Thu. May 26th, 2022
Almost two generations have passed and the people have lost interest in the EDSA anniversary because the so-called “revolution” have brought more problems than the solutions it was to provide. It has pumped in more questions than answers

By Rigoberto Tiglao

Second of Three series

Continuing Ninoy Aquino’s alleged “Undelivered speech”:


So as to leave no room for misunderstanding, I shall define my terms:

1. Six years ago, I was sentenced to die before a firing squad by a Military Tribunal whose jurisdiction I steadfastly refused to recognize. It is now time for the regime to decide. Order my IMMEDIATE EXECUTION OR SET ME FREE.

I was sentenced to die for allegedly being the leading communist leader. I am not a communist, never was and never will be.

2. National reconciliation and unity can be achieved but only with justice, including justice for our Muslim and Ifugao brothers. There can be no deal with a Dictator. No compromise with Dictatorship.

3. In a revolution there can really be no victors, only victims. We do not have to destroy in order to build.

4. Subversion stems from economic, social and political causes and will not be solved by purely military solutions; it can be curbed not with ever increasing repression but with a more equitable distribution of wealth, more democracy and more freedom, and

5. For the economy to get going once again, the workingman must be given his just and rightful share of his labor, and to the owners and managers must be restored the hope where there is so much uncertainty if not despair.

On one of the long corridors of Harvard University are carved in granite the words of Archibald Macleish:

“How shall freedom be defended? By arms when it is attacked by arms; by truth when it is attacked by lies; by democratic faith when it is attacked by authoritarian dogma. Always, and in the final act, by determination and faith.”

I return from exile and to an uncertain future with only determination and faith to offer—faith in our people and faith in God. #


That likely was a forgery, as it surfaced only in 2014, three decades after his death, released on Ninoy Aquino day, and by Malacañang under his son Noynoy, without any explanation how it was discovered.

After its publication in 2014 though, not even the Yellows claimed it was his.

A political scientist, the late Howard Wiarda, who shared an office with Aquino at Harvard, wrote in his book Adventures in Research (Volume III: Global Traveler): “[Aquino] wanted to talk constantly, while I was at Harvard to write a book, and in our year together I never saw him read or write anything.”

Aquino, who was supposedly a scholar at Harvard and MIT for three years, didn’t write anything, not even a journal, an essay, or any article for any US publication denouncing Marcos.

READ: Traitor not a hero 

https://tribune.net.ph/index.php/2020/08/09/traitor-not-a-hero/

The Yellows claim that Aquino galvanized the opposition against Marcos there. I haven’t seen any evidence or any testimony to support this claim, though.

It was the Movement for a Free Philippines headed by another former senator in exile, Raul Manglapus, that was more active, who went around the US rousing the Filipino community there to denounce the dictatorship. Aquino rarely left Cambridge.

Data show that Aquino appears to have been militant only a year after his 1980 heart surgery, and then in the months before his return.

The video of Aquino’s philippic against Marcos — which was widely distributed after his killing as proof that it was the dictator who wanted him silenced — was recorded February 15, 1981 before a Filipino community.

However, in his June 1981 interview with evangelist Pat Roberson, Aquino talked more about his getting closer to God as a result of his incarceration, and said not a bad word against Marcos.

Saudi Arabia

Another video was sometime in 1981 in Dallas where, rather than ranting against Marcos, he explained his ideas for getting Saudi Arabia to build a gas pipeline in Mindanao. “If I will be able to sell this [idea] to Mr. Marcos, the Philippines will be able to find an end to our insurgency in the South.”

I haven’t found any video or report of Aquino making fiery speeches against Marcos after 1981. Had the anti-Marcos fire in Aquino’s belly gone cold as he and his family enjoyed their stay that lasted three years in a fine house in Newton, Massachusetts, an upper-class district near Boston?

In fact, the CIA report mentioned above implied Aquino’s slide to irrelevancy: “Aquino’s political position has been hurt by his long exile. He probably believes [now] he has to return home if he is to play a role in the post-Marcos era.”

There were two major factors that likely prodded Aquino to leave his tranquil life in the upper-class town of Newton, Massachusetts in 1983.

First, the Philippines’ economic crisis unfolded that any observer could see was a very serious threat to Marcos’ survival, and Aquino knew this. The Latin American debt crisis broke when Mexico defaulted on its foreign loans in August 1982, and would soon hit the Philippines as well, triggering its worst economic crisis ever. It would have been impossible for Aquino, with his wide network, not to have known this.

Second, Aquino was convinced of the certainty that Marcos was dying. He had to rush home to wrench the leadership from others who were active in trying to topple Marcos, especially Salvador Laurel.

Steve Psinakis

This is disclosed in an audio tape of his conversation with Steve Psinakis a few days before his return to the country.

In that conversation, Aquino said: “Marcos is a man now: Terminal… now that he (Marcos) is about to meet his Maker, I am almost confident that I can talk to him and sell him something.”

Aquino told Psinakis his information came from Cardinal Jaime Sin. I suspect it came from his American intelligence friends, which is why he was so confident of his information.

But still he decided to risk his life, even after he was told by Imelda herself that there were serious threats to his life. Indeed, that’s been Aquino’s well-known trait: He took huge risks.

Aquino was smart though. He filled his China Airline flight with media men, practically from every continent — with not a single Filipino journalist, not even those from the emerging “mosquito press” at the time.

He obviously thought that they could be his human shields, and that Marcos wouldn’t risk his foremost critic to be killed in front of the world, nor Western media men hurt, or even killed, in the volley of fire or a bomb’s shrapnels intended for him.

Except for his brother-in-law, ABC newsman Ken Kashiwahara, the foreign media turned out to be as meek as sheep, and didn’t question, much less block, the unarmed military men who fetched Aquino to escort him to the tarmac. Nobody tried to be with him as he was brought down. Aquino miscalculated terribly that Western media men had balls.

Most who trooped to Edsa responded to Cardinal Sin’s appeal for the people to place themselves between the government troops and the putschists or mutineers, to prevent a bloody encounter.

Marcos’ fall

Did his death trigger Marcos’ fall? It helped, no doubt. It was the last straw that broke the camel’s back of our foreign debt quagmire, leading to our October 1983 debt default.

But after his funeral parade in August 1983 that was attended by a million people, the protest crowds dwindled.

By late 1985, the hyperinflation that broke out in 1984 was being tamed, after the central bank gave wealthy Filipinos an irresistible haven for their funds (the so-called “Jobo bills,” with their astronomical interest rates). An orderly rescheduling plan for the country’s foreign debt was also in place.

Marcos became so confident that he was on his way to restoring political and economic stability, that he fell for the US ruse to call for “snap” presidential elections, which had absolutely no constitutional basis.

That Ninoy’s assassination triggered the People Power revolt that overthrew Marcos is merely a romantic tale, exploiting our belief in messiahs and heroes who give up their lives for a nation.

Marcos gave in to the US demand for him to call snap elections to prove his legitimacy. The cabal that planned his overthrow very expertly created the perception that Cory won the elections, by declaring her victory ahead of the official returns, outsmarting Marcos.

The strongman’s refusal to recognize Aquino as the winner, and the propaganda that she won despite massive cheating, convinced his defense secretary Juan Ponce Enrile and his RAM colonels to accelerate their plan to grab power through a classic colonels’ coup.

But Marcos got wind of their conspiracy and ordered the arrest of Enrile and his RAM conspirators. Enrile was desperate, convinced that Marcos would kill him or throw him in jail.

He and his RAM decided to take their last stand at his headquarters at Camp Aguinaldo, and die in the blaze of glorious battle. He managed to convince Fidel Ramos — who most probably had been told by his US contacts that Ronald Reagan was set to dump Marcos — to join him and together they marched to Camp Crame, to make it their redoubt.

Enrile’s genius was to get the anti-Marcos Cardinal Sin to call on his faithful to go to EDSA and surround Camp Crame, to form a human shield.

WATCH:  “My order is to disperse the crowd without shooting them.” – President Marcos

Fortunately for those in EDSA in February 1986, Marcos wasn’t of the same thinking as the Chinese Communist Party during the Tiananmen Square uprising in 1989, which was to let People’s Liberation Army tanks and battalions of riot police disperse the human shields.

Marcos ordered his troops to stand down and, according to his son Ferdinand Jr., told his generals: “I have served my countrymen for most of my life. I am not about to kill them.”

The rest, as the cliché goes, is history — the real one, with Ninoy in the sidelines.

Certainly, a tragic and an audacious figure, but not a hero.

(Published August 21, 2019. More details on the Aquino mythology in my book Debunked: Uncovering Hard Truths about EDSA, Martial Law, Marcos, Aquino, and a Special Section on the Duterte Presidency.)

READ: Shultz and the ‘Hit Men’ Destroyed the Philippines by the Executive Intelligence Review

https://larouchepub.com/other/2004/site_packages/econ_hitmen/3150philipp_coup.html

Leave a Reply