|
x
The First Quarter Storm of 1970: Its Impact on
Philippine Politics
By Satur C. Ocampo
Speech at the forum sponsored by the First
Quarter Storm Movement (FQSM),
Contend-UP, and Anakbayan held at the Claro Mayo Recto Hall, Faculty
Center, UP Diliman
January 30, 2012
A pleasant, lively morning to everyone!
Before we begin, allow me to reprise what the
audience and I did in July 2008 before I delivered a UP Centennial Lecture
on militant activism. Will everyone please rise for a moment of silence?
Let us honor the former students of the University of
the Philippines and of other schools and the youths from communities all
over the country who embraced martyrdom during the First Quarter Storm of
1970 and in the succeeding years of our people’s continuing struggle for
national liberation, economic emancipation, social justice, equitable
development, and genuine and lasting peace.
Thank you. Congratulations to the First Quarter Storm
Movement, Contend-UP, and Anakbayan for sponsoring this series of fora to
discuss the impacts of the FQS on different aspects of our national life.
I thank them for inviting me to speak in this inaugural forum.
First, a word of caution: I speak to you not as a
revolutionary theoretician, since I have never claimed to be one. I speak
simply as a political and social activist sharing recollections, views and
analysis through the prism of my cumulative experiences for almost 50
years.
Let’s begin by revisiting the scene on Jan. 26, 1970
in front of the old House of Representatives towards the closing of the
big protest rally timed with the second state-of-the-nation address by
then President Ferdinand E. Marcos.
[I culled this account from an article (published in
the Philippine Daily Inquirer sometime ago) by Rodel Rodis, ex-FQS
activist, now a lawyer and one of the leaders of a Filipino-American group
in the United States. Rodis wrote that his father had sent him “to exile
in San Francisco” to avoid getting his son “salvaged” (the old term used
for extrajudicial killing).]
Edgar Jopson, then an Ateneo student leader who
headed the “moderate” National Union of Students of the Philippines (NUSP)
to which Rodis also belonged, had just spoken and called out to Gary
Olivar, a spokesman for the “radicals”, to address the crowd. Yet he
handed the microphone to Roger “Bomba” Arienda, the hard-hitting radio
commentator (who later became a religious preacher after his
imprisonment). As Arienda spoke the crowd yelled, “Gary! Gary! Gary!”
Arienda’s tirade over, Jopson still didn’t call
Olivar again – as he should have in compliance with an agreement among the
participating organizations on a “united front” list of speakers. Instead,
Jopson began singing the national anthem as a signal to end the program.
However, a “radical” young labor leader grabbed the microphone and started
to deliver a fiery speech in Tagalog.
Just then Marcos stepped out of the front door of the
House. As he was about to board his car on the driveway, an activist threw
in his direction a papier mache crocodile (depicting greed, graft and
corruption).
Quickly reacting, the anti-riot police rushed upon
the demonstrators and began pummeling their heads and bodies with rattan
truncheons. Pandemonium broke loose when the protestors fought back.
About that particular incident, Rodis quoted the
following line from Jose F. Lacaba’s his classic book, “Days of Disquiet,
Nights of Rage,” that graphically records the FQS events:
“Passions were high, exacerbated by the quarrel over the mike, and the
President had the bad luck of coming out of Congress at this particular
instant.”
Some of you may have been there and can vividly
recall how that January 26 protest rally ended: several persons on both
sides were injured.
The blood-spilled confrontation between state
anti-riot forces and demonstrators spurred the bigger protest march-rally
to Mendiola on January 30. The protest action heated up as a group of
marchers commandeered a firetruck and rammed it through Malacanang’s
padlocked Gate 4. What ensued was the seesaw “Battle of Mendiola” -- the
state security forces attacked the protestors first with truncheons and
teargas, later with guns; then they retreated as the demonstrators
counterattacked with rocks and other projectiles, including Molotov
cocktails.
The interchanging assault-retreat-assault of the
protagonists continued overnight, culminating in the wee hours of January
31. The battle extended into the whole length of Azcarraga (now Claro M.
Recto Ave) up to Divisoria, into Quiapo’s main and side streets, and into
Lepanto, Morayta and Espana and the side streets and alleys. Residents in
the area provided sanctuary, food and water to many fleeing youths and
workers.
That and the succeeding events in the first three
months of 1970, capped by daily teach-ins, almost weekly demonstrations
and “people’s marches” and the mushrooming of youth and allied
organizations nationwide, constituted the First Quarter Storm.
The chain of tumultuous events encapsulated in the
FQS has left an indelible mark in the nation’s history. And not just a
mark, but a continuing impact in the nation’s political life, which we
shall delve on in a while.
Corollarily, those events have had a compendious
impact on each and every participant. The impact may vary in terms of the
intensity of feelings evoked, and the depth of political commitment one
has embraced, nurtured and maintained – or later abandoned and lost.
Let’s take a peek at how certain youth activists,
cited and quoted by Rodis in his recollections, have regarded the FQS.
Here they are:
= Mario Taguiwalo, who became a Department of Health
undersecretary in the Cory Aquino administration:
“The deaths of friends, the terror of gunfire, (and) the taste of
truncheons taught a lot of “isms” in one night. By the morning of Jan. 31,
1970 a thousand chapters of student organizations had begun taking root in
schools and communities nationwide.”
As regards FQS influence on his thoughts and actions,
Taguiwalo proudly said:
“Every time I am tempted to give up on people, I am reminded of the power
of ideals deeply held and I persevere again, seeking to convince and not
to compel.”
= Gary Olivar, the “radical” whom Edjop had denied
his turn to speak at the January 26 rally, and who became a Sumitomo Bank
executive and later (until now) a Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo spokesperson,
rhapsodized:
“A dream so compelling in its inception, so irresistible in its sweep,
that it hurled thousands of us against the walls of this palace – as if
somehow through the sheer weight of our passion on that endless night, we
would reclaim the palace as our own.
“In the conceit of our youth, we believed we could repair the broken bones
of a people lay despoiled and fulfill a dream of human freedom, of
national sovereignty, of equitable progress for every Filipino.”
= Nelson Navarro, a newspaper columnist who authored
a 2011 biography of Dr. Nemesio E. Prudente, the nationalist former
president of Polytechnic University of the Philippines, also enthused:
“(The FQS) was that cathartic student revolt in the first months of 1970
that shook the nation with its intense and all-encompassing life-changing
experiences.”
Yet at a reunion of activists held at the Malacanang Freedom Park in 1990,
organized by Rodis to commemorate the FQS 20th anniversary, Navarro
sounded jaded and disappointing with this remark:
“Reunions are beautiful, because the older we get,
the more we cease seeing ourselves as friends or enemies. We are simply
survivors sharing a common memory.”
On Edgar Jopson -- the “moderate” who had earlier
earned fame by challenging Marcos, during a dialog in Malacanang, to put
in writing his commitment not to run for re-election in 1969, to which
Marcos gruffly riposted by derisively calling him “the son of a grocer” –
Rodis wrote this paean:
“Not present (at the reunion) was my friend Edjop,
who became a revered people’s hero after he was arrested, tortured, jailed
for his underground anti-dictatorship efforts, and later executed by the
military on September 20, 1982 when he was barely 34 years old.”
What Rodis failed to say, or intentionally skipped, was that Edjop had
turned into a “radical”. He joined the Communist Party of the Philippines,
assumed responsible positions, escaped from detention and returned to the
underground. While trying to slip out during a military raid in an
underground house in Davao, Edjop was shot and wounded. But instead of
giving him medical attention, his captors “salvaged” him (what Rodis’
father feared might be done to his son had he stuck it out with Edjop).
On the other hand, Rodis wrote about the 180-degree political turnabout of
another FQS firebrand, Jerry Barican:
“Once the ‘radical’ president of the UP Student
Council, he became a staunchly conservative lawyer who justified his sea
change by paraphrasing Churchill: ‘If you are not a radical at 18, you
have no heart. If you are still a radical at 30, you have no head.’ Jerry
went on to become a spokesman for then President Joseph ‘Erap’ Estrada.”
From this citation of incidents and statements, we
can deduce the following:
1. Then as now, the sectarian rivalry (if not enmity)
between the “radicals” and “moderates” (natdems and socdems), who had
agreed to conduct a “united front” protest action against a common foe
(the Marcos administration), was deep and intense. Note that even Edjop’s
sectarian impulse drove him to violate the agreement on the sequence of
speakers.
2. Edjop’s later opting to pursue his ideals via the
“radical” way indicates either of two things, or both: a) that he found
the “moderate” path disappointingly inept or futile; and b) that the
drawing power of the “radical” ideas and methods of organizing and
mobilization were so compelling, he was swept into the vortex of the
national-democratic movement like thousands of other students and
community youths across the country, both organized and unorganized.
In fact, the bastion of the “moderates” and nascent
social democrats, Ateneo de Manila, yielded to the sweeping force of the
“radical” national-democratic movement. Lakasdiwa, Ateneo’s youth
organization (which the socdems claim as part of their earlier formations)
turned largely into natdem in the wake of the FQS. Besides Edjop, other
Ateneans had joined the Left underground movement and became revolutionary
martyrs.
3. The degree of “radicalization” on the heels of the
FQS was not the same for everyone. Some may have been radicalized only
intellectually and fleetingly, others both psychologically and
emotionally. Still others were radicalized in a thoroughgoing way as to
undergo a sea change in the way they had viewed society and the world, and
their role in changing them.
4. Among those in the first category are the likes of
Gary Olivar and Jerry Barican – who are both facile with words and
smart-alecky. Olivar simply saw the FQS as a “dream” about the youth’s
power for radical change, but deemed that power as only a product of
youthful conceit incapable of transforming the dream into reality. Ditto
with Barican.
The duo dropped out early to pursue traditional careers within the
prevailing system that they, as “radical” student leaders, had virulently
condemned and strongly opposed. Consequently, they ended up as
spokespersons for two former presidents, both traditional politicians
identified with plunder and high-level corruption.
5. Those in the last category underwent a “radical
rupture” in worldview that impelled them --consciously -- to go headlong
into the revolutionary movement. Many have stood by their commitment to
struggle for fundamental change shoulder-to-shoulder with the masses until
victory is fully attained.
Many others, like Edgar Jopson, became martyrs and
heroes in the course of the life-and-death struggle. In the coming years,
more and more of their names will be enshrined in the Wall of Remembrance
at the Bantayog ng mga Bayani in Quezon City, as well as in similar,
albeit small and modest, monuments and markers in the different regions of
the country.
6. Many of those in the second category also joined
the underground in the initial years after Marcos imposed martial law,
underwent no mean hardships, dangers, and sacrifices. However, they later
decided to lie low by opting to leave the countryside or the urban
underground networks in the various regions, or after they had been
arrested, tortured and detained.
Yet most of the lie-low ex-activists I encountered in
the course of going around the country since 1992 (after I was freed from
my second detention without being convicted of any crime), remained
wistful of their FQS days. Rage still simmers in their persona over the
continuing injustices, exploitation and oppression and disquiet over their
not having done enough to eradicate such scourges.
That many of these FQS veterans expressed readiness
to lend a hand in the continuing fight has encouraged me a lot. In fact,
some came forward with financial contributions, others pledged to support
in various ways, particularly after we organized Bayan Muna in 1999 and
successfully entered the electoral arena in 2001.
From these observations, I believe that we can safely
say this:
The biggest impact of the FQS on the nation’s
politics is that it provided the best and the brightest cadres and
activists to the national-democratic revolutionary underground movement
and the open democratic mass movement.
These tandem movements – one underground and
“illegal” the other aboveground and legal -- have played crucial roles in
developing mass consciousness about the roots of our national problems,
and the need to organize and mobilize the politicized basic masses and the
middle forces from the various sectors of society to struggle for national
freedom and sovereignty, economic emancipation from imperialist and feudal
stranglehold, human rights, social justice, and genuine and lasting peace.
The national-democratic movement seeded by the FQS provided the primary
forces that perseveringly, consistently exposed and opposed the
anti-democratic, anti-people US-backed Marcos dictatorship, progressively
weakened and politically isolated it by the early 1980s. Other
contributory factors – such as the assassination of Ninoy Aquino in 1983,
the manipulated results of the snap elections in 1985, and the aborted
coup by a group of military rebels identified with then Defense Secretary
Juan Ponce Enrile spurred bigger and bigger protest actions leading to the
dictatorship’s ouster in 1986.
It is important to point out that the social
democrats, with Ateneo as their springboard, decided to organize in the
late 1960s in reaction to, and as counterfoil to, the rapidly growing
national-democratic forces.
In the introduction to the book he edited, titled “Socdem,”
Benjamin Tolosa Jr. cites the socdem’s acknowledgement that the natdem
forces “led by the Communist Party of the Philippines-National Democratic
Front” were “the strongest and most organized pole against Marcos.” The
socdems have attempted to provide what they call a “third force” or “third
way” – supposedly as an alternative between the reactionary ruling system
and the Left revolutionary path.
However, our historical experience shows that no such
third force or third way has emerged as a viable or credible alternative
political force or political program. The most potent political force and
authentic alternative program challenging the rotting ruling system are
those of the national-democratic revolutionary movement.
What has been amply shown is that, in their bid to
stanch the advance of the Left revolutionary movement, the socdems
gravitated to and collaborated with the Cory Cojuangco-Aquino government
that took over from the Marcos dictatorship. And, in varying degrees, they
have done the same with every succeeding administration, including the
hated and discredited Macapagal-Arroyo regime. The socdems have gained
more influence in the current P-Noy government.
Before I close this presentation, let me go back to
what I concluded in my 2008 UP Centennial lecture on militant activism. I
said then:
“Regardless of how some people, or perhaps a good
number of people, may view its continuing relevance to our national life,
or its prospects of succeeding in its avowed goals, the
national-democratic revolutionary movement is undeniably alive. It is
persevering to advance and to win. In the process of waging life-and-death
struggle against the forces seeking to destroy it, the movement is
endeavoring to establish a genuine state of the people from its basic
units in the countryside communities.
“It has had its ups and downs, its ebbs and flows. It
has suffered setbacks from serious errors committed at various levels of
its leadership, the most serious of which took place in the 1980s. A
painful campaign was launched to rectify the errors, which have been
largely successful, although some manifestations do appear now and then
indicating that lessons from the past have yet to be completely
comprehended and assiduously applied.”
Today I find no reason to alter that conclusion. I reaffirm it in light of
the situation we are in and what’s going on worldwide. How shall we regard
the continuing global crisis of the capitalist system that started in
2008, the bankruptcy of neoliberal globalization, and the anguished
acknowledgement by bourgeois economists of the validity of Karl Marx’s
analysis? How shall we assess the movement’s prospects vis-à-vis these
global factors and the universal ferment of popular protests all demanding
change?
Thus, as we commemorate the 42nd anniversary of the
First Quarter Storm, let us debunk the view of those who regard it as
mainly a topic for reminiscences and nostalgia-tripping. Instead let us
proclaim the FQS as an epochal event the impact and validity of which
pulsates ever more strongly in the bloodstream of the continuing
national-democratic revolutionary struggle. #

|