Reflections on the Bangsa Moro

(from the M.A. thesis of Datu Jamal Ashley Abbas, with additional notes)

The Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) produced a one-hour documentary containing four episodes. The first two episodes were titled: “Komunidad Mindanao” and were sub-titled Komunidad Basilan: Peace and Governance Redeemed and From War Zone to Thriving Communities: The Story of Former Camp Abubakar. The last two episodes dealt with Christian communities in the North. This documentary was aired on national TV in the early part of March this year (2004).

The two episodes portrayed Moro provinces as war-torn but the government turned them around into bustling communities once again. And instead of waging war against Moros, i.e., the Abu Sayyaf Group in Basilan and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) in Maguindanao, the government waged a more meaningful war – a war against Poverty. These two episodes used Dr. Tan’s (1) ideological weapons to the hilt to gain the hearts of the Moro audience.

The documentary however fails to convince because the military is still shown all over the place and there is really not much improvement on the lives of the people. There was no massive pouring in of infrastructure. Government intervention was limited to building dirt roads, providing the public school with a couple of teachers and the giving of some supplemental food to children. Much of the footage was devoted to the President and her DSWD secretary.

What is interesting in the first episode is the focus on Lantawan Mayor Tahira Ismael Samsawi, a Tausug woman and her vice mayor Felix Dalugdugan, a Christian male. If anything, this shows the high respect given by Moros to their women and even to Christians. While Basilan is 90% Muslim, Christians have been elected to various posts including governor and congressman.

A 15-minute documentary by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) titled Behind the Veil gives a poignant portrayal of the horrors of the MNLF war as experienced by Moro women.

This documentary contains many of the prevailing Philippine discourses on the Bangsa Moro and their women. First, it describes the Moros as belonging to 13 ethno-linguistic groups who call Mindanao their home. This definition relegates the Moros to a bunch of disparate groups with Islam as a common denominator. This definition becomes problematic when one comes to the Yakan and Badjao groups, many of whom are not Muslims. This definition also erases the proud history of the Moros who belonged to the Sultanates of Maguindanao, Sulu, Buayan and the Lanao confederacy. These were sovereign states. The first three had treaties with England, Spain, the Netherlands and the U.S. beginning in the 16th century. (Majul:1973, etc.)

The narrator, Ninez Cacho Olivares, explained the MNLF war in the 1970s, noting that some 100,000 Moros died in that war, while half a million fled Mindanao. Then she says, “Through all these, the Moro women kept silent vigil.” A few seconds later, she says, “In the 1970’s, these women went to war.” The documentary then features a series of Moro women recounting their experiences as MNLF fighters in the 1970s. One is led to ask, “Did the Moro women keep silent vigil or were they as noisy as their guns?”

The narrator says: “In the 1990s, we see them as shapeless figures in long loose dresses, their faces behind veils, their ways bound by strict codes of Islam.” Again, one can infer that an accusing finger is pointed at Islam for its “strict codes” that bind (read: dis-empower) women.

Is that how the Christians saw the Moro women in the 1990s? A Tausug senator, Santanina Rasul was a senator until 1992 and is still nationally active today. She does not wear a veil. Her daughter is now running for senator, a national office. She does not wear a veil. A Maranao woman won a national beauty pageant in the 1990s. She did not and still does not wear a veil.

What is the definition of a veil? Nowadays, it is customary for people to call a scarf that covers one’s head and shoulders a veil. Bandanas, a common accessory among Filipino women until the 1960s, would now be called a veil. Even if one calls bandanas or scarves veils, there would be nothing behind these scarves-cum-veils.

But the title of the documentary is “Behind the Veil”. And the narrator says, “…their faces behind veils.” Yet of all the interviewees, only 2 wore veils that covered their faces. And these two were deputy commanders of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front’s (MILF’s) Women’s Auxiliary Brigade.

The difference between the MNLF and the MILF is not only their second letters. The government calls the former “moderate” and the latter “fundamentalist”. The first usually signifies uncovered faces while the second signifies covered faces.

In the Moro society, or even in the Muslim world, less than one percent of the women cover their faces. And in the Philippines, many of those who cover their faces are not even Moros – they are Christians converted to Islam. One other interviewee who had her face covered in the PCIJ documentary was Babylynn Omar. Judging from her name, accent and phrasing of words, one can infer that she is a convert.

Again, the Orientalist view of the Muslim woman as a second-class, even unthinking being, is perpetuated by this documentary. Veiled (veil-covered faces) women are shown training for war – dismantling weapons, shooting with long arms, etc. Yet the narrator goes on to say that although trained for war, these women will never go to war; they know they have a place in the jihad but they cannot fight alongside their men. Contradictions abound.

To cement the portrayal of a Muslim woman as a second-class citizen, an MILF woman cadre says, “Women are not allowed to decide on their own. We follow the decisions of men.” Fortunately, a former MNLF woman says, “War is always an option and women will be there with their men.”

Even how well-intentioned a documentary or a film is, somehow, the Moros come out second best. This is because of the non-Muslim’s or non-Moro’s lack of awareness of the different nuances in Islamic and Moro culture, history, politics and general environment.

A very pro-Moro documentary was produced by the Philippine Human Rights Information Center titled Bangsamoro: Isang Sulyap sa Kanilang Pakikibaka. The left-leaning organization went out with their guns blazing in this documentary. The villain in this documentary is the government. As the narrator said, “Nilinaw ng MNLF na ang kanilang kalaban ay ang Philippine government, hindi ang masang Kristiyano.”

This 30-minute documentary correctly puts the present conflict in proper historical context although its research on history is a bit awkward. For example, it exaggerated the strength of Sultan Qudarat of Maguindanao. The documentary made him into a veritable Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan. It said that Qudarat’s territory covered Mindanao, Sulu, Borneo, Sabah, Celebes, Cebu and many others including China.

The portion on the Badjaos of Batangas did not seem to be in synchrony with the rest of the story. It portrayed a group of Badjaos who sailed from Zamboanga during the height of the conflict and settled on the shores of Batangas.

Some Badjaos are Muslims and many are not. The Christian producers do not seem aware of that so they try to give their own explanation. They think all Badjaos are Muslims. To explain the apparent “non-Muslimness” of the Badjaos, a Christian professor explains that the Badjaos’ concerns center on daily survival so that they hardly know Islam. The narrator says that some people do not consider the Badjaos as belonging to the Bangsa Moro. She further says that the Badjaos are discriminated upon by both the Christians and the Moros.

To corroborate the ideas of the professor, the interviewer then asks a Badjao couple if they know the Bangsa Moro. (“Alam nyo ba ang Bangsa Moro?”) The couple, who have Muslim names, could not understand the logic of the question. The guy answers, “Kami ang mga Moros.” (We are the Moros.) The interviewer then asks in Tagalog, “What do you know of the Bangsa Moro?” The couple answer, “Kasama namin. Pareho namin.” The couple were obviously perplexed at the question.

The scene then goes to a Badjao woman with a Christian name and born in Batangas. She says she remembers nothing of Mindanao. Yet she and a couple of colleagues dance a Moro dance, the Sama version of the pangalay.

It was obvious that the producers and director do not know what to make of the Badjaos.

The documentary correctly points out that the Moros are disappointed with the concept of autonomy and that they are asking for their right to self-determination.

Betraying their leftist biases, the documentary-makers pointed out that the real terrorists are the Americans who, as early as the 1900’s, massacred thousands of Moro men, women and children.

The leftists are also very particular about the “numbers game”. They insist that the Moros are a minority in Mindanao (therefore, they cannot dictate their future.) According to the narrator, there were only 2.5 million Moros left in Mindanao in 1990 although the Moros numbered 14 million at the height of the conflict. The Mindanao problem is also a statistics problem.

Whatever its flaws, this documentary tries to present the Moro situation from the point of view of the Moros. However, it is quirt unfortunate that not many will see this documentary as the producers do not intend to air it on national TV due to budgetary constraints.

In 2002, a documentary on the Battle of Bayang was shown on national TV to commemorate the battle’s centennial. Writer / reporter Howie Severino must have believed he had a “scoop” when he found a man claiming to be an eyewitness to the event one hundred years ago. The man was supposed to be 112 years old. But the way he talked, walked and moved could not make him more than 80 years old.

It is normal for people to exaggerate the age of the elderly. When my grandmother was in her 80s, people thought she was 100 years old. Even my own cousins still think that their father died in the 1970s when he was 100 years old or so. I know that it was not so because my grandfather was the elder brother, and he was born ca. 1898.

One interviewee said that only five men survived the battle of Bayang. Severino did not even ask how five men could populate Bayang so fast in three or so generations. How could there be so many clans in Bayang today if only five men were left in 1902? This writer’s great-grandfather, al faqih Sheikh Yahya ibn Hadi, an Arab jurist from the Sultanate of Lahej, survived the Battle of Bayang with his children. His descendants now number almost a thousand. He was not one of the five men mentioned.

If Severino read the historical accounts of the Battle, he would have known that there were many survivors. The battle ended because of mis-communication. When the Sultan of Bayang was slain, the people put up the white flag signifying the death of the Sultan. The Americans thought it was the flag of surrender so they ceased firing and sent their negotiating team.

The Bayang warriors were confused. They were angry because the reinforcements from other camps did not arrive and were crestfallen because of the death of the Sultan and leading datus. Thus, they decided to leave the fort instead and fight another day.

There was no surrender. There was no annihilation of the people of Bayang. It appears that in all these documentaries, there is need for more research work, especially when it comes to history. __

1 Tan, Samuel K. (2000) Three Wars and the President Kasarinlan Vol. 15, No. 2 University of the Philippines, pp. 221-226

Rolling Stone : V for Vendetta : Review

The Movie to watch in Big Sister’s Philippines . The Wachowski brothers did it again! The Matrix (the original) was such a great philosophical metaphor of a film. This time, it is a straightforward attack on the idiots who support and follow Georgie Porgie and his War on Terror.

Well, it is still a metaphor but anyone can immediately see the parallel between the High Chancellor (played by the very good actor John Hurt) and George W. Bush, and the events in the film are close to reality.

The Americans have already given up some of their freedoms in support of Bush’s War on Terror. It is nor inconceivable that the US will go the way of England as depicted in the film.

In fact, in the Philippines, some of the things shown in the film are already happening. As the soldiers involved in the Oakwood mutiny have asserted, the bombing in Davao was done by the soldiers themselves with no less than the Armed Forces Chief of Staff or Defense Secretary (Angelo Reyes) being involved.

And of course, the modus operandi of arresting people then labeling them as terrorists and later killing them extrajudicially is too plain to see by critical thinking people.

Little Miss Gloria, her little “Mike to the Defense” Defensor and her Justice Secretary should watch this film.

This film is recommended to all freedom-loving people, especially the Muslims, who now carry the stigma of terrorism the world over due to Bush propaganda.

I must say, hats off to the Wachowskis for their courage in making a film that goes against the Terror-mongerers like Bush and Blair.

In the Philippines, such a movie could not be made. The producers / director would be charged with sedition by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her Jusdtice Secretary.

» ‘PCIJ is inciting to sedition’ — Justice Secretary Gonzalez

Media’s Role in Democracies

The acclaimed Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) was threatened with arrests because of its web log (blog). The Philippine government now wants to extend its claws even into Cyberspace

In a representative democracy, the government is supposed to be “of the people, by the people and for the people.” The leaders are elected by the people. If the leaders do their job well, they get re-elected and if not, they lose. The only way for the people to know if the leaders are doing their job well or not is through the mass media.

Mass media’s role, therefore, is very crucial in representative democracies. Thus, the US Constitution’s First Amendment prohibits any laws “abridging the freedom of the press.” The Philippine Constitution of 1986 has a similar provision. Article III of the Constitution presents the Bill of Rights, namely:

Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Section 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law… Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

The framers of the Constitution made sure that the English construction is very simple so there would be no mis-interpretations. Yet it seems that the country’s government and/or police force do not understand these simple words.

The freedom to peaceably assemble is practically gone now through the implementation of the “no permit no rally” rule. The right to assemble and the right to express one’s grievances are basic in any democratic society.

The government, since PP1017, continues to warn media to follow government guidelines or else risk takeover. The office of one newspaper was raided and was about to be taken over if not for the resistance put up by its feisty publisher and the howls of protests from media people.

And now even the bloggers must beware or else Mr. Justice Secretary will call on the police to arrest these geeks-turned- rabble rousers.

March 8 is the International Women’s Day. On this day, some Muslim women in many parts of the world imitate Christian women and call for women’s rights. It is almost certain that in several fora and literature, Christian and Jewish women would describe Muslim women as having practically no rights in society.

I wrote the article below some years ago and was published in the Philippine Post on 14 December 1999.

                   *******     ********       *******

The Fall of Man by Titian (1570)

Eve, the mother of all the living *

Muslim women enjoy such a bad press in non-Muslim societies. They are pictured as suffering martyrs with no rights of their own, second-class citizens in their own societies. Any proofs to the contrary are usually ignored.

But it would be interesting to know how the Jews, Christians and Muslims regard Eve, the first woman. (The story of Adam and Eve is not universal. Only these three groups believe in it.). All three religions believe that God created Adam and Eve, the first humans. For the Jew and Christians, Eve was made out of Adam’s ribs. (”…This one shall be called ‘woman’, for out of ‘her man’ this one has been taken.” Genesis 2:23)

All 3 religions also believe in The Temptation and the subsequent Fall of the First Humans. But herein lies the difference. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the serpent “who was the most cunning of all the animals that the Lord God had made” tempted Eve to partake of the Forbidden Fruit. “So she took some of its fruits and ate it; she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.” (Genesis 3:6) When God asked Adam about it, he replied: “The woman whom you put here with me — she gave me fruit from the tree, and so I ate it.”

God then “banned (the serpent) from all animals and from all wild creatures” and to crawl on its belly and eat dirt forever. And God said: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.”

And God said to Eve: “I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master.” (Genesis 3: 12-16)

In contrast, the Qur’anic version is thus: “O Adam dwell with your wife in the Garden and enjoy as you wish but approach not this tree or you run into harm and transgression. Then Satan whispered to them in order to reveal to them their shame that was hidden from them…”(Qur’an vii: 19-20)’ When asked by God of their violation of His command, “They (Adam and Eve) said: ‘Our Lord we have wronged our own souls and if Thou forgive us not and bestow not upon us Thy Mercy, we shall certainly be lost’ ” (vii : 23). God then said: “Get ye down, Both of you,– all together (including Satan), From the Garden, with enmity to one another: but if, as is sure, there come to you Guidance from Me, whosoever follows My guidance, will not lose his way, nor fall into misery.” (xx: 123)

The contrast is very clear. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, Eve was to be blamed for the Fall, for which God punished all women with the pain of childbirth and subservience to their husband-master. God also decreed enmity between the woman and the serpent.

On the other hand, the Qur’anic Eve was not blamed at all. Both she and Adam shared the act and were both punished. God decreed enmity between Adam and Eve (mankind) on the one hand, and Satan on the other.

In Judeo-Christian tradition, Eve was the cause of man’s fall from Paradise and that she and her kind deserve the worst. In the Bible (Sirach 25:18-23), it says: “There is scarce any evil like that in a woman; may she fall to the lot of the sinner!…..In woman was sin’s beginning, and because of her, we all die.”

Jewish Rabbis listed nine curses inflicted on women as a result of Eve’s succumbing to Temptation: “To the woman He gave nine curses and death: the burden of the blood of menstruation and the blood of virginity; the burden of pregnancy; the burden of childbirth; the burden of bringing up the children; her head is covered as one in mourning; she pierces her ear like a permanent slave or slave girl who serves her master; she is not to be believed as a witness; and after everything–death.”

To the present day, orthodox Jewish men in their daily morning prayer recite: “Blessed be God King of the universe that Thou has not made me a woman.”

For Christians, Eve’s fault was truly great because it was the Original Sin, which their descendants bore and for which the Son of God had to be sacrificed on the cross.

The foremost Christian thinker St. Paul had this to say: “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I don’t permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner”(I Timothy 2:11-14).

St. Tertullian was even more blunt than St. Paul. While he was talking to his ‘best beloved sisters’ in the faith, he said: “Do you not know that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the Devil’s gateway: You are the unsealer of the forbidden tree: You are the first deserter of the divine law: You are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your desert even the Son of God had to die.”

St. Augustine has this to say about Eve and her kind: “What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman…I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children.”

Poor Eve, she was / is blamed for everything while her husband, and partner-in-crime remained/s unscathed.

Nowhere in the Qur’an can one find anything degrading about Eve or women in general. In the Qur’an, it says: “He (God) it is who did create you from a single soul and therefrom did create his mate, that he might dwell in her (in love)…” (vii : 189)

From the holy books, it is clear who regards women as second-class or even worst-class beings. Eve, the first woman and the mother of mothers, is reviled in Judaeo-Christian literature. She was the archetypal Siren, the Temptress, the Enchantress. She was the cause of Man’s fall from Grace and loss of Immortality.

It can fairly be said that how one regards the First Woman is how one regards ALL women.

• “The man called his wife Eve, because she became the mother of all the living.” (Genesis 3:20)

It has been regular practice for many “activist” women in many parts of the globe – from the Middle East to East Asia to Europe, Africa and the Americas – to go to the streets and demand more rights for women. Even in Muslim countries where, according to Western and non-Muslim critics, the women-folk have almost no rights at all, these rallies are tolerated.

Yet in a supposedly democratic Philippines, the staunchest supporter of Bush’s “mission to bring democracy to Iraq”, the women were forbidden to march in the streets to celebrate International Women’s Day. The policemen arrested a congresswoman, Rissa Hontiveros-Baraquel and a comrade for leading and organizing the women’s march.

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, a woman herself, celebrated the day with like-minded women (unfortunately some of them are my relatives) who gathered in the Palace. But she apparently had no desire to share the spirit of International Women’s Day with women of differing political ideologies.

In any democratic state, people are free to assemble and express their grievances. That is the essence of democracy. In the Philippines, the right to peaceably assemble has been scrapped by the so-called “No Permit-No Rally” Law.

Funny thing though, Mr. Marcos was deposed in 1986 but this law which was decreed by him was never repealed by his enemies who supposedly were lovers of freedom. Today, the Opposition controls the Senate and there is a significant number of opposition members in the House of Representatives. But nobody seems keen on repealing this very undemocratic law.

Philippine law privileges congressmen from arrests for minor offenses while Congress is in session. Yet Ms. Arroyo’s policemen arrested Rep. Hontiveros-Baraquel on nation-wide TV for the “crime” of illegal assembly.

Rep. Hontiveros-Baraquel next to Senator Pimentel

First, Ms. Arroyo prevented Filipinos from celebrating the 20th anniversary of EDSA 1986, the momentous occasion when the Filipinos regained their freedom from the clutches of Strongman Marcos and even had one of the marchers, a professor and columnist arrested on nation-wide TV. Now, Ms. Arroyo prevented women marchers from commemorating International Women’s Day and had a congresswoman arrested on nation-wide TV.

I wonder if Ms. Arroyo truly knows what’s going on in the country. She keeps on talking of building a “Strong Republic”. Is she really serious in being a “Strongwoman” just as Marcos was a strongman?

PROCLAMATION NO. 1017 PROCLAMATION DECLARING A STATE OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY WHEREAS, over these past months, elements in the political opposition have conspired with authoritarians of the extreme Left represented by the NDF-CPP-NPA and the extreme Right, represented by military adventurists — the historical enemies of the democratic Philippine State — who are now in tactical alliance and engaged in a concerted and systematic conspiracy, over a broad front, to bring down the duly constituted Government elected in May 2004.

Proclamation 1017 made a big deal about the Leftist-Rightist coalition that was supposedly bent on overthrowing GMA’s government. Since when did the Leftists and the Rightists become “the historical enemies” of the State?

The Marcos Martial Law administration was an extreme rightist regime. Ramos and Enrile were pillars of that regime. Ramos became president and Enrile became senator.

The Cory administration was full of Commies and Rightists. That was why it was so unstable.

Erap won because of his Left wing (Boy Morales et al) - Right Wing (the Zamora brothers et al) coalition.

EDSA DOS had lots of leftists and rightists. The leftists (those against the Morales group) claim that they “made” EDSA DOS. They claim that they, as representatives of “the people”, ousted President Estrada.

On the other hand, Mr. Saycon and Mr. Cojuanco claim that, together with some military men and even Church officials. they orchestrated the whole EDSA DOS affair.

In the Philippines, one can be a leftist today and a rightist the following day. GMA’s National Security Adviser (a very right-wing post) was Norberto Gonzales, who claimed to be a leftist before and was president of the Socialist Democratic Party PDSP, an alledgedly leftist group.

The University of the Philippines is being alleged as a haven for leftists. Is it really? Its President and Diliman Chancellor are blatantly rightists.

The UP College of Mass Communication dean-on-leave, Dr. Nicanor Tiongson is supposed to be a leftist. How in the world could he be a leftist when he was a Fulnright scholar and he loves the US so much? He is again in the US earning precious dollars.

Another CMC professor styles himself a leftist. In his books, all the ills of the country are blamed on Uncle Sam. Yet he just came from Japan earning big dollars and promptly left the country again for Singapore to earn more dollars.

These allegedly leftist UP professors are being paid their UP salary by the Filipino people while they teach abroad earning huge sums for themselves.

In the country’s political scene, one can change ideologies just as often as one can change political parties.

TIMEasia.com: News — Inside the Philippines Coup Plot

The (alleged) EDSA puppet masters

Peping, Boy Saycon et al are at it again.

After EDSA Dos, Boy Saycon kept on boasting that together with Cory Aquino’s brother Peping Cojuangco and a few others, he orchestrated the whole EDSA DOS event. He made it appear that the Filipino people, or at least the upper classes, were mere props to their stage play. Even the Opposition congressmen and senators who triggered the whole EDSA scenario by their insistence on opening the “second envelope” in the impeachment proceedings against Pres. Estrada, were not given much credit by Mr. Saycon.

To Mr. Saycon’s dismay, Pres. Arroyo did not give his group the goodies they wanted. They were indeed so naïve to think that Arroyo would trust them again after what they did to her in the 1998 presidential elections.

Arroyo was the standard bearer of the KAMPI political party whose real head was Peping Cojuanco. The Peping-faction of LDP had its political machinery still intact and was behind KAMPI.

Sen Tito Sotto was Arroyo’s running mate. Sotto has political pedigree (his grandfather and namesake was a senator) and political and entertainment connections. His wife was the top singing idol in the 60s and whose niece is a top singing idol since the 80s. The niece’s father was the long-time mayor of Pasay City, which adjoins Manila City.

I myself thought that the Arroyo-Sotto team was unbeatable. The Arroyo-Sotto popularity plus Peping’s political machinery made Arroyo the front runner. When my younger sister asked me to join the Arroyo-Sotto campaign, I gladly did. I liked the political platform of Arroyo. I thus joined the KAMPI Institute, the supposed think tank of the party which was tasked to make a real political party by recruiting grass roots members and organizing down to the barangay level. I was working with a cousin of Peping who ran the Institute.

Boy Saycon and Peping’s group, including Cardinal Sin, were behind the Arroyo-Sotto team.

But political rivals unleashed a smear campaign against Sen. Sotto which made the senator desist from running. Then all of a sudden, Peping, Saycon and even the good Cardinal dropped Arroyo like a hot potato and threw their support behind former Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim of the Liberal Party.

Poor Gloria, she did not know what to do. Then Joe de Venecia, in a stroke of political genius, offered Arroyo to be his running mate.

Personally, I could not campaign for a traditional politician like de Venecia. I was also uncomfortable with a police general like Lim. So I left the campaign trail.

When Gloria Arroyo assumed presidency, I knew she would make sure that Saycon and company would not get any juicy positions in spite of Saycon’s pronouncements that he and his group practically made EDSA DOS all by themselves.

If the TIME Asia online article is correct, then it seems that Mr. Saycon and company were up to their old tricks again.

But it must be emphasized that EDSA DOS would have happened even without Saycon et al. I was a consultant to a government agency in 2000 but I went to EDSA to demand Pres. Estrada’s resignation because I could not stomach how Erap’s cronies like Atong Ang enriched themselves through illegal gambling at the expense of the poor Filipinos. The Senate hearings and the impeachment proceedings were the ones that made me go to EDSA the second time around and not because of anybody’s machinations.

If there will be be an EDSA QUATRO, it will not be because of somebody’s machinations. It would be a spontaneous outpouring of people’s sentiments — just like before.

The Justice Secretary or Ms. Arroyo’s Chief of Staff should stop threatening Peping and his group. There is no way for the government to imprison powerful men or women like Peping Cojuangco. Only Martial Law can do that.

But Martial Law is a thing of the past.

Finally, when Peping and Saycon did what they claimed they did in EDSA DOS, they were considered good guys and were congratulated by GMA. Peping was even appointed as “Agriculture Czar” or something like it.

And now that they were up to exactly the same thing, they are threatened of being charged with sedition.