FILIPINO WORKERS IN HAWAII AND THE WEST COAST, 1906-1935

Posted by Belarmino Dabalos Saguing                                                                                            Rome, Italy  16.02.2016

 How it started

A chance encounter in 1901 between a trustee of the Hawaiian Sugar Planters Association (HSPA) and a band of Filipino musicians en route to the United States led the planter to speculate about Filipinos as potential plantation workers, for he felt that these musicians had a "healthy physique and robust appearance." Even before 1907, Hawaii had begun looking for other pools of unskilled labor on the island of Luzon. During 1907 some 150 workers were sent to Hawaii. Two years later, with Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans now banned from immigrating to the United Sates, the HSPA returned to the Philippines, looking for workers. The Bureau of Census reported that there were 2,361 Filipinos in Hawaii in 1910. Recruiting efforts after 1909 centered on the Visayan Islands, Cebu in particular, and Luzon's Tagalogs.

In 1915 recruiters focused on Luzon's northwestern Ilocano provinces: Ilocos Norte, Ilocos Sur, and La Union. Immigrants from Pangasinan, Zambales, and Cagayan account for about 25 percent of those from Ilocano. The Ilocanos, suffering greatly from economic hardship and overpopulation, proved willing recruits. The HSPA awarded a three-year labor contract to Filipinos migrating to Hawaii; this paid their passage to Hawaii and guaranteed free subsistence and clothing. If they worked a total of 720 days, they received return passage money. A worker was not penalized for violating his contract, but if he did, he forfeited all guarantees, including his return passage. Plantation owners found the Ilocanos to be the "best workers," and poverty in their provinces provided a stimulant for out-migration. By 1935, young single Ilocano men were the largest Filipino ethnic group in Hawaii.

According to census figures, the Filipino population in Hawaii climbed from 21,031 in 1920 to 63,052 in 1930, but dropped to 52,659 by 1940. The decline in the number of Filipinos during the late 1930s is attributable to the return of many to the Philippines during the Depression years and to others seeking greener pastures on the West Coast. The high point of immigration to Hawaii occurred in 1925, when 11,621 Filipinos arrived in Honolulu. At that point, the HSPA closed active recruiting in the Philippines, relying upon self-motivation to maintain the influx of workers.

In 1910, only 406 Filipinos lived on the United States mainland. The largest group, of 109, lived in New Orleans, the remnants of a nineteenth-century settlement of Filipino sailors who came ashore at that port city, married local women, and found jobs. The state of Washington had 17 and California had only five. In 1920, 5,603 Filipinos lived along the West Coast or in Alaska. California then had 2,674 Filipinos while Washington had 958. The northeastern United States had the second-largest number: 1,844.

The 1920s saw dramatic changes as California's Filipino population, mostly single young men, increased by 91 percent; over 31,000 Filipinos disembarked at the ports of San Francisco and Los Angeles. In 1930, there were 108,260 Filipinos in the United States and the Territory of Hawaii. California had 30,470, and this number rose to 31,408 by 1940. Washington had 3,480 in 1930 and 2,222 in 1940. Apart from the West Coast and Hawaii, the next largest concentration was in New York, which in 1930 had 1,982 and 2,978 in 1940. Many of these Filipinos experienced significant racial discrimination.

POSTWAR IMMIGRATION

Emigrants in the second wave left the Philippines in increasing numbers during the late 1940s and 1950s. This group included war brides, the "1946 boys," and military recruits. War brides were the spouses of American GIs who married Filipina women while being stationed in the Philippines. After the passage of the War Brides Act of 1946, it is estimated that 5,000 brides came to the United States. Contracted workers called the "1946 boys", or Sakadas, numbered 7,000 were a major component of the second wave. They were the last large group of agricultural laborers brought to Hawaii by the sugar planters. Plantation owners brought them in an effort to break up the first interracial and territorial-wide strike organized by the International Longshoremen and Warehousemen's Union (ILWU). The Philippine workers supported the ILWU strike, which resulted in the first major victory for Hawaii agricultural workers. Filipinos who came to the United States through the U.S. military were another component of the second wave. A provision of the 1947 US-RP Military Bases Agreement allowed the Navy to recruit Filipino men for its mess halls. During the same year President Truman ended racial segregation in the military and the Filipino replaced African Americans in mess halls. By the 1970s, more than 20,000 Filipinos had entered the United States through the U.S. Navy.

Internal conditions in the new republic contributed to many moving from the islands to the United States. By 1960 Hawaii, which had become a state a year earlier, had 69,070 Filipinos, followed closely by California with 65,459. The two states together accounted for 76 percent of all Filipinos living in the United States. The Pacific Coast states had 146,340 (83 percent of the total), while the East and the South had slightly more than 10,000 each and the Great Lakes states had 8,600. Included in these census numbers were second-generation Filipino Americans.

Changes in American immigration law in 1965 significantly altered the type and number of immigrants coming to the United States. Unlike pre-war immigrants who largely worked as unskilled laborers in West Coast and Hawaiian agriculture and in Alaska's salmon canneries, the third wave was composed of larger numbers of well-educated Filipinos between the ages of 20 and 40 who came looking for better career opportunities than they could find in the Philippines. This highly skilled third-wave population had a command of the English language, allowing them to enter a wide range of professions.

Unlike earlier arrivals, most of the Filipino immigrants after 1970 came to the United States without intending to return to the Philippines. In 1970, 343,060 Filipinos lived in the United States; in 1980, the number was 781,894, with 92 percent of these living in urban areas. By 1990, the number of Filipinos had reached 1,450,512. The West, as reported in the 1990 Census, had 991,572, or 68.4 percent of the Filipinos. The other three areas, Northeast, Midwest, and South, ranged from 8.8 to 12.5 percent. California in 1990 had the largest Filipino population, almost 50 percent of the total; Hawaii had fallen to second place. Every state in the union had a Filipino population. Florida, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Texas, and Washington had Filipino populations in excess of 30,000.

Acculturation and Assimilation

From the outset of their arrival in Hawaii and the Pacific Coast, Filipinos, as a color-visible minority, encountered prejudice and discrimination as they pursued their economic and educational goals. One major problem for Filipinos prior to 1946 was the issue of American citizenship.

From 1898 to 1946, Filipinos, classified as American nationals, could travel abroad with an American passport and could enter and leave the United States at will, until the Tydings-McDuffie Act limited the number entering as immigrants to 50 a year. The opportunity for most Filipinos to become American citizens before 1946 was closed to them by the United States Supreme Court in its 1925 decision, Toyota v. United States. This decision declared that only whites or persons of African descent were entitled to citizenship, thus closing the opportunity for Filipinos to become United States citizens. Those Filipinos, however, who had enlisted and served three years in the United States Navy, Marine Corps, or Naval Auxiliary Service during World War I and who had received an honorable discharge could apply for citizenship. In 1946, Congress passed a law that permitted Filipinos to qualify for American citizenship.

The inability to acquire citizenship, besides being a social stigma, presented serious economic and political implications. Since most states required citizenship to practice law, medicine, and other licensed professions and occupations, Filipinos were prohibited from these occupations. Filipinos had no recognized voice of protest to speak for them, unlike immigrants from other countries who had ambassadors and consuls to support them. The Philippines had a Resident Commissioner in Washington who could protest, but this commissioner generally proved ineffective in dealing with federal and state bureaucracies.

Throughout the Depression years of the 1930s, Filipinos found it difficult to qualify for federal relief. Although the Works Progress Administration in 1937 ruled that Filipinos were eligible for employment on WPA projects, they could not receive preference since they were not citizens. During the 1920s and 1930s, those Filipinos living on the Pacific Coast encountered prejudice and hostilities resulting in hateful discrimination and race riots. A sagging economy made assimilation difficult if not impossible.

At the height of discrimination in California, the California Department of Industrial Relations published in 1930 a biased study, Facts about Filipino Immigration into California, claiming that Filipinos posed economic and social threats. On the West Coast, Filipinos were frequently denied service in restaurants and barbershops and were barred from swimming pools, movies, and tennis courts. They found that their dark skin and imperfect English marked them, in the eyes of whites, as being different and therefore inferior. White Californians presented several contradictions that confused Filipinos. Farmers and certain urban enterprises welcomed them because they provided cheap labor. However, discriminatory attitudes relegated them to low-paying jobs and an inferior social existence. Consequently, many other Californians criticized the Filipinos' substandard living conditions and attacked them for creating health problems and lowering the American standard of living. Faced with discrimination in real estate, Filipinos were forced into "Little Manilas" in California cities. Filipinos in cities such as Chicago, New York, and Washington, D.C., also clustered together.

Discrimination against Filipinos has persisted into the late twentieth century, but civil rights legislation, affirmative action, and equal opportunity laws have improved the daily lives of most Filipinos who have arrived in recent decades. A perhaps unexpected form of discrimination for immigrants arriving after 1965 was the hostility that they met from second-generation Filipinos who saw the new arrivals as snobs and upstarts who were benefitting from advances made by the older group. At the same time, more recent Filipino immigrants have treated their older compatriots with disdain, considering them the equivalent of "hillbillies."

During the 1990 Census, Filipinos reported a median income of $46,698, while the median income for the entire United States was $35,225. This can be attributed to the ongoing stream of highly educated and highly skilled Filipinos from the Philippines and to second and third generation Filipino Americans finishing college.

Do we really know our human rights?

Posted by Belarmino Dabalos Saguing                                                                     Rome, Italy 08/01/2015

(Source: http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/114698-human-rights-philippines)

Every year on 10th December, Human Rights Day is observed throughout the world. It was on this day in 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This has become a universal standard for defending and promoting human rights.

Every year on 10th December, Human Rights Day marks the adoption of the Universal Declaration OF Human Rights with the central principle that "All human beings are born with equal and inalienable rights and fundamental freedoms". Since its adoption in 1948, the Declaration has been and continues to be a source of inspiration for national and international efforts to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms.

However, in spite of the efforts of the United Nations and various international Human Rights watch forums and organizations, violation of Human Rights still goes on in different parts of the world.

1. What are human rights?

Human rights, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, refers to norms that aim to protect people from political, legal, and social abuses.

The United Nations (UN) defines human rights as universal and inalienable, interdependent and indivisible, and equal and non-discriminatory.

• Universal and inalienable:
  Human rights belong to all and cannot be taken away unless specific situations call for it. However, the deprivation of a person's right is subject to due process.
• Interdependent and indivisible:
  Whatever happens to even one right – fulfillment or violation – can directly affect the others.
• Equal and non-discriminatory:
  Human rights protect all people regardless of race, nationality, gender, religion, and political leaning, among others. They should be respected without prejudice.

Human rights can also be classified under individual, collective, civil, political, economic and social, and cultural.

2. What laws or legal documents ensure the human rights of Filipino citizens?

The rights of Filipinos can be found in Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Also called the Bill of Rights, it includes 22 sections which declare a Filipino citizen’s rights and privileges that the Constitution has to protect, no matter what.

Aside from various local laws, human rights in the Philippines are also guided by the UN's International Bill of Human Rights – a consolidation of 3 legal documents including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights(UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights(ICESCR).

As one of the signatories of these legal documents, the Philippines is obliged to recognize and apply appropriate laws to ensure each right’s fulfillment.

This is not always the case, however, as the Philippine Constitution lacks explicit laws to further cement specific human rights in the local context.

For example, the Right to Adequate Food may be included in the UNDR but it is not explicitly indicated in the Philippine Constitution. Thus the government cannot be held responsible if this is not attained. (READ: Zero Hunger: Holding gov’t accountable)

3. Who oversees the fulfillment and protection of human rights in the Philippines?

Human rights are both rights and obligations, according to the UN. The state – or the government – is obliged to “respect, protect, and fulfill” these rights.

Respect begets commitment from state that no law should be made to interfere or curtail the fulfillment of the stated human rights. Protecting means that human rights violations should be prevented and if they exist, immediate action should be made.

(source: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015/country-chapters/philippines)

With less than a year left in office, the administration of President Benigno Aquino III continues to send mixed signals about its commitment to improve human rights in the Philippines. Although the number of cases of extrajudicial killings, torture, and enforced disappearances by state security forces has declined in the last four years, such abuses regularly occur.  They are fueled by the government’s  lack of political will to end the longstanding impunity enjoyed by the police and armed forces, a dysfunctional criminal justice system, and military resistance to accountability.

While human rights was a key agenda for Aquino when he took office in 2010, he has failed to make good on many of his commitments, chiefly his expressed intent to end killings of activists and journalists and bring those responsible to justice.  Aquino risked losing political capital by suggesting a term extension for the president, and he found himself at odds with the Supreme Court by calling it an impediment to his proposed reforms.

The arrest of retired army general, Jovito Palparan, in August 2014 by a combined unit of the civilian National Bureau of Investigation and naval intelligence could prove to be a watershed moment in overcoming the military’s historic unwillingness to prosecute personnel for serious human rights abuses.  Palparan is implicated in extrajudicial killings, torture,  and enforced disappearances by forces under his command in  several regions between 2001 and 2005. He has been charged with the kidnapping and torture in 2006 of two women, Sherlyn Cadapan and Karen Empeno. Palparan has said that his actions during this period were to implement the counterinsurgency program of then-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.  Under the Macapagal-Arroyo administration from 2001 to 2010, hundreds of leftist activists were tortured, “disappeared,” and killed.

Palparan was put in the custody of the provincial police in Bulacan, north of Manila, where the Cadapan-Empeno case is being tried. However, on September 15 the court allowed Palparan’s transfer to military custody, prompting protests from families of victims and human rights advocates.

While killings appeared to decrease in 2014 compared to recent years, activists, journalists, environmentalists, and tribal leaders continued to be targets of attack. Among those killed was Fausto Orasan, a 64-year-old tribal group leader in the southern Philippines, who was shot by unidentified gunmen on September 13, 2014, while riding his motorcycle in a village in Cagayan de Oro City. Authorities said Orasan had been a leader of  anti-mining efforts in the area. During one week in August, three other tribal leaders were gunned down in different parts of the country, according to the nongovernmental organization Karapatan. Human Rights Watch has long documented attacks on tribal leaders who opposed mining and other extractive business interests in their communities.

On August 24, 2014, unidentified gunmen shot dead human rights lawyer Rodolfo Felicio in Taytay, a city in Rizal province, east of Manila. Felicio was the fifth member of the activist group National Union of People’s Lawyers to have been killed in the past 10 years.

Killings of journalists continued in late 2013 and early 2014: local media reported at least 26 such killings since Aquino took office in 2010. The trial of the Maguindanao Massacre case, in which 58 people—mostly journalists and media workers—were killed in 2009 allegedly by the militia of the powerful Ampatuan clan in the southern Philippines, was set back by the murder on November 18 of Dennis Sakal, a potential witness for the prosecution.

Although the Aquino administration vowed in 2012 to expedite investigations into killings of journalists by creating a “superbody,” little progress appears to have been made. The superbody had only processed four cases at time of writing, resulting in the conviction of five people. However, the alleged masterminds who planned and financed these killings remained at large.

 A “death squad” in the southern city of Tagum that killed hundreds of suspected criminals, including children, was the subject of a Human Rights Watch report in May. The so-called Tagum Death Squad also branched out into contract killing, targeting a range of victims for as little as US$110 per hit, including journalists, village officials, business rivals, alleged drug dealers, tribal leaders, and a judge. The death squad was allegedly formed and financed by then-mayor Rey Uy with the cooperation of city hall officials and members of the local police force.

Despite evidence directly implicating Uy in the death squad operation, the authorities have not arrested him or others implicated in the Tagum City killings.

Death squad killings have been reported in cities across the country, with unidentified gunmen on motorcycles targeting people in public in broad daylight in so-called “riding in tandem” killings. Official responses in 2014 to stem such killings included police roadblocks specifically for motorcycles, banning motorcyclists from riding in pairs, and a proposed law that would ban the use of motorcycle helmets, so cyclists could not hide their identities.

Rampant police corruption seriously undermines the country’s criminal justice system and   exacerbates the problem of impunity.

In January, an investigation by the Commission on Human Rights implicated members of the Laguna provincial police in the systematic torture of at least 22 inmates that began in February 2013. The police dealt out torture in a secret location using a spinning wheel like in the “Wheel of Fortune” game show in the United States. At time of writing, 10 police officers implicated in the torture had been dismissed from duty and faced prosecution, while several others were being investigated.

A November report by the Department of Justice detailed allegations of torture by members of the police in Zamboanga City against several suspects arrested in connection with the September 2013 attack on the city by Islamist militants. Human Rights Watch documented several instances of mistreatment of the detainees, several of them children, as well as the militants’ use of civilians as human shields. The government has not investigated the alleged abuses.

President Aquino made trips to Europe and the US in 2014 in which Philippine activists protested against the government’s human rights record, particularly the lack of accountability for abuses. The United States and European Union governments have sought to address the problem of impunity, such as by funding programs to improve the performance of police, prosecutors, and the courts.

The US government was more vocal in 2014 than in previous years in communicating its concerns about impunity to the Aquino administration. The US had conditioned a small part ($3 million) of its $20 million annual military aid to the Philippines on improvement in the human rights situation. In 2014, the US increased the military financial assistance to $50 million but most of it was allotted for the Philippine Navy, which has a better human rights record than the army.

The  EU-Philippines Justice Support Program, now in its second phase, aims to improve  the Philippine criminal justice system by, among other things, training police officers and investigators.

A more than a monument for the heroism of a Great Filipino

Posted by
Belarmino Dabalos Saguing
Rome, Italy 20 August, 2015

Andres Bonifacio Monument, Cry At Balintawak, Caloocan City (downloaded photo)

For those who passionately argue that Andres Bonifacio has suffered the double-edged sword that is martyrdom-by-history, the Bonifacio Monument likewise attests to the drawback a prominent memorial represents. The symbolism resonates: The nominal hero of the masses, the plebeian idealist, the revolutionary from Tondo, standing still in the midst of the hustle and bustle of the city—his gaze forever fixed on the length of Avenida Rizal, the old road leading back to Manila—indistinguishable in the background, unmistakable yet obscure in the pocket of Caloocan skyline that has sprung up around it.

The monument has stood for eighty years—first a solitary rise in the expanse of Caloocan, and over the years a lynchpin for the city’s landscape to form itself around. It has lent its very name to the area now dotted by establishments that had once almost furtively crept toward it, and which now threaten to tower over its Winged Victory perched forty-five feet from the ground. Glancing at the monument enveloped in the shadows cast by these new and ever-newer buildings, pedestrians and commuters circle around it, barely looking up, even as those in vehicles consider it more obstacle than landmark. The Bonifacio Monument, imposing yet graceful, thus manages to both serve as gateway and landmark to the thousands that traverse it, and yet fades into the scenery for those who’ve seen it far too often for far too long.

Nominally created on October 23, 1933 by virtue of Governor-General Frank Murphy’s Executive Order No. 452, the National Executive Committee for the Inauguration of the Andres Bonifacio Monument undertook a ceremony steeped in Filipino symbolism that would adorn every element of the day’s activities: whether the parade, or the unveiling, or the inauguration. 

As soon as the Speaker of the House Quintin Paredes arrived for the inauguration of the monument, the three women who represented the three principal islands of the archipelago came forward, accompanied by members of the Katipunan. In 1933, this meant three bent but proud men dressed in their Katipunero best—Lt. Col. Venancio de Jesus, Capt. Inocencio Peralta, and Lt. Dionisio Buensuceso. The six positioned themselves around the monument to form a triangle. The women stepped forward, escorted by designated members of Congress, to unveil the monument to the crowd that had gathered to witness this tribute to Andres Bonifacio.

The Bonifacio Monument was both valedictory of the Revolution of 1896 and pledge to future generations that independence would one day be restored. The unveiling of the monument itself was the culmination of a decades-long movement to commemorate not just the father of the revolution, but to reassert the continuing aspiration for independent nationhood of the Filipinos.

The political context of the campaign to build the monument is crucial to understanding the identity of the monument as both vindication and pledge. In 1901, the Americans passed the Sedition Act (Act No. 292), prohibiting Filipinos from advocating either independence or separation from the United States. Ahead of permitting the election of an all-Filipino lower house—the Philippine Assembly, due to take office in October 16, 1907—the Americans noticed that in the campaign for the election of assemblymen, the Philippine flag came to be prominently displayed: one such rally took place in Caloocan, rich in memories of 1896.

Alarmed American associations passed a resolution in August 23, 1907—a month redolent with memory for Filipinos—demanding the proscription of the Filipino flag. And so among the last acts of the American-dominated Philippine Commission was to ban the Philippine flag, anthem, and symbols of the Katipunan and the First Republic, on September 6, 1907.

Even if hemmed in by a thicket of legislation, Filipinos kept pursuing independence: the first efforts concentrating on symbolic actions to assert that the aspiration for nationhood had not dimmed. On June 19, 1908, Speaker Sergio Osmeña formally pledged the legislature to pursuing Philippine independence. Assemblymen would pursue legislation at home and abroad to secure a pledge of independence, while reclaiming the symbols of nationhood. And so even as members of the legislature filed bill after bill to legalize the Philippine flag, others—led by a prominent veteran of the Katipunan, Guillermo Masangkay—literally had a representative forum in which to propose that a monument be erected to Bonifacio’s memory.

By 1911, a monument (“El Grito del Revolucion,” with a generic Katipunero whose image has come to be indelibly stamped in our popular culture as the Supremo himself) was built in Caloocan (though it has since been transferred to the front of Vinzons Hall, in UP Diliman) not as a government-approved, or funded, memorial, but as a private initiative. Only a year later, in 1912, would the Rizal Monument be unveiled. The question would then shift to who would be honored in only the second national monument to be dedicated to a Filipino.

It would be Bonifacio and the effort would be pursued in a methodical manner. On February 5, 1915, the Philippine Assembly passed Act No. 2494, which appropriated funds for public works and monuments. In August 29, 1916, the United States Congress enacted the Jones Law making, Philippine independence a question of not if, but when— and replacing the American-dominated Philippine Commission with an all-Filipino Senate, which was inaugurated in October of that year. The coast was clear. On February 23, 1918, Act No. 2760 was passed, which approved the building of a memorial to Bonifacio, as well as the creation of national committee to oversee it. A year and a half later, the Philippine flag and anthem were finally legalized.

A decade spent in fierce clashes between Filipino politicians and American Governors-General would pass until, on the occasion of Bonifacio’s 66th birth anniversary in 1929, at 5:45 p.m., the cornerstone of the monument was ceremonially installed by Mrs. Aurora Quezon, the wife of the highest-ranking Filipino official at the time, Senate President Manuel L. Quezon.

“The Bonifacio Monument,” Alcazaren writes, “was intended to sit at its site specifically to commemorate the historic spark ignited there and that led to the culminating events of 1898.” Moreover, the site was a perfect counterpoint to the monument of Rizal in Luneta: The two leading figures of the Philippines’ emancipation from Spain would bracket Manila—the national man of letters down South by the sea, and the father of the Philippine revolution up North—not unlike sentries.

Caloocan used to be part of Tondo until 1815 when it became a municipality. The town’s growth surged after the completion of the Manila-Dagupan railway in 1892. It was there, in August 23, 1896, that Andres Bonifacio led the famous cry that sent the clear message of resistance to Spanish rule. For several years after, Caloocan was in the thick of the fight; first against the Spanish, then quickly against the Americans. By the turn of the century, the terror of war turned into reluctant acquiescence and Caloocan fell into the new colonizer’s sphere of influence. [...] Manila was slowly filling out and parts of the Daniel Burnham master plan for the city was taking shape. One of the main roads leading out of the city was Rizal Avenue. The avenue’s extension was to link it with the highway leading north (now known as the MacArthur Highway). A junction was formed with these two and a circumferential road known as Route 54 (now EDSA). This junction gave the opportunity for a rotunda and hence, a perfect setting for a monument, an entry statement for the city as well as an opportunity to commemorate the heroes and the events that occurred in Caloocan.

“The Bonifacio Monument,” Alcazaren writes, “was intended to sit at its site specifically to commemorate the historic spark ignited there and that led to the culminating events of 1898.” Moreover, the site was a perfect counterpoint to the monument of Rizal in Luneta: The two leading figures of the Philippines’ emancipation from Spain would bracket Manila—the national man of letters down South by the sea, and the father of the Philippine revolution up North—not unlike sentries.

Tolentino’s aesthetic would influence numerous Filipino sculptors, many of them having studied under him at the UP School of Fine Arts. One of these students was Anastacio Caedo, his star pupil, assistant, and protegé. Caedo would be Tolentino’s right-hand man in the creation of the Bonifacio Monument, the two leading a team of sculptors that toiled in a studio garden in Malate. The Bonifacio Monument was thus, expectedly, a collaborative effort that sought to realize Tolentino’s singular vision: The construction of the central column, including the base, was done by the architect Andres Luna de San Pedro (son of the ilustrado hero Juan Luna, and the chairman of the jurors that chose Tolentino’s design); the pedestal and shaft were carved in granite imported from Germany. The sculptor Francesco Riccardo Monti, Italian by birth, would likewise lend his expertise in the forging of the 23 bronze figures (cast in Italy) that served as the memorial’s central element. (Monti, too, would provide a postwar link, in terms of monuments: Monti designed the mourning angels that surmount the Quezon Monument—itself designed by Federico Ilustre, who started his career as a draftsman for Juan Nakpil.) 

If the tableaux in the Rizal monument are static and sparse, those in the Bonifacio Monument are imbued with energy and emotion. Each figure is modeled with classical perfection in composition, but charged with the fierce sentiments of a romanticist—and all of them fashioned with a realist’s careful and conscientious attention to detail. Emilio Jacinto’s face is frozen in a battle-cry right behind Bonifacio; on the other side of the obelisk are the priests Mariano Gómez, José Apolonio Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora. Caedo would serve as a model of one of the Katipuneros—the one that cradled a dead infant, with a sheet thrown over its still face. (Caedo, too, is among those considered to be the model for the UP Oblation, as he was Tolentino’s assistant during its creation.) Tolentino also modelled after Mrs. Angela Sison (wife of Senator, and later Defense Secretary, Teofilo Sison) the young woman that lay prostrate before an angry old man; Guillermo Masangkay’s role in the revolution and the realization of this monument to its nominal father would be forever immortalized as a Katipunero tearing up a cedula.

Nearly unseen unless from a considerable distance from the monument, the winged figure of Victory rises 45 feet in the air, the granite tower her pedestal. Patterned after the Winged Victory of Samothrace, the triumph it evokes only underscores the value of the tumult and the struggle and the fury that holds her up. That in the centuries of subjugation, for every mother who had held her dead child, every laborer who defiantly tore proof of Spain’s ownership, for every boy from Tondo who dared form a nation—the goddess of Victory looked on. We had won.

Nothing demonstrates this—the claiming of the Monument and the Hero for a nation once more on the threshold of independence—better than the marker at the foot of Bonifacio’s statue: cast in the same enduring bronze, but in the various codes of the Katipunan, with exhortations not in English or Spanish, but the Tagalog wielded by Bonifacio as every bit as powerful a weapon as the bolos, rifles, and handguns of the Katipuneros. Literally a codex—it is a proclamation, enduring, inscrutable except to those to whom the words were originally addressed: the Filipinos. Decoded, it is Bonifacio’s proclamation of August 28th, two days before he led the attack at San Juan del Monte—the first real battle of the Philippine revolution:

The Tagalog wielded by Bonifacio as every bit as powerful a weapon as the bolos, rifles, and handguns of the Katipuneros. It is a proclamation, enduring, inscrutable except to those to whom the words were originally addressed: the Filipinos. 

Mga maginoong namiminuno, kasapi at mga kapatid: Sa inyong lahat ipinatutungkol ang pahayag na ito. Totoong kinakailangan na sa lalong madaling panahon ay putulin natin ang walang pangalang pang-lulupig na ginagawa sa mga anak ng bayan, na ngayo’y nagtitiis ng mabibigat na parusa at pahirap sa mga bilangguan. Na sa dahilang ito’y mangyaring ipa-tanto ninyo sa lahat ng mga kapatid na sa araw ng sabado, ika-29 ng kasalukuyan, ay puputok ang panghihimagsik na pinagkasunduan natin, kaya’t kinakailangang sabaysabay na kumilos ang mga bayanbayan at sabaysabay na salakayin ang maynila. Ang sino pa mang humadlang sa banal na adhikang ito ng bayan ay ipalalagay na taksil at kalaban maliban na nga lamang kung may sakit na dinaramdam o ang katawa’y may sama at sila’y paguusigin alinsunod sa palatuntunang ating pinaiiral. — Bundok ng Kalaayan, ika-28 ng Agosto ng 1896, May Pagasa.

###

Reference:

Agoncillo, Teodoro. The Revolt of the Masses. Quezon City: University of the Philippines, 1956. Print.

Alcazaren, Paulo. "Wait a Monument." Philippine Star. March 9, 2002.http://www.philstar.com/modern-living/153242/wait-monument/.

Chua, Michael Charleston. “Shouting in Bronze: The Lasting Relevance of Andres Bonifacio and His Monument in Caloocan.” Artes de las Filipinas.http://www.artesdelasfilipinas.com/archives/52/shouting-in-bronze-the-lasting-relevance-of-andres-bonifacio-and-his-monument-in-caloocan.

Guillermo E. Tolentino. Facing History. Kalipunan ng Sining at Kultura ng Pasig, Inc., 2003. Print.

Richardson, Jim. “Katipunan: Documents and Studies.” Katipunan: Documents and Studies.http://www.kasaysayan-kkk.info/.

May, Glenn Anthony. Inventing A Hero: The Posthumous Re-creation of Andres Bonifacio. Quezon City: New Day Publishers, 1997. Print.

Melendez, Christian Bernard A. “A Moment for the Monument.” National Historical Commission of the Philippines. March 22, 2013. http://nhcp.gov.ph/a-moment-for-the-monument/.

Ocampo, Ambeth R. Bonifacio’s Bolo. Manila: Anvil Publishing Inc., 1995. Print.

CCP Encyclopedia of Philippine Art, Volume IV: Philippine Visual Arts.

Programa de la Inauguracion del Monumento de Andres Bonifacio

RECOMMENDED READING AND RELATED DOCUMENTS:

Bonifacio 2013: Featuring an interactive multimedia timeline of the life, works, and achievements of Andres Bonifacio

Imprinting Andres Bonifacio: From Portrait to Peso: How well do we know Andres Bonifacio? An essay on the different artistic renditions of the Supremo through the years.

The Founding of the Katipunan: An essay on the revolutionary secret society’s history, structure, and membership, as well as a list of members who were present in Balintawak at the outbreak of the Philippine Revolution in August 1896.

Andres Bonifacio’s Decalogue, and the Kartilya ng Katipunan

Evolution of the Revolution: A series of maps tracing the progression of the Philippine Revolution from 1896 to the First Philippine Republic.

Tejeros Convention: An essay on the Tejeros Convention, and the events leading up to it, as well as a series of maps that illustrate in detail the various offensives and counter offensives launched by both Filipino and Spanish forces during the revolution.

The Trial of Andres Bonifacio: A retrospective on the trial of Andres Bonifacio as the natural progression from the events and the outcome of the Tejeros Convention.

Transcript of the Trial of Andres Bonifacio: A collection of accounts and documents related to the trial, such as the testimony of Andres Bonifacio himself.

Andres Bonifacio’s Letter to Emilio Jacinto (April 24, 1897)

Andres Bonifacio’s Letter to Julio Nakpil (April 24, 1897)

Mrs. Andres Bonifacio’s Letter to Emilio Jacinto Re: Bonifacio’s Arrest

Mrs. Andres Bonifacio’s Letter to Emilio Jacinto Re: Bonifacio’s Arrest (English Translation)

General Pantaleon Garcia’s Account of the Revolution

General Pio del Pilar on the Arrest of Andres Bonifacio

Francisco Carreon’s Account of the Arrest of Andres Bonifacio

Artemio Ricarte on the Arrest and Execution of Bonifacio

Origin of the Symbols of our National Flag: An essay tracing the origins of the Philippine flag’s design elements.

Flags and Banners of the Colonial Era: An infographic timeline tracing the various flags and banners that have flown over the Philippine islands since 1521.

[AUDIO] Alerta! Katipunan: Listen to the march of the Katipunan.

[AUDIO] Sa Marahas Na Manga Anak Nang Bayan: Listen to Andres Bonifacio’s manifesto, as read by Mario O’Hara.

OFWs and the Human Rights Situation the Philippines

By Belarmino Dabalos Saguing
Rome Italy 20 July 201\5

Will you remain CONTENT TO LOOK ON PASSIVELY and let it happen to your children, parents and relatives you have lefty behind in the country?

Freedom and Human Rights


Throughout history people have strived to be free. Yet all people still live with less freedom than is possible. Individuals must sacrifice some of their freedom in order to live in even a democratic society, such as for example not being able to violate any laws. Additionally, even if one lives in a free society, their freedom is limited by the need to earn a living, which subjects them to spending time in a dictatorship environment, or even  slavery, if tied to a capitalled employer as a paid worker.
True freedom is the ability for each person to live as they desire. This is the ultimate human dream, and therefore should be Humanity's consummate goal.We could accelerate the pace at which we reach this better world if we made the same a common goal, and devoted some more resources toward finding the knowledge to make it a reality for all. 


When there is interaction between humans, there must be some limits on conduct. Any rules, and methods for enforcing the rules, should be established by the majority of humans through democracy. Basic fundamental government services are also necessary for coordinating common efforts, determining land use, and ensuring that everyone has access to the production capabilities. Under such future technological circumstances all institutions, other than government, are unnecessary. Multiple levels of government are unnecessary, and a global government is all that is needed. Of course there should be total freedom for people to organize.


We often think of freedom in a military sense—a war is won, soldiers return home, prisoners are freed, and bullets no longer fly. People walk their streets in safety, and citizens enjoy such rights as free speech, voting, and worshipping as they choose. From this perspective, liberty is achieved through force—combat or a military presence and maintained through laws, governing bodies, judges, and men and women who fight against those who oppose freedom. 


What is, there this so-called freedom or human rights?  This is defined in the preamble of trhe United Nation InUniversal Declaration of Human rights.[2]

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

The fundamental rights of every person living on this planet is defined in Articles 1 – 30 of the aforementioned Declaration of Rights [2]

What it Means to Violate Human Rights

There is now near-universal consensus that all individuals are entitled to certain basic rights under any circumstances. These include certain civil liberties and political rights, the most fundamental of which is the right to life and physical safety. Human rights are the articulation of the need for justice, tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity in all of our activity. Speaking of rights allows us to express the idea that all individuals are part of the scope of morality and justice.

To protect human rights is to ensure that people receive some degree of decent, humane treatment. To violate the most basic human rights, on the other hand, is to deny individuals their fundamental moral entitlements. It is, in a sense, to treat them as if they are less than human and undeserving of respect and dignity.

 Examples are acts typically deemed "crimes against humanity," including genocide, torture, slavery, rape, enforced sterilization or medical experimentation, and deliberate starvation. Because these policies are sometimes implemented by governments, limiting the unrestrained power of the state is an important part of international law. Underlying laws that prohibit the various "crimes against humanity" is the principle of nondiscrimination and the notion that certain basic rights apply universally. [3]

The number of deaths related to combat and the collateral damage caused by warfare are only a small part of the tremendous amount of suffering and devastation caused by conflicts. Over the course of protracted conflict, assaults on political rights and the fundamental right to life are typically widespread. Some of the gravest violations of the right to life are massacres, the starvation of entire populations, and genocide. Genocide is commonly understood as the intentional extermination of a single ethnic, racial, or religious group. Killing group members, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing measures to prevent birth, or forcibly transferring children are all ways to bring about the destruction of a group. Genocide is often regarded as the most offensive crime against humanity.

The term "war crime" refers to a violation of the rules of jus in bello (justice in war) by any individual, whether military or civilian. The laws of armed conflict prohibit attacks on civilians and the use of weapons that cause unnecessary suffering or long-term environmental damage. Other war crimes include taking hostages, firing on localities that are undefended and without military significance, such as hospitals or schools, inhuman treatment of prisoners, including biological experiments, and the pillage or purposeless destruction of property. Although clearly outlawed by international law, such war crimes are common. According to Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations, it is increasingly true that "the main aim...[of conflicts]... is the destruction not of armies but of civilians and entire ethnic groups.”

Women and girls are often raped by soldiers or forced into prostitution. For a long time, the international community has failed to address the problem of sexual violence during armed conflict. However, sexual assaults, which often involve sexual mutilation, sexual humiliation, and forced pregnancy, are quite common. Such crimes are motivated in part by the long-held view that women are the "spoils" of war to which soldiers are entitled. Trafficking in women is a form of sexual slavery in which women are transported across national borders and marketed for prostitution. These so-called "comfort women" are another example of institutionalized sexual violence against women during wartime. Sexual violence is sometimes viewed as a way to destroy male and community pride or humiliate men who cannot "protect" their women. It is also used to silence women who are politically active, or simply inflict terror upon the population at large. Mass rapes may also form part of a genocidal strategy, designed to impose conditions that lead to the destruction of an entire group of people. For example, during the 1990s, the media reported that "rape and other sexual atrocities were a deliberate and systematic part of the Bosnian Serb campaign for victory in the war" in the former Yugoslavia.

Rather than simply killing off whole populations, government forces may carry out programs of torture. Torture can be either physical or psychological, and aims at the "humiliation or annihilation of the dignity of the person." Physical torture might include mutilation, beatings, and electric shocks to lips, gums, and genitals. In psychological torture, detainees are sometimes deprived of food and water for long periods, kept standing upright for hours, deprived of sleep, or tormented by high-level noise.

Torture is used in some cases as a way to carry out interrogations and extract confessions or information. Today, it is increasingly used as a means of suppressing political and ideological dissent, or for punishing political opponents who do not share the ideology of the ruling group.

In addition to torture, tens of thousands of people detained in connection with conflicts "disappear" each year, and are usually killed and buried in secret. Government forces "take people into custody, hold them in secret, and then refuse to acknowledge responsibility for their whereabouts or fate." This abduction of persons is typically intended to secure information and spread terror. In most cases, interrogations involve threats and torture, and those who are arrested are subsequently killed. Corpses are buried in unmarked graves or left at dumpsites in an attempt to conceal acts of torture  and summary execution of those in custody. Because people disappear without any trace, families do not know whether their loved ones are alive or dead.

Various lesser forms of political oppression are often enacted as well. Individuals who pose a threat to those in power or do not share their political views may be arbitrarily imprisoned, and either never brought to trial or subject to grossly unfair trial procedures. Mass groups of people may be denied the right to vote or excluded from all forms of political participation. Or, measures restricting people's freedom of movement may be enforced. These include forcible relocations, mass expulsions, and denials of the right to seek asylum or return to one's home.

Political oppression may also take the form of discrimination. When this occurs, basic rights may be denied on the basis of religion, ethnicity, race, or gender. Apartheid, which denies political rights on the basis of race, is perhaps one of the most severe forms of discrimination. The system of apartheid in South Africa institutionalized extreme racial segregation that involved laws against interracial marriage or sexual relations and requirements for the races to live in different territorial areas. Certain individuals were held to be inferior by definition, and not regarded as full human beings under the law. The laws established under this system aimed at social control, and brought about a society divided along racial lines and characterized by a systematic disregard for human rights.

In addition, women are uniquely vulnerable to certain types of human rights abuses -- in addition to the sexual abuse mentioned above, entrenched discrimination against women is prevalent in many parts of the world and leads to various forms of political and social oppression. This includes strict dress codes and harsh punishments for sexual "transgressions," which impose severe limitations on women's basic liberties. In addition, women in some regions (Africa , for example) suffer greater poverty than men and are denied political influence, education, and job training.[3]

The Question of Humanitarian Intervention

There is much disagreement about when and to what extent outside countries can engage in humanitarian intervention. More specifically, there is debate about the efficacy of using military force to protect the human rights of individuals in other nations. This sort of debate stems largely from a tension between state sovereignty and the rights of individuals.

Some defend the principles of state sovereignty and nonintervention, and argue that other states must be permitted to determine their own course. It is thought that states have diverse conceptions of justice, and international coexistence depends on a pluralist ethic whereby each state can uphold its own conception of the good. Among many, there is "a profound skepticism about the possibilities of realizing notions of universal justice." States that presume to judge what counts as a violation of human rights in another nation interfere with that nation's right to self-determination. In addition, requiring some country to respect human rights is liable to cause friction and can lead to far-reaching disagreements. Thus, acts of intervention may disrupt interstate order and lead to further conflict.

Others think, "Only the vigilant eye of the international community can ensure the proper observance of international standards, in the interest not of one state or another but of the individuals themselves.] They maintain that massive violations of human rights, such as genocide and crimes against humanity, warrant intervention, even if it causes some tension or disagreement. Certain rights are inalienable and universal, and "taking basic rights seriously means taking responsibility for their protection everywhere." If, through its atrocious actions, a state destroys the lives and rights of its citizens, it temporarily forfeits its claims to legitimacy and sovereignty. Outside governments then have a positive duty to take steps to protect human rights and preserve life. In addition, it is thought that political systems that protect human rights reduce the threat of world conflict. Thus, intervention might also be justified on the ground of preserving international security.

Nevertheless, governments are often reluctant to commit military forces and resources to defend human rights in other states. In addition, the use of violence to end human rights violations poses a moral dilemma insofar as such interventions may lead to further loss of innocent lives. It is imperative that the least amount of force necessary to achieve humanitarian objectives be used, and that intervention not do more harm than good. Lastly, there is a need to ensure that intervention is legitimate, and motivated by genuine humanitarian concerns. The purposes of intervention must be apolitical and disinterested. However, if risks and costs of intervention are high, it is unlikely that states will intervene unless their direct interests are involved.

Many note that in order to truly address human rights violations, we must strive to understand the underlying causes of these breaches. These causes have to do with underdevelopment, economic pressures, various social problems, and international conditions.[39] Indeed, the roots of repression, discrimination, and other denials of human rights stem from deeper and more complex political, social, and economic problems. It is only by understanding and ameliorating these root causes and strengthening civil society that we can truly protect human rights.

OFWs and Human Rights Violation In the Philippines

Many OFWs are unaware of the connections between HRV and outward Migration of Filipino Workers, for one important reason: Freedom from want (poverty) is a fundamental right of everty human being. If we are looking for a common denominator, let us analyze this context. Almost every OFW, in varying degrees, has experienced poverty, has seen it everywhere in the country, and has known its devastating effects to a family, yet failed to see the connection.

In the present set up of our establishment in the Philippines, we should have known that it is SYSTEMATIC. The economic programs of the country has no room for economic advancement of the people. It aims to make the establishment rich without filtering the wealth to the people. Only the very rich, mostly who benefits from the so-called economic advances of the country. The few rich amassed more wealth, leaving the poor majory poor than ever. For this reason, the workers has been left with no alternatives left within the Philippine territory and are goaded to migrate.

OFWs must be informed and warned that our country is in danger of sinking. We must know that facts and understand that we, too, mjust act to help prevent it from happening, for the sake of our kindreds, for the sake of our children and grand children.

There are many OFWs who even consider those who vocally criticize the government for its failkure to give even a minimum remedy to the problem of poverty. Many frown at the so-called activists who call for action to dethrone the ruling regime.

But we must understand that when the rule of the establishment has been to the dewtrement of the people, it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law (see Presamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). And the time is ripe! The establishment is, for a long time, has even been using what was supposed to be the people’s protection from detrimental acts of the establishment against the people, now is being used to commit more human rights violations: silencing the critics by killing then or imprisoning them with false accusation. The establishment is using the armed forces to stiffle lawful protests and  criticismsWith this acts of terrorism the regime is commiting a series of Human Rights violations.

POVERTY IS TERRORISM.

Will you remain CONTENT TO LOOK ON PASSIVELY and let it happen to your children, parents and relatives you have lefty behind in the country?

THE CHOICE IS YOURS.

   

[1] Wikipedia 

[2]  United Nations International Declaration of Human Rights           

[3] Human Rights Violations, Beyond Intractabiliy July 2003

.