Panorama Vol. XVIII, No.4 (April 1966)

Media

Part of Panorama

Title: Panorama Vol. XVIII, No.4 (April 1966)
Issue Date: Vol. XVIII, No.4 (April 1966)
Year: 1966
Rights
extracted text: Zell your friends about the Panorama, the Philippines* most versatile, most significant magazine today. them a year’s subscription — NOW! they will appreciate it. Subscription Form ................ 1 year for P&50 ................ 2 years for P16.00 ...................Foreign subscription: one year $6.00 US. Name ........................................................................................................ Street ........................................................................................................ City or Town................................... Province...................................... Enclosed is a check/money order for the amount specified above. Please address all checks or money orders in favor of: COMMUNITY PUBLISHERS. INC. Invemes St., Sta. Ana, Manila, Philippines COMMITMENT TO GREATNESS The crisis which our country has to face today de mands consummate commitment to excellence in every possible field of endeavor from the way we handle our na tional economy to the way we play politics. If greatness is another name for excellence, our national crisis, can be conquered only by conquering our habits of mediocrity. We still have to see our educators, scientists, artists, phy sicians, politicians, priests, etc. truly excell in their respec tive functions motivated only by their sincere desire to con cretize their personal response to the Christian message by responding to the challenge of their respective Vocations. It is only after they shall have braved the disciplines of excellence will they be able to come to church with a clear Christian conscience because only then can they say in all honesty that their Christian commitment has challenged them to commit both themselves and their country to great ness. — Portion of a letter to Manila Times Columnist A. R. Roces, April 7, 1966, by Fr. Ben J. Villote, Univer sity of the Philippines. ■ A ploa for the election of an independent body which shall meet, for the first time in the history of the country, to draft with full freedom a new constitution of the Republic of the Philippine*. THE NEED FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION Conditions prevailing in the Philippines since the end of the last War warrant a serious reexamination of the basic governmental structure of our country. Since the 4th of July, 1946, when direct American influence over our public affairs was formally ended by the declaration of Philippine independence, the country has undergone a series of local and national disturbances which have dis closed to our observant citi zens certain weak and un suitable provisions of the present Constitution. These deplorable conditions affect ing our body politic have developed under a govern mental set-up largely made possible by certain constitu tional provisions alien to our traditional conception o f authority and duty. This sad situation has ena bled unprincipled persons in both public and private life to take advantage of ill-defin ed responsibilities and non existing restraints on official conduct and to capture power and prestige for their per sonal benefit. The excessive employment of money in elections threatens .the main tenance of our democratic system. The gross misuse of government property and fa cilities in political campaigns and a habitual indulgence in personal vilification of candi dates in newspapers and other methods of communi cation are sources of serious danger to public peace. They undermine social order and constitutional morality and expose the people to in ternecine strifes. The civil service has to be strengthened in several ways to fortify the basic organs of administra tion. It needs a much stronger guarantee of inde pendence from partisan dicPanorama tation to enable it to recruit persons of high ability and tested integrity. The selec tion of judges needs im provement. Taxpayers . are oppressed by needless and irresponsible multiplication of government units and employees which reminds us of Parkinson’s Law, and by a terrific addi tion of worthless activities. The criterion of public pur pose, which alone makes a tax legal and just and which should be strictly and honest ly observed, is ignored in a senseless orgy of spending public funds. To say that the political affairs of the country, the moral behaviour of govern mental officials and em ployees, and the tone and direction of business are in a state of serious confusion is tb repeat a commonplace and banal observation. With out going any further, which is quite simple to do, these and a host of other valid reasons call for some changes intended to improve our pre sent Constitution. At any rate, a general survey of the operation of the agencies established by our Constitu tion by special representa tives of the people with the end in view of replacing out dated features is doubtless necessary and urgent after a lapse of 31 years covering a period of colonial status and a period of national indepen dence. It is, of course, true that a good government depends more upon men of ability, honor, and integrity than solely upon laws and consti tutions; but it is also true that many men of this type could only be attracted to government service under a constitution which could be so implemented that it could reduce the number of oppor tunists, adventurers, and semi-literates to compete with them for public offices by foul, degrading, and imper tinent tactics. It is but pure cynicism to assert that the Filipinos have been so influenced by cultural conditions of such a na ture that any change in our Constitution will not im prove our ability to solve our problems. There are still many in this country who are competent, honest, and sincere who would willingly serve the country even with the social and political ad April 1956 3 versities now existing, pro vided that conditions of pub lic service are changed under a constitution which largely reflects the best of our own historical and political ideas, social values, customs, and traditions. Structurally our Constitu tion is largely American in origin. As such its basis were the conditions existing in the thirteen American co lonies of England in 1776. It is not sufficiently adjusted to our own country and peo ple whose cultural condi tions, social ideas, and na tive political beliefs rest upon a background not quite identical with that of the Americans. A reorientation is urgently needed in view of our efforts to discover and assert our identity. The delegates to our Cons titutional Convention of 1934-1935 did introduce some changes not found in the Am erican system, such as the uni cameral legislature and a pres idential term of 6 years with out reelection, features which students and critics of govern ment here and in America considered wise and desirable a 11 e rations. Unfortunately, these were almost immediate ly removed by amendments suggested to the Assembly by a President who wanted a much longer term of office for himself and who dominat ed the political party which controlled the National As sembly. But even if these features were to be wholly or partly restored, the Constitution still contains provisions which are quite alien to the national ethos and so are left to slum ber in peace. Some parts are contradictory to each other and have misled government officials into disregarding fun damental principles. Institu tions of basic value to a mo dern state, such as one which should be given full and in dependent tontrol over the nation’s currency and mone tary policies or one that as sures a knowledgeable deci sion on educational and scien tific development indepen dent of political action, are not adequately provided in the present Constitution. The corrupting influence of power endangers the national wel fare and democracy when all decisions on every subject, in cluding those which require special expertise, are placed in the hands of political or4 Panorama gans such as Congress and the President. The Constitution permits two methods of amending its provisions. The initiative is left with Congress. One method is for Congress to make the amendment propo sals by a three-fourths vote of all the members of each house. Another is for Con gress to call a constitutional convention, again by a threefourths vote, to approve pro posals for amendments. It is for Congress to choose which of these two methods should be used. But if the amend ments are to be satisfactorily adjusted to the basic features of our country and the char acter of our people, they should be left to a constitu tional convention to propose. The Constitution does not, of Course^ prescribe a crite rion as to when it is proper for Congress alone to make proposals for amendments and when it is better for it to call a constitutional convention for making the proposals. Much depends upon the nature and purpose of the projected changes of the Constitution which are deemed imperative. But to be more specific, amendments intended to alter the powers, privileges, duties, qualifica tions, disqualifications, terms of office, salaries, and per quisites of the President, members of Congress, the judiciary, or other offices pro vided in the existing Consti tution as well as the funda mental rights and privileges of the people can best be de cided and should be decided only through a constitutional convention. Not being con nected with the existing or gans of government, adminis tration, or legislation, a con vention could be expected to act with less prejudice and more freedom and impartial ity than Congress. Moreover, it is more difficult for the President to exert pressure on convention delegates. For instance, months before the Constitutional Conven tion of 1934-1935 was held. President Quezon expressed strong objection to a unica meral legislature. He told 9ome persons about it. A number of delegates, how ever, strongly advocated theunicameral plan and with the help of the Manila news papers, which published a number of editorials in its favor, President Quezon re April 1966 5 mained silent on the subject. The result was that the ma jority of the Convention was ultimately persuaded to adopt the unicameral legislature designated as the National Assembly. But about four years later President Quezon thought of having the Constitution amended. It was then time for him to push through his personal preferences. With his control over the Nacionalista Party, it was easy for him to prevail upon the National Assembily itself to propose the necessary amend ments reviving the Senate and removing the prohibi tion against the reelection of the President. Thus, he was able to accomplish through the legislative power of pro posing amendments what he failed to ,see adopted in the Constitutional Convention. For Quezon to favor a lengthening of his term even in this runabout way was to follow the practice of some undemocratic governments in Latin America. High Com missioner Francis Sayre, therefore, recommended a veto on this amendment by President Roosevelt on the ground that it was a step of ‘’exceeding danger to demo cracy” and a way to indefi nite tenure and eventual dictatorship. Roosevelt, how ever, was then on the way to running for a twelve-year term and soxould have been accused of inconsistency had he disapproved the 8-year term for Quezon. Inciden tally, not satisfied with hold ing the office for 8 years, Quezon was able to persuade Mr. Osmena to step aside from the presidency and to persuade the U.S. Congress to permit him to continue in office till the end of the War. Unfortunately for him death cut short his expecta tion. The same case was expe rienced in pushing through the so-called Parity amend ment to the Constitution. This measure or the idea be hind it was opposed by the majority of Filipino leaders. It could never have been ap proved thru a constitutional convention. Therefore, Pres ident Roxas had to make Congress propose the Parity amendmept which he had so wanted to see adopted. He even went to the extent of having some senators and re presentatives deprived of 6 PANORAMA their seats in Congress be cause he suspected them as unfriendly to the Parity amendment. A cons t i t utional convention, which is more directly representative of the people, would never have approved such disgrace ful change of the Constitu tion of a free people. These two instances show that Congress could be easily influenced by partisan consi derations and by official pressure to propose undesir able changes. It is quite ob vious that if a change con templated is simple and does not involve the interests of its members, Congress may properly be left to make the proposal. But in cases of basic alterations of the fun damental law, it is best for Congress to let the people elect special representatives to deliberate on proposed changes in a constitutional convention. To our Senators and Con gressmen this appeal is pre sented: Give the people a chance to select as members of a constitutional c o n v ention men and women who in their opinion are best fitted to do one particular work — to propose necessary amend ments to the Constitution. Give the people a chance to be represented in a cons titutional convention which is completely free to propose changes in the structure of our government, changes that may affect the position and functions of the Pres ident, the Senators, the Con gressmen, and other govern ment agencies. Give the people a chance to select delegates. to a cons titutional convention who are not at present enjoying government powers, privi leges, and special advantages and are not, therefore, in fluenced by any thought of preventing the introduction of changes that may adverse ly affect their actual posi tion in the government and their political standing. The plebiscite for the final approval of the draft of a constitution cannot be .se riously considered as an ins titution that makes a consti tutional convention unneces sary as suggested by certain persons. Composed of mil lions of voters, it cannot ini tiate proposals of amend ments with sufficient judg Afril. 1966 1 ment and deliberation. Its use is confined to merely saying Yes or No. It can accomplish this task with greater assurance of correct ness when the proposals of amendments are the direct product of men and women specially selected by the peo ple to make them. One more point should be remembered on the selection of delegates to the constitu tional convention. Authori ties on the question are una nimously agreed that the legislature or Congress has no legal right to name spe cific persons or groups to sit as delegates in the conven tion. Neither is Congress au thorized to provide ’ that the delegates shall be elected at large. The delegates have to be chosen from “the va rious localities” of the coun try. By this method, accord ing to authoritative opinion, the convention becomes truly and fairly representative of the people. The practice of including ex officio delegates finds no valid suport from authorities on constitutional conventions. The Filipinos have never had a chance to hold a cons titutional convention with complete freedom of action and under conditions of poli tical independence since the Malolos Constitution was drafted and approved about 67 years ago. If for no other reason than to give them an opportunity to select dele gates to formulate with ut most freedom a constitution more suitable to the condi tions of their own country, our Congress should consider it their duty to call a cons titutional convention to amend or revise the present Constitution. No expendi ture of public funds could be deemed too high for this purpose. A general and care ful revision of the basic law upon which our political, social, and economic struc ture is to rest is worth all the money the public trea sury and Congress could mus ter. — V. G. Sinco. 8 PANORAMA ■ Filipino decisions on helping or not helping South Vietnam has provoked this column which concludes: “In this country there are no political parties, po litical philosophies, or political convictions.” POLITICAL INDICATOR If one is interested in the dynamics of Philippine poli tics, the Vietnam bill is a highly fascinating case study. The bill threads through our entire political landscape making an excellent guide to the Philippine political system. One can look at the history of the Vietnam bill and see the forces of politi cal action, or one can see the national reaction from our leaders to the barrio folk, and perceive the ma chine works of the national structure. The bill was first introduced during the Maca pagal era. It was presented with the magnificent endorse ment of the Secretary of De fense then. Speaker Villareal then returned from Viet nam and stated that aid of a military nature would be “provocative” and ill-advised. When the bill was introduced however, he descended the rostrum as Speaker and work ed for the passage of the bill in two days. But elections had by this time excited the nation. The form of aid to Vietnam became a campaign issue. Macapagal was roundly scor ed by the opposition candi date for president, Ferdinand Marcos, stating in strong terms, that military action in the guise of engineers was foolhardy. After the elec tions, with the Marcos vic tory, there was a “change in emphasis” and the new Pres ident then unequivocally en dorsed the bill which advo cated the same form of mili tary aid labeled army en gineers, to Vietnam. Since Villareal remained Speaker of the House, it was merely a replay of his previous role. Thus, the Vietnam issue as political issue, was of no sig nificance in actual fact be cause the candidate who won a mandate from the people while running on the stand on non-military aid to Viet nam, simply changed his mind. April 1966 9 In the background thrives comments about US pressure. There is heavy hinting about “compensations” conditioned on our amenability to send ing our flag into the battle fields of Vietnam. Aside from sudden and flattering visits from US officialdom, including Vice President Humphrey, Secretary of State Rusk, and Undersecretary William Bundy, we had Pres ident Marcos talking to US military personnel about fighting for freedom and be ing photographed in the cockpit of a_US fighter plane wearing a pilot’s headgear. Incidentally, this reminded us of the photograph of Gen. and Mrs. Cao Ky dressed like space pilots in their con ference with President John son in Hawaii. • • • With the US shadow in the background let us look at the reaction of our lea ders. There were those glo riously happy to get into Vietnam and fight for free dom and democracy, includ ing two congressmen volun teering to, march into the fray. What is the party stand? Well, the Nacionalistas refuse to take a party stand, and the Liberals like wise. We are going resolute ly to war, and neither of the major parties want to take a stand on it. Only President Marcos is assuming a stand, and only a handful of inde pendent-minded legislators are against it, but they are on their own. In this coun try there are no political parties, political philosophies, or political convictions. — By Alfredo R. Roces GREATEST LIE Popular opinion is the greatest lie in the world. — Carlyle. 10 Panorama ■ The war fought by the Filipinos against the U.S.A, would have lesulted in American defeat if the Fili pinos had received guns anil better weapons, as now shown in the difficulties Americans now en counter in Vietnam. THE FALL OF MALOLOS One of the first acts of Genera? Wesley Merritt after the capitulation of Manila on August 13, 1898, was to order General Anderson to rid the city of armed Fili pino revolutionists. General Aguinaldo received a tele gram from the American general to forbid any of his troops to enter the city. General Aguinaldo instead sent a commission to discuss the matter with General An derson but the American officer instructed the Fili pino commissioners to deal with General Merritt. The commissioners told Merritt that the withdrawal of Fili pino troops from the city should be done provided that the American authorities agreed to put in writing cer tain conditions, namely, joint occupation of Manila, pro tection of the Filipino ship ping by Admiral Dewey and “the restitution to the revo lutionists of the areas to be evacuated in the event that the United States recognized by the treaty Spain’s domi nion in the Philippines.” Merritt stuck to his de mand for the immediate withdrawal of the Filipino troops without conditions. A week after General Elwell S. Otis assumed command of the American forces succeed ing General Merritt he was ordered by the U.S. War De partment to use force if ne cessary in effecting the re moval of the Filipino forces from the confines of the city. General Otis sent a letter to General Aguinaldo not only to reiterate the stand taken by General Wesley Merritt but even to threaten General Aguinaldo “with the use of force if the American de mand is not complied with within one week.” The revolutionary leaders who were with General Agui naldo, particularly Generals Artemio Ricarte, Pio del Pilar and Mariano Noriel, became angry upon receipt April 1966 11 of Otis’ letter. They realiz ed that the Americans were here but not for humanita rian reasons after all. Gen eral Aguinaldo realizing the gravity of the threat and the state of his forces’ unpre paredness managed to advise prudence and moderation to his subordinates. He manag ed however to convince Otis to change the tone of his de mand from an ultimatum to that of a request which the latter did. On September 14, the Fili pino forces moved and eva cuated “some of the suburbs" beyond the area specified by the Americans. Meanwhile the seat of the Revolutionary Government was transferred to the town of Malolos. But General Otis at this stage was not satisfied by the eva cuation > of the Filipino troops. He demanded that Paco, Pandacan and other areas be freed from Filipino forces. General Aguinaldo, however, insisted on the right of his troops to stay put in Pandacan, although he or dered his men under pain of being court-martialed "not to interfere with the affairs in the city of Manila and its suburbs." Filipino-American relations up to the outbreak of armed conflict was not altogether smooth. Numerous clashes between them occurred in side and outside the city. Filipino troops getting in side the city were insulted to the extent of being disarmed. The Americans, on the other hand, complained of the an noyance they suffered from the Filipinos when they left the city. In February 1899 the Fili pino-American relations grew from bad to worse. The Filipino forces were deployed around the city "in a semi circle with a radius of about three miles having the mouth of the Pasig river as cehter. About this time the strength of the Filipino forces was es timated to be as follows: 3,000 men in Caloocan; 400 in Pasig; 1,200 in Malate; around 500 each in Sta. Ana, Paco, Pasay, and Pandacan. Opposite the Filipino lines the American troops were also deployed in same semi circle pattern. North of Pa sig River was a division un der Major-General Arthur MacArthur. Major General Thomas Anderson was in 12 Panorama charge of another division south of the Pasig River. On February 4, 1899 at 8:30 in the evening the ten sion which characterized the Filipino-American relations exploded. Private William N. Grayson who was recon noitering the surrounding areas of their outpost in San Juan fired at a group of four Filipino soldiers who failed to stop when challenged to halt. The Filipinos were caught by surprise. It was Saturday night and most of the troops were on week-end pass to visit their relatives and fa milies. At the critical mo ment only General Pantaleon Garcia was at his post at Maypajo, while Generals Paciano Rizal, Noriel, and Ricarte and Colonels Cailles, San Miguel and several others were absent. The following morning the Americans started their offensive against the Filipi nos. The brigade of General Otis under General Mac Arthur’s division made a blitzkrieg attack against the Filipino defenses in La Loma. General Hale’s bri gade did the same to the Filipino defenses in San Juan del Monte. Heavy fighting took place near the waterworks. Finding diffi culty, General Hale secured the support of the gunboat “Laguna de Bay” which shelled the Filipino positions by the Pasig River. With the destruction of Filipino defense lines the capture of waterworks and reservoir was made easy. At this stage Col. Stotsenberg with his brigade also cut across Mandaluyong, and occupied Cainta and Taytay four days after the outbreak of hostilities. General Antonio Luna on being aware of the tense si tuation, issued an order on February 7, 1899, designed to arouse the sentiments of his countrymen with an ins truction "to liquidate the enemy” saying: “To the field officers of the territorial militia: “By virtue of the barba rous attack made upon our army on the 4th day of February without this be ing preceded by any strain of relations whatsoever be tween the two armies, it is necessary for the Fili pinos to show that they know how to avenge themselve of treachery and de ceit of those who, working April 1966 13 upon their friendship, now seek to enslave us. "In order to carry out the complete destruction of that accursed army of drunkards and thieves, it is indispensable that we all work in unison, and that orders issued from this war office be faith fully carried out. On February 10, the Filipino defenses at Caloocan were softened by naval guns and General MacArthur’s ar tillery. General Antonio Luna with his 4,000 poorly armed men had to retreat toward Polo to avoid being murdered. By the fall of March the American force had 950 of ficers and 23,000 men. Gen eral MacArthur was in com mand of the 2nd Division consisting of the 1st Brigade, composed' of the Kansas and Montana Volunteers and two batteries of the 3rd Artillery under General Harrison; the 2nd Brigade composed of the Colorado, Nebraska, South Dakota, and six companies of Pennsylvania Volunteers under General Hale; and the 3rd Brigade composed of the 7th U.S. Inf., 17th U.S. In fantry, the Minnesota and Wyoming volunteers and the Utah Artillery under General Hall. General Antonio Luna at this stage, was the military o p e r ations’ Commander-in Chief. The Filipino Army now had a total of 30,000 men but only 16,000 were ac tually armed. Its artillery consisted of obsolete cannons. General Otis knew then that General Aguinaldo had established his headquarters at Malolos which was the capital of the Revolutionary Government. To terminate the war, Aguinaldo and Ma lolos must be captured at the earliest time possible. He knew too that the bulk of the Filipino forces was in the north. On March 25, the Ameri cans began their northward offensive against the Filipi nos. Hale’s Brigade made a lightning attack at the Fili pino defenses north of .the city but was repulsed by the Filipino troops who engaged them in hand-to-hand com bat at San Francisco del Monte. The superiority of their arms forced the native troops to be routed, however, the brigade encountered hea vy losses at Cabataan, Tali14 Panorama napa, and Tuliahan river along the Novaliches road. General MacArthur’s artille ry saved them from suffering more losses. Meanwhile the Otis bri gade managed to push north ward via the railroad tracks. Contact with the Filipino troops was made at Marilao on March 27. Fierce fight ing took place in the after noon when the Filipinos after retreating in the morn ing made a surprise counter attack on the same day, kill ing fifteen and wounding seventy Americans. On the 29th, at about 10:00 a.m. Bocaue was taken. The Fili pino defenders at Bigaa were routed at noon of the same day. At Malinta and Polo the Americans suffered heavy casualties. After a spirited fight General Luna directed his troops to retreat to Meycauayan. Gen. Irving Hall, in an attempt to out-smart the defenders, got himself wounded. On the 30th of March the American Army cautiously moved to Malolos expecting a fierce encounter “to take place owing to the political significance of the capital.” General Mac Arthur stopped his forces within two miles of the town. His scheme was to unlease a thirty minute artillery barrage to the town proper before encircling it the following day. Colonel Frederick Funston of the Kansas Volunteers des cription of the American en try into Malolos reads: We were now less than a mile from the nipa houses in the suburbs of Malolos. I was in the rail road track with the divi sion commander (MacAr thur), when he asked me if I would like to take a few men and feel my way into the town. I said I would be glad to, and took Lieutenant Ball and about a dozen men from Com pany E, leaving the regi ment in command of Lieu tenant-Colonel Little for the time being. Moving rapidly over to the left of the regiment, our detach ment found a narrow road leading into the capital, and we went up it on the jump, now and then halt ing for a few seconds, to peer around the corners. The road soon became a street and here we were April 1966 15 joined by the ubiquitous Mr. Creelman, quite out of breath from his exer tions in overtaking us, he having "smelled a rat” when he saw us leave. We were fired upon by about a dozen men behind a street barricade of stones, gave them a couple of vol leys, and then rushed them. A minute later we were in the plaza or public square, and exchanged shots with a few men who were run ning through the streets starting fires. The build ings occupied by Aguinal do as a residence and as offices and the Hall of Congress were burning. We gave such cheers as a few men could and I sent back word to General MacArthur that the town was ours. In a few moments troops from all the regi ments of the brigade, as well as the brigade com mander himself, joined us. — By Pedro Gagelonia in Variety of March, 1966. LEARNING'S PILLARS Seeing much, suffering much, and studying much, are the three pillars of learning. — Disraeli. 16 Panorama ■ The Speaker of the British House of Commons hare explains the way Parliament works and the nature of his job as Speaker. TRADITION AND EFFICIENCY IN PARLIAMENT Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that Parliament clings too much to ceremony and ritual and tradition nowadays? I would not want one scrap of that tradition which em bodies the history of the growth of British democracy to go. For example, when Black Rod comes and we shut the door in his face, we are reminding ourselves of the time in history when the House of Commons was de ciding that Charles H’s bro ther should not become King of England because he was a Catholic, and Charles had sent Bladk Rod to dissolve Parliament, while the Com mons were insisting on pass ing their law before Charles dissolved them. While it is helpful to re member such a thing, when Black Rod does come, and the Commons proceedings have to be interrupted to go to the Lords to hear, say, the Royal Assent, isn’t it often very inconvenient to members, and haven’t they often protested about this? No, very rarely: we usual ly know when Black Rod is coming; though there have been two or three times since the war when Black Rod’s entry has been a little in convenient and when the Commons (or some of them) have protested their own in alienable right to carry on with the business they want ed to. Isn’t it possible that the ritual and ceremony, because it is so deeply rooted in his tory and tradition as you pointed out, induces an at mosphere which is resistant to change, particularly in matters of parliamentary pro cedure? Maybe in parliamentary procedure, but not in the issues which divide the House. Do not imagine the procedure of Parliament is merely romantic; most of it April 1966 17 is 300 years’ diluted common sense. It is not to prevent members from fighting, but to see that they fight in a dear, honest, and courteous way. Ctntld I remind you of what you said when you gave evidence as Deputy Speaker, before the Select Committee on Procedure: you said that you were a traditionalist, and that traditions were part of the glory of Parliament, but you also said 7 would say cut out the mumbojumbo by all means’. What did you have in mind when you were talking about ’mumbo-jumbo’? Sometimes when the House wants to show displeasure with a Minister, we reduce the vote that we are giving to that Minister's depart ment. My Deputy has to put that' in a form in which a sum of £16,123,900 is moved and the amendment is to be £16.123,800. I think we could shorten that. There are lit tle bits of the formulae that we use that might conceiva bly be shortened. In other words, if tradition stands in the way of efficien cy, you would try to deal with it? That is roughly what 1 said before the committee. There has been a spate of articles and books in recent years critical of Parliament, suggesting that its reputation has declined, its prestige has suffered. Do you agree with this? Do you think there is any ground for this — are you worried about it? It is one of the myths of Parliament that the old Par liament consisted of Glad stone and Pitt and Burke, all the great figures, making wonderful orations without any scenes: this is the best behaved Parliament of the century. But do you not sense to day, Mfr. Speaker, a mood for change in the way Par liament goes about its work, among many of the younger generation? We have probably the keenest and most intelligent intake into this Parliament of any in the last fifty or sixty years, and obviously they want to make their contri bution; obviously they feel a little frustrated. Democra cy is participation, and the problem of democracy, and the problem of Parliament, is to make the fullest use of 18 Panorama abilities of every member. This has got to come. This is what the uneasiness is about. As one who has given over 1,000 lectures in your time, on Parliament and how it works, do you think that the way Parliament work is ade quately understood by the electorate as a whole? I believe in communica tion. I said at Geneva, about six weeks ago, to the parlia mentarians of Europe, that parliamentary democracy has got to make the fullest use of all the resources of mo dern techniques. I think they must come to terms with television, for instance. I would want this Parlia ment, any Parliament in the world, to make the fullest use of this new instrument of communication. When Parliament consi ders this matter, as it is go ing to do in the Select Com mittee on the subject, how would your views be given? Televising Parliament If the Committee asked me I would give evidence before them, as Speaker, or really as a Member of Par liament of some years’ stand ing. There is a case for and against the televising of Par liament. I would not want Parliament to become mere ly a show. There is some thing very intimate about the debating in the House: it is person to person. The fear of some of the older members is that televising may make it a sort of formal performance. Nobody will want that. On the other hand, I think this is a tre mendous new means of com municating to the democrats of Britain the heart of their democratic institution. May I ask you to explain a couple of points which per haps are not properly un derstood by the public, and certainly not understood sometimes by students of Parliament. Why is it that there sometimes seems to be a difficulty about someone like the Prime Minister mak ing a statement on some worldshaking event, even when the House wants him to do so? Somebody once said: ‘Par liament can do anything ex cept make a man a woman’. But Parliament must be una nimous if it wants to break its own procedure. If the April 1966 19 House of Commons unani mously wants to do something it can do it. And on the two very rare occasions you have in mind there was a dif ference in point of view be tween the Government and the Opposition. But if the Government and the Oppo sition made up their minds that something had to be done, procedure would not stand in the way. And in deed the Prime Minister, perhaps as of right (and the Leader of the Opposition si milarly), can overrule most of the basic procedures of the House. Turning to all-night sit ting, which is another thing that puzzles people, how do you justify that — if indeed you do justify it — as a sen sible way of conducting busi ness? If1 I were a selfish human being I would be against all-night sitting, because whenever the all-night sit ting takes place, one thing is quite certain: that I and my Deputy, Sir Samuel Sto rey, carry the biggest bur den; we are there all the time. But I would fight to the last gasp for the all-night sitting. This is one of the resorts of democracy. If a man does not like what the Government has done, it is his job to use every vestige of his parliamentary power to impress that on the Gov ernment, and that includes all-night sittings. And when do you get most of the allnight sittings? On the Fi nance Bill, as I know to my sorrow, having taken the longest and most complicat ed Finance Bill through. It was painful for me but it was very precious for the country. Some Speakers in the past have left their mark on par liamentary democracy; they have influenced the way Par liament has developed. Can a Speaker hope to do that nowadays? Artist and technician It is difficult to be objec tive about yourself. In the line of Speakersi, I would hope not to let the job down. It would be a myth to say that the Speaker is merely a machine interpreting the rules of parliamentary pro cedure. He must know the law of Parliament, but he is dealing with 630 human be ings. Politics is an art as 20 Panorama well as a science. The Speak er should be an artist as well as a technician. You said in your evidence to the Select Committee: 7 am one of those who think that the power of the execu tive is growing and that it ought to be diminished’. What can you do as Speaker to support that philosophy and put it into action? My predecessor, a long time ago, said that 'if the Speaker keeps the House to the rules of order he is by that same token preserving the rights of the individual member against the execu tive’. All the procedure of Parliament has been devised with two ends in mind: one is to preserve the rights of the individual back-bencher, of the tiniest minority, while closures pnd guillotines on the other hand see to it that in the end the majority rules. Both have rights; I have to preserve both rights. Do you think that your policy — with the co-opera tion of the House, that is — of speeding up Question Time aS much as you have done, might weaken the pres sure which Parliament can put upon the executive by going a bit too quickly? I talked to the House about that recently. It is not my policy: the House of Commons itself felt that ques tions were taking too much time, and I had a pretty clear instruction from the House to speed up questions. There is a danger; for every man his question is the most important one in the world. This is what he came to Parliament for, so did 629 waiting for their questions. The Chair’s job is to see that he allows the full rights of a questioner without jeopar dizing the full rights of some body else who is waiting in the wings to come and tak£ the stage. This is a matter of judgment, it is a matter of balance, and it must also be a matter of seeing if the question itself is a $60,000,000 question that the House has a chance to get its teeth in to it. One of the greatest acade mic authorities on the Bri tish Constitution, Sir Ivor Jennings, said about the Speakership: ’The qualities required of a Speaker are not really very high, and so great is the prestige of the April 1966 21 office,, and so careful are all parties to maintain his inde pendence and authority, that any reasonable man can make a success of the office’. Is that fair, do you think? I have had that at the back of my mind for a long time, and I bow to Sir Ivor Jen nings. I spoke at a grammar school dinner recently and the Headmaster referred to boys of ability who were there, and boys of modest ability, and I said to the dinars: ‘If you are of modest ability don’t worry; you may not become Prime Minister or Leader of the Opposition but you have the chance to become a Speaker’. I think that’s about it. What is the most difficult part of your job? Because thefe are* some very difficult aspects indeed, despite what Sir Ivor Jennings said. I think the real heartache of the Speaker is choosing who is going to speak in a debate. How do you do that? Do you make up your mind be fore the debate, or do you make it up as you go along? All the time. Members write to me to say: ‘I’d like to be called in such a debate; this is my reason, I’m an agriculturist, I’m a great far mer, this is an agricultural debate^ I’ve not spoken for the last six months’. That is happening all the time. They come to me in the Chair, they stand up in the House. For instance, at least forty-five men wanted to be called in the Territorial de bate. It is almost true to say that all of them had equal claims. My job is to balance these minutiae of equality or disparity between them. It is a heartbreaking job. One has heard it said, in deed one has read it in au thoritative works, that in fact the Whips of the main parties make their list of people whom they would like to see called to go in to bat for them, as it were. Do you get such a list, and do you pay any attention to it? That may have been true in history. Neither of the chief Whips would dare to come to me and say’ ‘I think ■you ought to call s6-and-so*. I make my own choice. 22 PANORAMA And do you choose people according to whether they are likely to make a more interesting contribution in debate? Are you concerned with how good the debate is? This is one factor — but there are a hundred factors. And there is the fact that a man has not spoken for a long time. There is the fact that a man have very inti mate and special reasons — he has just come from Japan and we’re debating Japan: a hundred and one things. And in the last resort, if two men have exactly the same right on the Speaker to be called, you may be inclined to call the man who does not speak as long as the other one. Do you ever get bored sitting in the Speaker's Chair? Never. Is this because of the cons tant factor that you might be called upon to make a ruling, or are you always in terested in any speaker, how ever boring he may be? I am interested in Parlia ment; I took this highly complex Finance Bill through last year but was not bored. I was fascinated ajl the time, even though we were on abs truse and difficult technical subjects. At any moment, too, a speaker may drift out of order. The Chair must be awake and aware all the time. You have to make a num ber of very quick decisions, don’t you, in which you can not always refer to your ad visers? This is true. I meet the clerks every day; we discuss what is going to happen, what is likely to happen, the implications. But when Par liament is sitting the issues are arising, and most of the issues that arise are those you have not prepared for. The decisions are on the spot. — From 'People to Watch’ (BBC-2) April 1966 23 ■ Filipinb-American relations as viewed by an in dependent American journalist on the basis of cur rent problems. FILIPINO NATIONALISM AND THE AMERICANS A few days ago, I urged that Congress take a vote without delay on the contro versial Vietnam Aid Bill so as to enable us to move on to the discussion of more pressing domestic problems. But now that the political situation in South Vietnam has taken a turn for the worse, it may be wiser to shelve the Vietnam Bill un till conditions clear up in that dissension-torn country. The main argument being fielded by the administra tion, after all, in favor of sending 2,000 Filipino en gineers to Saigon is that the South Vietnamese govern ment made a specific request for this type of assistance. It is only logical that we should determine whether this government will remain in powers before taking a vote on committing our en gineers. This does not mean that we are any less concerned about the future of South Vietnam. But our foreign policy, far from being rigid and inflexible, should be dic tated by common sense. • * * The lead article in the March 12 edition of “The New Republic,” a presti gious magazine published in Washington DC, is entitled: “The Philippines — Sugar, Rice and a Great Deal of Vice.” It was written by Alex Campbell, an old Asia hand, who is now the periodical’s managing editor. In his story, datelined "Manila,” Campbell asserts that “the White House is said to have used every poss i b 1 e pressure, including sending Hubert Humphrey to the Philippines twice in a matter of weeks, to get a re luctant (President) Marcos to ‘show the Philippine flag’ in South Vietnam, by dis patching a military engineer ing unit there and so becom 24 Panorama ing the first Asian member of the Southeast Asian Or ganization to respond to the Saigon government’s appeal to SEATO for military help. Notice how candid they are, even in Washington DC, about the fact that what is wanted in Saigon is Filipino MILITARY involvement. Over here, we’re still talking euphemistically about “cons truction engineers” and in serting clauses into the bill about prohibiting the pro posed engineers from getting into a fight with the Viet Cong. Let’s get rid of the sugar-coating once and for all. It takes two to tango, but only one side to start a battle — and the Viet Cong have already announced that they intended to start one. • • • Campbell further com ments that "Filipinos have reasons to be sensitive about their special relationship with the United States.” “Some Americans,” he de clares, "still behave as if the Philippines is nothing more than a company town, and they, the Americans are the company. They find the la bor docile on the whole, and cherish the illusion, dear to all tycoons, that the workers revere their bosses and are loyal to the company. It fol lows, of course, that any un rest that makes itself felt must be caused by agitators, probably Communists. Fili pinos don’t love Americans, or hate them either; they, do resent them. After having been ruled first by Spaniards, then by Americans and also brutally overrun by Japanese, the only way many Filipinos seem able to express the na tionalist fervor they genuine ly feel is to resent the United States.” • * • The "New Republic’s” edi tor no^es that “Americans here mutter darkly about ‘Communists’ when what ac tually happens is that Fili pino nationalist sentiment is cooly inflamed by forces that are concerned with pro fits. A rising class of Fili pino businessmen wants to elbow out foreign capital, especially American, in or der to have the exclusive rights to exploit an abun dant and intelligent labor force whose members are lucky if they earn as much as $50 a month. Filipino April 1966 25 capitalists own the newspa pers and magazines that fea ture loud ‘left-wing’ criticisms of the US.” Campbell concludes: “In spite of their depressing eco nomic situation and appal ling politics, Filipinos are cheerful, warmhearted, im pulsively generous and essen tially optimistic people who tend to believe that they will always manage to muddle through somehow. They are neither pro-Communist nor pro-Chinese. Chances are they will tolerate the American bases for as long as they are supposed to — the agreed date is now 1985 — and may tolerate Ameri can business beyond 1974. But in terms of international relations, neither date is real ly far off, and before either is reached, more Filipinos will1 be < thinking seriously about their place in Asia and their relations with China. US policy ought to be recep tive to that. If it isn’t, the next demonstrations at the US Embassy in Manila may be neither small nor deco rous." • • • Not all of Campbell’s re marks may make us happy, but they were made by a ve teran observer who covered Asia for several years and lived in Japan for four years, at the end of which he wrote the bestseller, "The Heart of Japan.” Perhaps one rea son he can write about both Filipinos and Americans with such detachment is that he is a Scotsman, born in Edin burgh in 1912, and a former correspondent of the London “Economists.” His views are intriguing, for they give us an insight into how foreigners see us. They should be equally in teresting to Americans here for they were not written by those whom they seek to dismiss as “Little Bungs” or fire-eating nationalists. 1 don’t agree with everything Campbell observed in his ar ticle, but one thing can be said — he lets the chips fall where they may. — Maximo V. Soliven, Manila Times. 26 Panorama ■ Besides literary thieves or plagiarists o£ whom there are many, even among the so-called great in the Philippines, there are also parasites as por trayed here. LITERARY PARASITES Few people realize the in superable problems that meddlers, sycophants and pa rasites create for the average author. The rich and fa mous have always been set upon by parasites. “Poor but proud’’ people beg money outright from Edison, Ford and Rockefeller, while soidisant prodigies send manus cripts to successful authors for free criticism. There is not much to choose between these two evils: the first picks the philanthropist’s pockets, the second the au thor’s brains. Intrusions by letter are the commonest impositions; ver bal requests for various fa vors follow a close second, and there are a hundred other insidious forms. Once in a blue moon the author will receive an anonymous letter expressing delight at his latest book and asking for nothing in return. But such letters are rare as un expected checks. Most let ters are not even worth the time required to open and discard them. Here is one. After a number of shallow compliments, the lady writer comes to her real motive: Therefore, I would love to receive a personal reply from you, if you please. Of course, I realize that I am merely a stranger to you, but your answer would be doing me a very great honor indeed I Unless you consider them too personal, please answer the following ques tions: Which do you consi der the greater influence — heredity or environment? Why? How can one face the death of a beloved one if reason forbids one to believe in immortality? What are the titles of your favorite books, and who are your favorite authors? Which of your own poems do you favor, and why? What are your hob bies? What is your philo sophy of life? What do you consider the world needs April 1966 27 most in order to make it a better place in which to live? What would you say, is the greatest thing in life? There are three chief rea sons for these impositions on authors. The first is the patronizing attitude. The public is all too inclined to feel that the author is its toy, that he exists by its whim and tolerance. The second reason is the hero-worship ping attitude. The famous man always has been in the public eye and consciousness, and by some curious twist, the world elects him godfa ther. He should feel pleased at being made much of! The third reason centers around the author's unsys tematic life. Consider the average writer —. he has no office, np office hours, no secretary. Why should his. time not be at the disposal of you and me and our grand mothers? If he is without means — and poets are no longer supported by patrons of art — he cannot afford a buffer. All too easily ta ken in by the clamor of these "lost and distracted souls,” he surrenders his time and services. Consider the plight of the hapless author who sits down to breakfast and finds a mountain of letters. Why should he not grow percep tibly inhuman as he reads? He is swamped with requests for inscribed books from li brarians in North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Maine. (Each state has libraries for colored people, sailors, con sumptives. Old L a d i e s’ Homes, convicts, for the new ly converted, etc.) Requests come in to, write a preface for a hopeless book of verse; requests for his autograph, his photograph; his favorite poem, story or novel; re quests to criticize a rejected manuscript; urgent notes to lend his name to charities, movements, causes', which publicity-stunt devotees as sure him will bring great prestige. He is asked won’t hie please copy out his fa vorite work in longhand for Susie Bean’s scrapbook; won’t he please write letters of in troduction to other celebri ties in the interests of a prospective editorial job; he is asked to judge short story contests and award prizes — a privilege generally ending in polite massacre. 28 Panorama If he is an anthologists, so much the worse for him. His throat is cut by indignant champions of an omitted author. Why is Lydia Conch shell from Keokak, Iowa, omitted? Friends press him to do an obituary of a fel low poet, an assignment which, by comparison leaves death itself without a sting. “Shy” literary acquaintances request him to review their first effort, which means fa vorably, of course; after which the review will be used as a publisher’s blurb. England can testify to what havoc autograph collectors have reduced banks. Cre ditors who received checks signed by Shaw, Galsworthy, Hardy and other notables, would neglect cashing them, hoping for a bullish auto graph market. When a bea rish market came along, hun dreds of these checks would suddenly be dumped on the bank cashiers. To outwit these pests, such checks are now signed by the authors* secretaries. Elsie Singmaster's mail staggers her afresh each morning. “Dear Madam,” she read one morning, “Mr. daughter has written a very good story which was pub lished in her High School Magazine. She does not in tend to pursue a literary life, having good matrimonial prospects. Do you want to make an offer for the plot of her story for your own use? Answer, stating price you will pay, and I will for ward story if price is high enough.” Although Gamaliel Brad ford insists he has not yet lost the zest that comes from having a charming woman (as to the charm he is willing to give her the benefit of the doubt) ask for his autograph or photograph, he is annoy ed when the petitioner neg lects to enclose postage. Booth Tarkington says that if he answered all the mail he receives, he would not have time to do anything “My troubles as an au thor,” testifies Thornton Burgess, “are. nothing as compared with the flood of letters that come to me as a naturalist, because of my radio broadcasts. Apparent ly I am supposed to be a liv ing encyclopedia. One cor respondent says, *1 have a white albino, I would like your opinion of them.’ An April 1966 29 other lady asks me to send her a cure for rheuma tism. . . .” Arthur Stringer makes moan over an abomination that will find a large an swering chorus: “A new and growing evil,” he says, “which seems to be encouraged by English teachers in public schools, is the pest of school children writing for auto graphs and life sketches, be cause they are ‘studying’ a certain author.” Bertrand Russell writes: “In common with other au thors, I suffer a good deal from persons who think that an author ought to do their work for them. Apart from autograph hunters, I get large numbers of letters from persons who wish me to copy out for them the appropriate entry in Who’s Who, or ask me my opinion on points which I have fully discussed in print. I get many letters from Hindus, beseeching me to adopt some form of mys ticism; from young Ameri cans, asking me where I think the line should be drawn in petting; and from Poles, urging me to admit that while all other nationalism may be bad, that of Poland is wholly noble. I get let ters from engineers who can not understand Einstein, and from persons who think I cannot understand Genesis, and from husbands whose wives have deserted them — not (they say) that would matter, but the wives have taken the furniture with them, and what in these cir cumstances should an en lightened male do? I get letters trying to get me to advocate abortion, and I get letters from young mothers asking my opinions of bottle feeding. Little wonder that an au thor comes to look upon these parasites as something worse than charity-seekers. They interfere with his work and embitter him into the bargain. — By Clarico Lorenz Aiken, Condensed from the Bookman (June, ’30) 30 Panorama ■ Here is a brietf sketch of the life of a Filipino intellectual. TEODORO KALAW Students of contemporary history remember him as an intellectual leader who was in the forefront of the cam paign for Philippine inde pendence. As close adviser to presidents Quezon and Osmena, Kalaw was an active participant in the epoch, making events especially during the first two decades up to the Commonwealth period. Kalaw s intellectual leader ship can be traced to as far back as his student days. He attended the Escuela Pia, Escuela de Latinidad, Cole gio de San Juan de Letran, Instituto de Rizal and Liceo de 'Manila where he won honors in all academic sub jects and most medals for scholastic excellence. At 13, in Letran, Kalaw obtained “sobresaliente” in all courses. In all these schools Kalaw showed early promise of becoming a great writer and leader. After graduating with high honors from the Liceo, Kalaw took up law in the Escuela de Derecho, the first Filipino College of Law, where he was graduated at the age of 21. He became the college director later. At 23, Kalaw was offered the editorship of El Renacimiento, the most influential newspaper at the time. With him in the staff were such literary luminaries as Fidel Reyes, Claro M. Recto, Pedro Aunario, Jesus Balmori, Ma nuel Bernabe and others. At 26, as an elected repre sentative from the third dis trict of Batangas to the Phil ippine Assembly, his most important contributions were those creating the Commis sion on Independence and reorganizing the executive departments of the govern ment. The first measure was in preparation of the Philippines for self-rule, and the second was for creation of the positions of cabinet undersecretaries to serve as link and effect continuity of department functions often April 1966 31 disturbed by change of poli tical climate. At 33, Kalaw was appoint ed undersecretary and three years later succeeded Rafael Palma as secretary of the in terior. During the two-year period from 1923 to 1925, he was made executive secre tary and chief adviser of the Commission on Indepen dence. The years from 1929 to 1939 was his longest con tinuous service in one office, when he was appointed di rector of the National Libra ry. His predecessors were such eminent scholars as Epifanio de los Santos, Macario Adriatico and Dr. Pardo de Tavera. Long before this, in 1916, Kalaw had a short stint as the Library director for one year. Among his works were: Hacia la, Tierra del Czar; La Constitution de Malolos, El Devorcio en Filipinos; La Ideas Politicas de la Revo lution Filipina; Principios de Vida Social; Teorias Cons titutionales; Como se Puedo Mejorar Nuestra Legislation; El Plan Constitutional de la Revolution Filipina; El Ideario Politico de Mabini; Ma nuel de Ciencia Politico; La Masoneria Filipina; La Re volution Filipina; Court Martial of Andres Bonifacio; La Compafia del Coumintang, Dietario Espiritual; Gregorio del Pilar; Las Car tas Politicas de Mabini; El Espiritu de la Revolution, Cinco Reglas de Nuestra Mo ral Antigua, and Aide-deCamp to Freedom, his auto biography, translated from the Spanish by his daughter Senator Maria Kalaw Katigbak and published by the Teodoro M. Kalaw Society. Retana, that famous Rizal biographer, in praise of Ha cia La Tierra del Czar, a book written by Kalaw after and about his trip to Rus sia, said: “The chief char acteristic of Kalaw is his viri lity. . . his spirited ingenuity. Kalaw, as no other writer of his country, has that first re quisite, an artistic tempera ment. . — V. G. Suarez in Manila Bulletin. 32 PANORAMA ■ This effective method of teaching young children should be learned by Filipinos. INTRODUCING THE MONTESSORI SCHOOL IN THE PHILIPPINES Sending your child to a Montessori School, it is said, is watching him make what Newsweek calls “an intellec tual leap.” Substantial claims have been raised about the con centration of psychologists and educators . on teenagers and children above six years. In recent years, however, the picture has change. In the United States, there is a "re awakening” to the “intellec tual potential of early child, hood education.” In coinci dence with this shock of re cognition is the surge of Mon tessori schools. The popular ity of the Montessori methods which are well on the way to being adapted and applied in various countries, includ ing the Philippines, stems from the emphasis on the development of the intellect of the child in as early as two-and-a-half years old. “Let the doctors and nurses worry about vita mins,” Dr. Maria Montessori, founder, used to say. Teach ers, she said, should concen trate on the intellectual dev elopment of the child. The Montessori plan is based on the belief that the first six years of the child are the explosive period for assimilation, and how much mental development occurs within this period determines the performance of the child when he enters the university and his achievement in life in general. With the use of a special program of activi ties and sensorial materials^ called "launching pad to abstract learning” and for which Dr. Maria Montessori, founder is noted for, Mon-» tessori teachers guide the kids in understanding the* “complicated and confusing” world of adults. Manila and rural areas will soon have their own Montessori schools with the* establishment of a Montes Aran. 1966 33 sori center which will train teachers (and parents as well) on the famous system. A project of Operation Brother hood International, the Cen ter is directed by Mrs. Preciosa Soliven, who has re cently returned from an ob servation and study program at the international centers in Peruvia (Italy) and Lon don, under grants from the Italian Government and Bri tish Council, respectively. The teachers in turn will put up Montessori schools in the various O.B. project sites. Mrs. Soliven is currently conducting a model class consisting of 3-6 year-old children of OBI personnel and friends, and her nephews and nieces. The model class at first glance looks no different from another nursery class. Toys, futniture, equipment are miniature; there are Aongs, games, rhymes, storytelling and refreshment breaks. What makes it dif ferent Mrs. Soliven says, are the individual attention given each child, followed by col lective attention as soon as he gets adjusted to the group, and the sensorial apparatus. In a word, a Montessori school is a “school-house.” Here tots see and feel their homes (they iron and wash clothes, sweep the floor, twist door knobs, pour water, car ry flower pots); through sen sorial apparatus, they dis tinguish different sounds, surfaces, and forms. They have botany, arithmetic, geo graphy, language. Mrs. So liven stresses, lest that scares you, that the method is not to teach the child to read or write, but to prepare him for these subjects through simple approaches. In lan guage, for instance, the kids know that words have speci fic sounds. They learn to hold a pencil, identify leaves, for mental pictures of coun tries on the map. They start to count. The cultural activities, (botany, geography, science), says Mrs. Soliven, “are the keys to the bigger universe. You can’t put the whole world before the child so you give him a globe. You can’t show him the whole forest, so give him a leaf.” The Montessori school was started by Dr. Maria Montessori 70 years ago when, working with mental 34 Panorama ly retarded children, she em ployed her own sensory ma terials which resulted in the kids’ passing a test conduct ed along with normal child ren, with better grades. When her program was used among normal children, the achievement speed was dou ble. Dr. Montessori then was assigned by the Italian government to work with slum areas, where children spontaneously and naturally worked with her materials. An advocate of individual freedom, she was in conflict with Mussolini. She fled to Spain where she organized a Montessori teachers train ing institute in Barcelona, then established another in Holland, (now run by her son Mario) and commuted for lectures to London and Germany. The method reached the United States eventually, wavered in the 1930’s due to the popularity of the progressive method but picked up seven years ago and has since then en joyed immense popularity. Mrs. Soliven, who taught for four years in Mrs. Telly Albert Zulueta’s kindergar ten in San Lorenzo village prior to her trip to Europe, said Montessori methods are applicable everywhere. “The child is universal. The only difference is where you find him, where he is born. During the first six years, children absorb man nerisms of their parents and of people, the way they laugh, their accent. At six, they are able to absorb tl>e culture and religion of thd country. So in practical life, we give them what is found in the Philippines. Instead of a vacuum cleaner or a mop, we use the walis. We use the batya. Ideally, we should use Tagalog, but since we are preparing our kids in this class for English, then we use English.” Mrs. Soliven is holding a class for parents and teachers in May and June, after which she will start her Teach ers’ Training class, which is open to college graduates, preferably, A.B., majoring in home economics, psycho logy, and child study. — Do mini M. Torrevillas in Ma nila Bulletin. April 1966 35 ■ A Filipino woman is here presented whose energy, objectivity, and ability have made possible the gra dual development of a sort of an Asian Nobel Prize in this part of the world. THE LEADER IN THE MAGSAYSAY AWARD For a number of months each year, an attractive Fili pina with laughing but dis cerning eyes goes sleuthing around Asia — from Afgha nistan to Japan — in the finest fashion of Scotland Yard. But unlike Scotland Yard detectives who are usually out for criminals. Miss Belen Abreu scouts for spirit of service akin to the late Pres ident Magsaysay from any one, anywhere in Asia — be he a highland eye doctor, a woman educator, a labor leader or merely a prime mi nister. As executive trustee of the Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation, Miss Abreu is charged with the responsibi lity of examining on the spot the nominations for the coveted Ramon Magsaysay Award. Her findings and the material she gathers about nominees become the basis for the deliberations and final decision of the seven member board of trustees. Belen Abreu’s ability to distinguish chaff from the grain — an oftentimes pain stakingly difficult job as the chaff is frequently almost as good as the grain — has re sulted in a consistently high quality of awardees since 1958. Today the R.M. Award has come to be known as the Asian Nobel prize. As the "workhorse” of the foundation’s board of trus tees, Belen is its prime mover, it is she who gives direction and esprit to the foundation’s activities which promise to branch out in diversified in tellectual endeavours with the completion of the 14storey Ramon Magsaysay cen ter soon. Among the projects envi sioned by the foundation are the expansion of the Ramon Magsaysay Asian Library to 36 Panorama 50,000 volumes, making it the largest library of its kind in the country, the Vital Is sues Series, a sustained series of studies on national pro blems and the Magsaysay Papers and Memorabilia. At present, Miss Abreu is busy with her pet project in raising funds for the cons truction and establishment of the RM center. The fund campaign, headed by Col. Nicanor T. Jimenez, seeks maximum involvement of the barrio people in whose un selfish service the late be loved Chief Executive made his greatest mark. The fact that a woman should shoulder this varied responsibility is no wonder at all in Belen’s case, for she has brought to the job long years of training in respon sible positions, intense per sonal discipline, a good head and single-minded devotion — qualities exceptional even in the supposedly more effi cient male sex. This com bination of assets has drawn unqualified praise from ad mirers here and abroad. Belen’s training had its roots in her early years in Mexico, Pampanga. Her fa ther, Apolinar Abreu, a teacher of the old-school type, was a firm believer in the value of higher educa tion and personal discipline and sought to instill this be lief in his children. As a young girl, Belen wanted to study stenography instead of playing with other young girls soon after elementary school. In high school, this knowledge of stenography fared her well: summer va cations saw her working as secretary to the represen tatives of pre-war American companies such as General Motors and United Steel. Years later, studying for a de gree in public administration in New York University, Be len supported herself by ac cepting typing jobs for her American classmates at the standard rate of 25 cents a page. After high school, she de cided to take up law in U.P. which was interrupted, how ever, by the war. She took the bar immediately after the war, garnering a grade of over 90. During the war years, she assisted at the U.P.’s Marina Institute, a free school for poor but de serving students organized by the U.P. Alumni and April 1966 37 named in honor of Commis sioner Jorge Vargas’ wife, Marina. Belen taught steno graphy for free. From her secretarial jobs she moved on to the Commission on Elections as a stenographer. In the Comelec she fell under bosses steeped in the old school who, as she loves to relate to her staff, "would throw a piece of typewritten job in your face when it doesn’t come up to their standards.” She disliked them for it then, but soon discovered that she was the better for that kind of train ing. Doubtless she develop ed her keen sense of per fectionism from them. From stenographer, Miss Abreu rose to become chief attorney of the Commission on Elections. In that job, she was in charge of setting the machinery of elections in motion, following strict timetables which could not be disrupted without causing nationwide repercussions. It involved everything, from the simplest mechanical pre paration of election forms to actual troubleshooting. Be len Abreu’s name for years was on the lips of every Co melec worker in the country. In the commission, Belen’s good mind and sound judg ment became her staple stock and politicos learned to rely on her for advise. At present, years after she has left the commission, senators and congressmen still run to her during elec tion quandaries. In 1957, the Rockefellers, shopping around for an exe cutive trustee for the newly organized foundation, quick ly signed her up for a nineyear contract which was re newed in 1965. Belen Abreu had not known Ramon Mag saysay personally, but she had tremendous admiration for his performance in keep ing the 1951 elections clean and for his program of gov ernment. As executive trustee of the foundation she puts in re gularly more than ten, hours a day; during the March and August seasons, the death and birth anniversaries of the late President Magsaysay, she would ordinarily pack an 18hour day, only to go home for a quick shower and come back fresh and about her work. Her young female staff members (the founda tion has an all-girl staff) 38 PANORAMA feel squeamish about leaving at five on the dot, for their boss never leaves that early, not even when sick. Arriv ing for a long trip abroad, it isn’t surprising to find Belen catching a taxi at the airport and heading straight for the office, bags and all. Sundays usually find her making a quick trip to the office before proceeding to her farm in Tanay, Rizal. The foundation’s peekaboo efficiency, particularly during the climatic month of August, the award season, makes out siders wonder, especially when they find out how small the actual working staff is. At present, no cere mony of Malacahang or the department of foreign affairs could quite equal the flaw lessness of a Ramon Magsay say Award ceremony. A lioness for efficiency, Belen has cultivated intense personal discipline over the years. Her large spacious home on Samar avenue, Quezon City, is spotlessly clean, “like a hotel before the occupants arrive,’’ as one staff member described it. The gardens are well-attend ed under her personal super vision. About her person, she is neat and well-groomed, rather than stylish and fas hionable, although she can be so when she chooses to be. Every morning she takes her “constitutional walk” around the block before breakfast and then drives herself to work in Malate. When weight problems be gin to slow her down, it is time to take up her hula les sons at the YMCA. She re cently took to modern dan cing and her skills are usual ly displayed during office parties. Physical exercise is usually accompanied by dis ciplined dieting, consisting of meat without any season ing and some boiled greens. Gifted with a quick and curious mind which reaches out in long-range projections, Miss Abreu has strong opinions about almost any thing, from vocational edu cation to the Luneta beauti fication project of the First Lady. Once, passing in front of the St. Jude church on J. P. Laurel street, she com mented unfavorably about the way vendors have made a marketplace of the place of worship. Her female com panion remarked that this was part of the Filipino way April 1966 39 of life and that these ven dors had become an institu tion for the children. Where upon she turned around and exclaimed with full convic tion: "But we have change our way of life if we are to progress. Nor everything that is part of our way of life is good for us.” A mind as lively as hers needs sustenance, and Belen manages to insert at least an hour before retiring for the day to catch up on her read ing. The leading Asian dai lies are part of her reading material. To encourage in tellectual curiousity in her staff, she initiated an office practice whereby staff mem bers report on a book or a periodical of their choice on a rotation basis, one report per week. It is a tribute to Belen that male professionals of high standing regard her as a peer. — B. OlivaresCunanan, Manila Bulletin, Mar. 20, 1966. LOW RATING OF POLITICIANS The man who can make two ears of corn, or t}vo blades of grass, grow on the spot where only one grew before, would deserve better of mankind, and render more essential service to the country, than the whole race of politicians put together. — Swift. 40 Panorama PIONEER IN COOPERATIVES Tomas V. Confesor served so well his country both in times of peace and war that his people could live con tentedly, honorably and de mocratically. In peace he was an economist, educator and statesman; in war he was a provincial executive and the fiery resistance hero. Born in Cabatuan, Ilo ilo, on March 2, 1891, Con fesor was one of the three sons of the- couple, Maestro Julian Confesor and Prospera Valenzuela. Although at times he had to subsist sole ly on bananas and sweet po tatoes because of poverty, he graduated with honors from the Iloilo .high school in 1908. After teaching for one year, Confesor left for the United States of America where he scrubbed floors, washed dishes and dusted window panes to support his studies in the University of Califor nia where he received the degree of bachelor of philosophy in economics in 1914. Upon his return Confesor was appointed the school su pervisor for the district of Jaro in Iloilo. In 1922 he was elected the representa tive of Iloilo’s third district in the Philippine Legislature where he distinguished him self as the "Stormy Petrel of the House” because of his consistent crusade against corruption in the govern ment. He was twice re-elect ed. With his sponsorship Act 3425, popularly known as the Cooperatives Marketing Law, Confesor boosted the coope rative movement in the Phil ippines. As a result farmers all over the country began forming marketing and pro ducer cooperative associa tions. Governor General Dwight F. Davis regarded him as an “economic wizard." Governor General Theo dore Roosevelt Jr. designated Confesor the first Filipino director of commerce in 1933, while President Manuel L. Quezon named him the head April 1966 41 of the National Cooperatives Administration. He organiz ed credit associations and agricultural c o o p e r a tives which “liberated many far mers from loan sharks and unscrupulous traders.” In 1935 Confesor was elect ed as delegate from Iloilo to the Constitutional Con vention that drafted the Constitution of the Philip pines, and at the same time the assemblyman from the third district of Iloilo to the first National Assembly un der the Commonwealth gov ernment. He won the gov ernorship of Iloilo in 1937. Confesor was serving his second gubernatorial term when the Japanese invaded the Philippines in 1941. He was offered a cabinet post in their puppet government, but>he tqrned it down. Fol lowing his refusal to co operate, the enemy repeated ly raided his Manila home. So he escaped on a sailboat to Iloilo. Immediately Quezon nam ed Confesor the wartime governor of Free Panay and Romblon. He then organiz ed the civil resistance move ment and as its head went underground as he openly defied the entire might of the Japanese imperial forces. As a guerrilla leader he pre ferred to “suffer in honor than to enjoy life in ignomi ny.” For exceptionally merito rious conduct in the perfor mance of outstanding service to his country during World War II, Confesor was deco rated by President Sergio Osmeiia with the Philippine Legion of Honor, degree of commander, in January 1945 in Leyte. Following the liberation of the Philippines that year (1945), Confesor was ap pointed the secretary of the interior in the reconstituted Commonwealth government by Osmena. The following year he was elected to the Senate but died of heart at tack on June 6, 1951, with out completing his six-year term. — Abstracted from Manila Times. 42 Panorama ■ This is a privileged speech delivered by Congress* man Aquino before the House of Representatives March 21, 1966. Being a logger himself, he de fends his side. OF FORESTS, FLOODS, AND THE TIMBER INDUSTRY A great misconception has swept the minds of many of our people on the subject. They blame those who pro duce dollars for our econo my out of our timber re sources, for many ills due to other causes. Mr. Speaker, it is about time the mistaken notion on floods and forests be ended. It is for this, reason that to day I have decided to take the floor for a vital industry. The timber industry is a relatively new industry. It was only in the middle of the '1950’s that our country has found a thriving market for our wood products abroad. In such market, it has strong competition. As an infant industry therefore, it needs earnest and sustain ed government support. Not so many, Mr. Speaker, have succeeded in taking off from the crude manner of utilizing our timber resources to mechanized process. For one to be successful, he must be backed up by adequate capital. For capital to be adequate, it must be substan tial. Such requisite for an in dustry to grow has imposed on those engaged to sink life time earnings, millions of pesos in their ventures. They face big risks and hazards. But they contribute immense, ly to the nation’s economy. Today, Mr. Speaker, the timber industry, in a little over 10 years, has grown to the third biggest dollar earn ing export industry of the country. Credit its growth to the enterprise of those who succeeded in the busi ness. Credit it, to the labors and sacrifices of those who have cast their lot in the in dustry; credit it to their dar ing, their sustained effort, their capacity for hardships, and to their tenacity and de April 1966 43 termination to succeed ih life. Credit such success to the vast experience they har nessed and to their outlook in business, economics and management. To those who pioneered in the industry and succeed ed should go the honor and laurels in having transform ed our timber resources which lay idle and prostrate and without utility for cen turies into dollar resources, into economic goods, into money circulated for econo mic growth and for the good life and advancement of our people and of the nation. However, on the other side of the ledger, Mr. Speaker, the industry and those engaged in it are heap ed with ehdless blame for the wanton and criminal destruc tion, of our forests. Those in the industry are blamed for the tragedy brought by typhoons and floods, and for almost anything which causes harassment to our national patrimony. Justice and fairness de mand utmost caution, Mr. Speaker, for many have ha zard and advanced erroneous conclusions destructive to the industry. Many haVe poisoned the minds of our people that the industry has caused national catastrophe. Those in this preoccupation have maligned, impaired, and degraded the good name of an industry which brings tre mendous benefits to our peopie. They do not realize, that anything destructive to the industry is destructive to our economy. It is doubly destructive to the nation and its leadership. It all started perhaps, with the layman’s sharp approach to mass psychology, that a belief has firmed up on the effects of forestal cutting on the flow of floods. Such be lief, baseless as it is in fact and in truth, has been so articulated that at the drop of a hat, the timber industry gets the ax. Even our media of information has been car ried to the conclusion that it spells disaster. I wish to clear this mis conception, Mr. Speaker, I wish to do justice to the in dustry and, on the basis of scientific findings shatter to pieces the notion that the timber industry is the reason for floods, for damages to life and property, for des PANORAMA truction of our much valued watersheds. The Republic of the Phil ippines has not done much in this particular line of stu dy, but long years of scien tific study and research in the United States has elicited the following findings. According to the findings of Kittredge at the time di rector of the US Weather Bureau and a ranking mem ber of the American Society of Civil Engineers, in his book entitled, "Forest In fluences,” deforestation or re forestation do not affect considerably the water flow of streams or rivers. In no occasion, Kittredge stated, has reforestation appeared as a method of flood con trol. Conversely, the author ity added, it cannot be alleg ed that deforestation causes floods. These findings of Kit tredge was supported by the findings of Col. H. M. Chit tenden of the US Corps of Engineers, also an influen tial member of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Colonel Chittenden, in a paper submitted to the Am erican Society of Civil En gineers, entitled: "Forests and Reservoirs in their rela tion to stream flow, with par ticular reference to navigable rivers,” stated in his findings that forests have no material influence on stream flow. This conclusion of Colonel Chittenden was subsequently supported by a report of the Special Committee on Flood Prevention of American So ciety of Civil Engineers. In a report submitted to the Society on its findings, the Special Committee on Flood Prevention pointed out that even advocates of reforesta tion as a means of flood con trol failed to give any quan titative determination on ef fects of forests upon floods. Again, these findings of the American Society of Civil Engineers’ Special Committee on Flood Prevention, was corroborated by the late Al len Hazen, another reputable member of the society, who, after extensive and meticu lous investigation has reach ed the same conclusion. These findings, Mr. Speak er, are beyond question by laymen like us. Unless fur ther scientific studies and research show otherwise, it is only fair and just and rea sonable that we submit our Aran 1966 45 selves to the binding effect of what has been found true and valid conclusions. It is such a valuable document which should be preserved for policy guidance, for which reason, Mr. Speaker, I ask that same be included, in the proceedings, as part of my speech. I admit, Mr. Speaker, that there has been wanton and criminal destruction of cer tain forest areas. But cer tainly, such criminal acts were not and are not com mitted by legitimate loggers. They who invest millions in the timber industry want it to stay and grow. They have taken leadership in the eco nomic field and have nur tured the industry to the third bigjgest dollar earning export of the country. But take the kaingineros, Mr. Speaker, they ravage our forests and do not even con tribute to the coffers of the State. They do not pay taxes. They invest no ca pital. And there are the pi rates of the trade who, with out permit or license, and against the regulations, in vade our forestal zones and destroy the trees indiscrimi nately. They are not legi timate operators, Mr. Speak er, they are enemies of pub lic good and public interest. They are also enemies of loggers whose good name and business they destroy. For, most often, they are being mistaken for loggers. And they have aroused public hatred, indignation and con demnation against those righteously engaged in the industry. The kaingineros and the pirates of the logging indus try, who do not care to what will happen to our patrimo ny, deserve severe penalty. They should be metted hea vier penalty, and our laws should provide more punish ment against these sinister group who dastardly destroy our forests. In justice to the Bureau of Forestry and the Depart ment of Agriculture, and the personnel who comprise the working forces of these agen cies, we cannot blame them for the rampant denudation of our forest areas. They lack the force that can exe cute effectively our forest laws and regulations. They also lack funds enough to cover program of effective enforcement. These agen 46 Panorama cies, Mr. Speaker, need more fiscal support to employ men adequate to apply forest laws and regulations and enforce them. The loggers, Mr. Speaker, also deserve government as sistance. They need more credit facilities. They desire more sound policy on forest exploitation and utilization so that they can employ sound planning and pro gramming of their operations. It is now our duty in Con gress to provide this, Mr. Speaker. To discourage squatters and kaingineros from ravag ing our forest resources, they should be relocated. Vast and fertile lands along open ed roads and highways in Mindanao and other places of the country are lying idle. They haye been cleared and made ready for cultivation. But they are still, in our re cords of government, classi fied as forest lands. Many have squatted on and culti vated these areas. But they cannot call these land their own. The release of these areas, Mr. Speaker, to those who have established posses sion and have made improve ments on them will help lo cate squatters and kaingine ros. Giving them lands they can call their own may pre vent them from destroying our forests zones. It is high time, therefore, that our fo rest classification be updated. The Administration, Mr. Speaker, is committed to a program which will provide more incentive and encour agement to the processing of wood products. This is very laudable. I fully agree with President Ferdinand Marcos, and I completely endorse his commitment to the wood in dustry in his State of the Nation Address and I quote— The promotion of the wood production industry by lifting the percentage tax on all domestic sales of logs for manufacture or produc tion into wood products and by imposing a tax on all for eign sales of logs. We have the necessary capacity and potential for producing ve neer, plywood, wood pulp and other wood products for export. If there be a neces sity for setting up new wood processing factories or ex panding existing ones, a por tion of the increment from this tax policy shall be made available as loans for finan April 1966 47 cing these industries. It is indeed incongruous that by our expensive logging exports are provided foreign competition of our wood products with the valuable raw mate rials which makes strong competition possible — un quote. To this, Iv add that circular sawmills should be discouraged by reason of the small recovery made on raw materials. The loggers, want a new light of day in business. Mr. Speaker, that is why, it is the desire of both entrepreneurs and investors in the logging business that the Bureau of Forestry be headed by one of experience. It’s director must be seasoned in forestry matters. He must under stand the logging business and the mechanics of logging operations. The Director of Forestry ■ must also have the capacity to anticipate pro blems which may come the way of the industry. A limit to the cutting of timber, in order to preserve our patrimony, deserves sup port. Such limit is needed in order that we can carry on for a long time the sup ply of the best mahogany in the world market. Limit to timber cutting must also be coupled with sustained con servation and reforestation. Our source of raw material supply and of our valuable dollar earnings must be con served if not augmented. This underscores the need for selective logging, Mr. Speaker, and, with the policy to encourage wood process ing to realize more dollar earnings from our wood pro ducts should be a policy of long-term license grant to wood processors. It is in keeping with sound policy, to discourage short-t erm grant of licenses to loggers. It only impels fly-by-night operators to rush accumula tion of profit. As a conse quence, they often disregard regulations. They labor on the fear that next time their licenses will not be renewed or extended. This stifleis investment, Mr. Speaker, on the other hand, long-term licenses affords them sound planning. It gives them boldness in investment for they can find stability in operations and foresee more guarantee of return of capi tal and of profit. This forum, Mr. Speaker, must bring realization to 48 Panorama the truth. Let us not enter tain fear that the cutting of big trees in our forests will cause us less water supply or that such cutting will cause deluge or big floods. Let us not labor under a mis taken notion, a misconcep tion that the loggers have caused undue depletion of our patrimony. Let us sub mit to the scientific findings of authorities who made stu dies in the field. Let us wage a bigger cam paign against the kaingineros and the pirates for they com prise the group of men who philander our forests. Let us put more teeth to policy involving the wood industry. Let us line up measures which can firm up these ends. Let us prevent reckless des truction of our forests as we give incentive and encourage ment to wood processing. Those engaged in this indus try deserve added support from the Government. — By Rep. Jose C. Aquino. MENTAL DECAY THRU INDOLENCE The failure of the mind in old age is often less the result of natural decay than of disuse. — Am bition has ceased to operate; contentment breeds indolence, and indolence decay of mental power, en nui, and sometimes death. — Men have been known to die, literally speaking, of disease induced by in tellectual vacancy. — Sir B. Brodie. April 1966 49 ■ English is indispensable if we plan to leam the science, the technology, and culture of America, England, and other English speaking countries. ENGLISH AND FILIPINO Can users of English who do not think in English use English effectively and with profit? Do those who obtain their education through me dium of English and yet do not think in English', profit to the full with what they are supposed to have learn ed? Heretofore, pupils and students were forced to think in English by making them use English all the time, so that they could profit to the full with the education that they were getting through medium of English. Is this still being done in our schools? ^dvocafes of the propaga tion. and use of Pilipino all over our country would re commend the use of Pilipino in our educational system instead of English. This would be all right if our only aim in education is to propagate and hold on to Filipino culture. But if we would learn, in addition, about the strength and wis dom of other people, if we would study their culture and more so their science and technology, we must do so through the medium of their respective languages A Trans lation is almost impossible and practically useless. Con sequently, those who would study Spanish culture could do so best through the study and the use of Spanish. /Those who would study [English culture, science and I technology, America’s and lEngland’s particularly, could Ido so adequately only by studying . English well and Using it fully. And this is what we ^are trying to do. But our efforts will fall short of desirable levels if we do not do our thinking in Eng lish as we use it in our schools. And we cannot use English effectively in our daily pursuits if we cannot readily think in it. This we can only do by using Eng lish all the time, except when we are studying and delving in things innately Philippine. — Domingo G. Ampil, Sta. Ana, Manila. 50 Panorama ■ This memorable speech delivered by Senator Claro M. Recto at the Philippine Columbian Club, on the 75th birthday anniversary of President Manuel L. Quezon is a remarkable analysis of the political life and genius of Quezon as compared to the re cord of his successors of today. THE POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF MANUEL L. QUEZON I have been asked to speak to you tonight on the poli tical philosophy of Manuel Luis Quezon. If by political philosophy we mean a system of integrated principles con sistently followed as a [ for political action, then Ma nuel Luis Quezon had none. As I recall our association in the past, both as habitual antagonists and as occasional allies, that is the only con clusion at which I can honest ly arrive, and it finds sup port in his own autobio graphy, The Good Fight. No slight is meant by this assertion upon his illustrious memory. As a politician, Quezon was, first and fore most, a realist and there is nothing wrong with a poli tician being a realist. On the contrary, politics is one struggle theorists can. hardly survive. Senator Tanada’s Citizens will do well to pon der on this eternal truth. I was saying that Quezon had no political philosophy, practiced or avowed. If he had a philosophy, it was empiBjcism in its most rudi mentary and instinctive form, guide An any particular political a Ma- situation, Quezon did wha~t| situation, Quezon am wnatj was politically useful and/ xonvenient, whether or noi • was consistent with an' preconceived and formal pro" gram ot action. _He was! good fighter, and,~above all, master political strategisi‘ and tactician whose consum ing and overriding objective was victory.. Every politician, if he is jo^-be successful, must tbe ap opportunist in the better sense of the term: and QueSon, the consummate politiill how "cian, knew best 6F"ah now to take advantage of every opportunity. That is not im plying that he was unprinci pled. He believed in repreApril 1966 51 sentative democracy, and, 1 shall show later on, preserved and guarded the electoral processes with loyalty and sincerity. He believed in our political independence, in the historic destiny of the Malayan race to which it was his pride publicly to pro claim that he belonged, and built his entire career on the ideal of nationalism. But these beliefs, these convictions, these principles — if you wish to call them that —, did not and could not provide him with a po litical philosophy, distinctly his own. Every Filipino was for democracy and a repub lican form of government. Every Filipino was for inde pendence and national sove reignty. After the death of the "Partido Federal”, which occurred before the elections for the First Philippine As sembly, the political battles of his time were fought, not upon these issues, which could not divide the nation, but upop the rivalry, more or less concealed, for fac tional power and personal leadership. In those circums tances a political philosophy was unnecessary; it might even be a disadvantage. Thus (Quezon was proAmerican when the Airienra~n administration was fayorahlA To -hk party and to hk 1pa_ dexship. and _ _anti-American when it. waT noL He was pro-American under the Wil son administration and its Quezon-made representative in the Philippines, Governor Francis Burton Harrison; he was anti-American under the Republican administrations of Coolidge and Hoover and their rugged pro-consul here, General Leonard Wood; and , he was pro- American once more under the Democratic administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt and his faithful vicar in Manila, our beloved Frank Murphy. When he quarrelled with Governor General Wood, he announced dramatically his preference for a government run like hell by Filipinos — a desire, I might observe, that at long last has been sa tisfied — to a government run like heaven by Ameri cans, and accused his politi cal opponents, the Democratas, of cooperating with the Americans against the true interests of the nation. But having won his point and elected Ramon Fernandez 52 Panorama that his political leadership would be threatened by Osmena and Roxas, who had obtained the approval of the independence act in the Am erican Congress. He excoriat ed the bill as a 'fraud, de nounced the retention of American bases as an into lerable infringement on our f future sovereignty, and fore told the darkest calamities if over Juan Sumulong in a special poll in the old 4th senatorial district of Manila, Rizal, Laguna and Bataan, he promptly proceeded to co operate with General Wood’s apparently more complaisant successors, like the aristocra tic Governor Stimson, whom he proclaimed the best Gov ernor-General the Philippines f ever had. v His party was brought to national power by the slogan of “Immediate, Absolute, and Complete Independence,” but, when he was resident commissioner in Washington, eager to return home with a personal triumph, he endors ed and won congressional and presidential approval for the Jones Bill, which made independence c o n t i n gent upon the vague condition of the lestabjishment of a stable! government, and later he again gave his support to the Fairfield Bill, which pro vided for independence at the end of a 25-year transition period. We are still familiar with the historic controversy over the Hare-Hawes-Cutting Bill. Quezon secured its rejection by the Philippine Legislature independence were accept^ i upon its terms. But when he himself brought back in triumph the Tydings-McDuffie Act, he proclaimed it to be entirely satisfactory although it did not differ in any essential , from the bill he had so ve hemently. assailed. This was>, in my considered judgment, the finest hour of his long political career. The Hare-Hawes-Cutting bill had been maneuvered through the United States Congress only with the greatest difficulty, to the extent of that Con gress repassing it over the veto of President Hoover. Osmena and Roxas had po werful friends in the Ameri can Congress, and Roxas was so sure Quezon would never be able to secure another inbecause he foresaw correctly dependence act after the reApril 1966 53 jection of the Hare-HawesCutting bill, that he public ly promised to go on bended knees to the pier and kiss Quezon’s foot if the latter succeeded in doing so. It was a challenge that no one, perhaps not Quezon himself, believed could be met. But Quezon, ever the realist and empiricist, raised here a fund of about half a million pesos, and by judi ciously expending it in Washington performed the political miracle of the de cade by securing the enact ment of a new independence bill: the Tydings-McDuffie. With such masterful and spell-binding victories, what did Quezon care if some dis gruntled enemies accused him of inconsistency? *He was a political philosophy unto himself, fie must have drawn inspiration from those Whigs in the early years of the Eng lish Parliament, who, in the words of Maurois, showed “a ceremonious respect for the Crown even when they were dethroning kings”, and who could "advance the most daring ideas in the most ar chaic style, and utter the word democracy with an aris tocratic drawl.” politi/It is about time that we scrap the legend that Quezon was a sincere and a frank, brutally frank, politician. It was the silliest, shallowest judgment ever passed upon that great man. It does him an i n j us t i c e, because it charges him with naivete, the worst insult to a brilliant and skillful player in the game of power politics. zon. was a successful_____ cian precisely because he was a master of political intrigue. He knew how to build strong and loyal friendships even among political opponents, but he knew also how to ex cite envy, distrust, ambition, jealousy, even among his own loyal followers. Many a gar den of Eden was lost to the unwary politicians that inha bited them, because of the serpents he quietly let loose and nurtured there. He play ed Roxas against Osmena, Yulo and Paredes against Roxas, Sumulong against Montinola, the Herald against the Tribune, the Alunan group and the plan tadores against the Yulo group and the centralistas in the sugar industry, dominat ing both by means of the loan-giving and loan-denying 54 Panorama power of the Philippine Na tional Bank. He caused Gen eral Mascardo to form his own organization of veterans to counteract the one founded by General Aguinaldo. While Doha Aurora was a fervent and devoted Catholic, he had on his side the Masons and free thinkers, Protestants and Aglipayans, until he himself became a Catholic convert some time before he ran for the Presidency of the Com monwealth. He combined with the Democratas against the Osmenistas in 1922, and then nimbly abandoned them in the same year and coales ced again with the Osmenistas to organize the House of Representatives, only to desert the Osmenistas and again combine with the De mocratas in 1934 for the re jection of the Hare-HawesCutting l?iw. If political philosophy re quires consistency, then Que zon never allowed it to bo ther or disturb his plans. When he challenged the lea dership of Osmena, he at tacked it as dictatorial, “unipersonalista,” and rallied to his side all the discontented members of his party with the pledge of a collective lea dership, a leadership that would be “colectivista.” But having won his fight, and Osmena having humbly ac cepted his defeat, while giv ing Quezon an oblique les son in party discipline by re legating himself to the self described position of a buck private (ultimo soldado), Quezon became even more “unipersonalista” than Os mena, although he concealed his stranglehold on the party with more finesse, contriving to make his followers believe that they themselves were de ciding what he had already determined in advance. But, as Disraeli said of Sir Robert Peel, protectionist in the Op position, free trader on the Treasury. Bench, “you must not contrast too strongly the hours of courtship with the years of possession." In that same struggle for, party leadership, Quezon did not hesitate to use the State University as his political forum, and raised the enthu siasm of the stud^pfg W favor But when Roxas, durmg the Pro-Anti fight, turn ed the trick against him, he castigated the students for meddling in politics, hotly advised them to stick to their April 1966 55 books, and criticized their mentors for allowing the aca demic sanctum to be sullied with politics. In those days the rule of decency still pre vailed, and Quezon’s reproof was sufficient to bring about Rafael Palma’s resignation as President of the University of the Philippines. He made the ringing decla ration that his loyalty to his party ended when his loyal ty to his country began, in order to justify his revolt against Osmena. But having established his own leader ship he enforced loyalty to party so effectively that no one of his followers thought it could be different from loyalty to country. And yet his penetrating political "intellect sometimes betrayed him. When we were writing the Constitution he was in perfect accord with us that we should provide for a single presidential term of six years, but having been elected president, and having served four of those six years, he allowed himself to be, so to speak, flattered by a group of sycophants into having a constitutional amen dment adopted to permit his reelec tion and lengthen his term to eight years. He sought my support believing I could lend authority to the amend ment because I had been the President of the Constitu tional Convention, but I curtly declined. This brought a breach in our friendship which was never healed. He died before we could become frankly reconciled, but not before, in pursuit of the same obsession, he had persuaded the United States Congress into suspending our Consti tution and allowing him to remain as president-in-exile for the duration of the war. But the usually sagacious and provident Quezon had not made allowances for the inscrutable decrees of destiny. Exile and later death remov ed him from the presidency upon the expiration of his original 6-year term. I am convinced that a mysterious providence has given its sanc tion to the original decree of the Constitutional Conven tion that no president shall be reelected, arid it cannot be defied with impunity. Osmena lost the 1946 elec tions, and Roxas was sudden ly struck down in 1948 in the midst of his own prepara tions to run for a second 56 Panorama term. The over-ambitious, the over-reaching, the powermad fools who now live in a paradise of their own ima gining, might do well to be ware of this historic taboo and this fateful curse against a presidential reelection. But no grim forebodding haunted . Manuel Quezon in the days of his power and glory when he was putting into practice the charming and elegant motto of Disraeli: “Life must be a continued grand procession from man hood to tomb." Like the great English premier, Que zon also believed that “life is too short to be little.” He ruled in the grand manner, relishing to the full the glit tering appelation of “Excel lency,” which only colonial governors had worn before him, in the sumptuous palace of Malacanan. He loved his titles, loved them so much that he had legislation passed providing that municipal exe cutives cease to be called "Presidentes” like himself and content themselves there after with the modest title of ‘‘alcaldes.” Quezon loved power, and he knew how to keep it. But he kept it, like the realist that he was, in the only way in which it can be kept in a democracy, by winning the faith and love of the people. There ynust be some psycho logical similarity between love and politics, between women and multitudes, be cause Quezon was fortunate with both. He had the ins tinct for the right approach, for the cajoling phrase, for the charming attitud^. He knew when to wait, and when to dash in for his prize. He knew how to couch his desires in accents seemingly irreproachable and sincere. He knew when to command, and when to obey; when to resist, and when to yield; when to begin; and when to stop; when to give the win ning embrace and when to deliver the coup de grace. His present-day successors have his appetites without his potency, his ambitions without his wit, his love of power without his conscience, his human afflictions with out his magnificence. The same providence that gave us yesterday the Quezons and Osmenas and Sumulongs, has given us, to test our endur ance, the Neros and Caligulas of the present. APRIL 1966 57 Although he was a realist and an empiricist, Quezon was fortunately endowed with a democratic conscience. He did not hesitate .to use the full powers of the admi nistration against his politi cal opponents. He was la vish and calculating in his exercise of the rights of pa tronage and allocation of public works funds. But he never overstepped the bounds of these legitimate forms of political warfare. He was zealous in maintain ing the purity of electoral processes. This was the heart of democracy, and Quezon guarded it even against his own party and his own im mediate political interests. 1 have in mind one par ticularly dramatic election, when former Senator Alejo Mabanag, defeated the Nacionalista candidate, Alejan dro de Guzman, in the old second senatorial district composed of Pangasinan, La Union and Zambales. Ma banag, a Democrata, was du ly proclaimed and seated, but a protest was filed by De Guzman. At that time, if you will recall, there were no electoral tribunals, and protests were heard by a committee of the correspond ing chamber, which after wards made its report for the approval or disapproval of the whole body. In the Senate, as in the House of Representatives, the Nacionalista Consolidado Party was in the majority, and natural ly they also controlled a majority of the committee that heard De Guzman’s protest. The completely par tisan conclusion reached by that committee was that Ma banag had lost the election, and should be unseated, al legedly because of various irregularities, among them the misreading of ballots in his favor. Now, this was plainly impossible because De Guzman, as the majority candidate, had two of the three inspectors, and it was inconceivable ’ that the lone minority inspector of Maba nag had been able to mis read ballots on the gigantic scale necessary to give him a fraudulent victory. In fact; the contemplated report of the committee was such a flagrant piece of party injus tice that three Nacionalistas, Senators Briones, Vera and Generoso, crossed party lines to support Mabanag. 53 Panorama 1 was then the de facto minority floor leader in the Senate, and, knowing Que zon’s character, I took the matter up with him. I sup pose that any other party missed me, but Quezon prov ed to be, as I knew he would be, an honorable exception to the rule. He listened at tentively to my argument, but inclined to feel that he could do nothing to inter fere with the judgment of the committee. Finally, knowing that he had an im plicit faith in the judicial mind, I suggested that an umpire be appointed among the judicial-}', to go over the evidence and, in a purely personal and unofficial ca pacity, determine which of the two candidates, the ma jority or the minority man, had( really won. With char acteristic rapidity of decision, Quezon accepted my propo sition, and then added, with a smile, that he nominated my brother, Judge Alfonso Recto of Laguna, for the job of umpire. Naturally, I pro tested that any decision reached by my brother would be suspect to the majority party, but Quezon insisted, reminding me that my bro ther Alfonso was a Nacionalista, and 1 had to yield. 1 do not think it was because he was my brother, but ra ther because the evidence was inescapable, that Judge Rec to ruled in favor of Maba nag. Immediately, just as I had expected, the majority party members protested that the decision was partial and prejudiced, and Quezon agreed to appoint Another unofficial arbitrator. This time another Nacionalista judge was chosen. Judge Car los Imperial, later to become an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he, in turn, decided in favor of De Guzman. It was my turn to protest, and, knowing the pro found respect in which Que zon held the then Chief Jus tice Ramon Avancena, I sug gested that we secure a final decision from him, again of course, in a purely personal and unofficial manner. What followed was certain ly a test of Quezon’s impar tiality and statesmanship. Avancena, taking strong ex ception to being dragged into that sort of partisan struggle, had to yield to Quezon’s April 1966 59 earnest appeal, and consented to take the case under advisement. First he gave his way after so many delays and opinion in favor of Mabanag. complications, and to unseat Then the majority Senators th Dps it ion candidate. A headed by Benigno Aquino *|TeSsaF^TCader than Quezon somehow were able to con- would have found it easier vince him that he had been wrong, and he changed his decision to rule in favor of De Guzihan. We were taken aback by this change of heart, but Briones, Vera, and Generoso, all, it should be remem bered, Nacionalistas, assisted me in persuading Avancena to change his decision all over again in favor of the Democrata candidate. We were successsful, and I asked the Chief Justice to , write Que zon a short note, which he did, saying that Mabanag had really won, and that this time his opinion was final. It was a terrible blow to those intransigent Nacionalista Senators. What compli cated matters was that De Guzman was, by marriage, an ahijado of Mrs. Quezon, who had already presented him with a new suit for the special occasion of his oath taking. The Nacionalista Senators, excepting naturally those three who took Mabanag’s side, were on the verge of rebellion. They were de termined to have their own to go back on his word, and to listen to the dictates of party interest and conve nience. Instead, Quezon took it up as a challenge to his leadership. He asked for the papers of the case, and told his Nacionalista followers that, sick as he was, he would have himself carried to the Senate on a stretcher, and there he would make a speech and vote for Mabanag, stak ing upon the vote his own presidency in the Senate. It was one of those admirable gestures that made Quezon truly great, and it was one of his moments of true great ness. In the face of his in transigence, the members of his party retreated, the com mittee report was changed to conform with Justice Avancena’s final findings, and the Senate voted to maintain Mabanag in his seat. I have recounted this epi sode in our political history at some length because I think it is a model of that 60 Panorama devotion to the sacredness of the popular will, which we all need in these trying times. What was Senator Mabanag to President Quezon? Maba nag was a Democrata, a mem ber of the opposition, an an tagonist of President Quezon himself in the Senate. In fact, afterward, during the Pro-Anti controversy, this stubborn Democrata whom Quezon saved from being un seated, refused to take the side of the Antis, and went over to Osmena and the Pros. Yet, for the sake of this poli tical opponent, or rather for that of the people who had cast their votes for him/and whose will had to be respect ed, Quezon defied the mem bers of his own party, dis appointed his own wife, whose sympathies were natu rally with her ahijado, staked his jSenate Presidency, and refused to sanction any sub version of the popular man date. Of what a different breed are the successors of President Quezon in powerl Again to quote from Dis raeli, "when the eagles leave, the vultures return." Que zon’s present-day successors are not birds of the same no ble breed. Quezon’s, scorned frauds, as he would have not only scorned but punished terrorism in the most exem plary manner, because he firmly believed that without free and honest elections no republican form of govern ment could survive. And be sides, he knew his own strength. The eagle does not stoop to eat carrion. That is for vultures alone. But lesser politicians, conscious of their weakness, suffering from incurable . complexes, take on more ignoble parts, and must let cunning and treachery and mendacity make up for courage and sa gacity and truthfulness. They are content to feed on the sores and ulcers of the body politic, slowly pecking it to death in the grisly expecta tion of fattening on the cor ruption of the corpse. But if Quezon had no po litical philosophy, he surely had a political conscience and a personal decorum which have been stunted in his successors. The magnifi cent political era which he began in manly challenge, noble pride and great intel lectual power, is now coming to its end in malice, impos ture, lunacy and cowardice. April 1966 61 Quezon did not hesitate to allocate public works funds and distribute patronage for political purposes; his pre sent-day successors do not he sitate to spend even money that has been set aside for different purposes, and spend it on fictitious public works with brazen manipulations of vouchers and payrolls. He was not above ihtrigue; but his successors have developed intrigue into blackmail. And while Quezon held at bay frauds and attempts at ter rorism, they have not been deterred by the scruples that were his and have assaulted, with every illegitimate wea pon they can wield, the very citadel of democracy. It is time for this era to end. Or rather, it is for us now to end this era. A po litical philosophy may have been unnecessary, even a hin drance, in the long decades when we were a subject peo ple, free from ultimate res ponsibilities for the conduct of our government, and when rival leaders could play the game of power for its own sake. But now that we are an independent republic, en trusted alone with our own destinies, we must have lea ders with a consistent and fundamental view of huma nity and the world, a philo sophy which shall guide them unerringly and steadily through all the vicissitudes of the nation's existence. Quezon himself, if he were alive today, would have been the first to perceive the com ing of a new age, for, al though it was mercifully con cealed from him by t provi dence, z a terrible price for his political realism and op portunism was to be exacted by a mysterious destiny from those he loved best on earth. At the very summit of his career, as President of the Philippines, driven by a con suming desire to serve all the humble people who had stood by him in his long and arduous climb to power, dri ven also perhaps by the ins tinctive realization that power carries with it a commensu rate responsibility, Quezon embarked upon his famous campaign for social justice. But he conducted that campaign with his usual pragma tism, ever obsessed by the actual, the local, and the im mediate. He lambasted judges who, in his opinion, were not sufficiently sympa62 Panorama thetic with the lot of the workers; impulsively promot ed those who glibly parroted his program; and, in the po litical field, flattered and pampered new forces that he neither understood fully nor could hope to control. In Pampanga,, he openly dis played his sympathies for the fledgling socialist-communist group of Pedro Abad Santos, playing host to and breaking bread with him in Malacanan, and, in frequent visits to that province, honoring him with his company to the extent of ignoring the local authorities. Undoubtedly, to Quezon’s shrewd practical mind, the socialist-communist m o v ement never seemed to have a deeper significance than that of a visionary political faction, useful as a counter weight in partisan struggle, while, to his warm and gene rous heart, the same move ment appealed as a sincere demand for relief from feu dal injustices. His lack of political philosophy blinded him to the irreconcilable differences between the ideo logy of representative demo cracy and that of totalitarian communism, which cannot stop at the mere reform of the social structure, but is pushed relentlessly by its own inner logic to the seizure of complete power in order to subvert the entire social order, recognizing in the pur suit of this supreme objective neither human rights nor hu man liberties. I do not think that either Quezon, or after his death his widow, the beloved Doha Aurora, ever fully realized this. They felt that no Fili pino would ever do them harm, least of all the dispos sessed and the humble for whom they had shown such constant solicitude. But ruth less and fanatical descendants and disciples of the very men whom Quezon had flattered, pampered, and encouraged in Pampanga, waited one fateful day beside the lonely road to Baler, Quezon’s own town, and there, in pur suance of what appears to have been a cruel little plot to dramatize their cause, they butchered the. widow and the eldest daughter of the for mer friend and protector of their political forbears and mentors. The Bongabong massacre was the tragic epilogue to April 1966 63 the life history of a master politician, an epilogue which brought to a grievous and sanguinary close the Quezonian era of political prag matism. Quezon, the man who best of all could read the human heart, the match less interpreter of popular feelings, the superb strategist of political war, did not fore see that a new force, a mili tant political philosophy had arisen in the land, which would be met and defeated, nnf-jvirh fhp skillful rnmhinations and alliances of which He was so fond^and which is so thoroughly mas tered, but only with an equal ly vigorous, integrated, poli tical program inspired by a profound and all-pervasive political faith. Thus, in paying tribute to the political genius of Ma nuel L. Quezon, we should not forget that, with our emergence as an independent nation into a world of divid ed loyalties and mortally conflicting ideologies, w e have entered a new age and we must face it by casting off habits of personal enrich ment and vain-glory, factional convenience, and lust for power, by dedicating our selves wholly and without reserve to the supreme na tional interest that we may realize our ideals of freedom and happiness under the sus taining care of the God of Nations. — From Manila Chronicle, August 20, 1958. 64 Panorama Aftoo^on: All organization hoads and memborsl Help pour club raise funds painlessly... Join the Panorama “Fund-Raising by Subscriptions” plan today! The Panorama Fund-Raising by Subscriptions plan will get you, your friends, and your relatives a year’s sub scription to Panorama. The Panorama is easy to sell. It practically sells itself, which means more money for your organization. The terms of the Panorama Fund-Raising by Sub scriptions plan are as follows: Cl) Any accredited organization in the Philippines can take advantage of the Plan. (2) The organization will use its facilities to sell sub scriptions to Panorama. (3) For every subscription sold the organization will get Pl.00. The more subscriptions the organization sells, the more money it gets. Contents The Need For A Constitutional Convention ........................ 2 Political Indicator ............................................................................... 9 The Fall Of Malolos .... ............................................................ 11 Tradition And Efficiency In Parliament .................................. 17 Filipino Nationalism And The Americans ................................ 24 Literary Parasite ................................................................................. 27 Teodoro Kalaw .................................................................................... 31 Introducing The Montessori School In The Philippines .. 33 the Loader In The Magsaysay Award ..................................... 36 Pioneer In Cooperatives .......................................................... 41 Of Forests, Floods, And The Timber Industry ..................... 43 English And Filipino ......................................................................... 50 The Political Philosophy Of Manuel L. Quezon ................ 51