. Unknown to
many Filipinos was the fact that there was a choice of waiving the said debt because those were
the debt of the dictator and not of the country. Cory's decision is an indicator of her government’s
intention to carry on a debt-driven economy.
Reading through Aquino’s speech, we can already take cues, not just on Cory’s individual
ideas and aspirations, but also the guiding principles and framework of the government that she
represented.

19
Prepared by: M. G. Cardente
Chapter Exercises
A. True or False. Write true if the statement is true. Otherwise, write false in the space provided.
______ 1. Non-written documents are not useful as primary sources in conducting historical
research.
______ 2. The assassination of Ninoy Aquino is an important historical event that fueled
people’s anger and condemnation of the dictator Ferdinand Marcos.
______ 3. Apolinario Mabini penned the “Kartilya ng Katipunan.”
______ 4. Magellan and his fleet received a warm welcome from all of the chieftains and
local leaders in the Philippine Islands.
______ 5. The Americans radically altered the social structure in the Philippines after they
took over from Spain in terms of socioeconomic equality.
______ 6. The “Proclamation of Philippine Independence” reflects the social and economic
discontent of the masses about land ownership and other agrarian issues.
______ 7. The enmity between Aguinaldo and Bonifacio did not affect how the former’s
revolutionary government credited Bonifacio to the beginnings of the Philippine
Revolution.
______ 8. Corazon Aquino did not want to forge alliance with the United States because the
latter was a known important ally of Marcos.
______ 9. The conservative attitude of the youth toward sexuality did not change since the
Spanish period until the 1930s.
______ 10. The forces of Magellan were successful in defeating and conquering Lapulapu.

B. Critical Essay. Identify a primary source in Philippine history from the examples provided in
this chapter. Write an essay discussing (1) the importance of the context, (2) the background
of the text’s author, (3) the context of the document, and (4) the text’s contribution to
understanding Philippine history.

C. Group Work. Form five groups among the members of the class. Each class will pick one of
the following primary sources: (1) The Laguna Copper Plate Inscription; (2) The poem, “Ang
Pag-ibig sa Tinubuang Lupa” by Andres Bonifacio; (3) The declaration of Martial Law in
1972 by Ferdinand Marcos; (4) The speech of KALIBAPI Acting Director Camilo Osias on 7
December 1943; and (5) The 1935 Constitution.

Brainstorm with your group mates on how you will respond to the following questions:
1. What does the document/artifact say?
2. What was the provenance or source of the document/artifact?
3. Who authored it (if applicable)?
4. What was the context of the primary source’s production?

20
Prepared by: M. G. Cardente
References
Aquino, C. (1986). “Restoring Democracy by the Ways of Democracy.” In
http://www.coryaquino.ph/index.php/works/article/353b89aa-f2dc-11df-b3cf-001617d76479.
Retrieved 18 May 2017.
Bautista, A. (1898). “Declaration of the Philippine Independence.” trans. Sulpicio Guevarra in The
Laws of the First Philippine Republic 1972. Manila: National Historical Commission.
Jacinto, E. (1896). “Kartilya ng Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan.” trans. Gregorio Nieva, 1918.
Text from Philippine Center for Masonic Studies,
https://www.philippinemasonry.org/kartilya-ng-katipunan.html. Retrieved 18 October 2017.
McCoy, A., & Roces, A. (1985). Philippine Cartoons: Political Caricature of the American Era,
1900-1941. Quezon City: Vera-Reyes.
Pigafetta, A. (1874). The First Voyage Around the World by Magellan. trans. Lord Stanley of
Alderley. London: Hakluyt Society.

21
Prepared by: M. G. Cardente