By JULIO CINCO NIGADO
--From cyber space
Diosdado Macapagal Ferdinand Marcos Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
CORRUPTION in the Philippines, whether in public office or in the private sector is deeply rooted from the time the natives and the islands were collectively called “Islas de los Ladrones” (“Islands of the Thieves,” no thanks to Ferdinand Magellan) by the thieving Conquistadores themselves. But who stole from whom first? The encroaching colonizers who grabbed lands and appropriated long-inhabited ancient properties for their own, or the “poaching” original inhabitants who were curious about the trespassing invaders?
Viewed from this context, it’s easy to see the endemic and pervasive corruption in our society from the historical and cultural perspective. From Spanish times (1521-1898) to Emilio Aguinaldo’s Biac-na Bato Pact (1897) to the American Colonization (1898-1946) to the Japanese Occupation (1942-1845) to the present, the never-ending dispensation of favors and largesse in various forms continuous unabated. And given our long history of patron-client relationships, the modern-day caciques continue to rule in our “colonial democracy.”
As a matter of fact, the so-called First Philippine Republic was a sham, a shameless result of betrayal, corruption and crimes unsolved, perpetrated by an infamous collaborator. From the Spaniards to the Americans to the Japanese to the native tyrants, he negotiated the waters of collaboration and corruption on different levels until his dying day.
On May 10, 1897, Katipunan leader Andress Bonifacio and his brother Procopio were murdered by his rivals masquerading as revolutionaries. In the still unnamed (because unknown to this very day) hills of Laguna (or Cavite?), the Bonifacio brothers were executed by the very same pretenders who hungered for power and devoured Katipunan in the end.
And it’s not a coincidence in history that the Bonifacios’ executioner was named Commandant Lazaro Macapagal from whose lineage descended Diosdado Macapagal. According to the commandant’s account, “Andres Bonifacio died a coward, begging for his life as he realized that his near was near.” Indeed, the stories surrounding the Katipunan founder’s murder were as diverse as they were blurred, according to the mode of corruption in those days. (The Macapilis, somehow, figure in many periods of our history as a nation.)
Some say the Bonifacios were supposedly shot and quickly buried on the same spot. Others claim that they were hacked to death by bolos, in the still of the night. Until now their skeletal remains have yet to be found.
As one writer asked, “How could the man, who founded the revolution, be called a coward? How could the man who fought the hardest battles in Manila, to draw attention away from the provinces, be so disgraced by his own sons? How could the Father of the Revolution fall prey to his own sons? Could this betrayal and other resounding events in history be noted as fundamental in the creation of corruption?”
Massive and modern-day corruption, that is.
This is not to imply that there was no corruption during the time of Manuel L. Quezon (1953-44) and the subsequent administrations of Sergio S. Osmena (1944-46), Manuel A. Roxas (1946-48), Elpidio R. Quirino (1948-53), Ramon F. Magsaysay (1953-57), and Carlos P. Garcia (1957-61).
In fact, every candidate for president—from Manuel Quezon to Noynoy Aquino—has always campaigned to fight against graft and corruption in government. “Throughout our colonial history, the colonial powers utilized the local elite in exploiting and oppressing the people. In turn, the latter colluded with the colonial oppressors and exploiters so as to ingratiate themselves to the rulers and to maintain and expand their wealth and political influence in society,” said another source.
Both the Spaniards and the Americans (and the Japanese during World War II) “used the illustrados and have gifted them in return with power, education and wealth.” Unfortunately, many of them, when times got rough, were the very same people who jumped ship and joined the revolution. Again, from the Spaniards to the Americans to the Japanese to EDSA… Truly, history repeats itself.
In the process, however, the same illustrados were able to amass great wealth and political power, which they currently use to dominate the neocolonial society we have today. A puppet people make a puppet government that is subservient to the bigger powers. From Malacanang to Congress to the Judiciary to the smallest barangay to the church to the media to the Filipino family and to any other group in between, corruption permeates the whole of Philippine society.
How did this happen and when did it start to get out of hand?
The 1949 presidential elections is still considered to be the one of the most dishonest electoral exercises in the country’s history , and the Quirino administration (1948-1953; Vice president Quirino served the last part of President Manuel Roxas’s term when the latter died due to heart attack) was tainted by widespread graft and corruption. Still, nothing could compare with the brazen and institutionalized corruption that characterized the Marcos regime and Gloria- Macapagal Arroyo’s extended term.
But did Marcos, the “world -class thief” that he was, really lay the blueprint for the institutionalization of across-the- board corruption in the government?
Think and look again?
Before 1961, when Diosdado P. Macapagal was elected as president, the Philippines ranked as one of the most prosperous and advanced countries in Asia. The state even “played a key role in economic development following the dictates of import substitution and economic nationalism,” according to a certain report.
Back then, our film industry was way ahead in the region and cinema veterans say Hong Kong and others in the area learned film-making techniques from us. In the 1940s and 1950s, films of Manuel Conde and his peers competed for honors in Europe and Asia, (among the notables are Conde’s “Genghis Khan” and Lamberto Avellana’s “Anak Dalita”).In manufacturing, we even made some products better than Japan, at a time when the label “Made in Japan” was derided by many as inferior, just like many of China’s consumer products now.
And the rate of exchange was two pesos to the US dollar.
As a young child in Kindergarten, we bought our candies at two for one centavo, a highly respected coin then. That meant enjoying 10 “balikutsa,”(a native candy made of “kalamay”--caked muscovado or rough brown sugar, coconut milk and peanuts in Leyte) for five centavos.
All that changed, however, when Cong Dadong sat in Malacanang.Initially, like all other previous presidents, he vowed to work against graft and corruption in government and to stimulate the Philippine economy. (Before him, President Carlos P. Garcia, a true-blue Boholano, had drum beaten his well-known “Austerity Program” and the “Filipino First Policy” of governance, a move that displeased the US.)
Then, Macapagal placed the peso in the free-currency exchange market, which cost the treasury millions of pesos annually. And that started the ball rolling, in a manner of speaking. From that time on, the peso floated freely as the currency’s rate had soared to crisis level during the Marcos years. The so-called “Champion of the Common Man” balked and blinked in various important issues of the day—from the ceding of the British North Borneo (Sabah) and our frustrated claim to the deceptive Maphilindo (Malaysia-Philippines-Indonesia club) to the sending of troops to Vietnam, among others.
His call for reforms were mostly lip service and by the time he ran for re-election against Ferdinand E. Marcos in 1965, among the issues raised against the incumbent administration of Macapagal were graft and corruption (again!), rising prices of commodities and the worsening peace-and-order situation
In the heat of the 1965 election fever, children were chanting, “Macapagal, makamahal!, Macapagal, makamahal!, Macapagal, makamahal!”, alongside the naughty and ribald street jingle, “Divina Valencia, Stella Suarez (mother of Richard Gomez), nagbuburles…”
And then, of course, who would forget about Harry Stonehill, the Herminio Disini of Marcos and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s Joc-Joc Bolante?
The former Mr. Steinberg (Stonehill changed his German name in 1942 for practical reasons) from Chicago started his career in the Philippines during his US Army service in World War II, until he built up a $50-million business empire in Macapagal country. He said, “Every man has his price,” and in the Philippines after World War II, he found out that the going rate was fairly cheap.
At one time, Stonehill even boasted: “I am the government.”
Macapagal was identified with Stonehill, and vice versa. It is quite ironic that Cong Dadong’s autobiography was entitled “A Stone for the Edifice.” Was his subconscious still rooting for Stonehill in his later years as he put down his memoirs on paper? Or was it a cosmic atonement of some sort?
But, first, people nowadays should know who Harry Stonehill was and how he was intricately connected to Macapagal and his company of wolves. The following is an entry from cyber space and since it is written without a byline, I will quote it en toto, and “as alleged”:
“HARRY Stonehill was just about the most successful American businessman in the Philippines when Diosdado Macapagal ran for the presidency of the country. Coming out of World War II as an American soldier, Harry built a business empire and owned, among other things, the US Tobacco Corporation. He also owned most of the politicians as evidenced by his ‘blue book’ that had names, dates and amounts listed neatly.
“With Macapagal as president, Harry got into trouble because, before a congressional committee, he kept mum, refused to say anything, whether to explain or defend him. Thus, he was held in custody.
“In 1962, when Harry Stonehill refused to answer questions in the House Committee on Good Government headed by Uncle Jovy (Jovito) Salonga, he was promptly declared in contempt and detained in the chamber. But President Diosdado Macapagal connived with Speaker Kune (Cornelio) Villareal and Speaker Pro Tempore Salipada Pendatun to release him without Uncle’s knowledge. DM then quickly deported Harry. Uncle was aghast and said: 'Harry Stonehill was deported but who can deport the truth?'
“Supposedly, among the items in the blue book was the name of presidential candidate Macapagal and the amount of three (3) million pesos when, as the old folk say, “money was money.” As the story goes, Harry was told by CIA operative Edward Lansdale to help out since America was keeping a low profile in the election between President Carlos P. Garcia and Vice President Macapagal.
“Macapagal’s problem was his former brother-in-law, actor Rogelio de la Rosa, who was a third candidate in the election. The American problem was Garcia because of his “Filipino First Policy.” (A similar policy with a bias towards the bumiputra [supremacy of the Malay race] obviously worked for Malaysia, since they are now so far ahead of us.)
“Harry supposedly gave Macapagal the money, of which a million bought off Senator Rogelio de la Rosa, who, because of the buy-out, lost the next time he ran for the Senate. (Rogelio later was a standout Philippine ambassador in Cambodia and The Hague.)
“Among the sidelights of the Harry Stonehill case was Meinhart Spielman, an American executive of the US Tobacco Corp.Meinhart was a government witness against Harry Stonehill in a tax evasion case, who suddenly disappeared.
“The report was that Spielman was killed in Siasi, Sulu. As the story went, a Badjao boatman was hired to spirit Spielman away in his kumpit. As proof of the story, Spielman’s Rolex watch, his shoes and clothes were still in the kumpit many days after he disappeared.
“Then Secretary of Justice Jose Diokno, who was eventually axed by Macapagal probably for his part in the Stonehill affair, saw the kumpit story as a setup. Diokno dismissed the evidence and the story.
“Eventually, a charge of murder was filed against a real estate businessman who was, of course, acquitted because there was no corpus delictus and no witnesses to any murder.
“I bring this up simply because, to me, the present times (GMA’s administration) have the same feel to it as those times in 1961, when the Stonehill story hogged the headlines. By the way, the Harry Stonehill affair also led to the filing of an impeachment charge against Cong Dadong.
“What happened to Harry? Cong Dadong’s pals in Congress snuck (sic) through a resolution pushed by Speaker Kune Villareal, releasing Stonehill from the House Committee’s custody. Upon his release, Stonehill was then immediately deported, citing national security as the reason. He died some years ago at the age of 84 in Bangkok. His wife was a Filipina.”
In addition to this, JB Baylon in his Malaya column in September 2006 wrote: “…Harry Stonehill was one big American businessman who in the 1960s was said to have most Filipino politicians in his pocket. Most, including, we are told, the President of the Philippines, Diosdado Macapagal.
“…The investigation unearthed a ‘black book’ in which Stonehill is supposed to have listed names and codes for politicos and the corresponding monies he was giving them.
“Reading history books that account for those times, one is made to understand that the list spanned both the ruling Liberal Party and the opposition Nacionalista Party, and included, other than the incumbent president, the names of his predecessor and his wife, former President Carlos and Mrs. Leonila Garcia.”
A certain account traces the degeneration of public or civil service in the Philippines after the country became independent in 1946. (During the American colonial period, the same source said “the civil service, staffed predominantly by Filipinos, was relatively efficient.”)
“The combination of low prestige, incompetence, lousy pay and inadequate resources was demoralizing and opportunities for graft were many. The resulting corruption should not be surprising.
“…The government’s intermittent efforts to promote democracy and development in the countryside, encouraged by donor agencies and the American government, were sabotaged by conflict with the elite classes. Efforts at land reform, for example, never had much chance of success given the entrenched power of the land-owning classes.
“During the same period, the state began to lose its monopoly on armed forces. The Americans had relied on the Philippine Constabulary (PC), a legacy of the Spanish era (the Guardia Civil), to enforce their will. But as local elites gained power after the war, their private armies became a de-facto source of power and the Constabulary was undermined. The provincial bosses settled into a comfortable role in which they exchanged the large blocks of votes they controlled for economic booty and special considerations. One of the main consequences was endemic political violence.”
This socio-economic political situation has continued to the present, with the Ampatuan Massacre in Mindanao on Nov. 23, 2009 at its most violent peak. The Maguindanao warlords, like their counterparts elsewhere in the archipelago, were already well-entrenched in power and pelf through the years, and were largely abetted by the military and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s administration
Ferdinand E. Marcos, like almost all politicians in the Philippines, was a typical product of the same socio-political and economic machinery. The same report continued: “Marcos himself emerged from this corrupt environment. He learned the political trade from his father’s pre-war political campaigns for the National Assembly.”
In 1933, the 16-year-old Marcos was accused and tried for the murder of Don Mariano’s political rival, Julio Nalundasan, who was assassinated under cover of darkness in his own house. In 1939, after topping the bar, Marcos argued his case on appeal to the Supreme Court, and was acquitted a year later. (A curious footnote: Marcos’s first political presence as a defendant charged with murdering his father’s political opponent in 1933 coincided with the same year Corazon Cojuangco-Aquino, the president immediately following him, was born. On the other hand, Marcos’s death in Hawaii on Sept. 28, 1989 fell on the same day and month Diosdado Macapagal, the president immediately preceding him, was born on Sept. 28, 1910. Talk about some “cosmic links.”)
Marcos’s subsequent claims as a be-medaled war hero in World War II (exposed as a big fraud by Jose Burgos, Jr.’s We Forum that led to the paper’s raid and closure by the military in 1982) and his putative “important role in the Filipino guerilla resistance movement greatly helped his political success later, but U.S. government archives revealed that he actually played little or no part in anti-Japanese activities during 1942-45.”
Instead, it was found out that Marcos’s “wartime experience included significant black marketing and fraud. It’s not surprising that he brought the violence-oriented philosophy of the provincial politician to the national level.”
One of the justifications why he declared Martial Law on Sept. 21, 1972 was Marcos’s supposed hatred and war with the country’s old oligarchs, e.g.the Lopezes, Ayalas, Aranetas, Elizaldes, Ortigases, Moratos and their ilk. But he was a congenital liar and his oppressive regime continued to patronize the “friendly” old oligarchs, and created new ones, including those from his family and friends.
To be sure, “Marcos took corruption to unprecedented heights through systemic plundering of the Philippine economy. Members of the Marcos family and key associate accrued tremendous wealth from bribe-taking and kickbacks from crony monopolies. They also diverted government loans and contracts into their own pockets, made fortunes from profits from over-priced goods and construction projects and directly skimmed from the public trough.”
In short, Marcos’s Martial Law regime has completely institutionalized corruption in all government agencies the levels of which had permeated through the heart and soul of the Filipinos. More than anything else, it’s the one monumental legacy of Marcos that was immortalized in McDonald’s shirts after the EDSA Revolt in 1986: “5 BILLION DOLLARS STOLEN!” it screamed.
Marcos’s legacy of institutionalized corruption was fine-tuned during the succeeding administrations despite Cory Aquino’s initial efforts at “housecleaning,” in the hope of creating a good government. The roots of corruption had been deeply ingrained in our psyche though that the Cory administration did not survive from allegations of the same web of corruption, favoritism and incompetence.
To continue from the same report: “President Ramos also took on the anti-corruption mantle and made some apparent progress. The achievements of his administration were substantial, particularly in such reforms as liberalizing the telecommunications industry and welcoming foreign investments.
“However, the Ramos administration was not above reproach, as evidenced by various scandals and allegations of corruption, including the Philippine Estate Authority/Amari mess and kickbacks associated with the Centennial Expo at Clark.” That is, to name but a few.
One of the Ramos administration’s most favored real estate companies from the private sector then was the San Jose Builders (owner of Real Bank and a close friend of media man Neal Cruz of the Philippine Daily Inquirer) that almost monopolized many of their infrastructure projects in the 1990s.
“If we think of the transition from the Marcos dictatorship (dark ages) to Aquino (transitional administration) to Ramos (breakthrough administration) as three steps up the progressive ladder, then the election of Estrada in 1998 represented a throwback to a crony-dominated system that should never have happened.”
Of course, Estrada has been a dyed-in-the-wool Marcos Boy for a very long time that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to shake off and get rid of old habits. One only has to remember the fabled Boracay Mansion, the alleged centralized jueteng operations in Malacanang and Jingle Bell’s (code name for Jinggoy Estrada during the turbulent Erap administration) and his brother’s (Jude) reported monopoly on the drugs, gambling and smuggling triad.
To paraphrase from the same report, Estrada’s election was clearly understandable given the dynamics of the Philippine democratic system. His disgrace and eventual fall from power demonstrated just how flawed our system is."While corruption and a crony-dominated system may not prevent a country from growing during boom times, such a system can create major problems during bad economic times.”
To quote more from the same report: “The Philippine state remains weak, and the continued power of entrenched elites makes it difficult for the central government to provide cohesive and non-corrupt leadership.Insider factions still maneuver for their pieces of the government pie, tax collections and customs collections are highly centralized, and the Philippine bureaucracy’s long tradition of corruption remains intact. Further, the President and other national officials remain dependent on local politicians to deliver the votes on demand. All in all, a recipe for continued corruption.
“In short, the problems are structural and institutionalized.”
It is with this knowledge and background that the economist in Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has perfected the culture of corruption during her nine-year administration from 2001 to 2010. From making commissions to cutting and wheeling dubious deals to juggling and stealing government funds to massive cheating in elections to faking anything (e.g. names, bank accounts, reports and what-have-you) GMA and her caboodle of shameless “slaves” have done their thing amidst a prevailing culture of impunity.
It seems useless recounting the misdeeds of her administration and the pervasive corruption practices now under investigation without expecting justice being served in the end. Like her father Diosdado, Gloria almost walked the tight rope of impeachment, so to speak, but never did. “That’s part and parcel of the syndrome… and the continuing debacle reflects a major crisis in the entire system,” said the same report.
“Corruption occurs all over the globe and in all historical eras. Just think of 18th century England, the urban political machines of 19th century America (Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall), the caciques of Spain and Latin America, or the chaopao (godfathers) in Thailand. However, especially given the Asian economic crisis and increasing and apparently irreversible globalization, crony capitalism must somehow give way to more enlightened forms of governance if developing economies are to move forward.”
But the big question still is: How is our economy developing, and for whom?
No comments:
Post a Comment