PAGPAPALALIM NG TALAKAYAN HINGGIL SA USAPING BONIFACIO-AGUINALDO In response to Xiao Chua’s post—SHOW OF HANDS?—re the the article of Guerrero et al, “Andres Bonifacio and the 1896 Revolution”, and subsequent comments (including my own), Jaime B Veneracion, comments: Jaime Veneracion "Noong 1997, nakipag-usap kami ni Bernadette Abrera kay UP Pres. Emil Javier tungkol sa pagpapatuloy ng aming Lupon sa Sentenaryo. Sabi ni Prez, tapos na ang sa inyo, iba na ang hahawak para sa 1898 na siyang talagang nadesisyunan ng Kongreso na sentenaryo ng bansa. Kung sabagay, tama naman siya. Si Bonifacio, hindi dapat ilinya sa antas ni Agui at ng mga sumunod sa kanya na mas masahol pa. Tama na nga ang nagawa ng aming lupon na makilala si Bonifacio bilang Ama ng Sambayanang Pilipino. Kung gagamitin natin ang lohika ng pangulo-presidente na nasa petisyon, eh bakit hindi si Rizal ang gawing unang presidente dahil siya naman ang nagbuo ng buong ideolohiya ng Rebolusyon na kinakatawan ng La Liga Filipina? na siya rin ang nagtatag? pangulo... sa Katipunan, ang unang presidente ay si Deodato Arellano!?+." I was expecting Xiao Chua to critically respond to Veneracion’s questioning of the logic of the petition to recognize Bonifacio as the first president, considering that Xiao was the one circulating the petition. But instead of addressing Veneracion’s objection, Xiao simply indicated that he liked Veneracion’s point, thereby giving the impression that he agrees with Veneracion and has changed his mind re the petition. But I think Guerrero et al raise a very crucial issue—and that Xiao did a good thing in circulating a petition in the first place. What puzzles me is why Xiao seems to agree now with Veneracion (he clicked "like" to the latters comment) instead of engaging his former mentor in a reasoned argument. On my part, I think we should seriously consider Veneracion’s questioning of the logic of the petition. Veneracion’s point compels us to confront or face head-on the argument of Guerrero et al. Those who think that the Guerrero et al position is INVALID have the responsibility to show how or in what way it is invalid. They can proceed to do this by demonstrating 1) that the premises are false; and 2) that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Those who think that the Guerrero et al argument is VALID, on the other hand, have a responsibility to address the issue raised by Veneracion (instead of just clicking "like" to his comment). I wish to contribute to this important discussion by first clarifying the argument of Guerrero et al—its premises and conclusions—and then raising the issues (8 questions) that arise from the argument. I submit that the answers to these 8 questions would guide us re. the course of action we should take re the Bonifacio-Aguinaldo issue. THE PREMISSES of Guerrero et al’s argument 1. "On 24 August 1896, Andres Bonifacio convened tha Kataastaasang Kapulungan or National Assembly of the Katipunan in Melchora Aquino’s barn in barrio Banlat, then part of Kalookan. Assembled were the members of the Kataastaasang Kapulungan (Supreme Council), as well as the pangulo (heads) of the sangunian (supra-municipal) and balangay (chapter) units. There they made three major decisions. First, they declared a nationwide armed revolution to win freedom from Spain. SECOND, THEY ESTABLISHED A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. And third, they elected officials who would lead the nation and the army." (NOTA BENE: Guerrero et all should indicate their SOURCE for this and their subsequent premissess. FQ) 2. This newly constituted revolutionary government was recognized by the Spanish media and historians at that time: "An article on the Philippine revolution appeared in then 8 February 1897 issue of the La Ilusracion Español y Americana. It was accompanied by an engraved portrait of Bonifacio wearing a black suit and white tie, with the caption “Andres Bonifacio, Titulado “Presidente’ de la Republica Tagala” and described him as the head of the native government. The reporter, GA. Reparaz, referred to Aguinaldo only as a generalissimo. The key officers in the Bonifacio government, according to Reparaz, were as follows : Teodoro Plata, Secretary of war; Emilio Jacinto, Secretary of State; Aguedo del Rosario, Secretary of Interior; Briccio Pantas, Secretary of Justice; and Enrique Pacheco as Secretary of Finance." "In his 1897 work, "El Katipunan o El Filibusterismo en Filipinas," the Spanish historian Jose M.del Castillo reiterated the results of what was, in effect, the first Philippine national elections and listed the same names as La Ilustracion." 3. This newly constituted revolutionary government headed by Bonifacio was recognized by the revolutionary forces in Cavite "Baldomero Aguinaldo, Pangulo (President) of Sangunian Bayan Magdalo (Magdalo Council), in a letter dated 21 March 1897 and addressed to Felix Cuenca and Mariano Noriel refers to a memorandum from Bonifacio as “isang Kalatas ng G. Presidente” (a message from Mr. President) and recognizes the national government led by Bonifacio as “Kgg na pulungan ng hihimacsic (Gobierno revolucionario)” (Honorable revolutionary council (Revolutionary government). 4. Bonifacio, as president was effectively the commander-in-chief. Aguinaldo was one of his captains general. CONCLUSIONS of Guerrero et al’s agument: 1. "Thus, the government headed by Bonifacio prior to 22 March 1897 was democratic in nature and national in scope, contrary to some postwar historians’ contention that Bonifacio attempted to establish a government separate from Aguinaldo’s only after the Tejeros Assembly, and was therefore guilty of treason." 2. "As commander-in-chief, Bonifacio supervised the planning of military strategies and the preparation of orders, manifests and decrees, adjudicated offenses against the nation, as well as mediated in political disputes. He directed generals and positioned troops in the fronts. On the basis of command responsibility [NOTA BENE—BUT DID THIS EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY APPLY TO CAVITE? FQ] all victories and defeats all over the archipelago during his term of office should be attributed to Bonifacio." 3. "The governments that succeeded Bonifacio’s essentially republican Katagalugan government could only proceed from it. The 24 August 1896` government certainly had a large mass-based following than the 24 August 1897 entity that deposed it. But as a result of the power struggle in Cavite, Emilio Aguinaldo, although only one of many revolutionary generals, usurped President Andres Bonifacio’s authority. Aguinaldo reorganized Bonifacio’s Republika ng Katagalugan and renamed it Republica Filipina." 4. "The first Filipino national government was established on 24 August 1896. Filipinos should observe the date as National Day, if the 1896 Philippine Revolution and the Katipunan are to have any worth at all. And Filipinos should recognize Andres Bonifacio not only the founder of the Katipunan and leader of the revolution of 1896, but as the first Filipino president: the father of the nation and founder of our democracy." ISSUES: 8 QUESTIONS for article authors Guerrero, Encarnacion, Villegas and for Xiao Chua, who circulated the petition, and Jaime B Veneracion, who questions the logic of the petition: 1) Was the calling for a convention in Cavite (the Tejeros convention) to form a new revolutionary government necessary and justified? 2) In agreeing to participate in the Tejeros convention, didn’t Bonifacio tacitly agree with the Caviteños (both Magdiwang and Magdalo) that the Revolutionary Government he formed in Balintawak on August 24 needed to be replaced by a new revolutionary government? 3) The reported anomalies—cheating (as observed by Ricarte)—and the breaches in the agreed upon rules of the convention—Tirona questioning the election of Bonifacio as Director of Interior; Tirona insulting Bonifacio was uneducated and unfit for the position of Director General—are now accepted as fact and beyond contention by practically all serious scholars. In view of the anomalies and breaches of rules, did Bonifacio, as presiding officer, have the right to declare the proceedings null and void, and did he have the right to dissolve the convention? 4) In view of the anomalies and breaches of rules, did Bonifacio have a right to form a separate revolutionary government? 5) In view of the post-Tejeros convention action of Boni (#4), did the “new revolutionary government” that was formed by the Tejeros convention have a right to arrest and try Bonifacio for treason? 6) Did Aguinaldo have a right to have the final say in the fate of Bonifacio—i.e., sign the order of execution of Bonifacio? 7) If the answers to # 5 and # 6 are YES, then the matter is closed. But if the answers are NO—and that, therefore, the new revolutionary government, as presided by Aguinado, didn’t have a right to arrest and execute Bonifacio—can it then be concluded that what the Aguinaldo-led revolutionary government in Cavite did to Bonifacio constituted a criminal act of murder? 8) If the answer to #7 is YES, then, shouldn’t the ones responsible for the arrest, trial and murder of Bonifacio be tried for treason—if posthumously--by the PEOPLE OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES?
Posted on: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 01:23:27 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015