Reading the "Proclamation of the Philippine Independence" PDF

**[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 sign...

**[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: The above passage demonstrates the justifications behind the revolution against Spain. Specifically cited are the abuse by the Civil Guards and the unlawful shooting of prisoners whom they alleged as attempting to escape. The passage also condemns the unequal protection of the law between the Filipino people and the \"eminent personages.\" Moreover, the line mentions the avarice and greed of the clergy like the friars and the Archbishop himself. Lastly, the passage also condemns what they saw as the unjust deportation and rendering of other decision without proper hearing, expected of any civilized nation. From here, the proclamation proceeded with a brief historical overview of the Spanish occupation since Magellan\'s arrival in Visayas until the Philippine Revolution, with specific details about the latter, especially after the Pact of Biak-na-Bato had collapsed. The document narrates the spread of the movement \"like an electric spark\" through different towns and provinces like Bataan, Pampanga, Batangas, Bulacan, Laguna, and Morong, and the quick decline of Spanish forces in the same provinces. The revolt also reached Visayas; thus, the independence of the country was ensured. The document also mentions Rizal\'s execution, calling it unjust. The execution, as written in the document, was done to \"please the greedy body of friars in their insatiable desire to seek revenge upon and exterminate all those who are opposed to their Machiavellian purposes, which tramples upon the penal code prescribed for these islands.\" The document also narrates the Cavite Mutiny of January 1872 that caused the infamous execution of the martyred native priests Jose Burgos, Mariano Gomez, and Jacinto Zamora, \"whose innocent blood was shed through the intrigues of those so-called religious orders\" that incited the three secular priests in the said mutiny. The proclamation of independence also invokes that the established republic would be led under the dictatorship of Emilio Aguinaldo. The first mention was at the very beginning of the proclamation. It stated: The same was repeated toward the last part of the proclamation. It states: 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: This often overlooked detail reveals much about the historically accurate meaning behind the most widely known national symbol in the Philippines. It is not known by many for example, that the white triangle was derived from the symbol of the Katipunan. The red and blue colors of the flag are often associated with courage and peace, respectively. Our basic education omits the fact that those colors were taken from the flag of the United States. While it can always be argued that symbolic meaning can always change and be reinterpreted, the original symbolic meaning of something presents us several historical truths that can explain the subsequent events, which unfolded after the declaration of independence on the 12th day of June 1898. **[Analysis of the \"Proclamation of the Philippine Independence\"]** As mentioned earlier, a re-examination of the document on the declaration of independence can reveal some often overlooked historical truths about this important event in Philippine history. Aside from this, the document reflects the general revolutionary sentiment of that period. For example, the abuses specifically mentioned in the proclamation like friar abuse, racial discrimination, and inequality before the law reflect the most compelling sentiments represented by the revolutionary leadership. However, no mention was made about the more serious problem that affected the masses more profoundly (i.e., the land and agrarian crisis felt by the numerous Filipino peasants in the nineteenth century). This is ironic especially when renowned Philippine Revolution historian, Teodoro Agoncillo, stated that the Philippine Revolution was an agrarian revolution. The common revolutionary soldiers fought in the revolution for the hope of owning the lands that they were tilling once the friar estates in different provinces like Batangas and Laguna dissolve, if and when the revolution succeeded. Such aspects and realities of the revolutionary struggle were either unfamiliar to the middle class revolutionary leaders like Emilio Aguinaldo, Ambrosio Rianzares-Bautista, and Felipe Buencamino, or were intentionally left out because they were landholders themselves. The Treaty of Paris was an agreement signed between Spain and the United States of America regarding the ownership of the Philippine Islands and other Spanish colonies in South America. The agreement ended the short-lived Spanish-American War. The Treaty was signed on 10 December 1898, six months after the revolutionary government declared the Philippine Independence. The Philippines was sold to the United States at \$20 million and effectively undermined the sovereignty of the Filipinos after their revolutionary victory. The Americans occupied the Philippines immediately which resulted in the Philippine-American War that lasted until the earliest years of the twentieth century. The proclamation also gives us the impression on how the victorious revolutionary government of Aguinaldo historicized the struggle for independence. There were mentions of past events that were seen as important turning points of the movement against Spain. The execution of the GOMBURZA, for example, and the failed Cavite Mutiny of 1872 was narrated in detail. This shows that they saw this event as a significant awakening of the Filipinos in the real conditions of the nation under Spain. Jose Rizal\'s legacy and martyrdom was also mentioned in the document. However, the Katipunan as the pioneer of the revolutionary movement was only mentioned once toward the end of the document. There was no mention of the Katipunan\'s foundation. Bonifacio and his co-founders were also left out. It can be argued, thus, that the way of historical narration found in the document also reflects the politics of the victors. The enmity between Aguinaldo\'s Magdalo and Bonifacio\'s Magdiwang in the Katipunan is no secret in the pages of our history. On the contrary, the war led by Aguinaldo\'s men with the forces of the United States were discussed in detail. The point is, even official records and documents like the proclamation of independence, while truthful most of the time, still exude the politics and biases of whoever is in power. This manifests in the selectiveness of information that can be found in these records. It is the task of the historian, thus, to analyze the content of these documents in relation to the dominant politics and the contexts of people and institutions surrounding it. This tells us a lesson on taking primary sources like official government records within the circumstance of this production. Studying one historical subject, thus, entails looking at multiple primary sources and pieces of historical evidences in order to have a more nuanced and contextual analysis of our past. **[\ ]** **[A Glance at Selected Philippine Political Caricature in Alfred McCoy\'s Philippine Cartoons: Political Caricature of the American Era (1900-1941)]** Political cartoons and caricature are a rather recent art form, which veered away from the classical art by exaggerating human features and poking fun at its subjects. Such art genre and technique became a part of the print media as a form of social and political commentary, which usually targets persons of power and authority. Cartoons became an effective tool of publicizing opinions through heavy use of symbolism, which is different from a verbose written editorial and opinion pieces. The unique way that a caricature represents opinion and captures the audience\'s imagination is reason enough for historians to examine these political cartoons. Commentaries in mass media inevitably shape public opinion and such kind of opinion is worthy of historical examination. In his book Philippine Cartoons: Political Caricature of the American Era (1900-1941), Alfred McCoy, together with Alfredo Roces, compiled political cartoons published in newspaper dailies and periodicals in the aforementioned time period. For this part, we are going to look at selected cartoons and explain the context of each one. https://lesleykarenpenera.files.wordpress.com/2020/10/img\_20200910\_152620.jpg The first example shown above was published in The Independent on May 20, 1916. The cartoon shows a politician from Tondo, named Dr. Santos, passing his crown to his brother-in-law, Dr. Barcelona. A Filipino guy (as depicted wearing salakot and barong tagalog) was trying to stop Santos, telling the latter to stop giving Barcelona the crown because it is not his to begin with. The second cartoon was also published by The Independent on 16 June 1917. This was drawn by Fernando Amorsolo and was aimed as a commentary to the workings of Manila Police at that period. Here, we see a Filipino child who stole a skinny chicken because he had nothing to eat. The police officer was relentlessly pursuing the said child. A man wearing a salakot, labeled Juan de la Cruz was grabbing the officer, telling him to leave the small-time pickpockets and thieves and to turn at the great thieves instead. He was pointing to huge warehouses containing bulks of rice, milk, and grocery products.  The third cartoon was a commentary on the unprecedented cases of colorum automobiles in the city streets. The Philippine Free Press published this commentary when fatal accidents involving colorum vehicles and taxis occurred too often already. https://lesleykarenpenera.files.wordpress.com/2020/10/img\_20200910\_152819.jpg 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. https://lesleykarenpenera.files.wordpress.com/2020/10/img\_20200910\_153028.jpg The last cartoon was published by Lipang Kalabaw on 24 August 1907. In the picture, we can see Uncle Sam rationing porridge to the politicians and members of the Progresista Party (sometimes known as the Federalista Party) while members of the Nacionalista Party look on and wait for their turn. This cartoon depicts the patronage of the United States being coveted by politicians from either of the party.  **[Analysis of the Political Caricatures during the American Period]** The transition from the Spanish Colonial period to the American Occupation period demonstrated different strands of changes and shifts in culture, society, and politics. The Americans drastically introduced democracy to the nascent nation and the consequences were far from ideal. Aside from this, it was also during the American period that Filipinos were introduced to different manifestations of modernity like healthcare, modern transportation, and media. This ushered in a more open and freer press. The post-independence and the post-Filipino-American period in the Philippines were experienced differently by Filipinos coming from different classes. The upper principalia class experienced economic prosperity with the opening up of the Philippine economy to the United States but the majority of the poor Filipino remained poor, desperate, and victims of state repression. The selected cartoons illustrate not only the opinion of certain media outfits about the Philippine society during the American period but also paint a broad image of society and politics under the United States. In the arena of politics, for example, we see the price that Filipinos paid for the democracy modeled after the Americans. First, it seemed that the Filipino politicians at that time did not understand well enough the essence of democracy and the accompanying democratic institutions and processes. This can be seen in the rising dynastic politics in Tondo as depicted in the cartoon published by The Independent. Patronage also became influential and powerful, not only between clients and patrons but also between the newly formed political parties composed of the elite and the United States. This was depicted in the cartoon where the United States, represented by Uncle Sam, provided dole outs for members of the Federalista while the Nacionalista politicians looked on and waited for their turn. Thus, the essence of competing political parties to enforce choices among the voters was cancelled out. The problem continues up to the present where politicians transfer from one party to another depending on which party was powerful in specific periods of time. The transition from a Catholic-centered, Spanish-Filipino society to an imperial American-assimilated one, and its complications, were also depicted in the cartoons. One example is the unprecedented increase of motorized vehicles in the city. Automobiles became a popular mode of transportation in the city and led to the emergence of taxis. However, the laws and policy implementation was mediocre. This resulted in the increasing colorum and unlicensed vehicles transporting people around the city. The rules governing the issuance of driver\'s license was loose and traffic police could not be bothered by rampant violations of traffic rules. This is a direct consequence of the drastic urbanization of the Philippine society. Another example is what McCoy called the \"sexual revolution\" that occurred in the 1930s. Young people, as early as that period, disturbed the conservative Filipino mindset by engaging in daring sexual activities in public spaces like cinemas. Here, we can see how that period was the meeting point between the conservative past and the liberated future of the Philippines, Lastly, the cartoons also illustrated the conditions of poor Filipinos in the Philippines now governed by the United States. From the looks of it, nothing much has changed. For example, a cartoon depicted how police authorities oppress petty Filipino criminals while turning a blind eye on hoarders who monopolize goods in their huge warehouses (presumably Chinese merchants). The other cartoon depicts how Americans controlled Filipinos through seemingly harmless American objects. By controlling their consciousness and mentality, Americans got to control and subjugate Filipinos. **[Revisiting Corazon Aquino\'s Speech Before the U.S. Congress]** Corazon \"Cory\" Cojuangco Aquino functioned as the symbol of the restoration of democracy and the overthrow of the Marcos Dictatorship in 1986. The EDSA People Power, which installed Cory Aquino in the presidency, put the Philippines in the international spotlight for overthrowing a dictator through peaceful means. Cory was easily a figure of the said revolution, as the widow of the slain Marcos oppositionist and former Senator Benigno \"Ninoy\" Aquino Jr. Cory was hoisted as the antithesis of the dictator. Her image as a mourning, widowed housewife who had always been in the shadow of her husband and relatives and had no experience in politics was juxtaposed against Marcos\'s statesmanship, eloquence, charisma, and cunning political skills. Nevertheless, Cory was able to capture the imagination of the people whose rights and freedom had long been compromised throughout the Marcos regime. This is despite the fact that Cory came from a rich haciendero family in Tarlac and owned vast estates of sugar plantation and whose relatives occupy local and national government positions. The People Power Revolution of 1986 was widely recognized around the world for its peaceful character. When former senator Ninoy Aquino was shot at the tarmac of the Manila International Airport on 21 August 1983, the Marcos regime greatly suffered a crisis of legitimacy. Protests from different sectors frequented different areas in the country. Marcos\'s credibility in the international community also suffered. Paired with the looming economic crisis, Marcos had to do something to prove to his allies in the United States that he remained to be the democratically anointed leader of the country. He called for a Snap Election in February 1986, where Corazon Cojuangco Aquino, the widow of the slain senator was convinced to run against Marcos. The canvassing was rigged to Marcos\'s favor but the people expressed their protests against the corrupt and authoritarian government. Leading military officials of the regime and Martial Law orchestrators themselves, Juan Ponce Enrile and Fidel V. Ramos, plotted to take over the presidency, until civilians heeded the call of then Manila Archbishop Jaime Cardinal Sin and other civilian leaders gathered in EDSA. The overwhelming presence of civilians in EDSA successfully turned a coup into a civilian demonstration. The thousands of people who gathered overthrew Ferdinand Marcos from the presidency after 21 years. On 18 September 1986, seven months since Cory became president, she went to the United States and spoke before the joint session of the U.S. Congress. Cory was welcomed with long applause as she took the podium and addressed the United States about her presidency and the challenges faced by the new republic. She began her speech with the story of her leaving the United States three years prior as a newly widowed wife of Ninoy Aquino. She then told of Ninoy\'s character, conviction, and resolve in opposing the authoritarianism of Marcos. She talked of the three times that they lost Ninoy including his demise on 23 August 1983. The first time was when the dictatorship detained Ninoy with other dissenters. Cory related: 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: Ninoy\'s death was the third and the last time that Cory and their children lost Ninoy. She continued: Cory attributed the peaceful EDSA Revolution to the martyrdom of Ninoy. She stated that the death of Ninoy sparked the revolution and the responsibility of \"offering the democratic alternative\" had \"fallen on (her) shoulders.\" Cory\'s address introduced us to her democratic philosophy, which she claimed she also acquired from Ninoy. She argued: 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: Cory then proceeded on her peace agenda with the existing communist insurgency, aggravated by the dictatorial and authoritarian measure of Ferdinand Marcos. She asserted: 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: 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: 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: Cory ended her speech by thanking America for serving as home to her family for what she referred to as the \"three happiest years of our lives together.\" She enjoined America in building the Philippines as a new home for democracy and in turning the country as a \"shining testament of our two nations\' commitment to freedom.\" **[Analysis of Cory Aquino\'s Speech]** Cory Aquino\'s speech was an important event in the political and diplomatic history of the country because it has arguably cemented the legitimacy of the EDSA government in the international arena. The speech talks of her family background, especially her relationship with her late husband, Ninoy Aquino. It is well known that it was Ninoy who served as the real leading figure of the opposition at that time. Indeed, Ninoy\'s eloquence and charisma could very well compete with that of Marcos. In her speech, Cory talked at length about Ninoy\'s toil and suffering at the hands of the dictatorship that he resisted. Even when she proceeded talking about her new government, she still went back to Ninoy\'s legacies and lessons. Moreover, her attribution of the revolution to Ninoy\'s death demonstrates not only Cory\'s personal perception on the revolution, but since she was the president, it also represents what the dominant discourse was at that point in our history. The ideology or the principles of the new democratic government can also be seen in the same speech. Aquino was able to draw the sharp contrast between her government and of her predecessor by expressing her commitment to a democratic constitution drafted by an independent commission. She claimed that such constitution upholds and adheres to the rights and liberty of the Filipino people. Cory also hoisted herself as the reconciliatory agent after more than two decades of a polarizing authoritarian politics. For example, Cory saw the blown-up communist insurgency as a product of a repressive and corrupt government. Her response to this insurgency rooted from her diametric opposition of the dictator (i.e., initiating reintegration of communist rebels to the mainstream Philippine society). Cory claimed that her main approach to this problem was through peace and not through the sword of war. Despite Cory\'s efforts to hoist herself as the exact opposite of Marcos, her speech still revealed certain parallelisms between her and the Marcos\'s government. This is seen in terms of continuing the alliance between the Philippines and the United States despite the known affinity between the said world super power and Marcos. The Aquino regime, as seen in Cory\'s acceptance of the invitation to address the U.S. Congress and to the content of the speech, decided to build and continue with the alliance between the Philippines and the United States and effectively implemented an essentially similar foreign policy to that of the dictatorship. For example, Cory recognized that the large sum of foreign debts incurred by the Marcos regime never benefitted the Filipino people. Nevertheless, Cory expressed her intention to pay off those debts. Unknown to many Filipinos was the fact that there was a choice of waiving the said debt because those were the debt of the dictator and not of the country. Cory\'s decision is an indicator of her government\'s intention to carry on a debt-driven economy. Reading through Aquino\'s speech, we can already take cues, not just on Cory\'s individual ideas and aspirations, but also the guiding principles and framework of the government that she represented.