El Presidente, a paean to Emilio Aguinaldo

Last 29 December, Carmen Pedrosa wrote in her column in the Philippine Star:

I have to see the film “El Presidente” to know if it does justice to Emilio Aguinaldo, a neglected hero. He offers many lessons to our present leaders. His role in the making of our nation has not been given its rightful place. Among the few who have kept hammering on the issue is Muslim scholar Datu Jamal Ashley Yahya Abbas.
Abbas agrees that revisiting the story of Emilio Aguinaldo is central to the history of the Philippines.
Correcting that mistake may be the key to understanding the complex relations we have with the United States of America today. The elections in 1935 in which Aguinaldo was defeated was probably the first foreign intervention on how we should be led.
“Rehabilitating Aguinaldo is a tall order. Quezon and the Americans had totally destroyed him in the minds of the masses,” Abbas said.
To French journalists on the scene the hero of the Philippine wars of independence against the Americans was General Emilio Aguinaldo. Abbas, who knows French, wrote on those reports.
“Yet Aguinaldo, who became a cause celebre in Europe during his time for daring to fight the American power, had such a bad press in his own country. He died in old age almost in disgrace . . . Rizal wrote only two novels and Bonifacio’s Manila revolt lasted for only about a week or so.
It was Aguinaldo’s army who subdued the Spaniards while the Americans looked on. It was Aguinaldo who proclaimed the Philippine Republic, whose centennial was celebrated with pomp and ceremony. And it was Aguinaldo who led the fight against two-thirds of one of the world’s strongest army at that time,” Abbas wrote. He puts the blame on the Filipino elite (the ilustrados) for reconstructing Philippine history.
The French journalist Gaston Rouvier described Aguinaldo as “even to his enemies, (he is) the greatest man of the Malay race.”
Rouvier wrote: “On May 19, hardly disembarked, Aguinaldo rekindled the embers of revolt across the Luzon provinces, thanks to his untiring work and a kind of magnetic influence which he exercised on his followers. He roused a rebel leader in every district. For the capture of all Spanish garrisons and outposts, he devised a campaign plan. He was Bonaparte, if his admirers were to be believed.”

MY THOUGHTS:

I went to see the film, and this is what I think of it:

First off, I must say, it is a very good movie in the sense that it is inspiring. This is a much better film than Sakay (1993), a film by Raymond Red, a Cannes Film Festival award winner. Macario Sakay took over the presidency of the Tagalog Republic after Aguinaldo was captured by the Americans.

The almost 3-hour film was a paean to Aguinaldo, which is indeed quite rare in Philippine arts and letters.  The Americans and the first and second generations of Philippine leaders of the post-Aguinaldo Republic made sure that Aguinaldo would have a disreputable image.

The portrayal of Andres Bonifacio was quite good. He was shown in a very good light.  In the film, during the Tejeros convention, Bonifacio declared that he wanted a Republican form of government. Although, in real life, Aguinaldo described Bonifacio as a monarchist and Bonifacio allowed others to call him Hari ng Bayan. Bonifacio was fittingly portrayed as a tragic hero.

However, I do not like the demonization of Gen. Antonio Luna. Gen. Antonio Luna was the greatest Filipino general during the Philippine-American war. He was the only general who had formal studies in military science. As I wrote before, there is no use in debunking one’s heroes.

MUSIC, COSTUMES AND MAKE-UP

The films owes a lot to the musical score. The scoring insures an emotional response from the audience. It is the musical scoring, more than anything else, that gave the film a “bigger than life” aspect.

As with most, if not all period films in the country, the costumes are usually inaccurate and ill-fitting. Most of the characters wore over-sized shirts and coats.

The make-up is quite horrible. “Inang Bayan” (Mother Country) appears as an ancient lady. But she looked like a young lady with whitened hair and caked mud spread all over her face and neck.

Even the male characters have funny make-up. I don’t know if Ronnie Lazaro and Christopher De Leon were made-up to look younger or older. They should have been made up to look younger but it seems like they look even older.

YOUTH VS AGE

The Philippine Revolution was led and participated by YOUNG PEOPLE. Aguinaldo was 28 years old when he was elected President of the Republic.  Antonio Luna was 32 when he was assassinated.  But in the film, practically everyone was old.

Felipe Buencamino, Sr. was around 50 years old at that time but he is portrayed in the film by a septuagenarian (Joonee Gamboa). Incidentally, the film insinuates that Buencamino engineered the death of Luna.  I wonder what made the writer/director think that. Did he get that from the relatives of Aguinaldo? Or does he simply dislike Buencamino? It is funny that in the film, Buencamino accused Luna of siding with the Spaniards at the start of the revolution when in reality, it was Buencamino who sided with the Spaniards at the start of the revolution.

I do not understand the logic in getting old actors to portray young heroes. Aren’t there younger actors who have box-office power? There is a world of difference between young people agitating and fighting for their rights and for Freedom and older/mature people fighting for the same. The impact on the younger Filipinos of today would be so different.

JUSTICE TO AGUINALDO?

Does it give justice to Aguinaldo? It does.  But giving justice to Aguinaldo should not mean giving injustice to others like Antonio Luna.

Artistically or creatively, there is still so much room for improvement. The scene with a 94-year-old Aguinaldo waiving the Philippine flag in his balcony with a few people outside watching him and his aging wife shouting “Mabuhay si Miyong” or some such thing looks quite pathetic.  It would have been better if the scene was of President Macapagal declaring June 12 as the country’s Independence day with the ailing Aguinaldo in attendance – 64 years after Aguinaldo proclaimed Independence in Kawit, Cavite. Better if there is actual film footage of the event.

Peace in Mindanao to correct history?

FROM A DISTANCE By Carmen N. Pedrosa 
(The Philippine Star) Updated August 27, 2011 12:00 AM

*      *      *

I don’t think many know of Datu Jamal Ashley Yahya Abbas, a Muslim scholar who wrote a paper on “GRP-MILF as quests for identity” during the Arroyo administration. He writes that it is a mistake to look at the problem as if it were about the Muslims alone. His perspective for a solution includes non-Muslims, more so of Christians, colonized then and now.

“This paper will attempt to show that the Filipinos’ quest for identity and peace should be pursued together, for only a clear and comprehensive understanding of the Christian Filipinos’ quest for identity and the Moros’ desire to reclaim their sovereign identity separate from the rest of the Filipinos, can there be true peace in the land. And only a thorough understanding of history by all parties can bring about the needed change.”

*      *      *

He then makes a difficult but logical leap. “To achieve peace in Mindanao, there must be a clamor by the population. For that to happen, the average Filipino must understand the real circumstances surrounding the issue. They must understand the motivations behind every group. And to understand the real issues, one must go back to history.”

Both Mastura and he are speaking about history but their views diverge. Mastura says the US should intervene because of their historical mistake in incorporating the Moroland to the rest of the country.

Yahya Abbas recommends reading history to understand how the Moro mess happened. Both Christians and Moros should resolve it themselves through their common bond in their fight against colonialism. He admits we have no reliable resources since our history has been written for us by Spaniards, Americans and colonial Filipinos.

“But there is hope. It is called microhistory. It is done in small scale, and does not need millions of pesos for research. It can be done in any discipline and can use various sources — even films.” Yahya Abbas says.

Microhistory is an innovative approach to history. According to History News Network microhistorians do not reject traditional investigations by social scientists but these led to “generalizations that do not hold up when tested against the concrete reality of the small-scale life they claim to explain.”

Historian Yahya Abbas thinks Filipinos should re-examine the way we look at events and personalities in the past. It is a mistake to take these for granted because of the way our history has been written.

For example he says that “Much of the “official” Philippine history is a construct of the indigenous elites of Luzon who came into political and economic leadership during the American Occupation. The biggest casualties (in terms of what I call “historical character assassination”) in this period were General Emilio Aguinaldo and his fellow Katipuneros.”

He is unhappy that “Aguinaldo, who became a cause celebre in Europe during his time for daring to fight the American power, had such a bad press in his own country.” He died in old age almost in disgrace and says why he thinks Aguinaldo should have gotten a better treatment in Philippine history and helped us in our search for identity.

“Yet Rizal wrote only two novels and Bonifacio’s Manila revolt lasted for only about a week or so. It was Aguinaldo’s army who subdued the Spaniards while the Americans looked on. It was Aguinaldo who proclaimed the Philippine Republic, whose centennial was celebrated with pomp and ceremony. And it was Aguinaldo who led the fight against two-thirds of one of the world’s strongest armies at that time.” It was also Aguinaldo who sought out the Moros as comrades-in-arms against the Americans. It is the bond of colonial struggle between Christians and Moros that needs to be unearthed and revealed as our common identity and the basis for our quest for peace.

Therefore if our quest for peace is our quest for identity, we will have to do more than follow the bidding of former colonialists in hotel rooms outside the country.

Aguinaldo’s role comes up every June 12

FROM A DISTANCE By Carmen N. Pedrosa

(The Philippine Star) Updated June 23, 2012 12:00 AM

Every June 12, I try to write about General Emilio Aguinaldo. His role in the making of our nation has not been given its rightful place. Among the few who have kept hammering on the issue is Muslim scholar Datu Jamal Ashley Yahya Abbas. He is now a facebook friend and inevitably we exchanged notes on the wrong done to the hero. I reminded him yet again that it was through his writings that I changed my opinion on General Aguinaldo.

*      *      *

The last time I spoke about this project on Aguinaldo was at a lunch with Aguinaldo descendant, Cesar Virata. Another admirer of Aguinaldo, Antonio Abaya was also present but he has had a massive stroke and would no longer be in any position to help. Abbas agreed that revisiting the story of Emilio Aguinaldo is central to the history of the Philippines.

Correcting that mistake may be the key to understanding the complex relations we have with the United States of America today. Looking at some scattered notes, the elections in 1935 in which Aguinaldo was defeated was probably the first foreign intervention on how we should be led. What was the reason for that intervention? Perhaps, his descendants should take the initiative.

It is puzzling that nothing has been done in this direction.

“Rehabilitating Aguinaldo is a tall order. Quezon and the Americans had totally destroyed him in the minds of the masses. But somebody has to start it. You and the Aguinaldos could very well spearhead the project. I would be glad to be of help, in any capacity,” Abbas said. Tall order it may be but its urgency grows with each year that we celebrate Philippine Independence Day on June 12.

*      *      *

Abbas’ writings tell us that the Europeans especially French journalists were more sympathetic to the Philippine cause at the time. He refers to the articles written by French journalists who were actually in Manila to cover the war and the Philippine declaration of independence.

Being reporters on the scene, as far as they were concerned the hero of the Philippine wars of independence against the Americans was General Emilio Aguinaldo. During the 100th anniversary of the proclamation of Independence celebration, the on the scene reports by the European journalists should have been put at the center stage to be emphasized and its implications brought out.

Abbas, who knows French, wrote on those reports. “Yet Aguinaldo, who became a cause celebre in Europe during his time for daring to fight the American power, had such a bad press in his own country. He died in old age almost in disgrace . . . Rizal wrote only two novels and Bonifacio’s Manila revolt lasted for only about a week or so. It was Aguinaldo’s army who subdued the Spaniards while the Americans looked on. It was Aguinaldo who proclaimed the Philippine Republic, whose centennial was celebrated with pomp and ceremony. And it was Aguinaldo who led the fight against two-thirds of one of the world’s strongest army at that time,” Abbas wrote. He puts the blame on the Filipino elite (the ilustrados) for reconstructing Philippine history.

“The Americans and their new wards (Quezon et al.) needed to demonize Aguinaldo and the Katipunan. Although the Americans declared the Philippine-American war as “officially” finished in 1902, some Katipuneros continued the fight led by such men as Mariano Sakay and Miguel Malvar. Gen. Artemio Ricarte chose exile in Japan over an ignominious surrender to America.”

*      *      *

There are a number of Filipino historians and writers fluent in French who are qualified to take up this cause. We should delve deeper. Luckily we have the accounts of French journalists as a starting point.

The French journalist Gaston Rouvier described Aguinaldo as “even to his enemies, (he is) the greatest man of the Malay race.”

Rouvier wrote: “As soon as the naval victory of Dewey in Cavite was achieved… (Aguinaldo) left for the Philippines…The MacCulloch transported them.

“On May 19, hardly disembarked, Aguinaldo rekindled the embers of revolt across the Luzon provinces, thanks to his untiring work and a kind of magnetic influence which he exercised on his followers. He roused a rebel leader in every district. For the capture of all Spanish garrisons and outposts, he devised a campaign plan. He was Bonaparte, if his admirers were to be believed.

“Bonaparte, indeed, by the strange fascination that he elicited from his people. He obtained extraordinary results. In two days, his messengers covered 150 kilometres. In 36 hours, his soldiers travelled 70 to 80 kilometres. Thus, he was able to take the Spanish garrisons by surprise; he was able to take hold of arms and treasures. From May 1898 to January 1899, he led the struggle against Spain without let-up. He captured 15,000 Spanish soldiers and forced 2,000 to 3,000 others to leave Camarines, Tayabas, Batangas and Laguna for Mindoro, Panay and Cebu. At present he still detains 6,000 Spanish soldier-prisoners in the northern provinces.”

*      *      *

Such a tribute to Aguinaldo comes as a surprise to me and other Filipinos equally nurtured with a different version. “Filipinos living today have been brought up to think of Aguinaldo as an elitist leader who sold out the masses, who killed the father of the Revolution, Andres Bonifacio, and the greatest Filipino general, Antonio Luna. (CNP: The revolutionary funds that were entrusted to him disappeared. He allegedly left it with his girlfriend, Ysidra Cojuangco). Somebody, preferably a historian, should explain the discrepancy.”

*      *      *

Tall order or not it has to be done. Abbas cites Serafin Quiason, once chair and executive director of the National Historical Institute, who wrote the preface to the volume The War In The Philippines: As Reported by Two French Journalists in 1899.

“Its story disappeared from the Filipino consciousness for two generations, thanks to the history books authored first by American teachers and then by Filipinos steeped in the colonial atmosphere of the educational system.”

“For a nation trying to find its identity, nothing is worse than seeing its greatest sons de-bunked . . . During my elementary school years, I remember asking my elders why Aguinaldo was not as great as Rizal or even Bonifacio. One answer that I often got was because Aguinaldo did not die fighting. In my freshman year in college, the history teacher asked the students to think of a question for a debate. Many students responded with the proposition to resolve who was the better hero, Rizal or Bonifacio. When I interjected and proposed Aguinaldo’s name, the class fell silent,” adds Abbas.