Bells ring for freedom
By Adrian E. Cristobal
A DISCORDANT note in the centennial celebration of the Philippine Independence was the unacceptability to some historians, Bonifacio descendants, and an undetermined number of Filipinos of its central figure: Emilio Aguinaldo y Famy.
In all of his recollections, Aguinaldo admitted having ordered the execution of the founder of the Katipunan and the initiator of the Revolution and his brother Procopio, although he assigned some of the blame to Generals Mariano Noriel and Pio del Pilar, who convinced him not to commute the death sentence of the Military Tribunal to destiero, or exile.
For this act, the aforementioned historians, descendants, and Filipinos are horrified by the rumor that Aguinaldo might be proclaimed as a national hero by President Fidel V. Ramos.
Aguinaldo's stigma
And yet, like it or not, Emilio Aguinaldo was an important figure in the Revolution and the central figure in the Philippine-American war, and on that account could be very well acclaimed a national hero, provided Andres Bonifacio is similarly proclaimed. Nevertheless, the problem remains: How to regard the man who had the Great Plebeian executed, or, to some, murdered?
The historian Epifanio de los Santos y Cristobal, who was Aguinaldo's aide de camp, realized the difficulty early on, when he wrote his book, ''The Revolutionists,'' a collection of essays on Bonifacio, Aguinaldo, and Emilio Jacinto.
Regarding Bonifacio and Aguinaldo as heroes, he had to rationalize the killing of Bonifacio without diminishing the heroism of both.
In brief, he attributed Bonifacio's fate to ''the evil in our hearts'' and the confusion of the times, and at the same time hinted at Bonifacio's temper as a man who had known much hardship, lacking, in short, in the ''civilized'' qualities of more temperate men.
In the accounts of the Kalaws, father and son, Bonifacio's slaying was dictated by ''revolutionary necessity,'' a term widely used in the purges of the Stalinist era.
Others, however, like Julio Nakpil, the man who married Bonifacio's widow, Gregoria de Jesus, and Apolinario Mabini himself, who was Aguinaldo's prime minister (''the brains of the Revolution'') considered Bonifacio's execution an inexcusable act. Mabini was even more severe when he wrote that the president of the First Republic would have fared better in the eyes of history if he had died in battle.
Different consciousness
Throughout his life, Aguinaldo was haunted by the slaying on Mount Buntis, as an undetermined number of Filipinos are now haunted by the restless ghost of Andres Bonifacio.
Equally, some historians maintain that the Bonifacio brothers had a proper trial. On the other hand, former Supreme court Associate Justice Abraham Sarmiento, examining the transcript, concluded that the Supremo of the Katipunan was subjected to a kangaroo court.
But Justice Sarmiento looked at the codified murder (if the phrase might be used) from the distance of a hundred years, in the same manner that I.F. Stone and Renan looked at the trials of Socrates and Jesus Christ from the distance of 2000 years. Needless to say, there is difference in circumstances and consciousness.
Irony
Now, the centenary of our independence is supposed to bind all Filipinos in unity. It has been suggested that we gloss over the ugly facts and simply take Bonifacio and Aguinaldo as the heroes they undoubtedly were.
The irony is that although the enemy, the Americans, had good things to say about Aguinaldo's courage and leadership, Filipinos are less than unanimous about him because of what he did to Andres Bonifacio. The parallel is Stalin's spoliation of the ''innocence'' of the Russian Revolution by having Leon Trotsky axed in Mexico.
If the ardent admirers of Andres Bonifacio were to have their way, the Great Plebeian should be honored and the memory of Emilio Aguinaldo y Famy consigned to the dustbin of history. This they obviously regard as a necessary rectification of our history.
But then that would render the centennial celebrations as either flawed in the least or a mockery at most. A new breed of historians even maintains that Bonifacio was actually the president of the First Philippine Republic.
The question is whether this vindication can do us, the living celebrators, any good. Why not accept the facts as they were, give Aguinaldo and the Independence he proclaimed its due, and reserve the primary places in the heroic pantheon to Dr. Jose P. Rizal and Andres Bonifacio?
This is not an absolute solution, but that, as a movie title suggested, was the way we were. Our mission is to determine what we want to be.
By Adrian E. Cristobal
A DISCORDANT note in the centennial celebration of the Philippine Independence was the unacceptability to some historians, Bonifacio descendants, and an undetermined number of Filipinos of its central figure: Emilio Aguinaldo y Famy.
In all of his recollections, Aguinaldo admitted having ordered the execution of the founder of the Katipunan and the initiator of the Revolution and his brother Procopio, although he assigned some of the blame to Generals Mariano Noriel and Pio del Pilar, who convinced him not to commute the death sentence of the Military Tribunal to destiero, or exile.
For this act, the aforementioned historians, descendants, and Filipinos are horrified by the rumor that Aguinaldo might be proclaimed as a national hero by President Fidel V. Ramos.
Aguinaldo's stigma
And yet, like it or not, Emilio Aguinaldo was an important figure in the Revolution and the central figure in the Philippine-American war, and on that account could be very well acclaimed a national hero, provided Andres Bonifacio is similarly proclaimed. Nevertheless, the problem remains: How to regard the man who had the Great Plebeian executed, or, to some, murdered?
The historian Epifanio de los Santos y Cristobal, who was Aguinaldo's aide de camp, realized the difficulty early on, when he wrote his book, ''The Revolutionists,'' a collection of essays on Bonifacio, Aguinaldo, and Emilio Jacinto.
Regarding Bonifacio and Aguinaldo as heroes, he had to rationalize the killing of Bonifacio without diminishing the heroism of both.
In brief, he attributed Bonifacio's fate to ''the evil in our hearts'' and the confusion of the times, and at the same time hinted at Bonifacio's temper as a man who had known much hardship, lacking, in short, in the ''civilized'' qualities of more temperate men.
In the accounts of the Kalaws, father and son, Bonifacio's slaying was dictated by ''revolutionary necessity,'' a term widely used in the purges of the Stalinist era.
Others, however, like Julio Nakpil, the man who married Bonifacio's widow, Gregoria de Jesus, and Apolinario Mabini himself, who was Aguinaldo's prime minister (''the brains of the Revolution'') considered Bonifacio's execution an inexcusable act. Mabini was even more severe when he wrote that the president of the First Republic would have fared better in the eyes of history if he had died in battle.
Different consciousness
Throughout his life, Aguinaldo was haunted by the slaying on Mount Buntis, as an undetermined number of Filipinos are now haunted by the restless ghost of Andres Bonifacio.
Equally, some historians maintain that the Bonifacio brothers had a proper trial. On the other hand, former Supreme court Associate Justice Abraham Sarmiento, examining the transcript, concluded that the Supremo of the Katipunan was subjected to a kangaroo court.
But Justice Sarmiento looked at the codified murder (if the phrase might be used) from the distance of a hundred years, in the same manner that I.F. Stone and Renan looked at the trials of Socrates and Jesus Christ from the distance of 2000 years. Needless to say, there is difference in circumstances and consciousness.
Irony
Now, the centenary of our independence is supposed to bind all Filipinos in unity. It has been suggested that we gloss over the ugly facts and simply take Bonifacio and Aguinaldo as the heroes they undoubtedly were.
The irony is that although the enemy, the Americans, had good things to say about Aguinaldo's courage and leadership, Filipinos are less than unanimous about him because of what he did to Andres Bonifacio. The parallel is Stalin's spoliation of the ''innocence'' of the Russian Revolution by having Leon Trotsky axed in Mexico.
If the ardent admirers of Andres Bonifacio were to have their way, the Great Plebeian should be honored and the memory of Emilio Aguinaldo y Famy consigned to the dustbin of history. This they obviously regard as a necessary rectification of our history.
But then that would render the centennial celebrations as either flawed in the least or a mockery at most. A new breed of historians even maintains that Bonifacio was actually the president of the First Philippine Republic.
The question is whether this vindication can do us, the living celebrators, any good. Why not accept the facts as they were, give Aguinaldo and the Independence he proclaimed its due, and reserve the primary places in the heroic pantheon to Dr. Jose P. Rizal and Andres Bonifacio?
This is not an absolute solution, but that, as a movie title suggested, was the way we were. Our mission is to determine what we want to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment