Magellan’s First Voyage around the World by Pigafetta

Ferdinand Magellan was born in Portugal in1480 and died in 1521. As

a boy, he studied mapmaking and navigation. By his mid-20s, he was sailing
in large fleets and was engaged in combats. He led the first voyage around
the world, beginning in 1519 by sailing southward along the coast of South
America. Magellan discovered the strait that today bears his name became
the first European to cross the Pacific Ocean from the west to the far-east
(Zaide, 1998).

Magellan’s Route around the world (September 20, 1519 – September 6, 1522)

Crum (2007) states that Antonio Pigafetta was an Italian scholar and
explorer born between 1491 and died in1531. He joined the expedition to the
Spice Islands led by explorer Ferdinand Magellan. His document reveals
several insights not just in the character of the Philippines during the pre-
colonial period but also on how the fresh eyes of the Europeans regard a
deeply unfamiliar terrain, environment, people, and culture.

Locating Pigafetta's account in the context of its writing warrants a

familiarity on the dominant frame of mind in the age of exploration which
pervaded Europe in the 15th and 16th century. Students of history need to
realize that primary sources used in the subsequent written histories depart
from certain perspectives. Thus, Pigafetta's account is also written from the
perspective of Pigafetta himself, and was a product of the context of its
production.

The First Voyage around the World by Magellan was published after
Pigafetta returned to Italy. For this first topic, we will focus on the chronicles
of Antonio Pigafetta as he wrote his firsthand observation and general
impression of the Far East, including their experiences in Visayas. In
Pigafetta's account, their fleet reached what he called the Ladrones Island or
the Island of the Thieves. He recounted:

"These people have no arms, but use sticks, which have a fish bone at
the end. They are poor, but ingenious, and great thieves, and for the
sake of that we called these three islands the Ladrones Islands."

Landrones Island

The Ladrones Islands is presently known as the Marianas Islands.

These islands are located south-southeast of Japan. West-southwest of
Hawaii north of New Guinea, and east of Philippines. Ten days after they
reached Ladrone Island, Pigafetta reported that they reached what Pigafetta
called the isle of Zamal, now Samar but Magellan decided to land in another
uninhabited island for greater security where they can rest for a few days.

Pigafetta recounted that after two days, March 18, nine men came to
them and showed joy and eagerness in seeing them. Magellan realized that
the men are reasonable and welcomed them with food, drinks, and gifts. In
turn, the natives gave those fish, palm wine (uraca), īgs, and 30 two cochos.
The natives also gave them rice (umat), cocos, and other food supplies,
Pigafetta detailed in amazement and fascination the palm tree which bore
fruits called cocho, and wine. He also described what seemed like a coconut.

Pigafetta characterized the people as "very familiar and friendly" and

willingly showed them different islands and the names of these islands the
fleet went to Humunu Island (Homonhon) and there they found what
Pigafetta referred to as the Watering Place of good signs. It is in this place
where Pigafetta wrote that they found the first signs of gold in the island
they named the island with the nearby islands as the archipelago of St.
Lazarus. They left the island, then on March 25th Pigafetta recounted that
they saw two Ballanghai (barangay), a long boat full of people in
Mazzava/Mazaua.

The leader, who Pigafetta referred to as the king of the Ballanghai

(balangay), sent his men to the ship of Magellan. The Europeans entertained
these men and gave them gifts. When the king of the balangay offered to
give Magellan a bar of gold and a chest of ginger, Magellan declined.
Magellan sent the interpreter to the king and asked for money for the needs
of his ships and expressed that he came into the islands as a friend and not
as an enemy.

The king responded by giving Magellan the needed provisions of

food in chinaware, Magellan exchanged gifts of robes in Turkish fashion,
red cap, and gave the people knives and mirrors. The two then expressed
their desire to become brothers. Magellan also boasted of his men in armor
who cannot be struck with swords and daggers. The king was fascinated
and remarked that men in such armor can be worth one hundred of his men.
Magellan further showed the king his other weapons, helmets, and
artilleries. Magellan also shared with the king his charts and maps and
shared how they found the islands.

After a few days, Magellan was introduced to the king's brother who
was also a king of another island. They went to this island and Pigafetta
reported that they saw mines of gold. The gold was abundant that parts of
the ship and of the house of the second king were made of gold. Pigafetta
described this king as the most handsome of all the men that he saw in this
place. He was also adorned with silk and gold accessories like a golden
dagger, which he carries with him 31 in a wooden polished sheath. This king
is named Raia Calambu, king of Zuluan and Calagan, Butuan and Caragua
and the first king was Raia Siagu.

On March 31st, which happened to be Easter Sunday, Magellan

ordered the chaplain to say a mass by the shore. The king heard of this plan
and sent two dead pigs and attended the mass with the other king. Pigafetta
reported that both kings participated in the mass.
First Mass in the Philippines (April 27, 1521)

When the mass had ended, Magellan ordered that the cross be
brought with nails and crown in place. Magellan explained that the cross,
the nail, and the crown were the signs of his emperor and that he was
ordered to plant it in the places that he will reach. Magellan further
explained that the cross will be beneficial for their people because once other
Spaniards saw this cross, then they would know that they have been in this
land and would not cause those troubles, and any person who might be held
captives by them will be released.

Raha Calambu concurred and allowed for the cross to be planted. This
mass will go down in history as the “First Mass in the Philippines”, and the
cross will be the famed Magellan's cross still preserved at present day, after
seven days, Magellan and his men decided to move and look for islands
where they can acquire more supplies and provisions.

They learned of the islands of Ceylon (Leyte), Bohol, and Zzubu

(Cebu) and intended to go there. Raha Calambu offered to pilot them in
going to Cebu, the largest and the richest of the islands. By April 7th of the
same year, Magellan and his men reached the port of Cebu. The king of
Cebu, through Magellan's interpreter demanded that they pay tribute as it
was customary, but Magellan refused. Magellan said that he was a captain
of a king himself and thus would not pay tribute to other kings. Magellan's
interpreter explained to the king of Cebu that Magellan's king was the
emperor of a great empire and that it would do them better to make friends
with them than to forge enmity. The king of Cebu consulted his council. By
the next day, Magellan's men and the king of Cebu, together with other
principal men of Cebu, met in an open space. There the king offered a bit of
his blood and demanded that Magellan do the same.

The next day. Magellan spoke before the people of Cebu about peace
and God. Pigafetta reported that the people took pleasure in Magellan's
speech. Magellan then asked the people who would succeed the king after
his reign and the people responded that the eldest child of the king, who
happened to be a daughter, would be the next in line. Pigafetta also related
how the people talked about, how at old age, parents are no longer taken
into account and had to follow the orders of their children as the new leaders
of the land.

Magellan responded to this by saying that his faith entails children to

render honor and obedience to their mother and father. Magellan reached
about their faith further and people were reportedly convinced Pigafetta
wrote that their men were overjoyed seeing that the people wished to
become Christians through their free will and not because they were forced
or intimidated On the 14th of April, the people gathered with the king and
other principal men of the islands. Magellan spoke to the king and
encouraged him to be a good Christian by burning all of the idols and
worship the cross instead. The king of Cebu was then baptized as a
Christian.

It was after eight days when Pigafetta counted that all of the island
inhabitants were already baptized. He admitted that they burned a village
down for obeying neither the king nor Magellan. The mass started to be
conducted by the shore every day. When the queen came to mass, Magellan
gave her an image of the Infant Jesus made by Pigafetta himself. The king of
Cebu swore that he would always be faithful to Magellan. When Magellan
reiterated that all of the 33 newly baptized Christians need to burn their
idols but the natives gave excuses telling Magellan that they needed the
idols to heal a sick man who was a relative to the king, Magellan insisted
that they should instead put their faith in Jesus Christ. They went to the sick
man and baptized him. After the baptismal, Pigafetta recorded that the man
was able to speak again. He called this a miracle.

On the 26th of April, Zula, a principal man from the island of Matan
(Mactan) went to see Magellan and asked him for a boat full of men so that
he would be able to fight the chief named Silapulapu (Lapulapu). Such chief,
according to Zula, refused to obey the king and was also preventing him
from doing so, Magellan offered three boats instead and expressed his
desire to go to Mactan himself to fight the said chief Magellan's forces
arrived in Mactan in daylight. They numbered 49 in total and the islanders
of Mactan were estimated to number 1,500. The battle began. Pigafetta
recounted:

On the 26th of April, Zula, a principal man from the island of Matan
(Mactan) went to see Magellan and asked him for a boat full of men so that
he would be able to fight the chief named Silapulapu (Lapulapu). Such chief,
according to Zula, refused to obey the king and was also preventing him
from doing so, Magellan offered three boats instead and expressed his
desire to go to Mactan himself to fight the said chief Magellan's forces
arrived in Mactan in daylight. They numbered 49 in total and the islanders
of Mactan were estimated to number 1,500. The battle began. Pigafetta
recounted:

Battle of Mactan (April 27, 1521)

“When we reached land we found the islanders fifteen hundred in

number, drawn up in three squadrons; they came down upon us with
terrible shouts, two squadrons attacking us on the Hanks, and the
third in front. The captain then divided his men in two bands. Our
musketeers and crossbow-men fired for half an hour from a distance,
but did nothing since the bullets and arrows, though they passed
through their shields made of thin wood, and perhaps wounded their
arms, yet did not stop them. Perceiving that our bodies were
protected with armors, the natives aimed in our legs instead. The
captain shouted not to fire, but he was not listened to. The natives
seeing that the shots of our guns did them little or no harm would not
retire, but shouted more loudly, and springing from one side to the
 other to avoid our shots, they at the same time drew nearer to us,
throwing arrows, javelins, spears hardened in fire, stones, and even
mad, so that we could hardly defend ourselves. While the Indians
were thus overpowering the captain, several times he turned around
towards us to see if we were all in safety, as though his obstinate fight
had no other object than to give an opportunity for the retreat of his
men. “The captain was specifically targeted because the natives knew
that he was the captain general. He was pierced with a poisoned
arrow in his right leg and was hit with a lance in the face. The captain
retaliated and pierced the native with his lance in the breast and tried
to draw his sword but could not lift it because of his wounded arm...
Seeing that the captain has already deteriorated, more natives came
to attack him. One Native with a great sword delivered a blow in the
captain left leg, brought him face down and the natives ceaselessly
attacked the captain with lances, swords, and even with their bare
hands. The captain died in that battle.

Pigafetta also said that the king of Cebu who was baptized could have
sent help but Magellan instructed him not to join the battle and stay in the
balangay so that he would see how they fight. The king offered the people
Mactan gifts of any value and amount in exchange of Magellan’s body but
the chief refused. They wanted to keep Magellan’s body as a momento of
their victory.

Magellan’s men elected Duarte Barbosa as the new captain. Pigafetta

also told how Magellan’s slave and interpreter named Henry betrayed them
and told the king of Cebu that they intend to leave as quickly as possible.
Pigafetta alleged that the slave told the king that if he followed the slave’s
advice, then the king could acquire the ships and the goods of Magellan
fleet. The two conspired and betrayed what was left of Magellan’s men. The
king invited these men to a gathering where he said he would present the
jewels that he would send for the King of Spain.

Pigafetta was not able to join the twenty-four men who attended
because he was nursing his battle wounds. It was only a short time when
they heard cries and lamentations. The natives had slain all of the men
except the interpreter and Juan Serrano who was already wounded. Serrano
was presented and shouted at the men on the ship asking them to pay
ransom so he would be spared. However, they refused and would not allow
anyone to go to the shore. The fleet departed and abandoned Serrano, they
left Cebu and continued their journey around the world and of the five ships
that compose Magellan’s Expedition, only ship Victoria was able to return
to Spain on September 6, 1522.
ACTIVITY:

Direction: Give a concise explanation/discussion on the following items.

1. Is the account of Pigafetta a credible source of the first voyage? Why or

why not?

2. Were there any biases made by Pigafetta that would sugar-coat or cover
up what had really happened in past? Why do you think so?

3. Based on the account, did Magellan really circumnavigate the world first?

4. “Magellan discovered the Philippines.” Is the term “discovery”

appropriate to describe the arrival of Magellan in our country? Why or why
not?

5. What is the significance of Magellan’s Voyage?

The KKK and the Kartilya ng Katipunan, Analysis of the "Kartilya ng
Katipunan

Cristobal (1997) stated that the writing of the Kartilya has always been
attributed to Emilio Jacinto. Bonifacio, had initially planned that his
“Decalogue” should be published and given to newcomers, but he then read
Jacinto’s Kartilya and concluded it was better and exceptional. The two
documents, however, are not really similar. The Supremo pursues only to
specify the duties and responsibilities of Katipunan associates, Jacinto
expresses in his writing, a declaration of aspirations and ethical principles.
Bonifacio in his Decalogue lists ten responsibilities; Jacinto presents twelve
“guiding principles” and fourteen “teachings”.

The earliest mention to the Kartilya according to Richardson (2013)

yet discovered is in the transcripts of a Supreme Assembly conference held
in December 1895, which declare that each copy of the Kartilya will be
priced at 4 kualta. Whether it is the Kataastaasan, Kagalanggalang
Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan (KKK) divisions or the new recruits who
are to pay for this price is not clear, and nor is it known whether the phrase
– Sa May Nasang Makisanib sa Katipunang Ito (“To those who want to join
this Katipunan” - means possible recruits, or to mean to those who have
previously joined this Katipunan. If the copies were sold both to the
potential members as well as recruits there was is a severe danger they
might fall into the authorities.

Richardson (2018) states that The Kartilya was in use during the first
stage of the revolt, and Andres Bonifacio as the Supremo was preparing to
publish more copies shortly before he was executed. It may still have been
in circulation during the second stage of the uprising, because a version
survives in the Philippine Insurgent Records (PIR) that is printed with the
seal used by Artemio Ricarte in 1899. This edition contains mostly the same
text, but it bears a different title – “Final Declaration on Admission to the
Katipunan” (Katapusang pamamahayag sa pagpasok sa K.)

Additional Materials: Research, read and understand the Kartilya ng

Katipunan and the Code of Conduct of the Katipunan.
 Kartilya ng Katipunan
ACTIVITY

1. Give three (3) things you have found out about the Kartilya ng
Katipunan

2. What are the interesting things about the teachings mentioned in

the Kartilya upon analyzing the primary source? Give two and
explain why you think it caught your attention.

3. Choose one teaching from the Kartilya and explain why it is

needed, especially in our present situation.
The Political Cartoons: A Glance at Selected Philippine, Political Caricature
in Alfred McCoy Philippine Cartoons Political Caricature of the American
Era (1900-1941)

1. To properly interpret the selected Political Cartoons: Political Caricature

of the American Era 1900 – 1941 through examining the content and context
of the documents,
2. To understand the context behind each selected Political Cartoons and
Caricature.

Content:
Such accounts in Philippine History need to be understand the
politics and society and understood not only through text but also cartoons
or caricatures. Political cartoons and caricature are a rather recent art form,
which veered away from the classical art by exaggerating human features
and poking funs at its subjects. This is a graphic with caricatures of public
figures, expressing opinions in the every significant event in our history.
This is a combination of artistic skill, hyperbole and satire in order to
question authority and draw attention to corruption, political violence and
other social ills that is worthy of historical examination.

In his book Philippine Cartoons: Political Caricature of the American

Era (1900-1941). Alfred McCoy, together with Alfred Roces, compiled
political cartoons published in newspaper dailies and periodicals in the
aforementioned time period. For this part, we are going to look at selected
cartoons and explain the context of each one.

Political cartoon, according to Knieper (2018) are drawings (often

including caricature) made for the purpose of conveying editorial
commentary on politics, politicians, and current events. Such cartoons play
a role in the political discourse of a society that provides for freedom of
speech and of the press. They are a primarily opinion-oriented medium and
can generally be found on the editorial pages of newspapers and other
journalistic outlets, whether in print or electronic form. Their subject matter
is usually that of current and newsworthy political issues, and, in order for
them to be understood, they require that readers possess some basic
background knowledge about their subject matter, ideally that provided by
the medium in which they are published.

Philippine political cartoons gained full expression during the

American era. Filipino artists recorded national attitudes toward the coming
of the Americans as well as the changing mores and times. While the 377
cartoons compiled in this book speak for themselves, historian Alfred
McCoy’s extensive research in Philippine and American archives provides
a comprehensive background not only to the cartoons but to the turbulent
period as well. Artist-writer Alfredo Roces, who designed the book,
contributes an essay on Philippine graphic satire of the period.

McCoy (1985) stated that viewed from the vantage point of half
century and more, these prewar political cartoons are an evocative record of
a half forgotten history. The scandals, struggles and social changes of the
American colonial period gain an immediacy in these graphic images that
eludes even the most eloquent historical prose. The four decades of
American colonial rule were a formative period in Philippine history. Under
a US colonialism that was simultaneously brutal and beneficent, grasping
and generous, the Philippines moved forward from an authoritarian
Spanish regime to autonomy and independence, In the process, Filipinos
shaped many of the institutions and cultural characteristics which are still
central to life in the modern republic. Under US tutelage, the Philippines
experienced a process of Americanization and modernization that has left a
lasting legacy.

There are a lot of issues covered by the book focusing heavily on

commentary on politics and politicians, corruptions, society and many
more. Here are some political cartoons which appeared in the book.

ACTIVITY:
Below are the selected Political Cartoons. Make an analysis of the
identified caricatures according to the table.

Political
Meaning of
Caricature Objectives/People Important or Social
Each symbol
Title that you see Clues Issues
(objects/people)
presented
Manila:
The
Corruption
of a City
The
Distant
Provinces
The
Colonial
Condition

Uncle Sam
and Little
Juan
Works of Juan Luna and Fernando Amorsolo

ACTIVITY:

Juan Luna

Title of Painting Elements/Principles Meaning/Message

Spoliarium

The Parisian Life

Fernando Amorsolo

Antipolo Fiesta

Palay Maiden
Speech of Corazon C. Aquino before the US Congress

To properly interpret the speech of Corazon C. Aquino delivered in the US

Congress through examining the content and context of the document.

Escobar (2018) narrates that when former President Corazon Aquino spoke
before a joint session of the United States Congress in September of 1986,
the dust was only beginning to settle. It was her first visit to America since
the dictator Ferdinand Marcos had been deposed in February of the same
year, and the Philippines was reckoning with everything his administration
had inflicted. That included $26 billion in total foreign debt, and a
communist insurgency that grew, throughout the Marcos era, from 500
armed guerillas to 16,000. We were just at the start of a long road to recovery.

Escobar (2018) narrates that when former President Corazon Aquino spoke
before a joint session of the United States Congress in September of 1986,
the dust was only beginning to settle. It was her first visit to America since
the dictator Ferdinand Marcos had been deposed in February of the same
year, and the Philippines was reckoning with everything his administration
had inflicted. That included $26 billion in total foreign debt, and a
communist insurgency that grew, throughout the Marcos era, from 500
armed guerillas to 16,000. We were just at the start of a long road to recovery.

Speech
of
Her Excellency Corazon C. Aquino
President of the Philippines
During the Joint Session of the United States Congress
[Delivered at Washington, D.C., on September 18, 1986]
(Speech taken from the Official Gazette of the Republic of the
Philippines https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1986/09/18/speech-of-
president-corazon-aquino-during-the-joint session-of-the-u-s-congress-
september-18-1986/)

“Three years ago, I left America in grief to bury my husband, Ninoy Aquino.
I thought I had left it also to lay to rest his restless dream of Philippine
freedom. Today, I have returned as the president of a free people.

In burying Ninoy, a whole nation honored him. By that brave and selfless
act of giving honor, a nation in shame recovered its own. A country that had
lost faith in its future found it in a faithless and brazen act of murder. So in
giving, we receive, in losing we find, and out of defeat, we snatched our
victory.
For the nation, Ninoy became the pleasing sacrifice that answered their
prayers for freedom. For myself and our children, Ninoy was a loving
husband and father. His loss, three times in our lives, was always a deep
and painful one.

Fourteen years ago this month was the first time we lost him. A president-
turned-dictator, and traitor to his oath, suspended the Constitution and shut
down the Congress that was much like this one before which I am honored
to speak. He detained my husband along with thousands of others –
senators, publishers and anyone who had spoken up for the democracy as
its end drew near. But for Ninoy, a long and cruel ordeal was reserved. The
dictator already knew that Ninoy was not a body merely to be imprisoned
but a spirit he must break. For even as the dictatorship demolished one by
one the institutions of democracy – the press, the Congress, the
independence of the judiciary, the protection of the Bill of Rights – Ninoy
kept their spirit alive in himself.

The government sought to break him by indignities and terror. They locked
him up in a tiny, nearly airless cell in a military camp in the north. They
stripped him naked and held the threat of sudden midnight execution over
his head. Ninoy held up manfully–all of it. I barely did as well. For 43 days,
the authorities would not tell me what had happened to him. This was the
first time my children and I felt we had lost him.

When that didn’t work, they put him on trial for subversion, murder and a
host of other crimes before a military commission. Ninoy challenged its
authority and went on a fast. If he survived it, then, he felt, God intended
him for another fate. We had lost him again. For nothing would hold him
back from his determination to see his fast through to the end. He stopped
only when it dawned on him that the government would keep his body alive
after the fast had destroyed his brain. And so, with barely any life in his
body, he called off the fast on the fortieth day. God meant him for other
things, he felt. He did not know that an early death would still be his fate,
that only the timing was wrong.

At any time during his long ordeal, Ninoy could have made a separate peace
with the dictatorship, as so many of his countrymen had done. But the spirit
of democracy that inheres in our race and animates this chamber could not
be allowed to die. He held out, in the loneliness of his cell and the frustration
of exile, the democratic alternative to the insatiable greed and mindless
cruelty of the right and the purging holocaust of the left.
And then, we lost him, irrevocably and more painfully than in the past. The
news came to us in Boston. It had to be after the three happiest years of our
lives together. But his death was my country’s resurrection in the courage
and faith by which alone they could be free again. The dictator had called
him a nobody. Two million people threw aside their passivity and escorted
him to his grave. And so began the revolution that has brought me to
democracy’s most famous home, the Congress of the United States.

The task had fallen on my shoulders to continue offering the democratic

alternative to our people.

Archibald Macleish had said that democracy must be defended by arms

when it is attacked by arms and by truth when it is attacked by lies. He failed
to say how it shall be won.

I held fast to Ninoy’s conviction that it must be by the ways of democracy. I

held out for participation in the 1984 election the dictatorship called, even if
I knew it would be rigged. I was warned by the lawyers of the opposition
that I ran the grave risk of legitimizing the foregone results of elections that
were clearly going to be fraudulent. But I was not fighting for lawyers but
for the people in whose intelligence I had implicit faith. By the exercise of
democracy, even in a dictatorship, they would be prepared for democracy
when it came. And then, also, it was the only way I knew by which we could
measure our power even in the terms dictated by the dictatorship.

The people vindicated me in an election shamefully marked by government

thuggery and fraud. The opposition swept the elections, garnering a clear
majority of the votes, even if they ended up, thanks to a corrupt Commission
on Elections, with barely a third of the seats in parliament. Now, I knew our
power.

Last year, in an excess of arrogance, the dictatorship called for its doom in a
snap election. The people obliged. With over a million signatures, they
drafted me to challenge the dictatorship. And I obliged them. The rest is the
history that dramatically unfolded on your television screen and across the
front pages of your newspapers.

You saw a nation, armed with courage and integrity, stand fast by
democracy against threats and corruption. You saw women poll watchers
break out in tears as armed goons crashed the polling places to steal the
ballots but, just the same, they tied themselves to the ballot boxes. You saw
a people so committed to the ways of democracy that they were prepared to
give their lives for its pale imitation. At the end of the day, before another
wave of fraud could distort the results, I announced the people’s victory.

The distinguished co-chairman of the United States observer team in his

report to your President described that victory:

“I was witness to an extraordinary manifestation of democracy on the part

of the Filipino people. The ultimate result was the election of Mrs. Corazon
C. Aquino as President and Mr. Salvador Laurel as Vice-President of the
Philippines.”

Many of you here today played a part in changing the policy of your country
towards us. We, Filipinos, thank each of you for what you did: for, balancing
America’s strategic interest against human concerns, illuminates the
American vision of the world.

When a subservient parliament announced my opponent’s victory, the

people turned out in the streets and proclaimed me President. And true to
their word, when a handful of military leaders declared themselves against
the dictatorship, the people rallied to their protection. Surely, the people
take care of their own. It is on that faith and the obligation it entails, that I
assumed the presidency.

As I came to power peacefully, so shall I keep it. That is my contract with

my people and my commitment to God. He had willed that the blood drawn
with the lash shall not, in my country, be paid by blood drawn by the sword
but by the tearful joy of reconciliation.

We have swept away absolute power by a limited revolution that respected

the life and freedom of every Filipino. Now, we are restoring full
constitutional government. Again, as we restored democracy by the ways of
democracy, so are we completing the constitutional structures of our new
democracy under a constitution that already gives full respect to the Bill of
Rights. A jealously independent Constitutional Commission is completing
its draft which will be submitted later this year to a popular referendum.
When it is approved, there will be congressional elections. So within about
a year from a peaceful but national upheaval that overturned a dictatorship,
we shall have returned to full constitutional government. Given the
polarization and breakdown we inherited, this is no small achievement.

My predecessor set aside democracy to save it from a communist

insurgency that numbered less than 500. Unhampered by respect for human
rights, he went at it hammer and tongs. By the time he fled, that insurgency
had grown to more than 16,000. I think there is a lesson here to be learned
about trying to stifle a thing with the means by which it grows.

I don’t think anybody, in or outside our country, concerned for a democratic

and open Philippines, doubts what must be done. Through political
initiatives and local reintegration programs, we must seek to bring the
insurgents down from the hills and, by economic progress and justice, show
them that for which the best intentioned among them fight.

As President, I will not betray the cause of peace by which I came to power.
Yet equally, and again no friend of Filipino democracy will challenge this, I
will not stand by and allow an insurgent leadership to spurn our offer of
peace and kill our young soldiers, and threaten our new freedom.

Yet, I must explore the path of peace to the utmost for at its end, whatever
disappointment I meet there, is the moral basis for laying down the olive
branch of peace and taking up the sword of war. Still, should it come to that,
I will not waver from the course laid down by your great liberator: “With
malice towards none, with charity for all, with firmness in the rights as God
gives us to see the rights, let us finish the work we are in, to bind up the
nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his
widow and for his orphans, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just
and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”

Like Lincoln, I understand that force may be necessary before mercy. Like
Lincoln, I don’t relish it. Yet, I will do whatever it takes to defend the
integrity and freedom of my country.

Finally, may I turn to that other slavery: our $26 billion foreign debt. I have
said that we shall honor it. Yet must the means by which we shall be able to
do so be kept from us? Many conditions imposed on the previous
government that stole this debt continue to be imposed on us who never
benefited from it. And no assistance or liberality commensurate with the
calamity that was visited on us has been extended. Yet ours must have been
the cheapest revolution ever. With little help from others, we Filipinos
fulfilled the first and most difficult conditions of the debt negotiation the
full restoration of democracy and responsible government. Elsewhere, and
in other times of more stringent world economic conditions, Marshall plans
and their like were felt to be necessary companions of returning democracy.

When I met with President Reagan yesterday, we began an important

dialogue about cooperation and the strengthening of the friendship between
our two countries. That meeting was both a confirmation and a new
beginning and should lead to positive results in all areas of common
concern.

Today, we face the aspirations of a people who had known so much poverty
and massive unemployment for the past 14 years and yet offered their lives
for the abstraction of democracy. Wherever I went in the campaign, slum
area or impoverished village, they came to me with one cry: democracy! Not
food, although they clearly needed it, but democracy. Not work, although
they surely wanted it, but democracy. Not money, for they gave what little
they had to my campaign. They didn’t expect me to work a miracle that
would instantly put food into their mouths, clothes on their back, education
in their children, and work that will put dignity in their lives. But I feel the
pressing obligation to respond quickly as the leader of a people so deserving
of all these things.

We face a communist insurgency that feeds on economic deterioration, even

as we carry a great share of the free world defenses in the Pacific. These are
only two of the many burdens my people carry even as they try to build a
worthy and enduring house for their new democracy, that may serve as well
as a redoubt for freedom in Asia. Yet, no sooner is one stone laid than two
are taken away. Half our export earnings, $2 billion out of $4 billion, which
was all we could earn in the restrictive markets of the world, went to pay
just the interest on a debt whose benefit the Filipino people never received.

Still, we fought for honor, and, if only for honor, we shall pay. And yet,
should we have to wring the payments from the sweat of our men’s faces
and sink all the wealth piled up by the bondsman’s two hundred fifty years
of unrequited toil?

Yet to all Americans, as the leader of a proud and free people, I address this
question: has there been a greater test of national commitment to the ideals
you hold dear than that my people have gone through? You have spent
many lives and much treasure to bring freedom to many lands that were
reluctant to receive it. And here you have a people who won it by
themselves and need only the help to preserve it.

Three years ago, I said thank you, America, for the haven from oppression,
and the home you gave Ninoy, myself and our children, and for the three
happiest years of our lives together. Today, I say, join us, America, as we
build a new home for democracy, another haven for the oppressed, so it may
stand as a shining testament of our two nation’s commitment to freedom.
ACTIVITY:

1. For whom is she referring to on some part of her speech?

2. How is her administration different from the Marcos’ administration?

3. Despite of her efforts to be opposite of Marcos administration, what are

their similarities based on her speech?

4. How did she view Marcos’ administration?

5. How did she describe democracy before her presidency?

6. Did she commit any biases against Marcos?

7. Do you agree on her proposition to pay the debt of a dictatorship?

8. What is her analysis on the Martial Law era?