POST-TRUTH CULTURE ENGULFS PHL

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

Those lies and deception, fake news, hoax sites and trolls, and bellyaching, rants, curses and expletives are things we have to live with and endure. They constitute the new normal.

The explanation is simple. What has been described as post-truth culture has reached our shores and engulfed the Philippines These negative issues have become a way of life.

The post-truth culture refers to the spate of sociocultural phenomena, which are largely based on emotions and falsification of truths, making those half-truths and untruths as the new normal

Scholars said the emergence of this new culture is largely a function of the 24-hour news cycle, distortion of journalistic tenets, of which truth, balance and neutrality are sacrificed, and the ubiquitous presence of social media dwelt largely by empowered but largely uninformed or even illiterate netizens.

In post-truth cultural setting, facts are sacrificed in the name of personal biases and presumptions.  Ordinary citizens hardly know the difference between facts and opinions.

Between a verified or verifiable fact and an unconfirmed presumption, preconception, or opinion, the latter takes precedence.

Public debates are characterized by emotions and not arguments based on solid facts. Major political players hardly present solid facts that have become part of history, but lies containing facts distorted to the highest contemptible level.

What is taking place is a paradox of extreme annoyance.

The emergence of the Internet, or the information superhighway that has triggered the ongoing Information Revolution and social media has given the entire world an oversupply of facts.

Yet, what it has is a crisis of facts, as people of the world could hardly discern and embrace the truths among those facts.

Hence, those rants, expletives, and curses are but expressions of the citizens’ feelings of powerlessness, helplessness, and inferiority amid the dizzying pace of information dissemination.

This post-truth culture is expected to be a temporary issue, a transitory madness.

It would not linger, as the better informed among the citizenry take the center stage to counter its disastrous and debilitating effects. The counter-reactions could be devastating too.

In social media, the trend is for informed citizens to separate the chaff from the grain. It is a growing reality for these citizens to delete posts based on half-truths, lies, and deceptions, and block those trolls.

Fakes news and hoax sites are being exposed left and right. They are no longer taken seriously.

It’s just a matter of time when the ship corrects its course. It will certainly.

MY RECOLLECTIONS OF RONNIE NATHANIELZ

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

Although I saw him on television during the Marcos dictatorial rule, I only came to personally know Ronnie Nathanielz after the 1986 EDSA Revolution. That was when he joined in early 1987 the short-lived Observer newspaper, which later became The Independent. I was a political reporter of that daily.

I was typing my news story (we didn’t have computers during those days, but had the pleasure, or displeasure, of using second-hand typewriters), when Ronnie entered the Observer's editorial office in Quezon City and handed to Yen Makabenta, our editor-in-chief, copies of his sports articles. Yen, a Manila Bulletin columnist now, graciously introduced us to the guy.

Ronnie struck me as a cool dude. He was profuse with his smile and did not carry any air. He called every guy "pare" and spoke in a mixture of English and broken Tagalog. He was polite and courteous to guys, who were below the journalistic totem pole. These guys included my humble self, who was required to report daily to the office.

I saw Ronnie almost daily in the office. I could see him bantering with other editors, including Reggie Amigo, our sports editor, and Ronnie’s immediate superior. He engaged them in serious discussions mainly about sports.

But what struck me later was that I never saw Ronnie’s byline in any of his published news stories, feature articles, or commentaries. Weeks later, Yen Makabenta told us that it was mutually agreed that Ronnie’s byline would not appear. It was a no-brainer to discern the reason behind the no-byline mutual accord. Ronnie was pariah during those days; he was down and out.

I felt repulsive at the no-byline agreement. Journalists are men and women of convictions. We stake our reputation, or everything in us, in every copy we submit to the editorial desk. 

Reporters get their highs in chasing stories and see their bylines the following day; desk editors, their fulfillment in turning rough copies into classic gems. Ronnie would have wanted to see his bylines; it was something not given him during those days.

It was difficult times for Ronnie. Because he was closely identified with the Marcoses (Ronnie never denied it; he was even proud of it!), he lost his job at the government TV network. He had to support his growing family. He had encountered the hostility of the outside world and the unofficial ostracism of the journalistic community.

But Ronnie had a big heart to endure those things, including the indignity of the no-byline policy. He patiently endured the collective brickbat, bigotry, and bashing of people who differed and disagreed with him. He had to live with their hostility and ostracism.

From our discussions, I came to know that the Observer’s management had to give Ronnie a job because he was among the very few in the Marcos dictatorial rule, who did not enrich themselves. Unlike other apologists, who badgered Marcos for favors and milked him, Ronnie kept distance from Marcos when it came to those issues. He lived modestly; his colleagues in the sportswriting business would attest to that.

Perhaps, Ronnie did not have that business acumen. Perhaps, he never liked living big and mighty with the favors he could amass from Marcos. Perhaps, he was too proud. Or perhaps, he was not smart enough to do it. The point is he did not curry favors from the dictator..

Ronnie was happy with his Filipino citizenship, which Marcos gave him on a silver through a presidential decree. It was enough. To his credit, Ronnie felt loyal for that single act of generosity. He never hid it; he was even proud of it. Anybody could disagree with Ronnie, but he was bullheaded when it came to this issue and his politics.

Ronnie did not brood over the sudden reversal of fortunes after EDSA. He could have left the Philippines and settled elsewhere. He could return to Sri Lanka, his place of birth, or go to the United States or Canada. But he chose to stay here. He once said he loved his adopted country and he intended to stay here for good.

But he knew what to do after EDSA. Hence, Ronnie revived and rebuilt his journalistic career by concentrating in sports. No more politics for Ronnie after EDSA. He did some reinvention and reengineering. Soon, the forgiving Filipino people had accepted him.

I once saw Ronnie in the late 1980s when I went to Ultra to watch a PBA game. He smiled and greeted me. We shook hands. 

After the game, I did not say goodbye as customary among colleagues. Instead, I saw him exchanging harsh words with basketball coach Norman Black, with whom he had an altercation, Well, that was the Ronnie we knew.

We had reconnected through Facebook and told him that I did remember him. He told me he did remember me too. We had some bitter exchanges of views. At one point, I thought out loud through my FB post that he was indeed an unrepentant Marcos loyalist. 

Ronnie never bothered to answer my post. He knew he had to receive as much as he gave. Despite our differences, I could say in all candor and humility that I have silent admiration for Ronnie. I admire his infinite capacity to endure and his capacity to reinvent himself. 

I like his perseverance and dedication to sports. I admire his sense of loyalty to people, who were kind to him.

I like the way he had stuck to the Marcoses, although I personally dislike the Marcoses because of the pillaging ways and refusal to offer a public apology. While most of the Marcos allies were jumping like rats out of a sinking ship when EDSA came, Ronnie had displayed an unwavering loyalty. Between those rats and Ronnie, I would choose the latter.

Ronnie was firm in his convictions no matter how we disliked him. But he was never mean to his critics. The fact was he had no mean bone in his body. He was a guy anyone would like to be on his side.

Rest in peace, Ronnie.    

BPO FIRMS TO LEAVE PHL BECAUSE OF OFFICIAL POLICY ON HUMAN RIGHTS

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

Last night, I had dinner with two great friends and we could not help but discuss the burning issues of national and global significance. As I always say whenever I am with great friends, the three of us had attempted to solve the problems of the world in three hours.

Of course, we discussed the U.S elections; we agreed that Hillary Clinton would win to become the first woman president in U.S political history. We agreed that Donald Trump’s last minute attempt to capture the White House has gone for naught as the FBI chief has cleared Hillary of any criminal complicity on the issue of her emails.

But the biggest issue that we discussed pertained to what we foresee the country’s economic situation, particularly in the coming months. Amid those rants, curses, and expletives coming out from the mouth of the unpredictable big mouth from the South, we had come to agree that the economic future did not appear rosy.

One of my two friends does business, while the other friend is an educator, who does consulting works on the side. They are accomplished professionals. We have been friends for the past 25 years.

My friend broke the ice to discuss the outcome of his meeting yesterday, where he met a top ranking official of the BPO sector. The BPO top official confirmed to him reports that many BPO firms, particularly the American-owned, were concerned and anxious about the president’s antics, which they felt could only aggravate what they have already perceived as the dwindling business confidence in the Philippines.

My friend said that from his talks with the BPO executive, he had come to learn that American-owned BPO firms were already planning to pack up and withdraw their businesses here. They were looking into the possibility of relocating to Vietnam, or even Cambodia.

Those foreign BPO firms that have earlier plans to relocate and expand their business here have deferred their plans, as they have adopted a wait-and-see attitude to see the actual intentions of the current president. There was no immediate word whether they would continue to do business here, although my friend said the BPO executive had told him that their relocation and expansion plans were set in motion under the previous administration.

My friend said that the BPO official had told him that several infrastructures have already being laid down for future expansion of the BPO sector here, as the latter mentioned those buildings to house the expanded BPO sector. They include those buildings under construction in the MoA area.

“If they leave, those buildings and other infrastructures would become white elephants and we would be the loser,” my friend said quoting the BPO official.

My other friend jokingly said that those currently employed BPO workers could become the next wave of overseas contract workers, as they chase those BPO firms in their new relocation sites. It was a reply that drew laughter from us, but my businessman friend could not help but turn serious as he said that it was not a far-fetched possibility.

“Those Cambodians and Vietnamese do not speak English well. Where would they get the warm bodies to man those BPO booths? The Philippines is still a good source of manpower,” my friend said.

My businessman friend dropped the bombshell that the concern of those BPO firms could not be addressed and contained easily because of official state policies, which have become the basis of doing overseas business. “The international community has changed,” he said. “And it has changed drastically.”

The BPO official, whom he had met in the afternoon, told him that it has been an official policy on the U.S. and even Economic Union countries to do business with countries, which subscribe to the democratic principles and traditions, particularly the rule of law, and the international accords on child labor, the environment, and human rights.

“They would not want to deal with countries that violate any of those parameters. The Philippines, perceived a human rights violator, could become a pariah from their standpoint. Its inability to follow the rule of law could exacerbate the situation,” he said.

My businessman friend said that judging from his conversation with the BPO executive, American BPO firms based here would be hard pressed to leave the country if the current administration would not mend its ways.

“It’s a matter of official policy,” he said. “The situation has become untenable though.”

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO DIGONG’S SUPPORTERS?

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

It’s not true that the over 16 million voters, who have catapulted the current president to the presidency, have remained solid after four months in power. 

On the contrary, it could be perceived that the political support he enjoys from this block of voters is being eroded by his misdoings – those rants and curses, whimsical tendencies, careless remarks, undecipherable foreign policy statements, unpredictable temperament, and his global image of an unrepentant thug.

After four months, his political constituency is being divided and their political support being eroded, leading to an untenable situation where he could no longer depend on them when the political dynamics start to unfold and enter into a heightened phase. He is perceived as the "pambansang kahihiyan," or the "national embarrassment."

The 16 million voters could now be divided into the following categories:

The Fanatics – These people perceive him as the president, who does no wrong. Everything he does and says is correct. A questionable move or statement could be part of a grand strategy or conspiracy, which is equally nebulous as their thought processes. They are strong believers of conspiracy theories against their idol.

They are the idolaters, who persist in their belief he would bring the country to progress, but they could not explain how and why. They are relentless in their defense of him. They are the apologists, or the defenders of the faith. 

People, who don’t share their beliefs, call them “dutertards,” and like automatons, which hardly have a mind of their own, they would gladly carry that unpalatable tag without a thorough understanding of its connotation and implications. They would brand the other side as "yellow."

The “Doubting Thomases” – These are the people who have started to doubt the president. They know and feel that he is taking the country to nowhere, but they could not decide if they would take a more decisive attitude towards him. 

For them, he is no longer the knight in shining armor; his Teflon of invincibility has lost its luster. But they are still lost. They have yet to cross the Rubicon, as they cling to the foolish belief that he should be given a chance to prove his worth or redeem himself.

The “Denying Peters” – These are the people who voted him to power, but they would deny they have voted him and, ergo, support him. They know and understand that they have made a big mistake in their choice of president, but they are not prepared to admit what they feel was a mistake in the last presidential elections. 

They would claim they voted somebody else to reflect efforts to save face. Like the biblical Peter, these people would have their realization later, but at the moment, they have remained on a crossroad. 

Somewhere, sometime, and somehow, they would admit their mistake, but we have to wait for this thing to happen. Patience and perseverance is required in dealing with them.

The “Brave Hearts” - These are his voters yet they would immediately admit their mistake without fanfare. They are people gifted with a rare kind of discernment and richness of heart. They would call a spade a spade. 

They are not afraid to face the consequences of their choice, but are humble to articulate their mistake. These are people, who are willing to repent and rectify their error. 

They could be counted when the political dynamics turn for the some defining and decisive phase.

The Indifferent or Uncaring - These voters hardly care; in fact, they are the uncaring ones. They could probably include the fence sitters, who would only participate on the last minute. 

They are probably the overwhelming majority. They would not make their sentiment manifest publicly. At the moment, they just do not want to participate.

THE TRAGEDY OF A CRAZY PRESIDENT

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

On February 6, 1997, or nearly twenty years ago, the unthinkable happened in Ecuador, a relatively small South American republic of 14 million people.

The Ecuadorean Congress, in an unprecedented move in Latin American politics, declared Abdala Bucaram Ortiz, its president, as “mentally unfit,” replaced him with a congressional leader, and forced him to seek political asylum in Panama.

The congressional initiative was swift and decisive as Bucaram, a scion of Lebanese immigrants, was president for only seven months. Besides, he was popularly elected, as he won 21 of Ecuador’s 22 provinces.

Although the economic problems that cropped out when he became president on August 10, 1996 were factors that forced congressional leaders to take the juggernaut, it was largely his series of comedic actuation that had led to his dismissal.

Bucaram was perceived a mad man; he branded himself as “el loco” (crazy guy). 

When the Ecuadorean economy plummeted as a result of policy changes he earlier initiated, Bucaram took efforts to divert the Ecuadoreans’ attention away from those issues and did what he thought was best – be himself.

He did not just cultivate his public image of an iconoclast, who challenged authorities and traditions, but overplayed it to become the comic, who sought to entertain the Ecuadoreans, who, at that time, felt the economic pressures and were becoming dismayed by his lack of leadership.

Amid the scandals and corruption charges, Bucaram released CD copies of his music entitled “A Crazy Man Who Loves” (“El Loco Que Ama” in Spanish). He shaved off his trademark moustache on live TV and later adopted the clipped moustache of Nazi Germany dictator Adolf Hitler.

Bucaram invited for lunch the Ecuadorian American Lorena Bobbitt, who gained international notoriety for castrating her husband. He attended the World Banana Queen contest in Quito, grabbed the microphone, and crooned to the winner, as he was surrounded by scantily clad contestants.

These were not all. Bucaram insulted a former president by comparing him to a “burro,” or donkey. When asked to issue a public apology, Bucaram obliged but he did it not to the political leader, but to the donkeys.

When he became president, Bucaram named his business associates in top government positions, appointed certain family members to his Cabinet, and put his 18-year-old son in charge of the Ecuadorian customs office.

He offered $1 million for globally known Diego Maradona to play one soccer game with him and also gave CD copies of  his song “A Madman in Love” to other heads of government to an Ibero-American conference in Chile.

The air of negativity and hatred that characterized Bucaram’s presidency culminated when the Ecuadorean Congress dismissed him on ground of “mental incapacity,” triggering a political precedent that has become a new model for the rest of the world.

Despite his tragic political fate, Bucaram managed to give the quote of all time: “They call me ‘Crazy Abdalá’, but madmen speak from the heart and see with their soul.”

‘THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE’

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

In the summer of 1975, I had the rare opportunity to represent the University of the East in the week-long annual student leadership conference in Tagaytay City. Sponsored by the U.S. Embassy in the Manila through the U.S. Information Service (USIS), the conference gathered 50 students from various universities and colleges nationwide to discuss the burning issues of international, regional, and national significance.

Because it was the height of martial law, the organizers, led by then U.S. Embassy Cultural Attache James Hoyt, chose a conference theme, which we considered not controversial, but largely insignificant. Since the U.S. was then celebrating the second centennial of its independence from British colonial rule, the theme was “The American Experience.” It was a sharp departure from earlier conferences, where the topics largely revolved on the Philippine experience.

Incidentally, the conference coincided with the fall of Saigon, where the communist-backed Hanoi government finally won over the American and South Vietnamese forces. We were at the conference when a U.S. Embassy functionary told us the final defeat of the Americans in Vietnam.

We discussed everything American to the point of suffocation during the week-long conference held at the posh Tagaytay Vista Lodge. Almost everything about American politics, philosophy, arts and literature, science and technology, among other topics were laid on the table. A string of Filipino and American experts took turns to speak before us. Ateneo University’s Fr. Vitaliano Gorospe, or Fr. George, a Jesuit, was the conference director.

During those days, campus organizations were banned. Except for some state-sponsored organizations and initiatives like “Love Bank,” of which its purpose was highly suspicious, dictator Ferdinand Marcos did not see any reason for student organizations to exist. I was a returning student activist during those days. My teacher in a political science elective subject was probably impressed by my performance in her subject, prompting her to recommend me to represent UE in the conference.

I myself did not see any raison d’etre for attending the conference; I could not relate to the conference theme. But since it offered a new experience, my attitude was more of openness. Who would know that it could satisfy my inquisitive nature?

As far as I remember, and this is after 41 years, the conference was most outstanding in inculcating two basic things in my young mind:

First, the American experience could be summed up in a continuing battle of two conflicting themes: internationalism and isolationism.

At the one end, American internationalist leaders want to spread the gospel of democracy to the entire world. This explains American presence in many parts of the world. The U.S. wants to show its influence to the point of acting as sort of policeman of the world.

On the other end, the isolationist leaders want to keep the U.S. away from the conflicts of many countries. Stop pontificating, attend first to its troubles before the troubles of the other countries, and strengthen its domestic institutions – these are the frequent admonitions of isolationists.

Second, there is no substitute for effective and straightforward communications. This American value system, in fact, centers on this imperative.

Hence, Americans hardly speak in metaphors, similes, or any other form of communications. It’s being precise to the point of being blunt. It’s being bloody frank. It’s their virtue too.

Towards the end of conference, many students spoke bluntly against the conference theme, saying the discussions were largely irrelevant. Who cares about the Americans? During those days, the issue of Marcos dictatorship was already being raised and questioned, as Marcos himself showed tendencies to prolong his stay in power.

The conference ended uneventfully. Conference organizers however made a great pitch. Those students, who wanted to get postgraduate studies in the U.S. could get in touch with the U.E. Embassy through the office of the Cultural Attache. I made new friends in the conference and we went back to our schools to complete our college education.

In hindsight, which is always 20/20, the conference was an outstanding experience because it has given me a sufficient background to understand the U.S., its people, its culture, and its history and traditions. It has become a great use when I later entered the journalism career.

I have chosen to mention my experience in the wake of current political developments. I am sure that American leaders are having a difficult time deciphering the intentions of the current Philippine political leadership because of what the confusing statements issued by the president, who is being labelled a “serial killer” in in world press.

It is not easy for them to hear a president, who says one thing today but only to backtrack by tomorrow. It’s not effective communications for them.

They do not see any significance for a political leader to keep on talking on a daily basis without understanding the repercussions of his words.

They look down on a leader, who keeps on flip-flopping. In their view, he is more of a flip.

THE AFTERMATH OF THE AUG.21, 1983 ASSASSINATION OF NINOY AQUINO

By Philip M. Lustre Jr. 

Dictator Ferdinand Marcos hardly anticipated the costly and prolonged public outrage over the Aug. 21, 1983 assassination of top opposition leader Benigno Aquino Jr. 

Despite his reputed erudite and wily political ways, Marcos could not stop the escalation of the Aquino’s brutal murder into crisis proportions, threatening his dictatorship for the first time in a decade.

Ensconced in Malacanang after his kidney transplant surgery, Marcos watched helplessly as the Filipino people responded swiftly, overwhelmingly, and decisively on the brazen way Ninoy Aquino was killed while he was with his military escorts at the airport tarmac.

Despite the dictatorship’s tight control over the local media, news about Aquino’s murder spread like wildfire, triggering what could be regarded the start of the downfall of the Marcos dictatorial regime. 

It pricked the national conscience, so to speak, as ordinary citizens could not contain their utter shock, disbelief, and disgust over his murder, which was committed in broad daylight. 

For them, Marcos had to explain a lot since the opposition leader was killed while in military custody. Moreover, the circumstances of his brutal murder showed a direct military conspiracy.

Hours after his murder, Filipinos from all walks of life – rich and poor, young, old, and the not-so-old - formed long queues to pay their last respect to Aquino, whose body was put for public viewing at the Aquinos’ residence on Times Street in Quezon City. 

The Aquinos neither changed the clothes he wore upon arrival in Manila nor cleaned his wound and dirtied face, enabling the world to see what they did to Ninoy. Only when he was about to be buried ten days later did they dress him up and clean his face.

Two days after his murder, wife Cory Aquino and their kids arrived from Boston and decided to transfer his remains to a bigger and spacious venue to accommodate the increasing number of people, who paid daily homage to him – the iconic Santo Domingo Church along Quezon Avenue in Quezon City, which is about two kilometers away from their residence. 

The crowd got bigger and the lines, longer, as more Filipinos started to perceive Ninoy Aquino as a martyr of Philippine democracy.

Despite the public anger and polarizing effects of the brutal murder, known supporters of the dictatorship attempted to go to the wake to show some degree of sympathy and condole with the family. 

But because of the tense situation, some visitors were shunned. Their rebuff revealed the deep political wounds his murder had caused. 

Gen. Carlos P. Romulo, the former foreign affairs minister of the Marcos dictatorship was among them. Burial marshals politely told him to leave, hurting his pride. 

Later, that was when he was about to die in 1985, Romulo showed a change of heart by quietly denouncing the dictatorship, claiming that Marcos used his “international stature” to get what he wanted from the Americans.

Ten days later, or on August 31, 1983, the longest funeral procession in Philippine history took place. An estimated two million people participated to bring Ninoy’s remains to the Manila Memorial Park in suburban Paranaque City. 

Almost overnight, an alphabet soup of organizations mushroomed to lead the protest demonstrations against the perceived complicity of the Marcos regime in Aquino’s murder.

Younger brother Agapito, or Butz, led in the creation of the August Twenty One Movement (ATOM), to press for the prosecution of the people behind Ninoy’s murder and signal the rise of the middle class and professionals in the protest movement against the Marcos authoritarian rule. 

The Justice for Aquino, Justice for All (JAJA), became the broad coalition of opposition forces against the Marcos dictatorship

The Aug. 21, 1983 assassination of Ninoy Aquino drastically altered the political equation. It galvanized the political resolve of the democratic opposition, as they went to the extent of pressing for the resignation of Marcos, whom the opposition leaders thought had blood in his hands. 

They demanded an end for one-man rule and a transition to democracy. It served as the single spark to enhance communist insurgency in the country, as rebels recruited more adherents, staged more ambushes against government troopers, and intensified armed struggle.

The assassination also provided the impetus for the middle class to join the protest movement against Marcos dictatorial rule. Business executives and their staff went out of their offices to join protest demonstrations. 

The usually placid business district of Makati, or the Ayala district, became the hotbed of activism and protest demonstrations against Marcos. It weakened the ruling Kilusang Bagong Lipunan coalition, as its members began to doubt Marcos. 

Overall, Marcos never had it so bad until the Ninoy Aquino murder took place.

Even the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Embassy in Manila, as represented by intrepid Ambassador Michael Armacost, were so surprised by the public outrage, prompting them to start distancing from Marcos. 

Seeing the magnitude and depth of the collective public anger over Aquino’s murder, Armacost avoided getting cozy and warm again with the dictatorship, as he treated them at arm's length and with ultimate formality. 

Where before Armacost was photographed dancing with Imelda, the ambassador avoided her except on formal occasions. It was a sharp contrast to the friendship which the Marcoses enjoyed with U.S. President Ronald Reagan and wife Nancy.

Marcos’s response for the crisis was fatally short of any brinkmanship. He failed to convince the people that Rolando Galman was indeed a communist hit man responsible for Ninoy’s death. 

The dictator formed a commission led by his loyal supporter in the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Enrique Fernando, to conduct an independent probe of Aquino’s murder, but the people repudiated the commission, raising the public perception that they were appointed to rig the investigation.

Marcos replaced the Enrique Fernando commission with a five man commission led by retired appellate justice Corazon Agrava. The other commission members were Amado Dizon, Dante Santos, Luciano Salazar, and Ernesto Herrera, who rose to national prominence to become a senator. 

The commission held daily hearings for almost a year and confirmed the public view that his murder was indeed a military conspiracy that involved Gen. Fabian Ver, the Armed Forces chief of staff and an infamous Marcos lackey.

The protest demonstrations continued. Perfumed elites from Makati and corporate executives like Jaime Ongpin and Ramon del Rosario Jr. joined hands with the great unwashed to press for Marcos resignation and a transition to democracy. 

Marcos was forced to call elections for members of the regular Batasang Pambansa, where the political opposition won a quarter of the seats in 1984. In late 1985, Marcos called for “snap” presidential elections, which culminated in the EDSA People Power Revolution.

The ultimate question: Who gave the order for Ninoy Aquino’s assassination?

The late Cory Aquino had put the blame squarely on dictator Ferdinand Marcos, but in the absence of direct evidence and corroborative statements, it was difficult for her to pin down Marcos as the one who gave the order for her husband's assassination. 

But pieces of circumstantial evidence showed that it was Marcos, who personally gave the order to Imelda and close confidantes to kill Ninoy if he insisted to come home at the date he was convalescing from his kidney transplant surgery.

In the dictator’s mind during those days, he was only implementing in an extrajudicial manner the death sentence a military commission gave in 1974 on trumped up charges of murder and subversion against him. 

In contrast, Ninoy Aquino felt he had to be here to present opposition alternatives for Marcos.

Imelda’s warning against Ninoy that he would be dead if he were to come home indicated that the Marcoses had plans to liquidate him. 

What took place on Aug. 21, 1983 was premeditated murder as shown by the clock-like precision of the operations. 

It was inconceivable that Marcos did not know it. He not only knew it; he personally gave the order. Hence, his order had emboldened the likes of Avsecom chief Brig. Gen. Luther Custodio, a notorious Imelda loyalist, to kill Ninoy. 

Their cocky confidence was noticeable.

To whom did Marcos give the order to kill Ninoy?

Imelda knew and implemented it along with Ver and, of course, his younger brother, Cocoy Romualdez.

It is a cause for bewilderment that Cocoy did not bother to return to the country for many years, while others took the gamble to return. He returned only when he was ill with cancer only to die in early 2012. 

Nobody could say with certainty his participation, but it has been whispered that he was among those entrusted to carry out that plan to kill Ninoy.