THE EVE OF EDSA PEOPLE POWER REVOLUTION

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

Feb. 21, 1986 was neither earthshaking nor electrifying; it was very ordinary day. It fell on a Friday to enable white and blue collar workers to go out for their usual weekend shopping binge.

But it could not be denied that tension was quietly building over the past few days. It was building up like a dam that was about to burst.

The civil disobedience campaign, which opposition leader Cory Aquino had called on Feb. 16 to protest the massive cheating by the Marcos dictatorship in the Feb. 7 “snap” presidential elections, had gained momentum, causing disturbing and deep apprehension for the targeted and affected parties.

From all indications, the civil disobedience campaign was proving to be a stunning success, as citizens started withdrawing from seven crony banks, refrained from buying copies of the crony newspapers, and stopped procuring products of crony manufacturing firms.

On its sixth day, the boycott movement hurt the finances of affected parties, which prompted their top managers to hold emergency crisis meetings to stem the tide of the people’s anger reflected by their declining sales.

Huge withdrawals were reported in seven crony banks - Security Bank and Trust Company, United Coconut Planters Bank, Republic Planters Bank, Traders Royal Bank, Union Bank, and Commercial Bank of Manila. The withdrawn funds were subsequently transferred to banks perceived not belonging to any of the crony of dictator Ferdinand Marcos.

Newsboys had stopped peddling copies of the crony newspapers – Daily Express, Times Journal, and Bulletin Today. They were hardly being bought anyway, the newsboys claimed.

Sales of the copies of the non-crony – or alternative - newspapers – Ang Pahayagang Malaya, newly established Philippine Daily Inquirer, and revived Manila Times – were on a continued upswing.

Sales of San Miguel Corporation products were on a steady decline too. Citizens refrained from consuming SMC products like beer, soda drinks, SMC branded food products, among others. SMC had emergency meetings, where its executives decided to lower the prices of their products.

The civil disobedience campaign was a major nationwide act of defiance that enhanced the fight against the Marcos dictatorship. It was premised on Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophy of nonviolence.

Marcos could not do anything significant. Although the Batasang Pambansa had proclaimed him winner of the snap elections, the entire country hardly felt he had the mandate to govern effectively.

Marcos was purely on the defensive, as if he was a defanged tiger.

Marcos could only provide feeble answers to the snowballing civil disobedience campaign.

On Feb. 17, Marcos had extended the term of controversial Armed Forces chief of staff Gen. Fabian Ver by another month, although he indicated he had to go at some point, which was unclear anyway.

Marcos had scheduled his inauguration on Feb. 25, but he also expressed apprehension that members of the diplomatic corps, composed of embassy officials and consular officers based in Manila, would not attend.

Their failure to attend could indicate that the international community did not recognize the legitimacy of his reelection, adversely affecting his reputation in the community of nations.

His isolation in the international community became more pronounced, when the U.S. Congress passed a resolution on Feb. 20 suspending all foreign aid to the Philippines.

Moreover, Manila-based ambassadors of 14 European countries and Japan had called on Cory Aquino to indicate their recognition that she was the rightful winner in the last elections.

Hence, the international pressures on the Marcos dictatorship was getting more pronounced. Marcos was obviously concerned of those developments.

Meanwhile, the leftwing Bayan had decided, albeit belatedly, to join the snowballing civil disobedience.

On Feb. 19, the leadership of the Reform the Armed Forces Movement (RAM) had decided to launch its military coup on Feb. 23, which fell on a Sunday.

Everything was getting ripe for an earthshaking, game-changing political cataclysm. Nobody had thought of the EDSA People Power Revolution. But it was something bound to happen.

THE ECONOMIC CRISIS BEFORE EDSA PEOPLE POWER REVOLUTION

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

All claims that the Philippines had its “golden years” during Ferdinand Marcos’s 20-year rule (13 years of which, under a dictatorship) are plain hogwash. On the contrary, the Philippines had its worst postwar economic recession during the last three years of the Marcos dictatorship.

Official data showed the national economy posting a steep economic decline in 1983, or the year Marcos minions murdered top opposition leader Benigno Aquino Jr. on the tarmac of what is now known Ninoy Aquino International Airport.

The next two years saw the national economy plunging into a recession of unimaginable proportions. Industries grounded to a halt, tens of thousands workers were laid off, and economic uncertainty loomed. It was an economic recession, plain and simple.

Official data showed that the Philippine economy posted a decline in its Gross Domestic Product (GDP, or sum total of all goods and services produced in the given period minus foreign remittances) to 1.87 percent in 1983 from a moderate 3.62 percent in 1982.

In 1984, the Philippine economy stumbled to post a GDP growth rate of -7.47 percent, the first ever it went negative since 1946. The economic recession exacerbated, as the national economy posted a negative GDP growth of -7.31 percent in 1985.

The sharp GDP growth decline in 1983 and the negative growth rates in 1984 and 1985 meant that the Philippine economy hardly expanded during the three year period before the historic 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution. On the contrary, the national economy constricted – or shrank - to unprecedented levels. There was no denying that the Marcos dictatorship mismanaged the Philippine economy.

Economists earlier estimated that a one percent GDP growth rate could mean the generation of nearly a million jobs for the national economy. It could be surmised that the economy lost hundreds of thousands – or even millions – of jobs during the pivotal three-year period.

It would be wrong to believe that the treacherous murder of Sen. Benigno Aquino Jr. solely caused the economic downfall during those years. But it would be correct to think it was one of the major contributory factors.

By killing Aquino in broad daylight, Marcos suffered the infamous perception that he would do everything to keep himself in power. Aquino’s murder triggered the isolation of the Marcos dictatorship in the international community. Major democracies viewed Marcos as a criminal.

The economic crisis of those days was triggered by the collapse of the global financial system, where major debtor countries defaulted repayment of their maturing debts and unilaterally declared a moratorium in the repayment of their maturing multibillion dollar foreign debts.

By the fourth quarter of 1983, major debtor nations like Mexico, Brazil and Argentina said they could no longer pay their foreign debts. They declared they would seek a moratorium, or suspension, of their debt repayments until their respective economies recovered.

By October, 1983, or weeks after the Aquino murder, Prime Minister Cesar Virata, the concurrent finance minister, announced the Philippines would default on its loan obligations and follow the examples set by the three Latin American countries. Virata said the Philippines was seeking a similar moratorium on the repayment of its maturing debt obligations.

By that time, the Philippines had a foreign debt of about $26 billion, a big part of which were commercial debts obtained from foreign private commercial banks worldwide. The Marcos dictatorship had to negotiate its foreign debts with a committee of foreign commercial banks, which had the biggest loan exposure to the country. 

The Marcos dictatorship took advantage of the petrodollars which these banks had generated from oil producing countries after the oil cartel unilaterally raised the world prices of crude oil in three successive global oil shocks. But the dictator was more preoccupied of stealing a big part of those loans.  

Since the commercial credits were not concessional credits that carried longer repayment period (30 years repayment period with a ten year grace period) and lower annual interest rates (usually pegged at 2 percent), the Philippines had a hard time paying its debts.

Virata, the chief economic manager during those days, explained that the Philippines had to roll over those commercial credits, creating big piles of unpaid commercial credits. This debt rollover strategy was the usual economic strategy of the Marcos dictatorship.

The declaration of a moratorium on the repayment of the country’s foreign debts had caused a subsequent overnight balance of payments crisis, where the foreign exchange (or dollar) outflows greatly surpassed the inflows.

Foreign banks would not provide external finance contracts, essentially in the form of letters of credit (LCs), to domestic firms, effectively stopping importations of the needed production inputs.

The moratorium was widely felt, as the Marcos dictatorship did not have much choice but to cut its public expenditures. What followed next was a complete economic nightmare.

Millions became unemployed; executives in Makati sold copies of encyclopedia and insurance policies to eke out a living. The informal economy, or underground economy, grew to provide economic sanctuary for the displaced and dispossessed.

A parallel foreign exchange market, infamously called “Binondo Central Bank,” suddenly appeared to provide a black market for foreign exchange transactions for dollar-strapped firms and individuals.

But it was the political consequences of the economic crisis that triggered the downfall of the Marcos dictatorship. 

Overnight, displaced executives and workers laid the blame squarely on the Marcos authoritarian rule for the economic mismanagement and collapse, as they joined the massive anti-dictatorship protest movement.

They led the so-called “confetti revolution” in the Ayala business district of the heartland of Philippine business and manned various barricades. They also formed the nucleus of the widespread calls for an end to the Marcos dictatorship and the restoration of democracy.

Their participation in the anti-dictatorship culminated in the EDSA People Power Revolution. The near bloodless political cataclysm was ignited by their collective desire to restore democracy.

By end-1986, the national economy improved its performance, as it posted a GDP growth rate of 3.42 percent. Finally, the country had a modest but positive growth rate after three years of steep economic decline. 

Economic recovery was the first order of the day in the post-Marcos era.

THE 1986 CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE CAMPAIGN

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

On February 16, 1986, or 31 years ago, the political opposition launched what could be regarded a successful civil disobedience campaign.

Opposition presidential candidate Cory Aquino led the launching of what was billed the "Tagumpay ng Bayan," or “victory march,” where hundreds of thousands of people (police estimated the crowd at one million) filled up the Luneta Grandstand and adjacent Rizal Park to protest the move of the Batasang Pambansa to proclaim dictator Ferdinand Marcos and Arturo Tolentino, his running mate, as victors in the Feb. 7, 1986 “snap” presidential polls. 

Its launching fell on a Sunday, enabling throngs of humanity to go to Luneta to protest.

Massive vote buying, blatant cheating, mass disenfranchisement of registered voters (Namfrel chair Jose Concepcion said 3.3. million voters failed to vote), and prevalent use of violence had characterized the victory of the Marcos-Tolentino ticket. 

Even the international community deplored the tainted conduct of the snap presidential elections. Many democracies led by the United States and France questioned the purported Marcos victory in the presidential polls.

But the rubber-stamp Batasang Pambansa, dominated by members of the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL) coalition, ignored all protestations and railroaded the proclamation of Marcos and Tolentino, earning the people’s wrath and triggering massive protest by the people. 

Under the 1973, which served as the constitution of the Marcos authoritarian rule, the Batasang Pambansa had the power to proclaim winners of presidential elections.

Two days before this event, or on Feb. 14, 1986, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) issued a pastoral letter, describing the election of Marcos and Tolentino as “tainted” by cheating and violence and refusing to accept them as winners.

It described Marcos’s victory as “without moral basis.”

On this day, Cory Aquino asserted that she and Salvador Laurel, her running mate, were winners in the presidential elections and launched the massive civil disobedience campaign to force Marcos to step down.

Cory Aquino urged the Filipino people to defy the Marcos dictatorial regime not through the use of violence but by a series of concerted nonviolent means similar to what Mahatma Gandhi did when he led the fight for Indian independence from British colonial rule.

Cory Aquino urged the Filipino people to refuse paying their taxes and even their electric bills (Meralco was then controlled by the group of Ambassador to the U.S. Benjamin “Cocoy” Romualdez, Imelda’s favorite brother), and to boycott crony firms – their products and services.

Cory Aquino urged the people to boycott the crony media (mainly the Daily Express, Bulletin Today, and Times Journal), crony banks (UPCB, Republic Planters Bank, Traders Royal Bank, Union Bank and Commercial Bank of Manila, and two others, all identified as owned and controlled by Marcos cronies), and crony firms like Rustans and San Miguel Corporation.

She also called for a one-day work stoppage on the day of the inauguration of the dictator as re-elected president.

The succeeding days saw the success of the Cory Aquino-led civil disobedience campaign.

The crony banks were swamped by huge withdrawals and the funds, subsequent transfers to other banks not identified with Marcos.

The crony newspapers experienced drastic drops in their circulation; newsboys stopped peddling their copies. Restaurants and hotels stopped serving SMC products, which included the world-famous San Miguel beer and soda drinks.

The civil disobedience campaign was so successful to the point that even crony firms were alarmed that had the boycott persisted for a month, they would suffer irreversible losses that could lead to insolvency and bankruptcy.

The civil disobedience campaign succeeded, making the entire country ripe for EDSA People Power Revolution six days later. It was a prelude to the main event - the EDSA People Power Revolution.

It was indeed a major antecedent for the near bloodless people’s uprising that toppled the Marcos dictatorship. Even other countries have copied the Philippine experience.

THE 1986 'SNAP' PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

(This is for the millennials, who hardly know the Marcos dictatorship and the pivotal presidential elections in our history.)

On February 7, 1986, or exactly 31 years ago, the Philippines held the first ever “snap” presidential elections in its political history. Dictator Ferdinand Marcos called it his biggest blunder because the elections became a major antecedent, or virtual catalyst, that led to the fateful 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution that toppled his dictatorship.

The presidential elections was called “snap” because it was not in accordance with provisions of the 1973 Constitution, the fundamental law that propped up the dictatorship of President Ferdinand Marcos. It was called at the "snap" of the dictator's fingers, so to speak. "Just like that," as we use to say it in street language.

Its constitutionality was questioned before the Supreme Court sometime in December, 1985, but the High Court, after a single day of oral arguments, gave the green light by invoking the political question doctrine. Hence, it did not have any constitutional impediment.

Antecedents

Marcos called the snap presidential elections as his response to widespread criticisms that he was governing without any mandate from the Filipino people. Marcos was exercising dictatorial powers without the Filipino people’s consent, which was best expressed in elections. He was an unelected dictator, no different from the dictators of some banana republics in Latin America.

It was in 1981 when Marcos last called for presidential elections. The world community looked at it as sham because his minions rigged it with him as the eventual winner. It did not have credibility after the political opposition boycotted it.

The national economy was also in shambles. Prime Minister Cesar Virata had declared the unilateral moratorium on the repayment of the country’s foreign debts shortly after the August 21, 1983 murder of top opposition leader Benigno Aquino Jr., father of the erstwhile president. The moratorium closed the global financial faucet to the national economy.

The country could not import; the economy was in a standstill. The national economy posted negative growth rates for three consecutive years. Key business executives in the financial district of Makati lost their jobs and some sold copies of encyclopedia to eke out a living. There was massive unemployment. There was then a prevailing mood of hopelessness, helplessness, and powerless triggered by the economic recession.

Meanwhile, the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) was expanding by leaps and bounds; the economic decline triggered the shift of support to the communist rebels. Its military arm, the New People’s Army (NPA), was emboldened to launch series of ambushes and daring attacks on state troopers. Its political arm, the National Democratic Front (NDF) was quite successful in coalescing with middle elements, which included Church leaders from the majority and minority Churches.

Marcos was widely perceived to have lost control of the country. He was blamed for the three major ills that plagued the country during those days: over-centralized graft, where he earned fat under-the-table commissions from foreign-funded big-ticket state projects; crony capitalism, where his stable of friends and cronies cornered fat government contracts and created agricultural monopolies; and wanton violations of human rights, where tens of thousands of student activists, Church workers, and sectoral leaders were arrested and detained without charges, tortured, and executed, even as a number of them involuntarily disappeared without a trace until today.

Announcement

On November 3, 1985, Marcos stunned the nation and even the international community, when he announced in the U.S. television program, “This Week with David Brinkley,” that he was calling presidential elections in sixty days. Brinkley was on leave during that day but conservative newspaper columnist George Will and ABC’s White House correspondent Sam Donaldson deftly substituted for him.

I watched the television interview, which was aired live by the state television station, now the PTV 4, and wrote a spot news about his announcement for the Japanese public. I was then working for Jiji Press, a Japanese news agency, of which I was a Manila-based correspondent.

George Will raised the widely held criticism that Marcos was governing without any mandate, as his mandate was already lost. He did not know Marcos was waiting for the cue and he immediately jumped to it by announcing that he wanted to call elections in “eight months, or three months, or less.”

Donaldson joined the fray and asked for any preconditions to hold elections, to which Marcos replied that it did not have any preconditions. Anyone in the political opposition could run, he said, adverting to Cory Aquino and Salvador Laurel, two ranking opposition leaders during those days.

Many leaders of the Klusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL or New Society Movement), a coalition of politicians, technocrats, military officials, and sectoral leaders who supported the Marcos dictatorship did not appreciate the holding of “snap” presidential elections, expressing fears that its dynamics would be beyond the control of Marcos. Besides, they were not consulted by Marcos, a wily politician who always held his cards closed to his chest.

Even wife Imelda did not like the idea. The same was true with Washington, which regarded the snap presidential elections as the proverbial powder keg that could blew the country apart and trigger the further emergence of the communist rebels. In the end, Marcos prevailed. He set the date on February 7, 1986. Marcos was a deeply superstitious political leader, who believed that 7 was his lucky number.

Many quarters thought that Marcos was caught in a trap set by Will and Donaldson and that his announcement of snap presidential elections was more of a spur-of-the-moment decision made during the TV interview. But Marcos was a deliberate man. It was a well thought announcement.

The truth was he was already contemplating to call it because of the frequent criticisms that he was no longer in control of the situation. U.S. Senator Paul Laxalt, a Republican lawmaker, claimed that he suggested it to Marcos sometime in October, 1985, when he visited Manila. Later, Laxalt played a big role to convince Marcos to flee at the height of the fateful EDSA Revolution.

Opposition dynamics

Leaders of the political opposition did not immediately agree on the presidential candidate the opposition would field to face Marcos. The camps of Cory Aquino and Salvador Laurel bickered, believing that either candidate was the rightful contender to face Marcos in a one-on-one showdown.

The late Manila Prelate Jaime Cardinal Sin intervened and convinced Laurel to give way to Cory Aquino and chose to run as her vice presidential candidate. He succeeded. The Cory-Doy ticket was born under the United Democratic Opposition (Unido). Marcos chose a veteran politician in former senator Arturo Tolentino as his running mate.

Several quarters challenged the constitutionality and legality of the snap presidential elections before the Marcos-control Supreme Court. Former Vice President Emmanuel Pelaez appeared as an amicus curiae during the oral arguments and successfully convinced the magistrate that the issue had become a political issue. Two hours after the oral arguments, the Supreme Court decided in favor of its holding,and adopted Pelaez’s arguments that the issue was indeed political.

The snap presidential elections only had 30 days of political campaign. I remember covering the Unido kick off rally in Batangas City, where Laurel explained before his provincemates the reasons for his decision to slide down to the vice presidency. Wily as ever, Marcos did not give sufficient time for the political opposition to campaign.

Indeed, the political campaign was characterized by harassment and intimidation. In some areas, the electricity was cut off, forcing the opposition candidates to speak before the people in the dark. But the opposition was prepared for those contingencies. They brought candles to light the political meetings.

February 7, 1986 was a day characterized by widespread cheating by Marcos minions, who stole ballot boxes, replaced them with fake ballot boxes stuffed with fake ballots with Marcos as winner, and violence, where Marcos armed supporters intimidated voters to vote for the Marcos-Tolentino ticket.

The National Movement from Free Elections (Namfrel), a private watchdog organization, fielded thousands of volunteers, who monitored the election proceedings and documented those instances of electoral violations. Washington also sent a bipartisan team of lawmakers as observers. The U.S. monitoring team likewise reported instances of massive cheating and applications of violence.

The results of the Feb. 7, 1986 snap presidential elections were inconclusive. Marcos led in the official returns of the watchdog Commission of Elections. But Cory Aquino was leading in the Namfrel parallel count. Even the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines said that Marcos did not win the elections. The rubber stamp Batasang Pambansa composed mostly of Marcos minions declared Marcos and Tolentino as victors, making them official winners.

It was the EDSA People Power Revolution that settled the issue. Cory Aquino replaced Marcos after the latter was toppled in the near bloodless uprising. Hence, Cory Aquino assumed the presidency on the basis of the outcome of the EDSA People Power Revolution, not the snap presidential elections.

FIRST SPOUSE AS STATE SYMBOL

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

Modern democracies, particularly those that have a presidential system like the United States and the Philippines, have the ubiquitous presence of the first spouse, or presidential consort. The first spouse is officially called first lady for a male president, or first gentleman for a female president.

The office of the first spouse does not exist; he or she does not exercise official functions and receives no salary. But since he or she accompanies the president, the presidential husband or wife wittingly or unwittingly provides inputs into the dynamics of the presidency. The extent of influence depends on the first spouse’s character, personality, persuasive skills, will and determination – all rolled into one.

The spouse of every presidential candidate is part of the political package his team presents to the voters during the campaign period. The first spouse is part the political team the winning presidential candidate brings to Malacanang. Ergo, he or she is part of the presidency.

Two of the six post-Marcos era presidents – mother Corazon Aquino and son Benigno Aquino III - have no spouses. Three other presidents – Fidel Ramos, Joseph Estrada, and Gloria Macapagal Arroyo – have spouses, but their presence gave varying results and perceptions. Rodrigo Duterte has a sicly wife, but he has a presidential consort in his mistress.

As the presidential job gets more complex and challenging, an activist first spouse becomes a political imperative. A proactive, dynamic, and passionate first spouse does not only mean fulfillment of presidential objectives; it ensures stability and continuity as the president and the first spouse jointly tackle the imperatives of nationbuilding.

An activist first spouse is different from an interventionist one. An activist presidential wife or husband thinks of the nation, while he or she helps the president fulfills his mandate; an interventionist first spouse thinks of herself or himself. He or she is different from the other extreme version – the passive presidential partner, who hardly participates and, ergo, has chosen to stay on the sidelines.

The American experience

The concept of first lady is essentially an American invention. In copying the U.S political system, which is the presidential system, the Philippines, a former colony, did not miss the accompanying concept of first lady. Every first lady in the U.S. or in the Philippines is unique in her own ways. She is definitely part of the presidency.

The American first lady is not just wife, mother, and homemaker in the traditional sense of a marital partner. Although she is traditionally the ceremonial functionary, who cuts ribbons or attends to civic projects and hosts official functions at the White House, she is a political partner too.

While previous first ladies did not interfere in their partners’ presidential duties and tended to be apolitical as much as possible, the first spouses, particularly the modern-day ones and depending on their individual temperament, have played bigger roles in every presidency. In some instances, they have functioned as power brokers or the power behind the throne.

Eleanor Roosevelt, wife of Franklin Roosevelt, the longest reigning U.S. president, who was elected for four consecutive four-year terms, was the prototype of a modern-day activist first lady. She had civic projects like leading the U.S. National Red Cross and providing jobs for victims of the U.S Depression in the 1930s. But her activism extended to her unprecedented influence on the crafting of public policy as well.

Showing independence from husband Franklin, strong-willed Eleanor, during her husband’s 12 years in office (he died in 1945, or 85 days after he started serving his fourth term), wrote newspaper columns on varying subjects, held weekly press conferences to air publicly her opinions on raging issues, visited foreign countries and talked to their leaders, and met U.S. congressional leaders to give inputs on many issues.

Although she and her husband led separate lives, Eleanor was politically active and Franklin did not rein her. She held a news conference minutes after husband died and promptly told Vice President Harry Truman that he had to assume the presidency immediately.

Until her death in 1962, Eleanor led a public life. She was reputed to have influenced the 1948 crafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Critics and admirers alike promptly proclaimed Eleanor Roosevelt as the “first lady of the world.” She never sought public office – elective or appointive.

Proactive first ladies

Although Eleanor Roosevelt redefined the first lady’s role in U.S politics, her successors did not lose sight of her accomplishments, as they followed her trail. Bess Truman, wife of Harry Truman, did not only perform the traditional household management, but answered the President’s numerous mails and influenced congressional leaders to provide additional funds for the National Institute of Health. Moreover, her tempering presence prevented sudden outbursts of her husband’s fiery temper.

Mamie Eisenhower, wife of Dwight Eisenhower, stuck to her roles as wife and household manager, but she nevertheless provided what could be regarded a softer side for the usually stiff military husband, who commanded the Allied forces in Europe during the last world war. Although as sickly as her husband, who suffered a heart attack while in office, Mamie was reputed to have convinced her husband to run for a second term in 1956.

John F. Kennedy’s wife, Jacqueline, was at the White House for almost three years, but she proactively put her stamp as a woman of art, as she led in its renovation showcasing pieces of art works and new furniture. She stood beside Lyndon Johnson wearing pink clothes stained with her husband’s blood when the latter took his oath as president.

It was the pair of issue-oriented Lady Bird Johnson, wife of Lyndon Johnson, and Rosalynn Carter, wife of Jimmy Carter, who continued Eleanor Roosevelt’s legacy as activist first lady, as they redefined on her terms the first lady’s role in U.S politics. Lady Bird was the first to employ a fulltime press secretary to attend to her media requirements. Rosalynn took mental health as advocacy and influenced public policy. 

Fiercely devoted to her husband, Lady Bird nurtured Lyndon’s political career, providing funds for and leading in his political campaigns. As first lady, Lady Bird, a journalism graduate, knew and understood the meaning of good press for Lyndon, as she cultivated relations with the Washington media. She took the beautification of public places as her main advocacy and lobbied for the enactment of the National Highways Beautification Law.

Richard Nixon’s wife, Pat, had stuck to family life, but she also led in the continuation of White House’s renovation. At the height of the Watergate scandal in 1974, Pat persuaded her husband to burn the controversial White House tapes because they constituted part of his private diary and, ergo, were not public property. Her husband ignored her pleas. But she was best remembered for standing behind her husband, when the latter announced on television his resignation as president in 1974.

Betty Ford, wife of Gerard Ford, the only president, who was not popularly elected in U.S. history, was a determined woman, whom her husband gave credit for helping him in his career. Equally strong-willed, Betty persuaded her husband to grant presidential pardon to Nixon in 1975. Even Ford publicly acknowledged her wife for convincing him to grant the controversial pardon. 

Departing from the traditional roles as a household manager and hostess, Rosalynn Carter, with tacit approval and encouragement from her husband, sat in during cabinet meetings and represented her husband in several foreign missions. Although she had no official position, Rosalynn pursued policy issues as well, as if she was part of her husband’s diplomatic team. Her high profile foreign missions were questioned if they had binding effects on U.S. bilateral relations with countries she visited.

During the negotiations at Camp David in 1978, Rosalynn did not prepare the sleeping rooms of the visiting Israeli and Palestinian delegations, but participated in the drafting of the Camp David accord that partially settled the differences of the two warring nations. She took notes of the 12-day negotiations, providing the materials for a chapter of her autobiography.

Interventionist first ladies

During those days, the idea of an activist first lady had gained public acceptance, but it was Nancy Reagan, wife of Ronald Reagan, who gained the notoriety for exercising what was termed as “associate presidency.” Although she had advocacy, which included drug abuse, and civic projects to attend, Nancy took the high profile when her husband was assassinated, speaking on his behalf and receiving his guests.

When her husband underwent cancer treatment and, therefore, had to reduce his working hours, Nancy attended to state functions, receiving foreign guests and quietly exercised presidential powers, including making key appointments. Nancy was described as the “indispensable” half of the presidency, who exercised enormous clout in key decisions. She was widely described as a key presidential adviser.

Nancy’s influence was best observed by the two telephone calls, which Imelda Marcos did to persuade her to influence her husband to avoid withdrawing U.S. support to the Marcos dictatorship. Nancy received those two calls from Imelda during the waning hours of the Marcos dictatorship. Nancy did not act on Imelda’s frantic calls and Reagan, upon the advice of the State Department, withdrew support to the Marcos regime, ending its 20-year rule.

Even Donald Regan, Reagan’s chief of staff, admitted in his memoirs, the interventionist role played by Nancy, as the latter unilaterally cancelled scheduled press conferences and meetings, citing the presidential health as reasons for those cancellations. She virtually exercised veto powers, as if she were the president.

Barbara Bush’s stay at the White House was widely described as uneventful, even as she proved to be a devoted wife of George Bush and an advocate of the fight against AIDS. It was Hillary Clinton, wife of Bill Clinton, who stole the show, as she showed the way for being an activist first lady during the 1990s.

Expanded role

The expanded role of American first ladies became evident when Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992 and assigned Hillary in 1993 to chair a task force to work on the proposed national health care reform program as a major policy agenda of the Clinton administration. Bill had all the reasons to assign her to that critical job. They had almost identical resumes; they were law graduates of Yale University. Besides, Hillary earlier chaired a task force on educational reforms when Bill was Arkansas governor.

Hillary succeeded in the Arkansas task force, but she did not succeed in the White House task force. But it somehow confirmed that first ladies could take the expanded role as active partners in the pursuit of strategic public policies. She later worked with congressional leaders for the enactment of the state program for children’s health insurance and creation of the office against violence on women at the U.S. Department of Justice.

Hillary later metamorphosed into a political leader in her own right. She was elected senator representing New York in 2001 and held to that position until 2008, when she competed unsuccessfully against Barack Obama as the Democratic candidate. She was the state secretary of the Obama’s first four years of presidency. She was the Democratic president candidate but lost to Republican Donald Trump in 2016

Learning from Hillary’s fiasco on the proposed national health care program, Barack Obama did not bother to name wife Michelle to head any task force that would deal with reforms. But it has not deterred Michelle from pursuing legislative initiatives to ensure the enactment of certain reform oriented bills and speak on her own advocacy.

Michelle had aided in the enactment of proposed measures promoting equal rights for women and housing for the homeless, including war veterans. As part of her advocacy, Michelle has taken initiatives in the fight against childhood obesity and grant of wider latitudes for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. But unlike Hillary, Michelle had disavowed any political plans.

Philippine experience

Hilaria Aguinaldo, wife of Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo, president of the First Philippine Republic, was the country’s first spouse. But it was Aurora Quezon, wife of Manuel Quezon, president of the Philippine Commonwealth Republic, who enjoyed the honorific title of first lady. At that time, the Philippines was a colony of the United States.

As first lady, Dona Aurora participated in the fight for women’s suffrage, or right to vote, and led civic organizations like the Girl Scouts of the Philippines (GSP) and Damas de las Islas Filipinas, a civil society organization that helped orphans. She actively led the Philippine National Red Cross as its first chair even after the death of her husband. She died in an ambush perpetrated by Hukbalahap rebels in 1949.

Paciencia Laurel, wife of wartime president Jose Laurel, and Esperanza Osmena, wife of Sergio Osmena Sr., who assumed the presidency after Quezon’s death, followed Dona Aurora’s example. Although little was known about their contributions, they were reputed to have been active in charity works.

Trinidad Roxas, the gregarious wife of Manuel Roxas, first president of postwar Republic, took part in charity works and pursued Christmas gift giving in Malacanang, but not much was written about her activities. Victoria Quirino, daughter of Elpidio Quirino, acted as the first lady because his father was a widower. Like Dona Trinidad, she was active in socio-civic projects and charity works. They were largely apolitical as they took distance from the political aspects of the presidency.

It was the trio of Luz Banzon-Magsaysay, Leonila Garcia, and Evangelina Macapagal, who further actualized the role of a first lady. Although they took a distance from their husbands’ political works and proclivities, the trio actively supported civic projects, providing them the virtual presidential attention and presence.

Evangelina, wife of Diosdado Macapagal, led the initial renovation of Malacanang and Luneta Park. She actively accompanied her husband in foreign trips that sought to strengthen the country’s bilateral relations with other countries. As a medical doctor, Evangelina led medical missions in several areas.

‘Conjugal dictatorship’

Everything changed when the ambitious, hard-driving Imelda Marcos, wife of dictator Ferdinand Marcos became the first spouse. To describe her as an activist first lady is an understatement. She was essentially an interventionist first spouse, who led partly in the institutionalization of one-man rule in the country.

Imelda Marcos was notorious for going beyond her role as first lady; she constituted the other half of what was termed as the “conjugal dictatorship.”

As the first lady, Imelda led the massive facelift, and renovation of the Luneta Park and Rizal Park, reclamation of the Manila Bay to pave the way for the construction of the Cultural Center of the Philippines, and the launch of the so-called “green revolution,” which sought to encourage ordinary citizens to plant vegetables in their backyards. She attended to numerous civic projects, including those involving arts and letters.

Imelda’s ascent to the power structure became more pronounced immediately after her husband declared martial law in 1972 and imposed one-man rule.  Marcos sent her to various foreign missions, including meeting Libyan strongman Moammar Ghadafi to negotiate for a stop in the Mindanao war and a possible truce with the Muslim separatist rebels. Marcos later named her as human settlements minister, allowing her to lead a major faction in the martial law coalition of forces.

Shortly before the 1972 declaration of martial law, Marcos thought of fielding her in the 1973 presidential elections, but upon realizing that the opposition forces led by Senators Benigno Aquino Jr. and Gerardo Roxas would defeat her in fair and honest elections, the strongman had opted to declare martial law and impose a dictatorship instead. In 1978, Imelda led the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan ticket in Metro Manila and won over the Laban ticket of Benigno Aquino Jr. in parliamentary elections widely believed rigged to favor the Marcos forces.

She and her family went on nearly five years of exile in the U.S. in the aftermath of the 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution that toppled the Marcos dictatorship and kicked them out of Malacanang. They returned in 1991; she ran and lost in the 1992 presidential elections, placing fifth in a field of seven candidates.

As the other half of the conjugal dictatorship, Imelda was hounded by many controversies, which included her extravagant lifestyle said to be among the reasons for the collapse of the Marcos dictatorship. She gained international notoriety for her wild shopping sprees abroad and acquisition of ill-gotten wealth here and abroad estimated at between $5 billion to $10 billion.

Post-Marcos first spouses

Corazon Aquino, a widow, did not have a first spouse, but her successor, Fidel Ramos had Amelita, nicknamed “Ming,” who established her presence as a patroness of sports and active civil society supporter.

Joseph Estrada had his legal wife, Eloisa, a psychiatrist, as first lady for 30 months until he was toppled in the second EDSA People Power Revolution in 2001. Jose Miguel Arroyo assumed the post of first spouse when Gloria Macapagal Arroyo took over as president on January 17, 2001.

Mike Arroyo has gained international notoriety for being the power behind the throne. He was reputedly the fixer, who worked behind the scene to silence the opposition against his wife. But he had his own share of controversies. He was perceived as an interventionist first spouse, who was subject of various congressional investigations, although the corruption charges were mostly unproven.

For instance, months after her wife took over, the former first gentleman was accused of receiving bribe to have a presidential veto withdrawn. Veronica "Bing" Rodrigo, former correspondence secretary and friend of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, alleged that the First Gentleman received a P50-million bribe for the president to recall her veto of the franchise bills of the Philippine Communication Clearinghouse and APC Wireless Interface Network. Rodrigo retracted her accusations a few days later.

In late 2001, Robert Rivero, a media consultant of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO), alleged the illegal use of PCSO funds by the controversial first spouse for the political campaign of certain senatorial candidates. He said Arroyo paid P20.5 million to Bombo Radyo and Radio Mindanao Network for the airing of pro-administration commentaries. The PCSO publicity department denied Rivero's accusations.

'Jose Pidal" bank accounts

The country was shaken in 2003, when Lacson accused the former first gentleman of maintaining secret bank accounts under the name of "Jose Pidal" mainly to launder campaign funds for the 1998 vice presidential bid of his wife. He denied the allegations, but not without his late brother, Ignacio, admitting that those Jose Pidal accounts were his and did not belong to his brother.

In several Senate hearings on “jueteng,” the illegal numbers game, the first gentleman was accused of receiving “protection money” from its underground operators, prompting him to stay in the U.S. for a while "to remove distractions and doubts from people’s minds" on his wife’s ability to run the country.

But the biggest challenge to the Arroyo presidency happened in 2005, when the "Hello Garci" scandal broke out. It prompted the breakaway of certain coalition allies, putting the president on the edge of her seat.

In his testimony in a Senate public hearing, Brig. Gen. Francisco Gudani, a Philippine Marines official, alleged that the former first gentleman flew to Mindanao twice in a private helicopter days before the 2004 presidential polls to deliver P500 million in boxes. Gudani, who was detailed in two Lanao provinces, alleged that he witnessed vote-buying and other election irregularities in his area.

In 2006, the Senate wrapped up a series of hearings on the multimillion peso fertilizer fund scam, concluding that agriculture undersecretary Jocelyn “Joc-Joc" Bolante, Mike Arroyo's friend, diverted agricultural funds to the 2004 electoral campaign of Mrs. Arroyo.

Also in 2006, another controversy involving the former first spouse broke out when Rep. Alan Peter Cayetano claimed that a member of the Arroyo family had maintained a bank account in Germany with hundreds of million dollar deposits. Mike Arroyo flew to Germany and secured a certification from the bank to disprove Cayetano's claims. Upon his return, he sought Cayetano's expulsion from Congress.

These were not all. The testimonies of Jose de Venecia III and Rodolfo Noel Lozada Jr. in the public hearings of the Senate probe on the national broadband network project linked Mike Arroyo to another multimillion dollar controversy. De Venecia III claimed the former first spouse told him to "back off" from the project, which went to Chinese firm ZTE Corp. De Venecia III was a majority shareholder of one of the proponents of the NBN project.

Lozada claimed that then Commission on Elections chair Benjamin Abalos phoned the former first spouse to discuss the NBN project. Lozada also claimed that Abalos, de Venecia, and Mike Arroyo met for dinner around the time that the ZTE executives were following up on the project.

Duterte's spouse

President Rodrigo Duterte has a sickly legal spouse and several paramours but he earlier publicly said that his controversial daughter, Sarah, would be the first lady. Sara Davao City's mayor, was widely criticized for slapping a public official, who was enforcing a demolition order against informal settlers in the southern port city. She is said to have a violent temper like his father.

It appears that not one of the women in Duterte's life - legal wife or paramours - have assumed prominence to become the virtual first spouse. Not even daughter Sara has taken the mantle of authority to be the fist spouse.

Symbol of the state

The peculiarity of the country’s presidential system stems from the fact that the president is not just the head of government; he is also the head of state. This explains why the incumbent president has to be a paragon of virtues too.

As head of state and government, the president is perceived as the symbol of the state. He has to embody the very essence of nationhood. But this is not limited to the incumbent president; it extends to the legal spouse, or the first spouse. Hence, the first spouse must be the symbol of the state too.

GAY RIGHTS IN TONDO

By Philip M. Lustre jr.

The assertion and exercise of gay rights could have started in Manila's biggest district - Tondo, the same place that saw the birth of Katipunan, the secret society that led the 1896 Philippine Revolution against Spain.

I was a gangling 17 year old first year college student when my family transferred to a modest house in the sub-district of Gagalangin in Tondo in 1971. Our change of residence is not the story, but my exposure to the liberal side of Tondo.

Incidentally, Tondo did not only produce the revolutionaries that led the 1986 Philippine Revolution. It was - and had always been - the place that nurtured the working class since it hosted a number of factories during the American colonial rule and the early postwar era.

The old Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas (PKP) held its founding public rally in 1930 at Plaza Moriones, a seaside plaza near the fabled Sto. Nino Church. The PKP rally turned violent, as the American colonial government used water cannons to disperse thousands of workers, who joined it.

I immediately sensed the liberal tendencies of this historic place, when I first saw in 1971 the gay parties, dubbed as "sayawan ng mga bakla," in an inner cranny of Gagalangin. They held those dance parties in a vacant cemented lot in Pagasa Street, which athletic residents used as handball field during daytime. 

Months later, I watched with a combined youthful sense of bewilderment and amusement a "santakrusan," where cross-dressing gays in colorful garbs paraded publicly as "zagalas" with their toy boys as consorts. 

The Gagalangin Parish Church theoretically disagreed with this practice, branding it as a form of sacrilege, but the santakrusan was tolerated because it was peaceful and basically entertaining. 

I did not have any understanding of the concept of gay rights because I was quite young during those days. But watching how those gays had expressed themselves has left a lasting impression in my young mind.

Gays held their dance parties on Fridays, twice a month. Attending gays and their male escorts paid at least five pesos each for the ticket. The dance parties were dimly lit, but onlookers could freely ogle at those crossdressing gays, who came from various places in Metro Manila. 

I had the impression that even during those days, the gays had their own networks, enabling them to freely communicate, share, and join in every activity participated by gays.

The dance parties usually started at around 8 pm and lasted a little after midnight. Curious onlookers like me freely milled in the area. We were tolerated so long as did not create troubles.

We knew a number of those gays in those sayawan ng mga bakla. They included the likes of Sandra and Josie, two successful proprietors of beauty shops bearing their names in Gagalangin.

Party organizers used a sound system comprising of two big baffles which delivered eardrum splitting dance music. At intermission, they served platefuls of spaghetti and glasses of orange or pineapple juice for party goers.

But what impressed me during those days were the colorful dresses, which the gays took time to create and embellish. They were not necessarily expensive; in fact, they were cheap. But they were certainly works of art.

Their male companions dressed decently. It was their practice to make public their conquests; those toy boys served as their trophies. 

During those days, we did not call them "boylets." We called them "kabit ng bakla," quite a disparaging appellation.

Their santakrusan was a once a year affair, usually held either in May or June. Just like in their dance parties, those gays made extensive preparations to project lasting impressions on their creativity. "Ginagayakan (they truly prepare)," we would say during those days.

Just like those dance parties, the zagala gays came from different parts of Metro Manila. Gagalangin residents watched them in awe, as they took to the streets. I was told that they until now they have this annual santakrusan.

I wonder if those gay dance parties and santakrusans were held in some nooks and crannies in Metro Manila. I hardly recall if there were any.

In hindsight, which is always 20/20, those events showed the gays' capacity to express themselves with least interference from outside parties.

We like to believe that Tondo residents generally tolerated them to the point of letting them exercise their gay rights. We also treated them fairly.

Filipinos are basically tolerant and fair people. 

         

STREET DANCE IN TONDO

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

I was a curious, wide-eyed 11-year old Grade 5 pupil when I first saw a street dance party. The social club of young and not so young people in our place, dubbed as “Lord and Ladies Club,” sponsored a dance party, or “pasayaw” as we called it during those days, on Camba Street Extension, which runs parallel to the fabled Asuncion Street Extension in Tondo, where my family lived for years.

The social dance was held in a basketball court in the middle of the street. There were few motor vehicles during those days in 1965, prompting people to convert a portion into a basketball court. Club marshals put ropes on the court’s perimeter to prevent gatecrashers from entering the dance area. They also put palm leaves to provide art and privacy to the party goers.

Club members and their guests had to shell out a peso for each ticket to gain entry to the dance party. It was a tidy sum during those days for young people, but they had the money to buy tickets. They were seated on rattan chairs rented by the Club. Every guest was entitled to spaghetti served on paper plates and a glass of pineapple juice during break time.

I took interest in that street dance affair. I was not invited; I did not have a ticket, which was expensive for a grade schooler like me. But I still went there because I had a terrible crush on Elvie, a 14-year old neighbor, who also lived in Camba Ext. I wanted to see her. I must confess I liked her because she was beautiful, tall, and bosomy (big boobs) for her age. She had an imposing presence. She was stunner when she wore that miniskirt, which emphasized her shapely legs.

I must confess I lusted on her. She was the object of my fantasies. Even at that early age, I was already thinking of kissing her passionately. At that the back of my mind, I was thinking “paglaki ko liligawan kita (when I’ve grown up, I’m going to court you).” But it was something that did not happen when I took fancy on another neighbor. But that is another story.

Party marshals did not prevent onlookers like me to ogle at the party goers. I stood on an elevated platform outside the dance area and went to survey the dance floor to look for the apple of my eyes. From my vantage point, I saw Elvie entering the dance floor and taking a seat with other female party goers. I could not explain my youthful joy when I saw my crush.

Young people during those days appeared different from how they appeared nowadays. Young men did not wear maong or denim pants unlike today, but they had straight cut pants either sewed by some private tailoring shops or bought from downtown Manila, or either Avenida Rizal or Quezon Boulevard near the famous Quiapo Church. We did not have Levis, Lee, or anything close to them, but we had the local brand – Macomber. Men wore mostly Banlon t-shirts. Brands like Montagut or Crispa came a little later.

Young men sported different hair styles. For the more conventional, they had the Elvis Presley’s, known as the "pompadour." I could see the sticky pomade applied on their thick hairs. But since the Beatles also broke the music scene, a number forsook pomade use and adopted the mop-like look popularized by the British band. We called it the “bunot, takip-tenga (coconut husked, ears-covered)” look. Most guys wore the ubiquitous Ang Tibay, or Alex leather shoes bought from Avenida Rizal.

Women did not wear pants during those days; they wore the typical "bestida" or the miniskirt, which was vogue during those days. The likes of mu-mu or tent dress with matching fishnet stockings came a little later. But they already had thick red lipstick. But they were of inferior quality. Careless ladies suffered the consequence of being stigmatized, when their lipstick got stuck on their teeth.

The beehive look, or simply “tiss,” was already vogue during those days. Hence, young ladies sported hairs that went up a few inches because they were “tissed.” Others had the simple “pusod” style, using hair clips bought from the nearest neighbors stores, one of which was “tindahan ni Macha,” owned by a Chinese migrant, in Tondo.

The street party started with a notice from the Club president that all Club members and guests would have to follow strictly the dress code. Using a sound system (we did not have megaphones during those days), he said that nobody stood to gain entry if he failed to pair a decent pair of shoes and acceptable clothes. It was something they followed to the letter. Then, the party started with the Electromaniacs's Lover’s Guitar.

I saw guys picking up their dance partners and going to the dance floor. During those days, the dance craze was either mashed potato, popularized by Chubby Checker, or the Jala-Jala jerk, popularized by Eddie Mesa, the local version of Elvis Presley. Until now, I keep on wondering where they got the name, although I had come to know much later that one of the towns of the province of Rizal is the sleepy Jala-Jala.

The dance of those days was different. No, we did not have the “masque pop” dance, which is characterized by so much body twerking leading us to surmise that its dancers are either have epileptic fits or electrocution. There was much finesse in dancing the crazes of those years. A dancer has to learn distinct fundamental steps before he could do justice to those dance crazes.

I saw Elvie dancing with other guys. I felt jealous but I was too young to assert myself. I did not even have a sense of manhood during those days. But when the time to dance the sweet, she refused to go quite near her partner. The distance between her and her partner was enough for a carabao to pass. In brief, she treated them at arm’s length.

The music of those years was quite sweet to the ears. From my vantage point, I saw the disc jockey playing the 45 rpm vinyl records of some known musical artists like Cliff Richard (Constantly), Matt Monroe (Walk Away), Del Shannon (Run, Run Away), Ray Orbison (Pretty Woman), Ray Patterson (Wonder of You), and of course, the Beatles (too many to mention the hit songs).

I saw young men jockeying for position to enable them to dance the ladies of their choices. We called it “bakuran” during those days. They exchanged leers; they exchanged hard words. Towards the end of the party, I saw them having fistfights. Later, I saw rattan chairs flying in the air.

Club leaders hardly contained the ensuing violence, prompting them to end the dance party abruptly. It was something that never happened again in our place in Tondo. I went home savoring the memory of that dance party and my comely neighbor named Elvie.