Tag Archives: Diosdado Macapagal

[Event] Run Against Contractual Employment R.A.C.E. – Alliance of Progressive Labor

Run Against Contractual Employment R.A.C.E.

WHAT: THE R.A.C.E. Run Against Contractual Employment
WHEN: May 14, 2011
WHERE: Diosdado Macapagal H-Way, Pasay City

R.A.C.E. Run Against Contractual Employment is an advocacy campaign to gather supporters and to raise awareness against contractual employment. On May 14, 2011, we are encouraging everyone to join the first fun run against contractualization.

Invite your family and friends to join R.A.C.E. to SECURE JOBS and to SECURE LIVES!

1. Register
2. Pay via deposit thru our BPI account
3. Print waiver and confirmation


Only participants 15 years old and above may join provided registration fee is paid.
Thirty (30) minutes before the gun start the event, organizers shall ask all the participants to assemble at the start line for the announcement of rules and for warm up exercises.

The 5k and 3k starts at 5:40 a.m. promptly.

Participants may register online or on-ground

If online: Payments should be made thru bank deposit. Only BPI banks are authorized to accept
payment. After payment, you may fax the deposit slip to 02-3321378 or scan and e-mail to race.2011@yahoo.com

BANK ACCOUNT NAME: APL Alliance of Progressive Labor

If on-ground: Registration booth will be available during the event day. At exactly 4:00 a.m. on ground registration will start and will end at exactly 5:15 a.m.

AND/OR you may visit APL office for registration and payment at 94 Sct. Delgado St. Brgy. Laging Handa, Quezon City.

COURIER SERVICE: Additional Php.85.00 for delivery
YOU MAY GO TO: No. 94 Sct Delgado St., Brgy Laging Handa, Quezon   City
ON GROUND:        May 14, 2011 @ Registration booth

Race Categories Fees: Inclusive of race number, singlet
3k Php 200.00
5k Php 270.00

Top three placers of each category will receive trophy
All participants will receive certificate of participation.

Please read agreement and print Waiver @ http://www.apl.org.ph/

[Blogger] The Marcos question: What makes a hero? – Dekonztruktschon

by Rod Rivera

April 11, Malacanang, was in qualms to agree in giving the former Philippine President Ferdinand E. Marcos a space in the heroes hall. The reason is that he was awarded a medal of valor for his honorable military service, by President Diosdado Macapagal. Likewise, PNoy ordered Vice President Jejomar Binay to come up with a recommendation whether to allow the former president burial at the Libingan ng mga bayani.

April 20, just a week after, the lower house is pushing House Resolution 204, backed up by 190 strong liberal party members to favor the burial of the late president whose waxed body is in a mausoleum in his ancestral house. Representative Salvador Escudero of the 3rd district of Sorsogon justifies the move that despite Marcos was ousted he has served the country well.

Columnist Godofredo Roperos writes up on the Marcos question as a gleam of national political reconciliation that requires political wisdom and understanding of our political memory and history. On the other hand, political groups do not find any value and denounce giving the ‘dictator’ a heroes burial, as they remember the historical pain and agony of those who fought for democracy under the Marcos’ martial rule.

The question on Marcos’s burial in the Libingan ng mga Bayani brings more questions to challenge the political memory, values and social moral and nationalist spirit of the Filipino people. All these are symbolic acts. From Saussure’s semiotic traditions, what those questions bring attacks our views about our identity as people.

Every culture has heroes, and these heroes are representations of the identity and the ideals of one’s culture. The values that we share, our precepts that guide our norms and social behavior become embodied in the traits and characteristics of our heroes. As Geert Hofsteede informs, our culture is manifested in our symbols, heroes, rituals and values, and at the deeper structures of our culture is our identity as a nation as group of people sharing common national interest.

A hero to represent the Filipino nation or its culture cannot be legislated and it never has been. The academics with their rich understanding of our history, culture and nation, play an important role in appraising, appreciating and recognizing what counts heroic and who should be entitled to the abstract social symbol of a ‘hero’. Laws may grant honor to a hero, or honor to anyone, but laws should not turn anybody to a hero for a hero is a people’s expression.

However, the National Heroes committee, as formed by former President Fidel V. Ramos, arrived at some criteria for confirming a national heroes title. The committee declares that “1) heroes have concept of nation and they aspire and struggle for the nation’s freedom; 2) they have define and contribute to a system or life of freedom and order for a nation; and 3) they contribute to the quality of life and destiny of nation (Corpuz, 1993, in NHC document pp. 2-3).

The National Heroes committee extends this criteria with three other measures, stating that a hero: “1) is a part of the people’s expression; 2) thinks of the future and defines the future of generations; and 3) the choice of hero involves not only the recounting of an episode or events in history, but of the entire process that made the particular person a hero” (Lagmay, 1995, in NHC document p. 3).

True, Marcos was awarded a medal of valor, but that was just an episode in his life and outside the decades long struggle of the Filipino people against suppression of their basic rights and freedom. True, he built grand infrastructures that are visible and usable till now, but that is his duty as the country’s leader. True, he placed the country in the economic map of Asia, but it is also true that his family accumulated ill-gotten wealth from the nation’s coffers.

Laying his remains in the Libingan ng mga Bayani is a symbolic act to entitle Marcos a hero, whereas he falls shorts of the criteria to be entitled with such. Apparently, for a common kababayan of Marcos who voted for him several times even though she’s aware of how the dictator manipulated the country and suppressed the people’s freedom, my mother, a genuine Ilocana, would like Marcos’ remains to be kept where is now that is where he was from.

It is incredulous to think that burial of the former president in the Libingan ng mga Bayani would bring national political reconciliation. What is to be reconciled anyway between the Marcoses and the forgiving Filipino people. Is it not enough to be considered a symbolic act of reconciliation to allow them back and elect them in public offices?  Whatever issue between the Aquinos and the Marcoses there is, it is not a national interest. That is out of the Marcos question as a dictator to deserve hero’s burial in the graveyard of martyrs.

Read more of Rod Rivera’s writings visit Dekonztruktschon.

[In the news]Marcos burial resolution tears to shreds Edsa mandate – INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos

Marcos burial resolution tears to shreds Edsa mandate – INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos.

By Amando Doronila
Philippine Daily Inquirer
Source: Inquirer.net

MANILA, PhilippinesHouse Resolution No. 1135 seeking the burial of the late strongman Ferdinand Marcos at Libingan ng mga Bayani turned on its head the policy mandate of the 1986 Edsa People Power Revolution that toppled his 14-year dictatorship.

The resolution signed by 216 congressmen flagrantly defied the sovereign will of the people expressed by their uprising in the streets on Feb. 22-25, 1986, restoring democracy dismantled by Marcos when he declared martial law on Sept. 21, 1972.

The House move signaled the start of the campaign initiated by Marcos’ family and political heirs to restore the dictator’s political legacy through the burial of his body on the hallowed grounds of the heroes’ cemetery, according him the honors of a national hero.

This is all in defiance of the mandate of Edsa I.

The campaign to rehabilitate Marcos immediately whipped up a storm of controversy over the issue of the whether he deserved to be buried at the military cemetery, burial grounds of outstanding citizens of the Republic, including two past Presidents (Diosdado Macapagal and Carlos P. Garcia), military leaders and men of letters.

The charge against the House resolution was led by the powerful Catholic Church, which was the Marcos regime’s principal protagonist during the dictatorship.

The Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines (CEAP), the largest organized group of Catholic schools and institutions, issued a strongly worded statement on the commemoration of Araw ng Kagitingan, honoring Filipino soldiers who fought heroically to resist the superior force of Japanese invaders in Bataan 69 years ago.

The CEAP called on the congressmen who signed the House resolution to withdraw their signatures, warning them not to be part of the attempt to revise or falsify history. The statement bluntly said the resolution would “desecrate” Edsa I.

The organization pointedly denounced claims of Marcos supporters that he was a war hero as false, and went on to say that the massive corruption of the dictatorship sent the economy to its knees, turning the Philippines into the “sick man” of Asia.

Epic clash

HR 1131 triggered an epic clash over two great political traditions that have defined the themes of political discourse during the past 39 years.

The discourse is framed by the demolition of Philippine democracy and the establishment of a dictatorship in September 1972 and by the restoration of democracy with the Edsa People Power Revolution of February 1986.

For four decades, these traditions have marked the cleavage line along which Philippine politics has polarized.

Once again, the dictatorship-vs-democratic restoration paradigm has been forced up to the surface with the House initiative seeking the political rehabilitation of Marcos and legitimizing the the dictatorial legacy of his regime.

The House resolution was a sharp attack to overturn the doctrine that Edsa I ended the dictatorship. The revolution was an emphatic and direct exercise by the people of their sovereign right to change regimes.
Attack on mandate
No legislative act of elected representatives of the people in parliament can revoke that mandate of the Edsa People Power Revolution.

Thus, HR 1135 clearly contravenes the mandate of Edsa I to abolish the dictatorship and cannot be used by members of Congress to engineer the restoration of the Marcos dictatorial legacy and vindicate the regime with the flimsy argument that burying Marcos at Libingan ng mga Bayani would bring to a closure the dark episode of the dictatorship, promote national reconciliation and allow the country to “move on” toward national unity.

Those who signed the resolution are members of a political institution that was one of the first to be padlocked by Marcos when he declared martial law.

The lawmakers have also become the beneficiaries of a free and independent legislature that was restored by President Corazon Aquino in the wake of the l986 revolution.

And yet they are now at the forefront of the campaign to restore the legacy of the Marcos regime, ignoring in the process the fact that Edsa I was the charter of the abolition of the dictatorship and the restoration of Philippine democracy.

The congressmen are not in step with redemocratization. They are swimming against the historic tide of democratic restoration following Edsa I.

They are backsliding to the era when complicit parliament served as a rubber stamp of the dictatorship. The congressmen would find it hard to claim that their resolution represents the sentiment of the people in regard to Marcos’ rehabilitation.

No accountability

When the Philippines rejected the dictatorship in Edsa I, we didn’t make a clean break with a sordid past. Even with the restoration of democratic structures we have remained chained to the past.

Representatives of the people in Congress have been beguiled by the false argument that the rehabilitation of Marcos is an act of “statesmanship” that can throw wide open the gates of national reconciliation.

Under this approach, there is no recognition of accountability. There is no concession of wrongdoing and no expression of remorse for the plunder of public wealth and the deaths, disappearances and torture of victims in military “safe houses” of the dictatorship’s gulag system.

The Marcos heirs are back to positions of power and influence after free elections, flaunting their wealth, and mocking the Edsa People Power Revolution as if it never happened. There is no reconciliation without justice and no concession of guilt. The House resolution has torn to shreds the people power mandate that rejected the dictatorship.