I have an inordinate fear of splurging my money up to the last cent when I am on my own in a bookshop. This is my malady. Honestly, I wouldn’t want to call my love of books a malady, much less an affliction or a disorder. But for want of a more accurate, scientific description of my condition, I’ll risk of admitting it: I am afflicted with a seemingly incurable malaise called bibliophilia.
I was in my 20s when I discovered that I have bibliophilia; and gladly, I welcomed it. But you see, my affliction comes in blurry stages marked by a long hiatus during college.
As a child, I was pampered with books; toys then were a rarity in our house. It had to be so because my mother, a stern history teacher reminiscent of Miss Minchin, called the shots. My affable father had to take the back seat when it comes to spending. My mother would always bewail that toys were a waste of money and education must be given top priority even at an early age.
I did not grow up reading Dickens’ classics though. It was always about Bible stories. Old Testament characters like Abraham, Moses, David, and Joseph to the New Testament stalwarts like Jesus and his disciples were the meat of my biographical readings at 5 years old.
Devouring books
Soon, I studied the technique of fast reading. I devoured one book after another in successive order. My appetite for learning seemed insatiable, and my memory was like a sponge absorbing every granular detail of the Bible.
Then came the “Daily Vacation Bible School” or DVBS. It was a one-week affair, a fun religious activity held every summer for evangelical kids. For me, this event was a feast. While most of the kids did not take this summer camp seriously, I always saw this as an opportunity to test my comprehension from what I had been reading over the years. And so I grabbed this opportunity by the forelock.
One of the highlights of DVBS was the bible quiz competition. This was sort of “The Battle of the Brains” show we watched on television. One kid gets to represent his class for this competition. And so naturally I was the chosen one in our class. Obviously, my early readings proved useful. I boned ever question, ransacked all the ribbons, and brought home the bacon.
In hindsight, I came to the realization that it really pays to read. I never pictured it as some kind of a task just to please my mother. After all, like my G.I. Joes and toy soldiers, books could be fun too.
90s band explosion
But as I grew older though, my fascination for biblical characters plummeted and it even took a steeper dive in high school. And so was my interest for books.
The 90s band explosion took me by surprise. I was in my second-year high school when the Pinoy rock icons known as the “Eraserheads” released its critically acclaimed album, “Circus.” Suddenly, their hit song “Magasin” was all over the radio.
By this time, my interest for books shifted dramatically to guitars. Then out of nowhere, I was already in a rowdy rock band desperately imitating a bunch of inebriated rock heroes of our time. This went on until the early years of my college life.
Band life was to become my proverbial lull - the calm before the big storm brewing ahead.
As the surge for Pinoy rock music died down, I could hardly recognize who I was. I was left with no ambition whatsoever. My life was in a total wreck. Along with my passion for books, my academic standing too was gravely affected. My mother, in utter frustration, nearly gave up on me. But still she wanted me to finish college in a prestigious school. I begged off. I really felt sorry for her because she raised me to become an educated person that she was and yet I disappointed her to no end.
Rekindling lost passion
To compensate for my lost years, I’ve decided to take the road less taken. I enrolled myself in a local college whose only claim to fame is its low passing percentage in board exams. This decision proved to be my catharsis and a turning point in my life.
My experience was jaw-dropping. Most teachers, who dubbed themselves professors, are square pegs in round holes, in other words - misfits. Once, a political science professor pleaded with me not to attend any of his class because I ask too many questions. And alas, I got the highest mark for not attending his classes.
For almost 2 years I’ve spent in that institution, I hardly attended classes. But I refused to bury myself in the graveyard of lost opportunities. Not again, I said to myself. Instead, I saved all my allowances to buy Filipiniana books in Manila then shipped them all the way to Basilan.
The very first book I read during my “sabbatical leave” in college was the voluminous “The Democratic Revolution in the Philippines” by Ferdinand E. Marcos. In no time, I rekindled my long lost passion for reading. With fiery vengeance, I recaptured the wonder of my childhood dreams.
I finished my bachelor’s degree in absentia and with flying colors even, so to say. That’s when I decided to take up law in Manila.
Law school proved to be toxic but a nest for bibliophiles. A few years later, I am proud to have my own library – a seal of my undying love for books, a proof of my affliction, or my addiction. But now is not the time to historicize because I have two young kids under my close ward - two kids whom I will gladly share my affliction with.
My eldest is showing signs of early inclination to writing. I am doubtful whether I am or we are doing the right thing. It’s actually a red flag to encourage her to read and love books more. Reading and writing are, of course, an unbeatable team to beat.
This is my confession. - Rappler.com
Sunday, April 27, 2014
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Law school jitters
Tempus fugit. Almost 6 months ago, jittery law graduates trooped to the University of Santo Tomas (UST) on España Boulevard to take the final test to become lawyers.
Today, the long wait is finally over. The “Gods of Faura” have released the much awaited verdict for this year, the final lap of the long obstacle course of legal education – the bar examination results.
Passing the bar exams – or flunking them, for that matter – may just be a facet of a law student’s journey to the portals of the legal profession.
The real adventure begins on the first day of class.
Ask any law student, and you’ll probably get a similar answer. For one, it is an entirely different academic arena, far from the usual classroom routine.
Society has its own way of showing its high regard for law students and I take pride in being one of them. The respect and courtesy that society has bestowed upon people in the legal profession, you must realize, is earned not from the time they pass the bar and become full fledged lawyers, but from the time they become students of the law.
Surviving law school
As a mere law student now, I have my own share of stories about struggling to keep such respect. Surviving it is one.
To survive law school you have to have a one-track mind – read, read and read.
Sometimes there seems to be no escape from this book-driven life.
In my case, I have to set aside my social life if any, even religious activities, just to devote more time reading voluminous cases being assigned to us by our professors.
But the more dangerous and fearful path for each law student is class recitation. Law students, even most established lawyers I know, have their own story of recitation mishaps to tell. I am happy to tell mine.
First mishap
It was Monday evening, first meeting for my environmental law class. The silence was deafening as I stood valiantly after my name was called. It was the start of a long night for class recitation.
The case dealt with the constitutionality of the IPRA law, a novel legislation that protects the ancestral land rights of indigenous peoples.
As I was about to discuss the court ruling, my mini-eccentric professor suddenly interrupted me and started to fire questions indiscriminately.
While still armored and battling, I seemed a helpless victim for a while. The adrenalin kept rushing as I searched for more answers in my head. Most of the questions were really tough and he was posturing, like he wrote the dissenting opinion of that case.
After his unwritten dissenting opinion, he out of the blue muttered, “Mr. Bonoan are you reading the book of Zaide?” I stood my ground and proudly said yes to the question. I had no choice but to defend my argument about the benefits of the Spanish inquisition, otherwise I would be in limbo.
I must not quiver at this point, I told myself over and over again.
Obviously, he was aghast at my answers. He ordered me to simply sit down and called on another student. I was totally devastated because I studied the case from all possible angles, or so I thought.
It was only later that I came to know that my professor was a fiery advocate of indigenous peoples' rights. Incidentally, he was among the lawyers who argued before the Supreme Court in the IPRA case. What was I thinking?
On second thought, I felt vindicated because I engaged him in a sword fight, although I ended up being slaughtered to death.
From then on, I bowed not to limit my readings simply to law books, and expand them to include history and other disciplines.
Second mishap
My next terrible experience was when I was taking up Tort law under a Jesuit-educated professor.
Tort law is a very interesting subject because it deals with mostly accidents and mishaps, and the facts of every case are fascinating and fun to read.
One such case was Picart v. Smith, a very old yet landmark case in tort law.
While it seemed an easy read at the start, the intertwined facts and colloquial language made it trivial.
When my professor shuffled the class cards, I suddenly found myself mumblng all over again, “Oh God, not me. Not me, please.”
But alas! I was the first one to be called! His next words were defeaning. “Chris Bonoan, where are you? Oh there you are! Please recite Picart v. Smith.”
In utter fear or confusion, in whatever order, I muttered to myself, “Oh God, Lord why have you forsaken me!” And like any good soldier, I kept the faith and kept trying to explain the case until my esteemed law professor asked me to visualize on the board what transpired in this popular pony accident case.
Unfortunately, I just could not hit the mark. He suddenly became impatient. But who would not be?
I was literally consuming more than the time allowed for each case. No wonder his expression turned sour as my voice trembled.
Finally, he said, “Sit down Sir, sit down!” in a tone that almost buried me alive.
My classmates definitely had a good laugh with my shocking and unforgettable experience that night.
Good thing for me, they had worse encounters.
As I said, there will always be a next time. But not too many next times. We have to earn the respect right now and not next time. We can always have room for that one time, and maybe another.
And this is the time! Congratulations to those who passed the 2013 Philippine Bar Exams. Indeed, you guys have been tested and found not wanting!
PS: CONGRATULATIONS APRIL JADE A. BONOAN FOR PASSING THE 2013 BAR EXAMS, WE ARE SO PROUD OF YOU!!!
Article courtesy of RAPPLER (3/17/14)
Today, the long wait is finally over. The “Gods of Faura” have released the much awaited verdict for this year, the final lap of the long obstacle course of legal education – the bar examination results.
Passing the bar exams – or flunking them, for that matter – may just be a facet of a law student’s journey to the portals of the legal profession.
The real adventure begins on the first day of class.
Ask any law student, and you’ll probably get a similar answer. For one, it is an entirely different academic arena, far from the usual classroom routine.
Society has its own way of showing its high regard for law students and I take pride in being one of them. The respect and courtesy that society has bestowed upon people in the legal profession, you must realize, is earned not from the time they pass the bar and become full fledged lawyers, but from the time they become students of the law.
Surviving law school
As a mere law student now, I have my own share of stories about struggling to keep such respect. Surviving it is one.
To survive law school you have to have a one-track mind – read, read and read.
Sometimes there seems to be no escape from this book-driven life.
In my case, I have to set aside my social life if any, even religious activities, just to devote more time reading voluminous cases being assigned to us by our professors.
But the more dangerous and fearful path for each law student is class recitation. Law students, even most established lawyers I know, have their own story of recitation mishaps to tell. I am happy to tell mine.
First mishap
It was Monday evening, first meeting for my environmental law class. The silence was deafening as I stood valiantly after my name was called. It was the start of a long night for class recitation.
The case dealt with the constitutionality of the IPRA law, a novel legislation that protects the ancestral land rights of indigenous peoples.
As I was about to discuss the court ruling, my mini-eccentric professor suddenly interrupted me and started to fire questions indiscriminately.
While still armored and battling, I seemed a helpless victim for a while. The adrenalin kept rushing as I searched for more answers in my head. Most of the questions were really tough and he was posturing, like he wrote the dissenting opinion of that case.
After his unwritten dissenting opinion, he out of the blue muttered, “Mr. Bonoan are you reading the book of Zaide?” I stood my ground and proudly said yes to the question. I had no choice but to defend my argument about the benefits of the Spanish inquisition, otherwise I would be in limbo.
I must not quiver at this point, I told myself over and over again.
Obviously, he was aghast at my answers. He ordered me to simply sit down and called on another student. I was totally devastated because I studied the case from all possible angles, or so I thought.
It was only later that I came to know that my professor was a fiery advocate of indigenous peoples' rights. Incidentally, he was among the lawyers who argued before the Supreme Court in the IPRA case. What was I thinking?
On second thought, I felt vindicated because I engaged him in a sword fight, although I ended up being slaughtered to death.
From then on, I bowed not to limit my readings simply to law books, and expand them to include history and other disciplines.
Second mishap
My next terrible experience was when I was taking up Tort law under a Jesuit-educated professor.
Tort law is a very interesting subject because it deals with mostly accidents and mishaps, and the facts of every case are fascinating and fun to read.
One such case was Picart v. Smith, a very old yet landmark case in tort law.
While it seemed an easy read at the start, the intertwined facts and colloquial language made it trivial.
When my professor shuffled the class cards, I suddenly found myself mumblng all over again, “Oh God, not me. Not me, please.”
But alas! I was the first one to be called! His next words were defeaning. “Chris Bonoan, where are you? Oh there you are! Please recite Picart v. Smith.”
In utter fear or confusion, in whatever order, I muttered to myself, “Oh God, Lord why have you forsaken me!” And like any good soldier, I kept the faith and kept trying to explain the case until my esteemed law professor asked me to visualize on the board what transpired in this popular pony accident case.
Unfortunately, I just could not hit the mark. He suddenly became impatient. But who would not be?
I was literally consuming more than the time allowed for each case. No wonder his expression turned sour as my voice trembled.
Finally, he said, “Sit down Sir, sit down!” in a tone that almost buried me alive.
My classmates definitely had a good laugh with my shocking and unforgettable experience that night.
Good thing for me, they had worse encounters.
As I said, there will always be a next time. But not too many next times. We have to earn the respect right now and not next time. We can always have room for that one time, and maybe another.
And this is the time! Congratulations to those who passed the 2013 Philippine Bar Exams. Indeed, you guys have been tested and found not wanting!
PS: CONGRATULATIONS APRIL JADE A. BONOAN FOR PASSING THE 2013 BAR EXAMS, WE ARE SO PROUD OF YOU!!!
Article courtesy of RAPPLER (3/17/14)
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Dear Nards: A quick recourse on Doy and Macoy
Dear fellow Filipino,
Hi Nards, sorry for the late reply. Point well taken, but I assure you that there are no inconsistencies here. My admiration for Salvador H. Laurel on one hand and Ferdinand E. Marcos on the other is in fact a reflection of my own idea of what “nationalism” should be, and my objectivism in relation to history.
With your permission, allow me to repost your enlightening comments here in toto:
Before plunging into the gist of your comment, let me state briefly the political backdrop of Doy and Marcos, a principled political relationship that is barely touched on by yellow historians.

The special political relationship of the Laurels and Marcos is no secret. They had always been fair-weather political allies for as long as I can remember. Marcos admired wartime Philippine President Jose P. Laurel for his intellectual prowess juxtaposed with the courage he displayed during the Japanese Occupation. (Not to mention the ponecia of Justice Laurel in the Nalundasan Murder Case, acquitting the young Ferdinand Marcos on appeal.) The Laurels were also responsible for Marcos’ entry in the NP that ultimately made him president in 1965. And when Marcos sought re-election against the weakling Serging Osmena (LP) in 1969, the old guards of NP (the Laurels) rallied behind him. Marcos won a second term.
Prelude to a fallout
Eventually, Marcos declared martial law in 1972 and at the outset, the Laurels opposed it─ privately. Nonetheless, the Laurels gave Marcos the benefit of the doubt but only under the assumption that martial law was just a temporary measure to bring order to the country.
Upon his return from the United States, Senator Doy received word that Marcos wanted to see him in the Palace. As the outspoken opponent of Marcos within the NP, he braced himself for the usual rhetoric. But Marcos went straight to the jugular. Without missing a beat, Marcos told Doy not to “rock the boat” because he had already burned his bridges; there’s no way he could turn back. Doy tossed up a repartee, cautioning Marcos that “martial law” is a double edge sword: it can be used to cut for good or evil. If Marcos used it to cut for good, then Doy (now a jobless senator) assured the President that he has nothing to worry about.
Divide and rule
Years later, sensing the ship of state was drifting off course, cracks began to surface in their political relationship. History has recorded what happened. The first confrontation between the Laurels and Marcos took place in Malacañang─ the year was 1978.
As a precursor to his so-called “politics of transition,” President Marcos saw the need to abolish existing political parties and tried to form a new political party of his own; initially he called it, “Lapian ng Bagong Lipunan” or the “New Society Party.” Surely, the Laurels opposed this move, believing that this was just one of Marcos' Napoleonic ploys to disintegrate the political opposition─divide et impera. The Laurels, speaking through former Speaker Pepito Laurel, reminded Marcos that it was the Nacionalista that made him president twice. And so Speaker Laurel came up with an idea; a win-win solution that would merely place the NP (and other opposition groups) in suspended animation. “Don’t kill it (Nacionalista), Mr. President. Just let it rest, let it sleep for a while” said Pepito Laurel. “The same with the Liberal Party, let it rest and sleep for a while…until political normalcy is back, it’s pointless anyway to have political parties. There can be no real politics, when all politics is controlled.” Marcos, after some thought, bought the Speaker's 'umbrella' idea.
Soon afterward, a movement, not a political party, was born in the form of Kilusan bagong Lipunan or KBL.
The ghost of KBL
On his end, Doy Laurel felt uncomfortable with the whole setup. But since most of the leading traditional oppositionists (e.g., Tanada, Roxas, Salonga, and Macapagal) supported the seminal boycott movement, Doy was compelled to run as a Nacionalista candidate under the KBL umbrella. Doy believed that that the interim Batasan elections would speed up the return to normalcy; that was his primary reason why he chose to go along with Marcos. When asked candidly by President Marcos why he was hitting him during sorties, Doy Laurel quipped: "I will support you when you are right Mr. President but I will criticize and oppose you when you are wrong.”
Doy won a seat in the 1978 Batasan elections. For this, Doy was severely criticized many years later when he led the active Opposition in the 80s; and to this day only a handful of people know the real score about his stolid affiliation with KBL.
Untying the political knot with Marcos
A year later, however, President Marcos changed his position. Unbeknownst to Doy, KBL was now a political party. This development forced Assemblyman Doy to confront Marcos face-to-face for the last time. The KBL members present during the Imelda-for Deputy caucus in Malacanang gobbled up on Doy until President Marcos came to the fore. After going over every detail of Doy's legal arguments, Marcos finally muttered," “If the Nacionalista Party does not wish to become part of the KBL, then let it play the role of the opposition!” To which Doy replied so poignantly, “So let it be Mr. President…so let it be!” Then he politely walked out.
Doy Laurel regards that confrontation as his final split with Marcos. From thence, Doy Laurel spearheaded the active Opposition, and formed Unido.
I understand, as you have pointed out, that there seems to be a contrasting view for my admiration of Marcos vis a vis the way I described the “Marcos regime” when I wrote the article, “The Honorable Doy Laurel.” Now let me state categorically that indeed the “regime” of President Marcos at that time was a far cry from the hopes and dreams he envisioned under the “New Society.” In the waning years of martial rule, the regime became oppressive, abusive and oblivious to the democratic principles that Marcos stood for in “Mandate for Greatness.” Ironically, for Doy Laurel, he came into the picture at a time when President Marcos was already losing his hold or control on the levers of power. It was his twilight years, and personally, I believe that the phrase “oppressive regime” is an apt description of the situation.
Like what I always use to say in my write-ups, I’m not a blind follower nor a loyalist; I subscribed more on “ideology” or “philosophy” rather than personalities. (Notice that my article on Marcos is titled “Marcosian Ideology,” emphasis is made on his political thought.)
In my RAPPLER article (published on 2/25/14) titled, “Doy Laurel: EDSA’s unsung hero,” note how I viewed EDSA revolution (if at all you can regard it as a “revolution”) from the vantage point of someone who never witnessed EDSA first hand: “Today marks the EDSA Revolution’s 28th year yet our vision is still blurred, if not myopic. I state with no intention to undermine the church, EDSA was far from being miraculous. It was bloodless not because of divinity but of overflowing patriotism with the AILING MARCOS TO NO EXCEPTION.” (Here's the link: http://www.rappler.com/move-ph/ispeak/51532-doy-laurel-edsa-unsung-hero)
I hope I was able to clarify things with you Nards.
Again, thank you for visiting my blogs and for posting your intriguing comments as well. (Re Doy’s letter to Cory, I’ve already read it many years ago, it was also highlighted in Doy’s book of revelation titled “Neither Trumpets Nor Drums: Summing Up the Cory Government.”)
With utmost sincerity,
C.D Bonoan
Hi Nards, sorry for the late reply. Point well taken, but I assure you that there are no inconsistencies here. My admiration for Salvador H. Laurel on one hand and Ferdinand E. Marcos on the other is in fact a reflection of my own idea of what “nationalism” should be, and my objectivism in relation to history.
With your permission, allow me to repost your enlightening comments here in toto:
I only learned about your blog not so long ago upon stumbling with your article on Marcos. I must say it's great and it's enlightening. I'm not into politics but I am so much interested about Marcos, the EDSA and its aftermath and what is really the truth. By continuously knowing the person, Marcos, through and by his works, writings, philosophies, ideologies, speeches and stature in life, you wouldn't believe he was capable of doing those atrocities that the people have been throwing at him since. The fact that those accusers cannot present a single evidence to finally convict him or her family is likewise a mystery...
I was enjoying your entries until i came across your write ups on Doy Laurel, hence this comment of mine. There seems to be a contrasting idea between your belief or earlier admiration on Marcos from your Marcos entry and on how you pictured the Marcos regime in this article of Doy, especially when you wrote on a conclusive note "oppressive regime that terrorized the nation for a long time". I hope this is not your personal opinion but was stated on the perspective of the Aquinos and their allies or Doy for that matter. I never find any reasonable justification of the EDSA other than politics and power struggle. I see EDSA as a great deception, self-serving and the culmination of great betrayals. Doy was one of them and while he had genuine intention, "karma" got the best of him when Cory betrayed him as well. EDSA was never for the people, but left the common tao to pick up the pieces wondering when it will be whole again. Marcos vision was a lost opportunity for me. He was setting the stage for a greater purpose, but we took that stage and rebel against him because of what they "said so".
This is just my piece and would be happy to be refuted/corrected.
Thanks for sharing your great mind and knowledge to everybody.
Before plunging into the gist of your comment, let me state briefly the political backdrop of Doy and Marcos, a principled political relationship that is barely touched on by yellow historians.

The special political relationship of the Laurels and Marcos is no secret. They had always been fair-weather political allies for as long as I can remember. Marcos admired wartime Philippine President Jose P. Laurel for his intellectual prowess juxtaposed with the courage he displayed during the Japanese Occupation. (Not to mention the ponecia of Justice Laurel in the Nalundasan Murder Case, acquitting the young Ferdinand Marcos on appeal.) The Laurels were also responsible for Marcos’ entry in the NP that ultimately made him president in 1965. And when Marcos sought re-election against the weakling Serging Osmena (LP) in 1969, the old guards of NP (the Laurels) rallied behind him. Marcos won a second term.
Prelude to a fallout
Eventually, Marcos declared martial law in 1972 and at the outset, the Laurels opposed it─ privately. Nonetheless, the Laurels gave Marcos the benefit of the doubt but only under the assumption that martial law was just a temporary measure to bring order to the country.
Upon his return from the United States, Senator Doy received word that Marcos wanted to see him in the Palace. As the outspoken opponent of Marcos within the NP, he braced himself for the usual rhetoric. But Marcos went straight to the jugular. Without missing a beat, Marcos told Doy not to “rock the boat” because he had already burned his bridges; there’s no way he could turn back. Doy tossed up a repartee, cautioning Marcos that “martial law” is a double edge sword: it can be used to cut for good or evil. If Marcos used it to cut for good, then Doy (now a jobless senator) assured the President that he has nothing to worry about.
Divide and rule
Years later, sensing the ship of state was drifting off course, cracks began to surface in their political relationship. History has recorded what happened. The first confrontation between the Laurels and Marcos took place in Malacañang─ the year was 1978.
As a precursor to his so-called “politics of transition,” President Marcos saw the need to abolish existing political parties and tried to form a new political party of his own; initially he called it, “Lapian ng Bagong Lipunan” or the “New Society Party.” Surely, the Laurels opposed this move, believing that this was just one of Marcos' Napoleonic ploys to disintegrate the political opposition─divide et impera. The Laurels, speaking through former Speaker Pepito Laurel, reminded Marcos that it was the Nacionalista that made him president twice. And so Speaker Laurel came up with an idea; a win-win solution that would merely place the NP (and other opposition groups) in suspended animation. “Don’t kill it (Nacionalista), Mr. President. Just let it rest, let it sleep for a while” said Pepito Laurel. “The same with the Liberal Party, let it rest and sleep for a while…until political normalcy is back, it’s pointless anyway to have political parties. There can be no real politics, when all politics is controlled.” Marcos, after some thought, bought the Speaker's 'umbrella' idea.
Soon afterward, a movement, not a political party, was born in the form of Kilusan bagong Lipunan or KBL.
The ghost of KBL
On his end, Doy Laurel felt uncomfortable with the whole setup. But since most of the leading traditional oppositionists (e.g., Tanada, Roxas, Salonga, and Macapagal) supported the seminal boycott movement, Doy was compelled to run as a Nacionalista candidate under the KBL umbrella. Doy believed that that the interim Batasan elections would speed up the return to normalcy; that was his primary reason why he chose to go along with Marcos. When asked candidly by President Marcos why he was hitting him during sorties, Doy Laurel quipped: "I will support you when you are right Mr. President but I will criticize and oppose you when you are wrong.”
Doy won a seat in the 1978 Batasan elections. For this, Doy was severely criticized many years later when he led the active Opposition in the 80s; and to this day only a handful of people know the real score about his stolid affiliation with KBL.
Untying the political knot with Marcos
A year later, however, President Marcos changed his position. Unbeknownst to Doy, KBL was now a political party. This development forced Assemblyman Doy to confront Marcos face-to-face for the last time. The KBL members present during the Imelda-for Deputy caucus in Malacanang gobbled up on Doy until President Marcos came to the fore. After going over every detail of Doy's legal arguments, Marcos finally muttered," “If the Nacionalista Party does not wish to become part of the KBL, then let it play the role of the opposition!” To which Doy replied so poignantly, “So let it be Mr. President…so let it be!” Then he politely walked out.
Doy Laurel regards that confrontation as his final split with Marcos. From thence, Doy Laurel spearheaded the active Opposition, and formed Unido.
I understand, as you have pointed out, that there seems to be a contrasting view for my admiration of Marcos vis a vis the way I described the “Marcos regime” when I wrote the article, “The Honorable Doy Laurel.” Now let me state categorically that indeed the “regime” of President Marcos at that time was a far cry from the hopes and dreams he envisioned under the “New Society.” In the waning years of martial rule, the regime became oppressive, abusive and oblivious to the democratic principles that Marcos stood for in “Mandate for Greatness.” Ironically, for Doy Laurel, he came into the picture at a time when President Marcos was already losing his hold or control on the levers of power. It was his twilight years, and personally, I believe that the phrase “oppressive regime” is an apt description of the situation.
Like what I always use to say in my write-ups, I’m not a blind follower nor a loyalist; I subscribed more on “ideology” or “philosophy” rather than personalities. (Notice that my article on Marcos is titled “Marcosian Ideology,” emphasis is made on his political thought.)
In my RAPPLER article (published on 2/25/14) titled, “Doy Laurel: EDSA’s unsung hero,” note how I viewed EDSA revolution (if at all you can regard it as a “revolution”) from the vantage point of someone who never witnessed EDSA first hand: “Today marks the EDSA Revolution’s 28th year yet our vision is still blurred, if not myopic. I state with no intention to undermine the church, EDSA was far from being miraculous. It was bloodless not because of divinity but of overflowing patriotism with the AILING MARCOS TO NO EXCEPTION.” (Here's the link: http://www.rappler.com/move-ph/ispeak/51532-doy-laurel-edsa-unsung-hero)
I hope I was able to clarify things with you Nards.
Again, thank you for visiting my blogs and for posting your intriguing comments as well. (Re Doy’s letter to Cory, I’ve already read it many years ago, it was also highlighted in Doy’s book of revelation titled “Neither Trumpets Nor Drums: Summing Up the Cory Government.”)
With utmost sincerity,
C.D Bonoan
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Doy Laurel: EDSA's unsung hero
02/25/14 As published in Rappler.com
Much has been said about the 1986 EDSA Revolution that ended the 20-year Marcos dictatorship. Yet there a good number of stories left unsaid, stories of unsung heroes that were systematically suppressed by the victors of history. While many people tend to associate that popular revolt with Cory, I chose to go the other way around. Thus, when I hear the song Impossible Dream, I can’t help but recall a quintessential statesman long forgotten by history. No, I don’t mean the perceived martyr Ninoy, but the distinguished Batangueño whose dream to selflessly serve our country as president (and probably could have been one of the best Philippine presidents in our history) was made impossible by an unfortunate string of historical events.
Today marks the EDSA Revolution’s 28th year yet our vision is still blurred, if not myopic. I state with no intention to undermine the church, EDSA was far from being miraculous. It was bloodless not because of divinity but of overflowing patriotism with the ailing Marcos to no exception. EDSA therefore is not singly the Aquinos, nor the church but also the other unsung heroes who marshalled the people into this noble fray - one of whom is Salvador “Doy” Laurel.
Unido
Flashback to the ‘80s. Because most of the opposition cowed in fear, Doy et. al. had no choice but to continue the fight even on dangerous grounds. Some even went to the extent of supporting the red armed struggle. Doy of course disagreed. His unfettered optimism, devotion to constitutional principles and faith in the Filipino people inspired him to do what he was destined to do; and so came the United Nationalist Democratic Organization (UNIDO).
The genesis of this organization was to foster the marriage of convenience between two erstwhile formidable opposition parties: Liberal and Nacionalista, under the joint leadership of Senator Gerry Roxas (Liberal) and Speaker Pepe Laurel (Nacionalista), older brother of Doy. But with the untimely death of Senator Roxas, the party, disregarded the previous dual leadership arrangement and ended with Doy’s election as the new sole president. UNIDO was to become the opposition’s potent umbrella organization in the ‘80s under Doy’s audacious tutelage; cobbling together disparate opposition groups seeking to remove Marcos from power through peaceful means.
UNIDO despite its limited resources, managed to win the elections entirely dominated by KBL candidates. From makeshift stages, rallies in Plaza Miranda to noise barrage, UNIDO under his leadership became the people’s sounding board against the repressive regime. Finally in 1983, UNIDO came out of its cocoon and became a full grown opposition party with capabilities of destroying the manacles of dictatorship.
The turning point
The nation was stunned when Ninoy Aquino was shot dead in broad daylight. Naturally, Anti-Marcos protests soon reached its peak. In utter disgust, Doy Laurel resigned immediately from the farcical parliament of Marcos. A few days later, as he was about to deliver his valedictory speech in the halls of Batasan, lights were shut off but Doy refused to be silenced. In front of local and foreign media, Doy Laurel stepped outside of the building and right there and then delivered his fiery speech in honour of his fallen comrade.
Cory and Doy
Fast forward to the days following President Marcos’ call for a snap election. Undoubtedly, Doy was the logical candidate to represent the Opposition for no other person had the balls to stand up squarely against Marcos except him. At this juncture, rumours had been going around that Ninoy’s widow intends to run as president. Of course, Doy, ever the gentleman that he is, went out of his way to sort it out with Cory. This was denied a number of times over by her and if I may so, has denied it even up to her very last breath. Much to Doy’s surprise, Cory endorsed his candidacy on June 12, 1985 at the unprecedented UNIDO national convention attended by 25,000 delegates from all over the country.
Later however, it was Cory who became the opposition’s banner holder. Doy peacefully acceded and slided to the vice presidency. And the rest, as they say is history. Living what his father reared him to be, it was not surprising that Doy faithfully followed, “Ang bayan, higit sa lahat.”
Opposition united?
To my end, it is not about if Doy could indeed beat Marcos in the 1986 snap election. In fact, given Marcos’ unbounded powers, resources and machinery, Doy surely would have been defeated. But the decisive question is who led the opposition when everyone else was silenced by fear? Who inflamed the hearts and minds of Filipinos at a critical time when they needed someone to look up to? EDSA Revolution therefore is the culmination of that long arduous anti-Marcos struggle led by Doy and other opposition figures who were with him one way or another.
The events that happened from 1980 to 1983 are the “missing links” in Philippine history. Those crucial moments were deliberately expunged from the collective memory of Filipinos. Surely, these are the times when Doy was at his best! On my end, more than his accomplishments as a senator during the pre-martial law years, not even his magnanimous decision to step aside as a presidential contender in favour of Cory would equal his role as a freedom fighter and opposition leader at the onset of the ‘80s.
When the mists of partisan passion gradually lift with time, the full extent of Doy’s service to his nation will be revealed. In his acceptance speech at the UNIDO convention dubbed as “The Final Battle,” Doy, the champion orator, delivered an impassionate plea: “Democracy cannot take root amidst violence. Bloody revolution is not the only path to freedom. All confrontation must end in reconciliation.” He could not have said it better because these very same words had served as pattern for the rest of his political life.
The 1986 People Power Revolution now belongs to the entire nation, and not just a few personalities who claim to be its posthumous heroes. No political clan can therefore rightfully claim notoriety to it. EDSA is also about the forlorn heroes and heroines, Doy being one of them, a first-rate Filipino leader with a masterful grasp of our nation's destiny.
Ultimately though, EDSA belongs to the people, as its name verily suggests. I bet to this, Doy Laurel would agree no less.
PS: The author would like to thank RAPPLER.COM for publishing this article.
Much has been said about the 1986 EDSA Revolution that ended the 20-year Marcos dictatorship. Yet there a good number of stories left unsaid, stories of unsung heroes that were systematically suppressed by the victors of history. While many people tend to associate that popular revolt with Cory, I chose to go the other way around. Thus, when I hear the song Impossible Dream, I can’t help but recall a quintessential statesman long forgotten by history. No, I don’t mean the perceived martyr Ninoy, but the distinguished Batangueño whose dream to selflessly serve our country as president (and probably could have been one of the best Philippine presidents in our history) was made impossible by an unfortunate string of historical events.
Today marks the EDSA Revolution’s 28th year yet our vision is still blurred, if not myopic. I state with no intention to undermine the church, EDSA was far from being miraculous. It was bloodless not because of divinity but of overflowing patriotism with the ailing Marcos to no exception. EDSA therefore is not singly the Aquinos, nor the church but also the other unsung heroes who marshalled the people into this noble fray - one of whom is Salvador “Doy” Laurel.
Unido
Flashback to the ‘80s. Because most of the opposition cowed in fear, Doy et. al. had no choice but to continue the fight even on dangerous grounds. Some even went to the extent of supporting the red armed struggle. Doy of course disagreed. His unfettered optimism, devotion to constitutional principles and faith in the Filipino people inspired him to do what he was destined to do; and so came the United Nationalist Democratic Organization (UNIDO).
The genesis of this organization was to foster the marriage of convenience between two erstwhile formidable opposition parties: Liberal and Nacionalista, under the joint leadership of Senator Gerry Roxas (Liberal) and Speaker Pepe Laurel (Nacionalista), older brother of Doy. But with the untimely death of Senator Roxas, the party, disregarded the previous dual leadership arrangement and ended with Doy’s election as the new sole president. UNIDO was to become the opposition’s potent umbrella organization in the ‘80s under Doy’s audacious tutelage; cobbling together disparate opposition groups seeking to remove Marcos from power through peaceful means.
UNIDO despite its limited resources, managed to win the elections entirely dominated by KBL candidates. From makeshift stages, rallies in Plaza Miranda to noise barrage, UNIDO under his leadership became the people’s sounding board against the repressive regime. Finally in 1983, UNIDO came out of its cocoon and became a full grown opposition party with capabilities of destroying the manacles of dictatorship.
The turning point
The nation was stunned when Ninoy Aquino was shot dead in broad daylight. Naturally, Anti-Marcos protests soon reached its peak. In utter disgust, Doy Laurel resigned immediately from the farcical parliament of Marcos. A few days later, as he was about to deliver his valedictory speech in the halls of Batasan, lights were shut off but Doy refused to be silenced. In front of local and foreign media, Doy Laurel stepped outside of the building and right there and then delivered his fiery speech in honour of his fallen comrade.
Cory and Doy
Fast forward to the days following President Marcos’ call for a snap election. Undoubtedly, Doy was the logical candidate to represent the Opposition for no other person had the balls to stand up squarely against Marcos except him. At this juncture, rumours had been going around that Ninoy’s widow intends to run as president. Of course, Doy, ever the gentleman that he is, went out of his way to sort it out with Cory. This was denied a number of times over by her and if I may so, has denied it even up to her very last breath. Much to Doy’s surprise, Cory endorsed his candidacy on June 12, 1985 at the unprecedented UNIDO national convention attended by 25,000 delegates from all over the country.
Later however, it was Cory who became the opposition’s banner holder. Doy peacefully acceded and slided to the vice presidency. And the rest, as they say is history. Living what his father reared him to be, it was not surprising that Doy faithfully followed, “Ang bayan, higit sa lahat.”
Opposition united?
To my end, it is not about if Doy could indeed beat Marcos in the 1986 snap election. In fact, given Marcos’ unbounded powers, resources and machinery, Doy surely would have been defeated. But the decisive question is who led the opposition when everyone else was silenced by fear? Who inflamed the hearts and minds of Filipinos at a critical time when they needed someone to look up to? EDSA Revolution therefore is the culmination of that long arduous anti-Marcos struggle led by Doy and other opposition figures who were with him one way or another.
The events that happened from 1980 to 1983 are the “missing links” in Philippine history. Those crucial moments were deliberately expunged from the collective memory of Filipinos. Surely, these are the times when Doy was at his best! On my end, more than his accomplishments as a senator during the pre-martial law years, not even his magnanimous decision to step aside as a presidential contender in favour of Cory would equal his role as a freedom fighter and opposition leader at the onset of the ‘80s.
When the mists of partisan passion gradually lift with time, the full extent of Doy’s service to his nation will be revealed. In his acceptance speech at the UNIDO convention dubbed as “The Final Battle,” Doy, the champion orator, delivered an impassionate plea: “Democracy cannot take root amidst violence. Bloody revolution is not the only path to freedom. All confrontation must end in reconciliation.” He could not have said it better because these very same words had served as pattern for the rest of his political life.
The 1986 People Power Revolution now belongs to the entire nation, and not just a few personalities who claim to be its posthumous heroes. No political clan can therefore rightfully claim notoriety to it. EDSA is also about the forlorn heroes and heroines, Doy being one of them, a first-rate Filipino leader with a masterful grasp of our nation's destiny.
Ultimately though, EDSA belongs to the people, as its name verily suggests. I bet to this, Doy Laurel would agree no less.
PS: The author would like to thank RAPPLER.COM for publishing this article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)