Masonry and the revolution.pdf

Media

Part of Panorama

extracted text: MASONRY AND THE REVOLUTION Teodoro A. Agoncillo asonry played a signifi*** cant role in the Revolu tion. It was through Mason ry that the propaganda activ ities against the injustices, immorality and brutality of the authorities were directed. Realizing the need for con certed action in the parlia mentary struggle, the fiery Graciano Lopez Jaena found ed lodge Revolution in Barlona, on April 1, 1889. It was exclusively for and by Fili pinos. But it was, however, short-lived. The following year; lodge La Solidaridad was founded and the affi liates of . the defunct Revolu tion transferred to the new lodge. The Filipino Masons, among them Jose Rizal, Mar celo H. del Pilar, Graciano Lopez Jaena, Antonio Luna, Pedro Serrano Laktaw and others were responsible for introducing to the Cortes pieces of legislation that would benefit the Philip pines. Up to 1890, the Maso nic activities that were tied up with the Philippine pro blem were restricted within the Peninsula. A year later, however, An tonio Luna and Serrano Lak taw returned to the Philip pines to. establish masonic October 1961 17 lodges. Conferring with Moi ses A. Salvador and Jose Ra mos, Serrano Laktaw decid ed that it was propitious to introduce lodges as the arm for political action. Lodge Nilad was consequently founded on January 6, 1891. The Gran Oriente Espahol officially recognized it on March 10, 1892. Like all the intellectuals of the period, the Masons cla mored for reforms in the ad ministration of the govern ment. There was not even a hint of revolt in their actions or speeches. Everybody want ed the Philippines to be a province of Spain under which the Filipinos, as Spa nish citizens, would enjoy the rights and privileges of Spa niards. What may be termed “revolutionary”, in the eyes of the Spanish authorities, was the unexpected call for reforms. Thus, the Masons prepared their platform on the issue of peaceful reforms: It is the eight million people who have been, for the duration of three centuries, under tyranni cal oppression. The social life they lead is destitute of freedom; the natives have no right of associa tion; they have no tri bune where they could express their needs ... And with respect to their individual life, the Filipi nos have not, as in other countries, the security against the abuses of the authorities, and for this reason, the ... secret de portation of reputable persons has been repeat edly perpetrated upon the notorious instigation of the friars, x x x We want a regime of democracy, a genuine and effective autonomy of the individual as against the enslaving pre tensions of an ambition that nourishes its life by absorbing the rights of the people and waters its happiness with the tears of the needy. We want a good gov ernment and a good ad ministration. We want our country to have the right to be represented in the Cor tes: not a single Repre sentative or Senator is defending its interests in the Spanish Parliament. Its government is depen dent upon the Overseas Minister .who, by and for himself, legislates and governs the Philippines through Royal Orders, while in Manila the Gov ernor-General executes 18 Panorama and annuls the order of the Ministers. We want our country declared a province of Spain, with all the rights and obligations. In a word, we want reforms, reforms, reforms. Considering the time and temper of the period, the Ma sonic platform was bold. But precisely because of its bold ness, the secret movement reached the masses and. even tually, the Spanish authori ties. Thinking men and wo men, isolated by the intoler ance of the authorities and the friars, found consolation in Masonry. Up to May 1893, the Masonic lodges number ed thirty-five, nine of which were in Manila. But Masonry in the Philip pines was not intended to be a political arm. It was prima rily a propaganda machine designed to work for re forms and to denounce ab uses, corruption, brutalities, and injustices committed by the Spanish authorities on the hapless people. This func tion of Masonry was clearly expressed by Marcelo H. del Pilar in his letter to Juan Zulueta : The Peninsular Mason ry is a means of propa ganda for us. If the Ma sons there [in the Philip pines] intend to make Masonry an organ of ac tion for our ideals, they make a serious mistake. What is needed is a spe cial organization devoted especially to the Filipino cause; and although its members, or some of them, may be Masons, they must not depend upon Masonry. It was the timidity of the intellectuals, most of whom were Masons, that led An dres Bonifacio, also a Mason belonging to lodge Taliba, to found the revolutionary Kapunan. Some Masons join ed Bonifacio in his new un dertaking, among them Jose Dizon, Jose Turiano Santiago, and Emilio Aguinaldo. It must be emphasized that the Katipunan was not a Maso nic society, although some of its members were Masons. This is important in view of the fact that the Spanish au thorities accused Masonry of having been the “brains” of the Katipunan and the ini tiator of the Revolution and, therefore, of the separatist movement. Thus, the Over seas Minister, writing to the Governor-General of the Philippines on April 4, 1895, said that “an alarm exists here about the separatist work in That Archipelago October 1961 19 through Masonic propaganda that excludes all Spaniards and is directed exclusively by natives. I request Your Ex cellency to inform me hourly of this, and, if true, to re double the vigilance and to issue necessary orders to the [provincial] governors.” It cannot be doubted, how ever, that Masonry left its imprint on the Katipunan. For the initiation rites of this secret society were based on those of Masonry. Its struc ture, however, was based on that of La Liga Filipina, most of whose members were Ma sons, namely, Jose Rizal, Timoteo Paez, Jose Ramos, Moises Salvador, Apolinario Mabini, Bonifacio Arevalo, Numeriano Adriano, and oth ers. It is perhaps for this rea son — namely, that many Masons were affiliated with the Liga and the Katipunan — that the Spanish author ities thought of linking Ma sonry with the separatist movement. Masonry was in fact condemned as “infernal” and the “workshop where hatred for Spain and the Spaniards was cast.” The charge was, of course, as sil ly and preposterous as the contemporary charges of “communistic” or “commu nist-inspired” directed by paid stooges at those who disagree with them or those whose opinions do not square with their wild specula tions and parochial views. For Masonry in the Philip pines, as I have pointed out earlier, stood for reforms and never for independence. ID ut why did Masonry flourish, ramify and make converts throughout the Philippines during the last decade of the Spanish regime? The answer lies in the condition of the time and place. There was no freedom to speak of. Its meaning had been negative during the three centuries of Spanish rule: freedom to be exploited ruthlessly, freedom to remain ignorant and superstitious, freedom to be confused, and freedom to be brutalized. Wherever and whenever courageous men are found, there they seek release from this negative freedom —if there is such a thing — and join hands to forge a potent weapon in their struggle for self-expression. The early Christians suffered heroical ly all the indignities and in justices of the Roman em: perors and their underlings. But, searching for freedom, they went underground, join ed forces with other victims of oppression, and fought 20 Panorama their battles with results that are today common know ledge. And so with the Filipinos of the last decade of the nine teenth century. Led by Ma sons, they closed ranks, went underground, and fought, first, a war of propaganda, and then, a war of emanci pation. With the “Cry” that reverberated through the hills of Pugadlawin and Pasong Tamo, the dawn of a new era streaked in the Phil ippine sky and showered light where there was dark ness. With a bit of pardonable exaggeration, one may safely say that Philippine Masonry and the Revolution were re lated to each other. For the men who shouldered the res ponsibilities of the Republic at Malolos, both in the ad ministration and in the field, were Masons — from Presi dent Emilio Aguinaldo down to his Cabinet Ministers and field commanders: Apolinario Mabini, Gracio Gonzaga, Baldomero Aguinaldo, Am brosio Flores, Vicente Lukban, Mariano Llanera, Boni facio Arevalo, and Timoteo Paez. Viewing the revolution from this perspective, it may be said to have been the child of Philippine Masonry — an unwanted child per haps, but a legitimate child nonetheless. The men who carried on the burden of the propaganda—which was in tended to bring about re forms but which, contrary to their expections, resulted in a national blood bath — were Masons, men who were steeped in the lore of demo cratic ways, men who were sensitive to the pulse of changing mores. And Andres Bonifacio, the founder and the guiding spirit of the Ka tipunan, carried over the symbols of Masonry to the Society and breathed into it Masonry’s climate of free dom. October 1961 21 * * * TABLETS FOR WASHING YOUR HANDS '‘Pulia” is the tracle-mark of tablets for wash ing your hands, manufactured by Messrs. Puhi & Co. of Berlin. You take one tablet into your hand, add a little water, and squeeze the tablet. The resulting pulp is used for washing your hands, as if it were soap. The tablets remove even coarse dirt. Pocket-size packages are available.
Rights