Republic of the Philippines

ASIAN DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION COLLEGE

Tacloban City

Preliminary Period
Second Semester AY 2021-2022

MODULE in

READINGS IN
PHILIPPINE HISTORY

PREPARED BY:
MARIENELL C. PIÑEDA
MODULE 3: Reading the "Proclamation of the Philippine Independence”

Learning Objectives:
 To familiarize oneself with the primary documents in different historical periods of the
Philippines.
 To learn history through primary sources.
 To properly interpret primary sources through examining the content and context of the
document.
 To understand the context behind each selected document.

I. INTRODUCTION

This chapter introduces history as a discipline and as a narrative. It

presents
the definition of the history, which transcends the common definition of history
as the study of the past. This chapter also discusses several issues in history
that consequently opens up for the theoretical aspects of the discipline. The
distinction between primary and secondary sources is also discussed in relation
to the historical subject matter being studied and the historical methodology
employed by the historian. Ultimately, this chapter also tackles the task of the
historian as the arbiter of facts and evidences in making his interpretation and
forming historical narrative.

II. OBJECTIVES

At the end of this lesson students should be able

to:

 To familiarize oneself with the primary documents in different historical periods of the
Philippines.
 To learn history through primary sources.
 To properly interpret primary sources through examining the content and context of the
document.
 To understand the context behind each selected document.

III. DISCUSSION

Every year, the country: commemorates the anniversary of the Philiippine 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 signalled 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 ot 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 of 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 thi* 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 Visayaa; thus, the independence of the country was
ensured. The document also mention* Rival's execution, calling it unjust* The execution, as written in
the document, wna 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,1" The document also narrates the Cavite Mutiny of
January 1B72 that caused the infamous execution of the martyred native priest* Jose Burgos,
Mnnano Gomez, and Jacinto Zamora, “whose innocent blood was shed through the intrigues of those
so-called religious orders"1 that incited the three secular pnests in the said mutiny.
The proclamation of independence alao invokes that the established republic would be led
under the dictatorship of Emilio Agumaldo. 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, l)«m Ambrosio Rmnsftre* Bautista, Auditor of Wsr 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.
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.

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 beein 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..

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.

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 Federalists 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 “Nino/’ 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, j 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:
“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 so, 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 their 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 our 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 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:
“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 1 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.”
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. 1 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 ^mounting 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:
“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 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 hlown-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.

IV. LESSON ACTIVITY

NAME: CODE (number):

COURSE & YEAR: SCHEDULE:

I. ESSAY
1. What is the significance of the proclamation of the Philippine independence in 1898?
2. What were the main reasons behind the Declaration of independence in Philippines?
3. Why do we need to re-examine the proclamation of the Philippine independence?
4. What is the focus of Cory Aquino’s speech before the U.S. Congress?

II. Explain the context of each cartoons below. .

1.

ANSWER:

2.

ANSWER:

3.

ANSWER:
4.

ANSWER:

5.

ANSWER:

6.

ANSWER: