1986 People Power

Movement
Group 1
Reports on the 1986 Snap
Elections by International
Observers
External Criticism
● Published at: Washington, D.C.
: National Democratic Institute
for International Affairs :
National Republican Institute
for International Affairs, [1986]
● Print, book
● By international observer
delegation, national
democratic institute for
international affairs and
national republican institute
for international affairs
Internal Criticism
● How close was the author to the event being
studied?
- They are at the Philippines during the Snap Election
● When was the account made
- 1986
● Who was the recipient of the accounts?
- Filipinos
● Is there bias to be accounted for?
- None
● Does informed common sense make the account
probable?
- Yes
● Is the account corroborated by other accounts?
- Yes
Delegates
Executive Summary

1. The delegation concludes that the election of

February 7 was not conducted in a free and
fair manner.
Executive Summary

2. The delegation concludes that the February

15 Batasang.proclamation naming Ferdinand
Marcos and Arturo Tolentino the winners of the
February 7 election was invalid.
Executive Summary

3. The election succeeded in providing a

vehicle through which the national will of the
Philippines was ultimately expressed.
Executive Summary

4. There is no single piece of "smoking-gun" evidence which leads to our

determination that the election failed to meet a "free-and-fair" standard;
there are instead many "smoking-guns."

They include the following:

--The campaign period was marked by numerous violations of the

provisions designed to curb improper campaign practices and to limit
the Government's use of its power to influence the election;
Executive Summary
--The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) did not carry out its responsibility
under the election code to provide equal access to the television media during
the campaign period. As a result, Marcos benefited greatly from the partisan-
owed and influenced television and radio media, though the opposition had
reasonable access to alternative (radio and print) media.

--COMELEC officials were unable or unwilling to deal with the problem of

fraudulent registration. Safeguards designed to guard against double voting,
including indelible ink applied to voters' fingers, were in many areas either
ignored or unenforced. The combination of these two factors contrioutd to an
undetermined amount of double voting.
Executive Summary

--An estimated 3.5 million voters were disenfranchised on election day ,when
they could not find their names on the voting register. This resulted in a voter
turnout of only 76% in this important presidential election, as compared to 89%
in the 1984 Batasang election. This is a major drop off, especially considering
the absence of a well-organized boycott for this election.
Executive Summary

--Disenfranchisement appears to have occurred in opposition-oriented provinces

or cities. For example, in the ten cities and provinces which had the highest
voter turnout, the winner was the ruling party, while in the ten cities and
provinces which had the lowest turnout, the opposition won in eight out of ten.
Even more striking is that in the cities or provinces where the ruling party won
by a margin of 150,000 votes or more, the turnout ranged between 82% and 96%
of the vote. On the other hand, in areas where the opposition's margin of victory
was greater than 50,000, the turnout ranged between 71 and 81 percent.
 Executive Summary
--Virtually all members of the delegation observed or were told by credible sources
that voters were being paid on election day to vote for the Marcos-Tolentino ticket.
In many areas, carbonized sample ballots were used as proof of an individual's
vote and as a receipt for payments ranging between 25 to 500 pesos.

--Numerous instances of intimidation of voters were recorded by the delegation;

members of the military, the Civil Home Defense Forces, and Barangay officials
were commonly implicated.

--Pollwatchers from the designated opposition UNIDO party and the accredited
citizen's arm, NAMFREL, were not permitted access to polling places in many
provinces.
Executive Summary

--Problems relating to the counting of votes occurred during all phases of the
process. Major discrepancies between the count kept by NAMFREL --based on
hard copies of precinct tally forms signed by all members of the Board of
Election inspectors --and COMELEC recurred throughout the week following the
election, evidencing attempts to manipulate the vote count.

--Delegation members reported numerous instances wherein precincts

recorded zero votes for Aquino despite the claim of the UNIDO poll watchers
present at the precinct that they voted for Aquino.
Executive Summary

--Hard evidence was uncovered of "ghost" precincts, or fictional polling places,

wherein the vote was completely fabricated. In one municipality of Southern
Leyte, three such precincts were discovered over and above the 55 authorized. In
the 55 legitimate precincts, the vote was 6,371 for Marcos and 5,876 for Aquino.
In the three ghost precincts, the vote was 900 for Marcos and 9 for Aquino.

--While we have no direct evidence, we believe that the interference with the
counting process which occurred after election day was not simply a dispute
between COMELEC and NAMFREL over their "quick count" agreement; rather we
believe this was part of an effort by the Government and its supporters to buy
time so that the above mentioned fraud could be undertaken.
Executive Summary

5. The above-listed violations were perpetrated by national

and local officials who supported the Marcos-Tolentino
ticket. While we cannot exclude the possibility, our
delegation did not observe a single election code violation
by supporters of the opposition party despite efforts
undertaken to monitor their activities.
Illustration from:

A Path to Democratic
Renewal in 1986
Post-Election Statement of
CBCP by Archbishop
Ricardo J. Cardinal Vidal
February 13, 1986
External Criticism
● The statement was drafted
on February 13 ,1986 and
was issued to the public on
February 15, 1986.
● Source:
● Language: English
Internal Criticism
● How close was the author?
The snap election happened in Manila, "post election
statement" was drafted in CBCP Headquarters in
Intramuros. The statement was drafted few days after
the election and the declaration of the new President.
● How was the account made?
● It was drafted by Bishops Claver, Escaler, and Bcani, and
with the helped of four theologians namely Father
Lambino, Father de Achutegui, Father Gomez, and
Father Miranda.
● There was also a guideline sent by the Vatican State
Agostino Cardinal Casaroli which was followed.
● Who was the recipient?

The recipients of the account were not only the political bodies, but also
the nation, to make them realize how dirty the snap election was.

● Is there bias?

There is no bias

● Does informed common sense make the account probable?

Yes

● Is the account corroborated by other accounts?

Yes, the statement was made in relation to the snap elections and was
based on the results declared by NAMFREL and COMELEC.
Introduction. The people have spoken. Or have tried to. Despite the obstacles
thrown in the way of their speaking freely, we, the bishops, believe that on the
basis of our assessment as pastors of the recently concluded polls, what they
attempted to say is clear enough.

The Conduct of the Polls. In our considered judgment, the polls were
unparalleled in the fraudulence of their conduct. And we condemn especially the
following modes of fraudulence and irregularities.

The systematic disenfranchisement of voters. The sheer scrambling of the

voters’ lists made it impossible for vast number of our people to express their
proper preference of candidates.
● There was fraudulence in conduct.
The widespread and massive vote-buying. The vote-buyers in their cynical
exploiting of the people’s poverty and deep, if misguided, sense of utang na loob
deprived a great many of any real freedom of choice.

The deliberate tampering with the election returns. The votes of the people, even
when already duly expressed and counted, were altered to register choices other
than their own.

Intimidation, harassment, terrorism and murder. These made naked fear the
decisive factor in people not participating in the polls or making their final
choice. These and many other irregularities point to a criminal use of power to
thwart the sovereign will of the people. Yet, despite these evil acts, we are
morally certain the people’s real will for change has been truly manifested.
● There was fraudulence in conduct.
● It was a government in possession of power thus, it has the obligation
to right the wrong.
Government Based on the Polls. According to moral principles, a government
that assumes or retains power through fraudulent means has no moral basis.
For such an access to power is tantamount to a forcible seizure and cannot
command the allegiance of the citizenry. The most we can say then, about such
a government, is that it is a government in possession of power. But admitting
that, we hasten to add: Because of that very fact, that same government itself
has the obligation to right the wrong it is founded on. It must respect the
mandate of the people. This is precondition for any reconciliation.
● There was fraudulence in conduct.
● It was a government in possession of power thus, it has the obligation
to right the wrong.
● If the government does not correct the wrong then the people should
take action but not in violent means or in a “non-violent struggle for
justice”.
Response in Faith. If such a government does not of itself freely correct the evil
it has inflicted on the people then it is our serious moral obligation as a people to
make it do so.

We are not going to effect the change we seek by doing nothing, by sheer
apathy. If we did nothing we would be party to our own destruction as a people.
We would be jointly guilty with the perpetrators of the wrong we want righted.

Neither do we advocate a bloody, violent means of righting this wrong. If we did,

we would be sanctioning the enormous sin of fratricidal strife. Killing to achieve
justice is not within the purview of our Christian vision in our present context.
● There was fraudulence in conduct.
● It was a government in possession of power thus, it has the obligation
to right the wrong.
● If the government does not correct the wrong then the people should
take action but not in violent means.
● The means should be peaceful and in the manner of Christ.
The way indicated to us now is the way of nonviolent struggle for justice.

This means active resistance of evil by peaceful means — in the manner of

Christ. And it's one end for now is that the will of the people be done through
ways and means proper to the Gospel.

We therefore ask every loyal member of the Church, every community of the
faithful, to form their judgment about the February 7 polls. And if in faith they see
things as we the bishops do, we must come together and discern what
appropriate actions to take that will be according to the mind of Christ. In a
creative, imaginative way, under the guidance of Christ’s Spirit, let us pray
together, reason together, decide together, act together, always to the end that
the truth prevail, that the will of the people be fully respected.
● There was fraudulence in conduct.
● It was a government in possession of power thus, it has the obligation
to right the wrong.
● If the government does not correct the wrong then the people should
take action but not in violent means.
● The means should be peaceful and in the manner of Christ.
● There were examples of “non-violent struggle for justice”.
Conclusion. These last few days have given us shining examples of the non-
violent struggle for justice we advocate here:

• The thousands of NAMFREL workers and volunteers who risked their very lives
to ensure clean and honest elections;

• The COMELEC computer technicians who refused to degrade themselves by

participating in election frauds.

• The poll officials — registrars, teachers, government workers who did their duty
without fear or favor;

• The millions of ordinary voters who kept the sanctity of their ballot
untarnished, their dignity intact.

• Radio Veritas and fearless press people who spoke and reported the truth at all
times.

Men and women of conscience, all. We cannot commend them highly enough.
● There was fraudulence in conduct.
● It was a government in possession of power thus, it has the obligation
to right the wrong.
● If the government does not correct the wrong then the people should
take action but not in violent means.
● The means should be peaceful and in the manner of Christ.
● There were examples of “non-violent struggle for justice”.
● It is time to repair the wrong systematically and that the bishops are
with the people in doing so.
There are thousands of their kind among government officials in the Batasan, the
military, the COMELEC, among the millions of our people who in the face of
overwhelming odds voted and acted as their conscience dictated. Are there
other men and women of conscience who will stand up like them and
courageously confess their Christianity?

Now is the time to speak up. Now is the time to repair the wrong. The wrong was
systematically organized. So must its correction be. But as in the election itself,
that depends fully on the people; on what they are willing and ready to do. We,
the bishops, stand in solidarity with them in the common discernment for the
good of the nation. But we insist: Our acting must always be according to the
Gospel of Christ, that is, in a peaceful, non-violent way.
May He, the Lord of justice, the Lord of peace, be with us in our striving for that
good. And may the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Queen of Peace, and patroness of
our country, assist us in this time of need.

For the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines:

(Sgd.)+RICARDO J. CARDINAL VIDAL

Archbishop of Cebu

President, CBCP

February 13, 1986

Manila
People from all walks
of life gather at EDSA
to protect the
mutineers.

Photo by: Pete Reyes

Extract of the Transcript of Press
Conference by Defense minister
Juan Ponce Enrile and Deputy
Chief of Staff Fidel V. Ramos
External Criticism
● Radio Transcript, February 22,1986
● Released from Camp Aguinaldo, Quezon
City
● The account was made during the Press
Conference of Defense Minister Juan
Ponce Enrile and Deputy Fidel V. Ramos.
● Primary Source
Internal Criticism
● The author wrote informations that he
hears from the press conference.
● This account or transcript was made on
February 22,1986.
● The recipients of the account are the
Filipino people.
● Yes, there is a bias for the filipino people.
● Yes
● Yes
Extract of the Transcript of Press Conference by Defense Minister
Juan Ponce Enrile and Deputy Chief of Staff Fidel V. Ramos:

On the resignation of Defense Minister Enrile and Deputy Chief of

Staff Ramos, the order to arrest members of Lt. Col. Honasan’s
Reform the Armed Forces Movement, the divide in the Armed
Forces, and the possibility of a renewed proclamation of Martial
Law

[Released from Camp Aguinaldo, Quezon City, February 22, 1986]

Q: Good evening, sir.
DEFENSE MINISTER JUAN PONCE ENRILE: How are you?
Q: Good evening, sir.
ENRILE: This evening, I do not know whether this will be a
good evening, but anyway—gentlemen, we are ready to
answer your questions.
Q: Sir, is it true that the President has ordered your arrest?
ENRILE: Well, I would prefer this by saying that there was
an¬¬ information to round up members of the Reform
Movement. And this afternoon, my boys came to my house
and caused me to get out and come to this place because we
might all be rounded up. I said information reached us that
there was a supposed-to-be an effort to arrest all the
members of the Reform Movement and this afternoon, some
of my boys came to my house and asked me to move to
Camp Aguinaldo because we have to group there because
there is a possibility that we will all be rounded up.
Q: Were you worried that your life is in dangers, sir?
ENRILE: I must preface your question that as far back as
1982, we have been getting persistent reports that there
were efforts to eliminate us and the information was that
they brought in some elements from Mindanao to
undertake the job. And, it was at that point that we decided
a group to protect ourselves. And, this is actually what is
now known as the AFP Reform Movement.
Q: How much of the military do you represent? How long
do you intend to be here and what your demands will be?
ENRILE: Well, I do not know how long we will be here. It all
depends upon the situation. I hope that the situation will
come out better. If not, then, we will make a stand here.
And, if we have to go down, all of us will have to go down.
Q: Sir, are you fearful for your life?
ENRILE: Well, we are in a camp and we have some people
out there who might assault us.
Q: A lot of troops are around the perimeter of the camp.
Does that mean you’re controlling the General
Headquarters of the army of the Philippines?

ENRILE: Well, we are in the Ministry of National Defense. As
of now, I’m still the Minister of National Defense, and that is
why I came here because we have no intention to harm
anybody, but the fact is that there was a report that we are
going to be arrested—all of us. And, if we are going to be
arrested, we know what that means.
Q: Who is us, Sir?
ENRILE: The members of the Reform Movement.
Q: Would that include General Ramos and you?
ENRILE: I think General Ramos.
DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FIDEL V. RAMOS : I am with
Minister Enrile. And, the reason for my being here, ladies and
gentlemen, is that because the Armed Forces of the
Philippines has ceased to be the real Armed Forces of the
Philippines which is supposed to be the defender of public
safety and enforcer of the law and what has developed is that
there has become an elite armed forces within the Armed
Forces of the Philippines that no longer represents the rank
and file and the officer corps of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines.
Q: Minister, what will your demands be?
ENRILE: Well, we want that the will of the people must be
respected.
Q: [Inaudible]
ENRILE: Well, for myself, if I may say this, I believe that the
mandate of the people does not belong to the present regime.
And I know it is for a fact, that there had been some anomalies
committed during the elections; and I search my conscience;
and I felt that I could not serve a government that is not
expressive of the sovereign will.
Q: Did you have any contact with Mrs. Aquino?
ENRILE: We have not had any contact with Mrs. Aquino.
Q: Mr. Minister, what are your demands going to be? Will you
stay here until Mr. Ver steps out? Will you stay here until Mr.
Marcos steps out?
ENRILE: [To General Ramos] Are you resigning? Did you resign?
I was going to tender my resignation on Monday.
Q: Irrevocable?
ENRILE: Yes, I can no longer serve the government.
Q: How about you, General Ramos? Did you tender an
irrevocable resignation?
RAMOS: I have tendered my offer of retirement on many
occasions. But, at the moment as the chief of the
Constabulary and Integrated National Police as well as the
Vice-Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines,
I would like to direct the troops under my command as
well as all other elements of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines that are professional-minded, that are
dedicated to the military service—in the sense of the
military service being the protector of the people—the
defender of public safety, and the enforcers of the law in
our country, to be with me as well as the Minister of
National Defense, in our effort to bring about a more
normal situation where our people once more can live
freely and pursue the aspirations that they have in life.
Q: Is the Army and Navy and Air Force against you?
ENRILE: Well, not quite. We have some friendly forces in
the Navy, Army and Air Force, even the Marines.
Q: [Inaudible]
ENRILE: No, I did not. I did not discuss this with anybody.
Q: Are you saying that you no longer recognize President Marcos
as President?
ENRILE: As of now, I cannot in conscience recognize the
President as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. And,
I am appealing to my brother-members of the Cabinet to head
the will of the people expressed during the last election.
Because in my own region, I know that we cheated the elections
to the extent of 350,000 votes.
Q: Are you going to stay and serve under Mrs. Aquino?
ENRILE: No, I will not. I will not serve under Mrs. Aquino even if
she is installed as the president. I do not know whether she can
be installed as a president. But, I am talking of a country and
people, and not men. Our loyalty is to the Constitution, to the
Filipino people, to our country. And, I am calling on all decent
elements in the government, the decent Filipinos, and the decent
soldiers and officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines who
are trained to respect the Constitution, and to protect the welfare
of this nation and its people, to wake up and support this
movement.
Q: General Ramos, will you recognize Marcos as the
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces?
RAMOS: I think the President of 1986 is not the same President
that we used to know before to whom we pledged our loyalty
and to whom we dedicated our service. But, it is clear that he
no longer is the able and capable Commander-in-Chief that we
count upon because he has put his personal interest—his
family interest.
I would like to appeal likewise as Minister Enrile has done to the
fair-minded, to the dedicated, and people-oriented members of
the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Integrated National
Police to join us in this crusade for better government. I would
like to appeal to our personnel in the thirteen regions of this
country, however, to avoid any bloodshed; to maintain calm,
and be able to influence the people’s power in our country to
support this appeal of Minister Enrile and myself, because…
ENRILE: You know, we realized the gravity of the situation as far
as our lives our concerned, and if it should come to pass that
we will lose our lives in this particular moment, we will gladly do
it in the service of our people and our nation for that is the oath
that we have taken when we entered the public service. It is our
duty to see to it that the sovereign will of the Filipino people
expressed through the ballot must be respected.
Q: Have you heard of any plans against Cory Aquino or the opposition?
ENRILE: No. What plans are you asking?
Q: The same way they did to you, that they are going to arrest you…
ENRILE: I do not know whether there is any such plan, but I heard that
there was a meeting in Malacañang sometime two weeks ago. I think
there where some members of the—some generals were present and
there was a plan to arrest all the leaders of the opposition, in fact, even
some members of the Parliament. And in fact, I just talked to the RUC
Commander from the South and I understand certain, some hit men or
hit list, directed against UNIDP leaders have been prepared. And, I do
not know why this thing is happening in this country.
Q: Can you tell us, sir, what you know about the cheating during the last
election—what you personally know about?
ENRILE: In my region, the President obtained 233,000 margin in
Cagayan. In Isabela, he got 164,000 votes. In Kalinga, Apayao, he barely
made it. In Quirino—I do not know the results there. He lost in Ifugao
and in Batanes. I am bothered by my conscience that we have done this
to our people. Because under the Constitution, powers of government
are supposed to emanate from the sovereign will of our people, and yet,
we do not respect the will of our people. The question that I asked
myself before I came before you is: Is it worth living to serve a
government that does not really represent the will of the people?
Q: Mr. Minister, are you willing to accept the
authority of Mrs. Aquino as president?
ENRILE: I am not making any conclusion,
whoever is considered by the Filipino people
to be representative of their will must be
respected.
Q: Is coup d’etat a part of your options?
ENRILE: We never had any plans to stage a
coup d’etat. What we are doing is to defend
ourselves against an assault that is quite
imminent and apparent.
Q: How can the situation be resolved?
ENRILE: I do not know. It is only the
President who can resolve this.
RAMOS: I am willing to dialogue with the
President, ladies and gentlemen, to express
the feelings of those in the Armed Forces of
the Philippines. And in fact, that is my
primary and only approach.
ENRILE: They can kill all of us here. We are all gathered in this holding and in this camp,
but the blood that they will shed will be the blood of Filipinos who love their country
more than any man. And, we are not here to serve a man but to serve a republic and a
people.
Q: Sir, how many are you in here?
ENRILE: I cannot tell you our number.
Q: General Ramos, have you ordered your troops to come and get you?
RAMOS: I am only appealing to the troops now to do what is right by the Constitution
and to do what is right under our laws. And, I would like once more to address an appeal
to the Commander-in-Chief to allow us to peacefully negotiate and talk to him. I have
transmitted to the President in many occasions in writing as well as face-to-face
conversation the feelings of the smaller as well as my humble perceptions of the
worsening situation in our country. But as you will know, he has largely ignored these
appeals and he has not acted on the very serious problems that confront the country
today insofar as peace and order are concerned.
ENRILE: The Armed Forces of the Philippines is no longer the armed forces of the
Filipino people as it should be. There is already an attitude on the part of some people
that they own the Armed Forces of the Philippines; they own the country; they own
everybody. The say that General Ver was retired on Sunday only to be reinstated again;
only to be retired again, and they announced General Ramos to be an Acting Chief of
Staff but there is a secret order saying that the Chief of Staff must continue until such
time that they will announce his retirement. We can no longer live under this condition.
This is no longer a civilized country if this is the way we are running our affairs.
Q: How does Mrs. Marcos figure in this trouble?
ENRILE: I do not know. I have not talked to her.
Q: Mr. Minister, what can you say about the presence of US
military warships here?
ENRILE: I do not know why they are here.
Q: Minister Enrile, in this situation where the two of you are holed
up in a building with a certain number of men around you, are you
causing a split in the military right now?
ENRILE: I think right now, we have a split in the military.
Q: May we have the names of the commanders of major services
who are against you?
ENRILE: I think the commanders of the armed services are all
with the President and I suppose they have to serve him. But, we
are confident that the decent elements in the ranks, in the lower
ranks, will know how to deal with the situation. If they will fire
their guns against us, so be it, but we have committed this final
act in order to bring to the world and to our Filipino people that
the sad situation in the country is now coming to pass. And, the
day of reckoning is now approaching.
Q: [Inaudible]
ENRILE: If they will kill us, I think they will find that the
situation in the land will no longer be governable.
Q: When you talk with the President, you and General Ramos,
will you ask that he step down…
ENRILE: I think we should respect the will of the people.
Personally, I believe that the President did not win this
election. He was proclaimed by the Batasan in a hasty
manner. And, I felt embarrassed when I was sitting there
watching the proceedings. I had to raise my hand to show
that I voted for him, but inside me, it bothered me that I had
raised my hand. And, I am sorry to say this because I had
served him well over the years, but I am a Filipino over and
above anything else.
Q: Will you call on the people to support you and General
Ramos? Will you ask that he step down…
ENRILE: It’s up to them, if they want to support us. We are
here to take a stand. If anyone of us will be killed—I think all
of us must be killed.
Q: Sir, has there been any communication with the other provinces? Do they know what is
happening now?

ENRILE: No, we have not communicated with them, but I talked to several military
commanders and they feel that the situation must be handled because we cannot split the
Armed Forces of the Philippines.

Q: With this development, will the President proclaim martial law?

ENRILE: I do not know what he will do. I am not privy to his thinking at this moment.

Q: What can you say if the President proclaims Martial Law?

ENRILE: Well, if they will arrest us, we are willing to be arrested if they will arrest us. After all,
martial law has never really left us.

Q: Will you resist the Proclamation of Martial Law?

ENRILE: I will. I will because it is going to be against the interests of our people. I think that it
will just be a matter of time before the outbreak of violence if the President will miscalculate
the situation.

Q: Mr. Minister, will you resist arrest?

ENRILE: I will cross the bridge when I come to it.

PEOPLE POWER.

People start gathering

in EDSA in the evening
of Feb 22, 1986, when
then Vice Chief of
Staff Fidel Ramos and
Defense Minister Juan
Ponce Enrile
announced their
withdrawal from the
Marcos government.

Photo by: Romeo

Mariano
Minister of Defense Juan
Ponce Enrile (right) and
General Fidel Ramos
announced their break
from the Marcos
administration in a press
conference at the
Ministry office in the
evening of Saturday, Feb.
22, 1986. The move
caught everyone by
surprise.

(Photo by Peter
Charlesworth)
 Ang Bayan Ko
Lyrics: Jose Corazon de Jesus and
Music: Constancio de Guzman.
External Criticism

● The poem-lyrics was published and compiled in Jose Corazon de Jesus' book, Mga
Dahong Ginto (1920) in Malolos library and in Halimuyak: Katipunan ng mga Piling Tula ni
Jose Corazon de Jesus, edited by Antonio B. Valeriano, 1979.
● Originally written by General Jose Alejandrino then translated by Jose Corazon de Jesus.
● Language: Tagalog
Internal Criticism
Is there bias to be accounted for?
How close was the author to the event being
No, because it was written based on
studied?
historical facts.
The author, Jose Corazon de Jesus was and
Does informed common sense make the
lived in the Philippines during the era of the
account probable?
America.
Yes.
How was the account made?
Is the account corroborated by other
Bayan ko was composed by Jose Corazon de
account?
Jesus as a poem in 1928, the purpose was to
campaign for the independence from the reign
Bayan ko or Nuestra Patria was originally
of America in the Philippines.
written in Spanish for Severino Reyes
Zarzuela, “walang sugat” in 1989. It was
Who was the recipient of the account?
written by General Jose Alejandrino to
The Filipinos was the recipient of the account. expressed opposition against the ongoing
American occupation in the Philippines.
 Jose Corazon de Jesus
(Huseng Batute)
•November 22 1896 – May 26 1932

•A poet that writes poem that shows opposition

against the American Government in the
Philippines.

•His first work is “Pangungulila” when he was 17,

and among his famous works are AngPusoKo, Ang
Pamana, Ang Panday, Ang Manok Kong Bulik, Ang
Pagbabalik, and Sa Halamanan ng Dios ay madalas
basahin sa mga unibersidad at kolehiyo.

•King of balagtasan
Bayan Ko by Jose Corazon de Jesus

Ang bayan kong Pilipinas, Ibon mang may layang lumipad,

lupain ng ginto’t bulaklak. kulungin mo at umiiyak!

Pag-ibig ang sa kaniyáng palad Bayan pa kayáng sakdal-dilag,

nag-alay ng ganda't dilág. ang ‘di magnasang makaalpas?

At sa kaniyáng yumi at ganda, Pilipinas kong mimutya,

dayuhan ay nahalina. pugad ng luhá ko’t dalita,

Bayan ko, binihag ka, aking adhika:

nasadlak sa dusa. makita kang sakdal laya!

José Cándido
Alejandrino
y Magdangal

•December 1, 1870 – June 1, 1951

•Filipino General during the Spanish and

American War

•Member of the propaganda movement

and a contributor to La Solidaridad
Nuestra Patria by Gen. Jose Alejandrino

Nuestra Patria Filipina, Aún el ave libre en su volar,

cuya tierra es de oro y púrpura. llora cuando en la jaula está,

Tantos tesoros guarda en su lar cuanto más nuestra Patria de amor

que tientan al hurtador. al verse sin paz ni dignidad.

Y es por eso que el anglosajón, Filipinas de mi corazón,

con vil traición la subyuga; tus hijos jamás permitirán

Patria mía en prisión, que así te robe

sacúdete del traidor. tu bienestar y libertad.

STORMING THE
PALACE.

Upon hearing news

that Marcos left the
country, people storm
the gates of the
Malacañan Palace on
February 25, 1986.
Anger was replaced
by joy and renewed
hope for a better life.

Photo by: Romeo

Mariano