THE AUGUST 21 1971 BOMBING OF PLAZA MIRANDA

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

FORTY FIVE YEARS ago, the bombing of the Liberal Party proclamation rally took place at Plaza Miranda, Manila’s version of Hyde Park. This is not one dirty little footnote in history, but a major antecedent to what could be regarded as the darkest chapter in modern Philippine history – the thirteen-year failed experiment in authoritarianism, or dictatorship.

Unidentified persons hurled two fragmentation hand grenades on the stage, where the Liberal Party’s senatorial and local candidates in Manila were being proclaimed for the 1971 midterm elections. At least six persons died and scores of people, mostly supporters, who went to Plaza Miranda to witness the proclamation rally, were injured.

The Plaza Miranda bombing almost decimated the Liberal Party, led by its president Gerry Roxas, father of Mar Roxas, and the entire eight-man LP senatorial slate. The Liberal Party was one of the two major political parties that alternated in power in the two-party political system of the premartial law days. The other political party was the Nacionalista Party, to which Ferdinand Marcos and wife Imelda belonged.

President Ferdinand Marcos immediately denied any involvement or participation, blamed the communists instead, and suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The suspension allowed Marcos and law enforcers to detain suspects indefinitely even without court charges.

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus protects ordinary citizens from indefinite detention. It mandates their release six hours after their detention whenever law enforcers fail to file any charges against them. Marcos lifted the suspension after five months, or sometime in January, 1972.

The intellectual ferment of those days made the political situation quite restive, triggering the rise of student activism and renewed trade unionism. Marcos could hardly contain the drift because the political system could hardly support itself.

Two main developments influenced the political environment of those days: the Second Vatican Council, which Pope John XXIII convened in in the early 1960s to reform the Roman Catholic Church, and the emergence of the Maoist-oriented Communist Party of the Philippines from the remnants of the old Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas (PKP) in the late 1960s.

The teachings of the Second Vatican Council finally reached the Philippines, influencing a number of religious clerics, who constituted the moderate faction of the anti-Marcos forces of those days. The Vatican 2 essentially identified the Church as the “Church of the Poor” to atone for its cowardly posture towards Adolf Hitler in Second World War. Hence, the phrase “preferential option for the poor” has come to define the modern-day Church.

Jose Ma. Sison, a young intellectual, gathered fellow disillusioned intellectuals and led the CPP in the creation of the New People’s Army (NPA) from the Hukbalahap remnants to become its military arm. Sison and his group earlier formed the Kabataang Makabayan (KM) and Samahan ng Demokratikong Kabataan (SDK), two youth mass organizations, which led in the creation of militant organizations in prominent sectors – labor, peasant, women, professional, Church, and civil society.

Because of the massive recruitment of members and their subsequent indoctrination, the campaign against Marcos and the United States, which anti-Marcos forces perceived as supportive of him, became more pronounced as series of mass actions rocked Manila after the reelection of Marcos in November, 1969.

The State of the Nation Address (SONA) of Marcos before the joint session of Congress on January 26, 1970 turned violent as thousands of student activists clashed with police. This started the First Quarter Storm, where student activists in a series of street demonstrations stormed Malacanang to protest the perceived social inequities. The violent mass actions somewhat subsided when classes ended in March.

Protest actions by student activists of leftwing and moderate groups became a common occurrence. By that time, Marcos was getting alarmed by the evolving anti-Marcos political forces, but he did not immediately take moves, as he carefully weighed his options.

I had a recent interview with Henry Mercado, then a 12-year old Grade Six student of Quiapo Parochial School, who gave an eyewitness account of the Plaza Miranda bombing. Henry, now a graphic artist at the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (Pagcor), was at Plaza Miranda when the bombing incident happened because his school was beside the Quiapo Church.

At that time, the school was a few meters away from Plaza Miranda. Now, the school has relocated to a new site in Quiapo. His eyewitness account:

“The school authorities dismissed us at 5:30 pm, the dismissal time for afternoon classes. I went with classmates and friends to Plaza Miranda, where we saw the big wooden stage. We sat on the rows of rattan chairs a few meters away from the stage. Because we were noisy and haughty, those workers, who were doing finishing touches on the stage, drove us away. We did not know that we sat almost on the same place the assassins threw their grenades on the stage.

“Some went home, but for others who stayed, we chose the place near Mercury Drug Store, which is about 100 meters away from the stage. We saw LP supporters, placing and fixing baby rockets, locally known as kuwitis, along the island at the middle of Quezon Boulevard, the main thoroughfare of the Quiapo. We knew those baby rockets were part of the proclamation rally and celebration.

“We saw dignitaries arriving at Plaza Miranda and alighting from their cars. They went to the stage. We saw Ramon Bagatsing, who was LP candidate for Manila mayor, and his running mate, Martin Isidro. We saw lesser known candidates for the Manila Council. We identified high profile candidates like Mel Lopez, but hardly knew the rest.

“Finally, LP senatorial candidates arrived one by one. Eva Estrada Kalaw, Eddie Ilarde, Sergio Osmena, Jr., Genaro Magsaysay, Jovito Salonga were easily identifiable. Sen. Gerry Roxas, then LP president, also arrived and alighted from his Mercedes Benz car. We did not know the rest. During those days, we did not exactly know what politics was. Neither did we know our political leaders.

“We heard LP leaders delivering their speeches. We heard them attacking Marcos for things we hardly knew and understood. By 8 pm, Roxas stood and spoke, called each candidate to join him on the front row of the stage, and proclaimed the LP senatorial candidates and the LP candidates for Manila mayor, vice mayor, and City Council. At about half an hour after 8 pm, the candidates formed a single line in front the people and raised their hands.

“Then, some people lighted those kuwitis. The baby rockets started chasing each other in the sky and exploded. We were looking at the fireworks, when two big explosions pierced our eardrums. We looked at the stage and saw pandemonium right there and below. People were screaming and crying. We did not fully understand the situation until somebody shouted, ‘naku, binomba ang rally, hinagisan ng granada.’” (The rally was bombed; somebody threw a grenade.)

“We did not immediately understand what happened. We never knew violence of that magnitude. It appeared that the assassins threw the grenades at the same time the baby rockets were exploding up in the air. They perfectly timed it when people were amused by the sights of those exploding rockets.

“We were very scared of what had happened. We saw many people running away from the scene, while others were picking up the victims to bring them to hospitals. We saw the gory sight of victims being rushed to hospital. We saw blood splattered all over the area.

“Because of the ensuing confusion and commotion, we chose to go home. Nervous and scared, we all took the next available jeepney ride. I hardly slept that night as I recalled the violent incident.”

The magnitude of the violence of the August 21, 1971 Plaza Miranda bombing could be aptly described as beyond description. While it is true that Philippine politics is anarchy of families as one political family vie with another family for political power, incidents of violence are normally isolated. Not a single violent incident in the past could match the attempt to decimate the entire LP senatorial slate.

Six persons died in the Plaza Miranda bombing, including Manila Times photojournalist Ben Roxas, while over 100 persons got injured or maimed in the explosion and the ensuing melee. The authoritative Philippines Free Press, the magazine of record in the premarital law days, said: “[The Plaza Miranda bombing] was most villainous, outrageous, and shameful crime in the annals of local political violence... a night of national tragedy and infamy... a democracy Philippine style bared itself in all its terrifying ugliness.”

Sen. Jovito Salonga, who was running for election after he topped the 1965 senatorial elections, was the most injured among the senatorial candidates. He lost an eye and an ear to pieces of shrapnel that pierced the left side of his body. His limbs were badly mangled. He was almost lifeless when brought to the hospital; even the attending doctors thought he would not survive the violent attack. But miracles do happen; he survived.

As a beat reporter who covered the Senate in the post-Marcos era, I personally saw those scars in Salonga’s upper limbs, nape and head, appearing as if they were his medals in the battle against the Marcos dictatorship. In meeting reporters, Salonga never sounded bitter about the incident, but he was always quick to draw poignant lessons from that attack.

Senatorial candidate Ramon Mitra Jr., who later became the speaker of the House of Representatives in the post-Marcos 8th Congress, told me in an interview how he developed diabetes after a shrapnel hit his pancreas, adversely affecting its production of natural insulin necessary for the management of sugar in the body. Manila mayoral candidate Ramon Bagatsing Sr. lost a leg; the same fate befell John Osmena.

Sen. Sergio Osmena Jr., father of Sen. Sergio Osmena III, almost died after his body was tossed up in the air like pizza by the loud grenade explosion. He had his share of grenade wounds, which affected his health and led to his death ten years later. Senatorial candidates Eva Estrada Kalaw, Genaro Magsaysay, Edgar Ilarde, Salipada Pendatun, and Melanio Singson suffered shrapnel wounds in the body and lower limbs.

Although the entire LP senatorial slate survived the carnage and won six of the eight senatorial slots (only Pendatun and Singson lost) , they all had shrapnel wounds. In the political campaign that led to the November 1971 elections, the senatorial candidates led by LP president, Sen. Gerry Roxas, spoke to the people with heavily bandaged bodies, crutches, and wheelchairs. It was an emotional election. Ernesto Maceda won among the close lieutenants Marcos fielded. Juan Ponce Enrile and Blas Ople lost miserably.

Sen. Benigno Aquino Jr,, who was LP secretary-general, escaped the violent attack after he attended a dinner and arrived late. Ninoy Aquino said he earlier received a call from an unidentified person, who warned of a possible attack. After his dinner, he went home to don a bulletproof vest.

Aquino’s absence in the LP proclamation rally did not escape the attention of Marcos, who promptly sowed intrigues. Marcos threw innuendoes Aquino could be behind the bombing to get rid of rivals in the 1973 presidential polls. Appearing in a television interview, Aquino flatly denied the accusation, saying that if he wanted to get rid of his partymates, he would instead poison them as they frequently had dinners and lunches with him.

Subsequent police investigations did not yield results to name suspects. But some quarters, including the political opposition and nosy US intelligence agents and Embassy officers, did not buy Marcos’s explanation that the communists were behind the carnage. The CPP had about 100 cadres during those days; they were scattered mostly in rural areas to stage a revolution along the Maoist dictum of “surround the city from the countryside.”

In 1988, a group of disgruntled renegade party members led by Ruben Guevarra surfaced to claim that Jose Ma. Sison, CPP chair, ordered and planned the Plaza Miranda bombing to hasten the creation of a revolutionary situation and advance the party interest. They told a Senate committee public hearing that Sison thought of the bombing as a way to pit one group of political elites with another group.

They claimed Marcos would be blamed for the ensuing carnage. They claimed that the person who threw the grenade was killed in a violent party purge. But their claim did not attract interest because the insurrectionary tactic did not fit into the Maoist model of a peasant-led, rural-based revolution.

Even Victor Corpus, the young army lieutenant, who defected to the NPA in 1972 only to return to the Armed Forces six years later, made the surprising claim at the height of the “God Save the Queen” plot in November, 1986. Not one could explain his motives to make the claim, although some observers believed it was his way to rehabilitate himself as he was reinstated as a reserve army officer.

Until now, the August 21, 1971 Plaza Miranda bombing, just like any other violent incident, has yet to have a closure. Hearsays continue to fly thick. But the Plaza Miranda bombing is not a dirty footnote in Philippine history. On the contrary, it significantly influenced the flow of political developments in the country.

The LP-dominated results of the 1971 senatorial elections deeply stunned Ferdinand Marcos, leading him to alter his earlier plan to field either wife Imelda or Juan Ponce Enrile as his anointed candidate in the 1973 presidential elections. But the elections results showed to Marcos that no one among his trusted leaders could beat Ninoy Aquino or Gerry Roxas in 1973. Only he could beat the LP presidential candidate. But the 1935 Constitution was his biggest problem because it barred him from running for a second reelection.

Marcos began looking for other options, which included the gamechanging declaration of martial law in 1972. He had to touch the nerve of history to perpetuate himself in power. In short, the Plaza Miranda bombing was a major antecedent to martial rule.

MY FIRST DRINK, SMOKE

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

I'd be very, very honest with everybody. Lest somebody think I was a paragon of virtue during my formative years, I am going to say in all candor that I wasn't. I drank; I smoked; I gambled.

But I have no regrets. This would probably set me different from the rest of the world. I didn't regret learning any or all those things.

I learned smoking at 15. I was in third year high school when, from out of the blue, I bought cigarettes. Perhaps, it was an impulse. Perhaps, I was starting to assert my own distorted sense of masculinity. 

From my meager allowance, I bought several sticks of Marlboro, which was then a brand of choice during those days. I liked the taste and, henceforth, I smoked for a while.

I tasted different brands: Lucky Strike, Spud, Newport, Chelsea, Piedmont, Ice Cold, etc. Later, I took brands like Philip Morris, Winston, Hope, More, and the imported ones - Salem, Union, Chesterfield, and Pall Mall, which dominated the market. I stuck to Marlboro like a leech.

When I was about to finish my college education, I developed a smoker's cough, which became a throat infection. Like Scarlet O'Hara, who, in the movie "Gone with the Wind," vowed she would never get hungry again, I threw my lighter and cigarettes into a garbage bin and vowed that I would never get that throat infection again. I have been a non-smoker for more than 40 years.

Just like any other guy, I learned drinking in high school. I was in third year, when my friends in fourth year introduced me to the "spiritual world." Tanduay (or lapad) was our drink of choice, although we weren't averse to Ginebra San Miguel (or bilog). 

We used to mix Ginebra with beer to concoct the so-called "virgin.' This was the forerunner of Red Horse or Colt 45, which are now the stronger mix.

My fourth year high school friend was my drinking buddy. His family owned a restaurant in front of our school and he invited me several times to their place to drink. I was told that my friend is now a Christian pastor, who performs ministerial works abroad. We have yet to have a reunion.

I also gambled during my high school days. From those small bets during our rounds of billiard games with my classmates, I graduated to what you could call the bigtime. 

Together with some adventurous characters in high school (especially those from the other high school in UST), I went to sakla and pula-puti joints and did some betting. I almost lost my shirt during those brief sojourns.

I also joined my classmates to San Lazaro and bet on our favorites racehorses. Later, when bomba films became vogue, we went to Malabon to watch bomba films - all in the name of adventure and fun. I always manage to smile every time I recall those halcyon days.

I didn't know how I survived those adventures. Perhaps, I knew my goals in life. Perhaps, I wasn't destined to destroy my life. Perhaps, God loves me. 

I still drink with close friends once in a while and place a modest bet on my favorite racehorses. But I'm happy that I didn't become a smoker, a heavy gambler, or an alcoholic. I am none of the above. 

In hindsight, which is always 20/20, I am deeply convinced that God loves me.

PREMATURE BALDNESS

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

This was something that went beyond my control. It happened so fast; I could hardly do anything. By age 30, my hairline had receded. I lost plenty of hair. I couldn't explain all those fallen hair strands except to think it was basically a tragedy of genes.

My late father and his three other brothers had the same fate - and pate. All had receding hairlines. My father had the worst case among the brothers. By his own account, he lost hair by mid-20s. By 30, his balding head was a glowing reality.

Well-meaning friends had aired a cacophony of advice to minimize the negative impact of my balding head. A friend advised me to apply herbal oils before I go to bed mainly to stimulate hair regrowth. Another friend told me to buy the latest craze for hair regrowth, which is Minoxidil. Others gave me forgettable pieces of advice.

But I have a friend who offered to give me a toupee for free. That friend, who also had premature balding and, ergo, wears a toupee, told me in no uncertain terms that he "commiserated" with the early disappearance of my hair. As a gesture of goodwill, a toupee free of charge was for me to take. It was a gesture that I flatly rejected.

I guess my friend and I were of different wave length. I didn't think - and, until now, I do - that a balding head is something that I should be ashamed. I've not been narcissistic to think that way. So what if my head is balding? It doesn't mean the end of the world.

I couldn't imagine myself wearing a toupee, while people behind me whisper on how unattractive that dead rat's hair over my head. Besides, I don't really feel insecure with my shining pate. I always rationalize that with or without hair, the world won't stop revolving anyway. Should I worry?

Because of my stubborn refusal to wear any toupee or apply any concoction for hair regrowth, friends always tease me. They call me names. "Rambo" (for sirang buhok), "Arabo" (for walang buhok), "Aga" (for maagang nalugas) are just some. But I always take them in stride. I don't recall any incident when I lost my cool because of those namecalling, which I always view as bantering.

I've also developed some humorous ways to rationalize my fate. Once a lady friend tactlessly asked why I lost hair, I told her with a poker face and a tongue in cheek that I mistook my sister's feminine wash for hair shampoo. I didn't know that the consequence for this oversight could be catastrophic.

For the past twenty years, I've been sporting the skinhead hair style (or semi-calvo). It's not because I am an admirer of anything Nazi or Neo-Nazi. But a semi-calvo hair has been very practical for me. 

First, I don't have problems with dandruff. Second, I don't have to bring a man's comb in my pocket. Besides, I don't really have to worry about the barbershop I have to go for a haircut because I am always sure that any barber can do it with justice.

Lately, I've not been getting the usual dosage of namecalling and bantering from friends. Perhaps, they've gotten used to my semi-calvo hairstyle. Perhaps, I'm getting old and any old man deserves some respect. 

Or perhaps, they see some nuggets of wisdom in my decision to keep as public as possible my balding head. But whatever, I'm always happy with my fate. 

It's not a curse as what most people think.

COUNTERREVOLUTION BY SUPREME COURT

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

LAWYER MEL Sta. Ana, law dean of Far Eastern University, one of the country’s prominent schools of legal education, said it right when, in an FB post, he said the following: “From an institutional context, there is an emerging public perception, rightly or wrongly, that the Supreme Court, instead of encouraging accountability, is fomenting impunity.”

To substantiate his opening statement, Atty. Mel, who counts on prominent lawyers Jovito Salonga, Neptali Gonzales, Crispin Baizas, Antonio Abad, and Commission on Elections chair Andres Bautista as among his predecessors, said the following: “Consider the case of former President Joseph Estrada. Choosing whether he was granted absolute pardon, which will negate liability, or conditional pardon, which will reinstate the criminal penalty for plunder in case of violation, the Supreme Court chose absolute pardon.

“[Take] the case of Ilocos Sur Rep. Ronald Singson who was caught in possession of illegal drugs and was jailed in Hongkong. Deciding whether or not such act was a crime involving moral turpitude enough to expel a public official from his office, the Supreme Court decided that it was not.

“Then came [Mayor Jejomar Binay Jr.] case, involving the “Condonation Doctrine” which says that a re-elected official is already considered administratively forgiven for his past wrong-doing and cannot be suspended/expelled from his present position. The Supreme Court abandoned the doctrine but nevertheless exempted Binay from its application.

“In the [Juan Ponce Enrile]-bail case - no less than one Justice, with whom three others agreed , dissented from the majority decision and made observations such as ‘special accommodation,’ ‘selective justice,’ ‘unique, special and exceptional’ treatment and more seriously, ‘impunity’. Associate Justice Marvic Leonen said:

“‘Our collective liberty, the kind that ensures our collective meaningful existence, is put at risk if justice is wanting. Special privileges may be granted only under clear, transparent and reasoned circumstances. Otherwise, we accept that there are just some among us who are elite. Otherwise, we concede that there are those among us who are powerful and networked enough to enjoy privileges not shared by all.

"’This dissent rages against such a premise. It is filled with discomfort with the consequences of the majority’s position. It cannot accept any form of impunity.’"

As parting shot, Atty. Mel said: “With the Supreme Court decision exculpating GMA of plunder, the SC has its hands full in persuading all, not just the followers of GMA, that the decision is fair and square. Indeed, it may, in fact, be so, but that is just the SC's burden, especially with four (4) dissenting opinions.”

Atty. Mel wrote a profound critique of the several controversial decisions of the Supreme Court. To his credit, he described on what could be regarded the restoration of the culture of impunity that once ravaged this country, a restoration that is now taking place with the help of the Supreme Court.

I would like to go farther than what Atty. Mel has expounded in his post, which, although brief, is direct, candid, and meaningful.

I maintain that what is taking place is a counterrevolution. It is going back to the ways of the old. It is the restoration of the same order, where the plunderers and other parties that had earlier raided the national treasury are getting back in power.

The counterrevolution is not being led by the incumbent president, or any other party in power. It is being led by the Supreme Court, which, as an institution and a bedrock of our restored democracy, has rendered controversial decisions that have raised more questions than clarify the current legal issues.

Strangely, the counterrevolution is led and waged by an institution composed of unelected and unelectable magistrates. Strangely too, the counterrevolution has, as its very center, the judiciary, which, as the third branch of government after the executive and the legislative branches, is regarded the weakest with neither the power of the rod nor the power of the purse to use.

Revolution as a theme in its political developments is not new in the Philippines. The old Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas (PKP), since its birth in 1930, had launched but failed to lead a proletarian revolution intended to destroy the ruling political and economic elite and install the working class as the ruling class.

Its successor, the outlawed Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), since its birth in 1969 and until now, has been pursuing a “national democratic revolution,” where workers and peasants comprise the main forces of a “people’s war” against the established order. It has the equally outlawed New People’s Army as its military arm and the National Democratic Front as its political arm.

Dictator Ferdinand Marcos had his own concept of revolution, no matter how distorted and self serving. Marcos claimed to have declared martial law in 1972 mainly to pursue his own revolution, which he branded as the “democratic revolution.”

His “democratic revolution” was a “revolution from the center,” meaning the presidency, Marcos said it was meant to crush the conspiracy of the Right, composed of the old oligarchs, who never liked him and sought his downfall, and the Left, or the emerging communist and social democrat rebel forces.

But it was more of a counterrevolution during those days. His “democratic revolution” meant to perpetuate himself in power; his martial law was intended to establish one-man rule. A critic declared it a “counterfeit revolution.”

Hence, his democratic revolution was reduced to an empty slogan, when the people rose as one in the historic 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution to topple his dictatorship. It is hardly the topic of scholarly discussions, as scholars have never accepted it as a genuine revolution.

The People Power Revolution has restored the liberal democracy, the kind the country has inherited from the American colonial rule. The People Power Revolution has restored the democratic structures and traditions, which Marcos sought to demolish through a single stroke of the pen, or when he declared martial law in 1972.

Cory Aquino’s successors did not take advantage of any polemical discussions about revolution and its dynamics. Fidel Ramos provided some lip service to the EDSA Revolution, of which he was one of the major players.

Erap Estrada hardly gave any reference to the EDSA Revolution, not even lip service during his 30 months of incumbency as president. His limited mind could hardly grasp topics and concepts of profound magnitude.

When the Second EDSA People Power Revolution toppled him and took him to prison, Estrada alleged he was a victim of a “conspiracy” of the rich people and civil society. Without the gift of reflection to see things in perspective, Erap has never fully understood what truly struck him during those turbulent days of latter part of 2000 and 2001. He did not even understand why he was imprisoned for five years.

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Erap’s successor, did not give any damn about this concept of revolution. She does not find meaning in that loaded concept. It was enough for her and her husband, Mike, to rule to complete the remaining 42 months of Erap’s term and six years of her own term after she got elected under anomalous circumstances in 2004.

For her, the concept of revolution was almost nonexistent. She hardly gave reference that the very same thing that had put her into power. She never put into practice the mandate of Second EDSA People Power Revolution.

The culture of impunity, which her administration had cultivated to the fullest, was a violation of the mandate of Second People Power Revolution. Instead of pursuing an anticorruption agenda and a revolution in governance, which should be properly viewed as the expression of the people’s will in the Second People Power Revolution, GMA and his cohorts raided the national coffers and entered into various deals that only manifested their corrupt ways. 

It has been estimated that the government had lost slightly over P100 billion in shady deals under the GMA administration. It could be described as revolution in plunder and corruption.

PNoy appeared to have righted the course and launched his own revolution, which he did not describe as such. Tuwid na Landas (Right Path) was his way of pursuing the mandate of the Second People Power Revolution, particularly good governance. The anticorruption theme that dominated his administration was meant to flush the country of its corrupt elements.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has been never been an active participant in revolutions, or any political cataclysms of game-changing magnitude. It has been a pious, albeit silent, arbiter of judicial issues, of which its decisions form part of the laws of the land. Its passivity extends to the fact that it only renders decisions on issues that have been brought forth by various parties and concerned citizens.

The Supreme Court, during the premartial law era (1900-1972), has been described as a paragon of virtues and integrity, as it ruled with perceived fairness and equanimity on the many judicial and legal issues brought for its erudite discussions and decisions.

Outstanding jurists like Roberto Concepcion, JBL Reyes, Arsenio Dizon, Calixto Zaldivar, the pair of Pedro Tuazon and Ramon Diokno (father of Jose W. Diokno), who wrote their ponencias in flawless Spanish, are just some who gave honor and prestige to the Supreme Court.

It was Marcos, the dictator, who corrupted the Supreme Court, when it became the defender of the martial law regime – and the dictatorship. The numerous decisions that sustained the dictatorship and even praised it as “the best thing that has ever happened” to the country strengthened the perception that it was not the Supreme Court of old, but an institution composed of the “supreme cowards.”

The current Supreme Court is noted its mishmash of undecipherable judicial doctrines, which are being criticized not just by legal luminaries, but by its own magistrates, who have taken the dissenting opinions, or minority views.

The doctrines posited by the majority are hardly taken as conservative or liberal doctrines, as what could be observed in the U.S. Supreme Court, but doctrines fitted for convenience and restoration of the old order.

By all means, they represent a judicial counterrevolution, or some full swing attempts for reversal of what has been achieved before. It’s sad that the Supreme Court has become an instrument for the restoration of the old elite. It is not forward; on the contrary, it is going backward.

NOTES ON CHINA HEGEMONY

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

SOMEBODY asked me last Friday about my views on China’s claim of ownership over the vast South China Sea, of which the West Philippine Sea is part, and, of the course, the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s decision dismissing China's ownership claim. 

I am happy to oblige to a legitimate request to express my views and post it on social media. I must express my gratitude to the netizen-friend for the request.

Allow me to provide a historical perspective on China's claim of ownership on almost the entire South China Sea. I once worked in the Manila bureau of Jiji Press, a Japanese news agency. This work experience has afforded me some insights about the issue.

Soviet concern

I remember very vividly way back in early 1981, or 35 years ago, when Alexei Petrov, the Manila-based correspondent of Tass, the official news agency of the then Soviet Union, asked then Foreign Affairs Minister Carlos P. Romulo about his views on the "various concepts" on the proposed settlement of the Spratlys issue. I had a vague idea of ​​the Spratlys issue during those days, but somehow I could sense the deep interest of the Soviet journalists in Manila.

At that time, the Philippine foreign media, as represented by the Foreign Correspondents' Association of the Philippines, or FOCAP, had three Soviet journalists: one worked for Tass; another one for Pravda, the newspaper of the now defunct Communist Party of the Soviet Union; and another for Novosti, a Soviet agency features.

During those days, Western media had hyped the Spratlys, or the tiny specks of uninhabited islands in the middle of the South China Sea, as the next flashpoint of conflict in Asia. Western media was quite prophetic, as indicated by current developments. Incidentally, several countries, including the Philippines, have made claims over that part of the world, triggering tension among claimant-nations.

Western media could not help but describe the Spratlys as a tinderbox mainly because of the 1974 violent clash between the navies of China and Vietnam over the Paracels, another group of uninhabited islands in the South China Sea. The Paracels should not be confused with the Spratlys, which are nearer the Philippines. The Paracels are nearer China and Vietnam; they have conflicting claims on these islands, which, just like the Spratlys, have turtles and seabirds inhabitants.

I could only surmise at the Soviet's interest on the Spratlys issue. At that time, China had not made clear assertions of whatever rights they held on those specks of land, mostly barren rocks in the middle of the vast high seas south of China. China was then trying its best to become a progressive country under the direction of Deng Xiao Ping's leadership.

In 1978, Deng launched the Four Modernizations, a program that sought to rejuvenate the Chinese economy to put China at par with its neighbors. By the 1980s, China was busy strengthening its domestic economy. It was not yet strong. It could not compete yet, but it was determined to learn from other countries to strengthen its domestic front.

At that time, China was locked in a bitter struggle with its neighbor, the Soviet Union, which at that time was composed of 15 republics. It posed a danger to China because it had bitter border issues with Russia, the biggest and strongest republic in the old Soviet Union.

At that time, the world witnessed too the conflict between two superpowers - the old Soviet Union and the United States in what was then termed the "Cold War." They were bitterly locked in an arms race in a bipolar struggle. The old Soviet Union jealously watched the moves of China, which by then had somehow a modus vivendi with the US..

Over the next ten years, not much had happened on the conflicting claims on the Spratlys. The anticipated tension and turmoil did not happen though; it was basically the status quo. In brief, the tension had remained latent in the entire 1980s.

China trip

Let's fast forward to late 1991. I was part of the three-man delegation of Filipino journalists, which the Chinese government had invited for a two-week tour of China's five cities - Guangzhou, Fuzhou, Wu Yi City, Nanping, and Beijing. I was then a senior reporter of the Philippine Daily Globe and political writer of the revived Philippine Free Press, sister publication of the Globe. The other two journalists were the late Chit Estella of the Malaya and Sammy Santos of the Philippine Star. Sammy is now the head of the Senate press office.

By that time, the Four Modernizations, which Deng had launched 13 years earlier, had taken roots and gained momentum. It was in full swing. It could not be denied that China was on the right path. China was making unparalleled and dramatic changes, as indicated by its high annual growth rates.

Our visit there enabled us to converse with Chinese officials about their developmental strategies. They impressed on us China's avowed goal of reaching out to the outside world and become a responsible member of the community of nations.

At that time, I understood that China's development program is premised on peace, not war. That China could reach its development objectives to become a progressive nation through peaceful means was beyond any shadow of doubt.

One Chinese official, ostensibly a ranking member of the Communist Party, told us that a peaceful and stable China was Beijing's contribution to world peace. At first, I did not fully grasp the meaning of his statement. But minutes later, when I was alone in my hotel room, I began to understand the dimensions and implications of his statement.

My mind wandered and some random thoughts immediately came. What if those development initiatives failed and China became unstable? What if a civil strife reared its ugly head on China? I would not be surprised to see the grim scenario of a million or two Chinese refugees landing on Philippine shores. I could only shudder at the idea.

Hence, China's development strategies should be fully supported by the community of nations. The global community would be adversely affected by an unstable China.

The 1990s were quite uneventful too. China did not push its claim ownership over the particular decade. It was not that powerful yet, although the so-called "nine-dash line" is already in existence since 1947 as a basis for saying that it owns a bigger part of the South China Sea, including the Spratlys, Paracels, Pratas Islands, and Scarborough Shoal.

Incidentally, the nine-dash line was originally the "eleven-dash line," which the Guomintang government had advanced in 1947. The Communist Party-led Beijing government had reduced it to nine-dash line upon endorsement by Chinese Prime Minister Zhou En lai. Beijing did not give any reason for the reduction, although it has been observed by maritime experts said the nine-dash line claim lies on unstable ground.

Hawkish faction

China's rise to become a regional power in Asia and eventually a global power could be the reason for its decision to assert its ownership claim on a big part of the South China Sea, including the West Philippine Sea, on the basis of historic rights over the areas covered by the nine-dash line in the South China Sea.

While it was economically and politically weak in the 1980s and 1990s, it chose to stay away from any potential trouble with other countries, opting to wait until it became stronger and more prepared in the 2000s.

Two years ago, Chito Sto. Romana, a keen watcher China, told a media forum that the rise of the militarist faction within China's ruling Communist Party could be the reason for its recent decision to assert its ownership claim over the South China Sea. The militarist faction could have probably thought that China did not face thorough opposition from other countries by the 2000s.

The United States did not take an active role in Asia after it dismantled its military bases in the Philippines. It further took a low profile when it got embroiled in 2005 in a controversy with the GMA administration, which chose to support a Filipino contract worker instead of following Washington's appeal to boycott certain Middle East countries that did not follow the US line on certain Middle East issues .

By the 2010s, China, as its way to assert its claim over the vast South China Sea, has started to establish military presence in the Spratlys by sending its navy vessels there, performing reclamation projects, and constructing airstrips and docks for use of military jets and naval vessels to fortify China's military presence there.

China's military presence and its assertion of "complete sovereignty" over the entire South China, not just the Spratlys and Paracels the way Western media had portrayed the territorial disputes in the 1980s and 1990s, has been a game changing developments in the 2010s that have threatened political stability in the area.

The Philippines's answer to China's muscle flexing was there to bring the issue to the Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague-based international non-governmental body that resolves territorial disputes among nations. The Philippines won its case against China when the body handed its decision on July 16 this year. But Beijing has chosen to reject the decision.

Legal setback

The key findings of the Permanent Court of Arbitration:

· The so-called "nine-dash line" is invalid: "The Tribunal concluded that there was no legal basis for China's claim to historic rights to resources within the sea areas falling within the nine-dash line".

· Reclaimed islands have no exclusive economic zone: "The Tribunal noted that the current presence of official personnel on many of the features is dependent on outside support and not reflective of the number of features ... (and) .... that none the Spratly Islands is capable of generating extended maritime zones.

· "The Tribunal found that it could - without delimiting a boundary - declare that certain sea areas are within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, because those areas are not overlapped by any possible entitlement of China."

· China has behaved unlawfully. "China had violated the Philippines' sovereign rights in its exclusive economic zone. The Tribunal further held that Chinese law-enforcement vessels had unlawfully created a serious risk of collision when they physically obstructed Philippine vessels."

· Beijing has damaged the environment: China's large-scale land reclamation has "caused severe harm to the coral reef environment and violated its obligation to preserve and protect fragile ecosystems."

· Island building should have stopped during the dispute process: The panel said it had no jurisdiction over military standoff and Second Thomas Shoal, where Chinese and Philippine military and law enforcement vessels are locked in confrontation.

· However, "China's recent large-scale reclamation and construction of artificial islands was incompatible with the obligations on a state during the dispute resolution proceedings, insofar as China has ... destroyed evidence of the condition of the natural features of the South China Sea that formed part of the parties' dispute. "

I personally maintain that the biggest implication of the arbitration tribunal's decision is to stop perceived initiatives of the Duterte administration to shift the Philippine foreign policy from effective deterrence to appeasement on China's hegemony.

It binds Foreign Secretary Perfecto Yasay Jr., a greenhorn in foreign policy, to follow the 513-page decision, which clearly explains China's baseless claim of ownership over the South China Sea.

Hence, the decision does not support any collaborative direction for Philippine foreign policy towards what could be regarded China's expansionist designs over the West Philippine Sea.

It would be extremely difficult for the administration to ignore the arbitration tribunal's decision and veer towards appeasing China without courting serious political repercussions in the domestic front and the international community.

China is bent to ignore the historic decision but not without becoming a pariah in the international community, a development, which does not favor its ongoing initiatives to become a global economic power.

In addressing China's hegemony over the West Philippine Sea, the erstwhile Aquino administration has taken a foreign policy that has been largely characterized by effective deterrence, employing the multilateral approach, where the issue of China's claim of historic rights over the West Philippine Sea was brought to the arbitration tribunal for appropriate decision.

Amid threats and intimidation by Beijing, which has rejected the multilateral approach, the administration rejected Beijing's preference to settle the contentious issue through bilateral discussions between the two countries.

In what could be considered a display of cowardice and acquiescence, the new administration, unmindful of the existing foreign policy initiatives and dismissive of the Aquino administration's inroads, has been seeking ways to transform the current foreign policy into appeasement in exchange for certain foreign assistance for infrastructure projects in the country.

Critics have described the Duterte administration's mindset as mendicancy, plain and simple, and a virtual surrender of its moral high ground to what has been described a rogue state, which is China.

The overwhelming criticisms on the Duterte administration's lack of vigor in its interpretation and pursuit of existing foreign policy has led it to rethink its position and sing a new song to indicate a change its direction. No less than Yasay had indicated the change when he addressed the Asia-Europe meeting in Ulaanbator, Mongolia two days ago.

Hence, the new administration could not ignore the Permanent Court of Arbitration's decision, which is virtually written on stone. Although China has rejected it, Beijing can not ignore it either without courting serious political repercussions in its standing in the international community.

If it insists on its rejection, China could end up a pariah in the world community, as it loses its clout and influence in the community of nations.

Second Tiananmen

Chito Sto. Romana described the arbitration tribunal's decision as an earthshaking decision that could isolate China from the rest of the world, if it ignores and defies it.

If it chooses to reject it, China will meet a new situation that could run parallel or similar to the 1989 Tiananmien Square massacre, where scores of Chinese activists died as a result of the government crackdown on pro-democracy protests there.

The monumental embarrassment that Beijing suffered from that incident was global; China, for sure, does not want it to happen again. China suffered severe isolation and moral sanctions the international community had unleashed on her.

But China could still recover because of indications that it could taking some face saving mode. This is because Beijing would not allow itself to squander the gains it has cultivated over the last 30 years, Sto. Romana told this blogger in an interview.

Despite the heavy polemics spouted by some high ranking Chinese leaders on Beijing's rejection of the arbitration tribunal's verdict, the Duterte administration should evolve new foreign policy initiatives that would help Beijing to find a face-saving exit mechanism on the issue. There are many creative ways to do it. Beijing and Manila could work on moves to demilitarize the area, which in many ways could lessen the tension in that part of the world.

Still, it's Beijing ball game. The ball is in its court. It has to take with grace its legal defeat. The fact is that China was still looking for a gentle way out, where it would not lose face before the international community.

I tend to believe that China would take foreign policy initiatives by its lonesome self to avoid global humiliation and embarrassment.

EFFECTIVE DETERRENCE V. APPEASEMENT ON CHINA’S HEGEMONY

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

THE DISMISSAL by The Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration of China's claim of historic rights over the West Philippine Sea puts a stop on the initiatives of the Duterte administration to shift Philippine foreign policy from effective deterrence to appeasement on China's hegemony.

The dismissal ties the hands of Foreign Secretary Perfecto Yasay Jr., a greenhorn in foreign policy, to chart a more collaborative direction for Philippine foreign policy towards what could be regarded China's expansionist designs over the West Philippine Sea.

It would be extremely difficult for the administration to ignore the arbitration tribunal's decision and veer towards appeasing China without courting serious political repercussions in the domestic front and the international community.

China is bent to ignore the historic decision but not without becoming a pariah in the international community, a development, which does not favor its ongoing initiatives to become a global economic power.

The Philippine foreign policy towards China's hegemony over the West Philippine Sea has been largely characterized by effective deterrence, employing the multilateral approach, where the issue of China's claim of historic rights over the West Philippine Sea was brought to the arbitration tribunal for appropriate decision.

Then President Benigno Aquino III has pursued this policy amid threats and intimidation by Beijing, which has rejected the multilateral approach, preferring to settle the contentious issue through bilateral discussions between the two countries.

The new administration, unmindful of the current foreign policy initiatives and dismissive of the Aquino administration's inroads, has been seeking ways to transform the current foreign policy into appeasement in exchange for certain foreign assistance for infrastructure projects in the country.

Critics have described the Duterte administration's mindset as virtual mendicancy and a surrender of its moral high ground to what has been described as a rogue state, which is China. 

The key findings of the Permanent Court of Arbitration:

·          The so-called "nine-dash line" is invalid: "The Tribunal concluded that there was no legal basis for China's claim to historic rights to resources within the sea areas falling within the nine-dash line".

·          Reclaimed islands have no exclusive economic zone: "The Tribunal noted that the current presence of official personnel on many of the features is dependent on outside support and not reflective of the number of features ... (and) .... that none of the Spratly Islands is capable of generating extended maritime zones.

·          "The Tribunal found that it could - without delimiting a boundary - declare that certain sea areas are within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, because those areas are not overlapped by any possible entitlement of China."

·          China has behaved unlawfully "China had violated the Philippines' sovereign rights in its exclusive economic zone. The Tribunal further held that Chinese law-enforcement vessels had unlawfully created a serious risk of collision when they physically obstructed Philippine vessels."

·          Beijing has damaged the environment: China's large-scale land reclamation has "caused severe harm to the coral reef environment and violated its obligation to preserve and protect fragile ecosystems."

·          Island building should have stopped during the dispute process: The panel said it had no jurisdiction over military standoff and Second Thomas Shoal, where Chinese and Philippine military and law enforcement vessels are locked in confrontation.

·          However, "China's recent large-scale reclamation and construction of artificial islands was incompatible with the obligations on a state during the dispute resolution proceedings, insofar as China has ... destroyed evidence of the condition of the natural features of the South China Sea that formed part of the Parties' dispute. "

It could not be ascertained how and why President Rodrigo Duterte and Yasay have chosen to ignore the multilateral initiatives pursued by former President Benigno Aquino III and ex-Foreign Secretary Alberto del Rosario and openly advocated for appeasement without basic consideration of the pending arbitration case before the arbitration tribunal .

Even the domestic front has not appeared pleased for the unfolding foreign policy shift, as many sectors had expressed concern over Yasay's posturing.

Even Yasay did not even seem pleased with the dismissal decision, opting to assume a wait and see attitude.

Now, Yasay could not just ignore a multilateral decision written on stone. It would be absolutely foolhardy for him to still embrace the Giant Panda before the eyes of the discriminating international community. 

MY FIRST DANCE

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

I DIDN'T HAVE my first dance in a house party called "tipar" or in the high school junior-senior prom. I had it in the dimly-lit dancing hall of a sleazy joint, which was then called International Cabaret, in Caloocan City. That was sometime in October, 1969, which was the height of the Vietnam War.

I was 15 and in third year high school, when my 18 year-old cousin, who has always been a close friend and a confidante until now, urged me to go to the much ballyhooed dancing halls of Caloocan City. 

I filched P20, which was then a tidy sum during those days, from my mother's wallet and off we went to the Caloocan City's fabled Fifth Avenue for an adventure.

The bouncers refused my entry because of my age. But my cousin's persuasive powers prevailed, as he argued for me. 

We showed our cedulas, or residence certificates, with fake birthdays to claim we were 18. I was a skinny lad, wearing a white long-sleeve shirt and black pants, as if I was to receive my first communion.

We bought tickets, which cost twenty centavos each. Each ticket meant a single dance with any woman of our choice from the long queues of taxi dancers, who were called bailerinas (Spanish word for dancers). A taxi dancer was for hire to provide dancing services to anybody, who bought tickets.

After we bought our tickets, we drank a bottle of beer each to overcome our anxiety, shyness, and nervousness. 

But from the corner of my eyes, I saw a brown beauty with a slim body, who moved with the grace of a gazelle. I approached and gave her a ticket for a dance. The orchestra then played You'll Never Know, a popular song during the Liberation era. We had the "very sweet" dance.

The taxi dancer, who was in her mid-20s, was so surprised by my presence. "Why are you here?" she asked. I couldn't answer, but said I was with my cousin. 

"How old are you?" she asked. I told her I was 18, which she didn't believe anyway. Then, I gave her more tickets to show that she would be my partner for the next nine dances. Those tickets meant income for her.

The music was so short; it did not last a minute though. She was my partner again. This time, it was a different story. 

It was no longer a getting-to-know you type of meeting. As a pubescent guy, I had my initiation that woke up the manhood in me. 

She gave that wake-up call.

Without much ado, the taxi dancer held me tight and squeezed my body so hard. Then, she pushed my buttocks toward what was in between her thighs. 

I could smell her perfume. I could feel her warm breath. Then, she rubbed her body to my body, causing sensation and the greatest - and most memorable - erection in my entire life. 

I literally trembled at the sheer ecstasy of my experience.

She gave me the most thrilling - and enthralling - experience in the next eight dances, after which I bought ten more tickets. 

We didn't talk much but the dance we had was most sensual and erotic. I sweated profusely. After 20 dances, I gave her a one-peso tip.

Somehow, I managed to ask her name toward the end of the dance. 

She gave her name as Lolita. She told me she would like to dance with me again, if ever we would come back. 

We didn't return after that visit. It was enough to savor the spirit of a dancing hall we then called a cabaret. 

By the way, International Cabaret was demolished to give way for the construction of the LRT along Rizal Avenue and for the widening of Araneta Avenue.