Conclusion
The widow’s wrath
CORAZON Cojuangco-Aquino had used the term “reconciliation” so much, people began to believe in its possibility. But the reconciliation she had in mind did not quite tell its dictionary meaning. It was peculiar, in that it would be pursued strictly on her terms.
In her vindictiveness against the Marcoses, President Aquino committed a far graver injury: she compromised Philippine sovereignty. She not only allowed, but encouraged, a foreign government to try a Philippine national in its courts, for alleged violations of Philippine laws against fellow Filipinos on Philippine soil. It was a waiver of Philippine judicial sovereignty, which she consummated only by junking the 1973 Constitution and, later, by disregarding her own 1987 Constitution.
The most authoritative book on the subject of the Marcoses’ trials in America, The Two Billion Dollar Human Rights Uproar, noted:
“In effect, all the parties in the cases waived the Philippine sovereignty, except the Marcoses. This in itself was an anomaly. The rule is, only Congress can waive the state’s immunity from suit, but not even Congress—much less the Executive–can waive sovereignty.
“Very clearly, sovereignty has not been vested by the Constitution in either the Executive or the Legislative. Sovereignty, as the Constitution declares, ‘resides in the people’ [Article II, Section 1]; the very preamble of the Constitution thus starts: ‘We, the sovereign Filipino people…’
“As to the Americans…they cannot to this day explain why the Marcoses had to be tried in America. Perhaps, because it was the first time that they had been pressed to accept a nation’s waiver of sovereignty, they were at a loss for words. Political accommodation and publicity mileage for some politicians were obviously among the reasons, but these could hardly be offered as honorable justification. Many Americans, indeed, were scandalized by their government’s judicial imperialism.”
The situation eventually got out of hand. When PCGG Chairman David Castro on June 19, 1992—11 days from the end of Cory’s tenure— wrote US officials for the transfer to Philippine courts of cases pending against the Marcoses, he was disregarded. There was no respect left for Philippine sovereignty. In Hawaii, the human-rights class suit against the Marcos estate continued to be tried until Judge Manuel Real reached a decision on January 27, 1995.
It may be recalled that President Marcos had reestablished Philippine sovereignty over the US military bases in the Philippines in 1979. In her hatred for the Marcoses, Cory trifled with sovereignty, as if to undo or belittle what he had done.
This cheered not just the bounty hunters, who would go to any depth to get their hands on the assets of the Marcoses. Equally elated were the false nationalists of the Communist Party of the Philippines/New People’s Party and their National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) who cheered US judicial imperialism.
The Truth and Justice Foundation (TJF) said:
“The NDFP rejoiced this stinging slap to Philippine sovereignty, as if only the Philippine government, and not the Filipino people themselves, suffered the humiliation. Jubilantly, they claimed Judge Manuel Real’s verdict as their own.
“So enthused were the communists and the NDFP by Judge Real’s verdict that they opposed its review by any Philippine court. Communist Party [founding] Chairman and NDFP Chief Political Consultant Jose Maria Sison has attacked as “utterly wrong and unjust” the idea of subjecting the enforcement of the judgment “to court proceedings in the Philippines and to reporting by the Philippine government.”
“This unprincipled volte-face by the ultra-nationalists of yesteryears was precipitated by greed. The NDFP salivated at the $2 billion that the US court adjudicated as damages for the claimants,” said the TJF.
Cory’s obsession to damn and stigmatize the Marcoses was not just an inordinate waste of energy and resources: It also kept the nation divided. Laurel noted that “her policy of vengeance and retribution fueled a power struggle that would last beyond the end of her term.”
The TJF asked: Was Cory vindictive? She made efforts to shed the label, using the rhetorical eraser, the TJF said, quoting Cory:
“The politics of revenge has had its day…. I want to encourage people to seek redress in the law, despite the inconvenience, rather than in vindictiveness, which has no end.”
She was apparently no stranger to vindictiveness. She knew it well enough to discern that “it has no end.” In telling Congress during her State of the Nation Address on July 22, 1991, that the politics of revenge has had its day, she did not categorically deny having engaged in such politics earlier. As to the implied guarantee that there would be no more politics of revenge, subsequent events would establish that this was not matched by practice.
Rare became the writers who clung to the belief that Cory was not vindictive. One of these was Neni Sta. Romana-Cruz who wrote in 1998:
“There is no trace of anger, regret or bitterness in Cory Aquino, even though the mastermind…behind Ninoy’s murder remains unidentified. It is an open secret that Cory’s serenity comes from a deep spirituality.” If the Filipino people and not just the Marcoses suffered concentrated misery during the Cory years, it was as much the fault of those who were beguiled into supporting her as a candidate and those who installed her in power after she had lost the snap elections.
Laurel provided this postscript regarding Cory’s ascent to power:
“Cory was catapulted to power not because of personal merit but because she was the widow of a martyr. It was enough for the voters to believe that she was ‘not a politician’ and, therefore, blindly presumed that she would not know how to ‘steal or cheat.’ They did not bother to find out what else she did not know. All they wanted was—anyone but Marcos.”
It took less than a year of Cory for the people to discover their tragic mistake. The first anniversary rites of the Edsa revolt (1987) provided ample proof that instead of national unity through reconciliation, what the Aquino regime had managed to accomplish was the alienation of its one-time allies and supporters.
Because of this, Enrile and the RAM stayed away from the celebration. Concerned, the late Cardinal Sin in his homily urged the people to make national reconciliation possible by rejecting selfishness, arrogance and all forms of division.
Sin warned:
“Let us not enchain ourselves again by our stupid and useless efforts to enshrine ourselves and seek our own selfish ends…. Only one self-seeking Filipino is enough to destroy a beautiful dream.”
The Archbishop of Manila proved prophetic, but tragically, too late. For the masses and for most others, the Cory era, briefly a dream, became an extended national nightmare.
To reach the writer, e-mail cecilio.arillo@gmail.com.