Martes, Marso 7, 2017

Requiem for a Generation - by Patricio N. Abinales

THOUGHT LEADERS
Requiem for a Generation
Patricio N. Abinales
Published 9:30 AM, March 05, 2017
Updated 9:30 AM, March 05, 2017

Why are many 'veterans' of the fight against the Marcos dictatorship now are pitted against each other in the battle between President Rodrigo Duterte and his opponents?

A friend sent a YouTube link to the American pop singer Don McLean’s now iconic song American Pie, and reminded me that the line “and they were singing dirges in the dark the day the music died,” could very well refer to what has happened to the communists of the 1970s and 1980s. This prompted quick check at the bookshelf to pick out a number of memoirs that Filipino communists from the so-called “First Quarter Storm” generation and their successor, the “martial law babies” have written in the last decade.

One of the enduring myths of these memoirs is that even today, when they have all started to drift towards middle age, these cadres and their national democratic understudies have remained brothers and sisters. A couple of writings did acknowledge that this unity had frayed since 1986, and their authors have timidly mentioned the splits of the late 1980s and the early 1990s.

But this is unfortunate for if one wants some historical context as to why many of these “veterans” of the Storm and the dark years of the dictatorship are now pitted against each in the battle between President Rodrigo Duterte and his opponents, one needs to go as far back as the splits of the 1980s, especially after the CPP leadership under Jose Ma. Sison, resolved the ideological debates through a sanctioned killing of those the CPP’s eternal chairman tagged openly as spies and renegades

The stories of these assassinations still have to be written.

We still await the brave ex-cadre who will write about the tragic fortunes of Filemon “Popoy” Lagman, twice the leader of the CPP’s Manila-Rizal regional committee, disciplined and sent to the countryside after 1975, when he and the rest of the committee defied the edict from the Politburo to break up the Party’s electoral alliance with the anti-Marcos traditional politicians and the hated social democrats formed to challenge the dictatorship’s Kilusang Bagong Lipunan Manila slate led by Imelda Marcos and composed of 20 other forgettable characters (the one I only remember was Foreign Secretary Carlos Romulo whose campaign speeches sounded like academic lectures, boring a lot of hakot listeners to sleep).

Lagman did his time in the countryside, sacrificed a lot (his wife was believed killed in a military encounter), and regained his post in the last years of the dictatorship. After Marcos was ousted, however, the Manila-Rizal regional organization broke away from the Party after the 5-man Politburo’s disastrous decision to boycott the 1986 elections (Yes Virginia, only 5 people decided the nearly 1-million communist movement’s fate at a time when the politics of the period was clearly leaning towards the Left. Talk about radical democracy!). It was cadres of the regional organization that formed the initial core group of what is now the party-list group Sanlakas and its labor federation the Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino. In its early years, and under the leadership of Lagman, it was one of the strongest and fiery non-CPP left groups.

Lagman was assassinated on February 6, 2001 at the Diliman campus of the University of the Philippines. According to Ben Reid his was “the first political assassination to occur under the new regime of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and signals the possible beginning of a campaign of terror targeting the country’s leftist movement.” Reid writes that an unnamed “rightist faction of the military loyal to the ousted president Joseph Estrada was behind the killing,” its aim being to destabilize the still wobbly regime of Gloria Arroyo. This was the official line that Lagman’s Sanlakas would adopt.

Others however suspect that Lagman’s assassination was the first of several rubouts of the top ex-cadres of the Party who disagreed with the Filipino Ayatollah’s return to Maoist fundamentals. Lagman was known as the CPP’s Lenin, because he advocated for a communist movement with a strong influential “proletarian” (i.e., industrial worker base), shared Karl Marx’s disdainful description of the peasantry as a “sack of potatoes” (pace the insistence of Mao and his Filipino acolyte Sison that peasants were the mass base of the revolution), and saw very little value in a long-drawn protracted guerilla warfare against the Philippine government. For Lagman, communists could only come to power though urban uprisings and massive general strikes, and where the New People’s Army was to just play a supportive role.

This urban-centered strategy demanded the broadest unity of the diverse groups and classes that live in the metropolis, to give the revolution the heft to challenge and destroy police and military power, and ultimately the government. To achieve this “united front” the Party needed to make compromises to its anti-Marcos ideological rivals. Hence the Manila-Rizal took seriously the electoral collaboration it made with Benigno Aquino and the elite opposition in 1975 to the chagrin of their Party bosses.

This argument was also used as justification for Lagman questioning the validity and relevance of Mao Tse Tung Thought as the CPP’s ideological foundation after the big 1986 brouhaha. For which he was allegedly extra-judicially killed.

That death and Sison’s indirect threats before that, plus the expulsion or forced resignation of other anti-Sison cadres and the break away by regional organizations like the Manila-Rizal presaged an unceasing contention among these radicals. Its current and perhaps most poisonous edition is the fight between pro- and anti-Duterte radicals and ex-radicals. – Rappler.com

(To be continued)

Filed under:Filemon LagmanFirst Quarter StormMartial LawPatricio N. AbinalesRodrigo DutertepoliticsPhilippines


In this file photo, masked sympathizers guard the coffin bearing the remains of slain labor leader Filemon 'Popoy' Lagman, draped with the hammer and sickle flag as the funeral march heads to Marikina, February 12, 2001. Jay Directo/AFP

Linggo, Setyembre 4, 2016

Court decision on Filemon Lagman case

[G.R. No. 141704. June 7, 2000]

HON. ORLANDO S. MERCADO, et al. vs. EDCEL LAGMAN, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 7 2000.

G.R. No. 141704 (Hon. Orlando S. Mercado, Hon Reuben P. Dela Cruz, Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Apolinario Bruselas, Jr. and State Prosecutor Archimedez Manabat, et al. vs. Edcel C. Lagman and Filemon Lagman.)

Petitioners assail the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court which disposed thusly:

WHEREFORE, premises considered and pursuant to the mandate granted by the Honorable Supreme Court in its Resolution dated November 18, 1996, it is the decision of this court based on evidence, the law and jurisprudence:

1. To issue a writ of certiorari annulling and setting aside the criminal Information filed in Criminal Case No. 96-1369 MK and the warrant of arrest issued by the respondent court pursuant to said criminal information;

2. To issue a writ of injunction enjoining the respondent court from further proceeding with Criminal Case No. 96-1369 MK;

3. To declare the detention of petitioner Filemon Lagman illegal; to direct the immediate release from detention of petitioner Filemon Lagman in connection with Criminal Case No. 96-1369 MK unless the petitioner is being held pursuant to some other lawful cause or authority;

All the respondents shall be collectively responsible in enforcing the immediate release from detention of petitioner Filemon Lagman

In compliance with the directive of the Honorable Supreme Court, furnish a copy of this decision immediately to the Honorable Supreme Court.

The instant controversy sprung from a letter complaint which was referred by the Presidential Task Force on Intelligence and Counter Intelligence (PTFIC) to the Department of Justice (DOJ), for appropriate action, involving a case for violation of Article 248 (murder) of the Revised Penal Code against Filemon Lagman alias Ka Popoy and seven others, in connection with the ambush slaying of a traffic policemen in Marikina on March 30, 1992.

Attached to the subject letter-complaint are the sworn statements (karagdagang sinumpaang salaysay) of Jose Alvarez dated April 9, 1996 and Rodrigo Porsona also of the same date; the sworn statement of Arthur Oquendo dated March 13, 1992 and his supplemental sworn statement dated June 27, 1996; the Affidavit of PO1 Bonifacio Simbulan PN dated June 27, 1996; the medico-legal report (No. M-052992) dated April 3, 1992; and, the investigation report of SPO1 Ronito L. Villareal dated March 30, 1992,

The DOJ then assigned a three-man investigating panel which in turn issued a subpoena to Filemon Lagman, informing him that a complaint has been filed against him by the PTFIC; commanding him to appear at the DOJ on July 22, 1996 at 2 p.m. for preliminary investigation; and ordering him to submit his counter-affidavit and other supporting documents in his defense, with a warning that failure on his part to submit his counter-affidavit shall be considered as waiver to present his defense in the preliminary investigation resulting in the case being considered submitted for resolution.

On July 22, 1996 setting for preliminary investigation, only counsel of private respondent Filemon Lagman appeared and requested that the defense be given ten days within which to submit its counter-affidavit. That same day, the preliminary investigation was reset to August 2, 1996.

On August 2, 1996, Filemon Lagman, through his lawyer, submitted a verified Motion to Dismiss, explicitly stating that such motion is not intended to be in lieu of his counter-affidavit, and should also not be considered as a waiver of all other legal remedies available to him. The motion to dismiss assailed the jurisdiction of the investigating panel to take cognizance of the referral letter-complaint of the PTFIC dated June 28, 1996. Likewise, it was argued that the letter-complaint of General Libarnes of the PTFIC was not sworn to before an officer authorized to administer oaths as required by Section 3(a), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. The absence of the verification, it was claimed is fatal, such requirement being mandatory and jurisdictional.

The state prosecutors, did not resolve the motion to dismiss. On the other hand, Filemon Lagman, while waiting for action on his motion to dismiss, did not submit his counter-affidavit. On November 6, 1996, the state prosecutors promulgated their resolution recommending the filing of a criminal information against Filemon Lagman, et al. Said resolution did not bear the signature of 2nd Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. Nevertheless, it was approved by Assistant Chief State Prosecutor Nilo C. Mariano who signed for the Chief State Prosecutor.

The Information was raffled to Branch 272 of the regional Trial Court of Marikina. On November 8, 1996, a warrant of arrest was issued for Criminal Case No. 96-1369 MK against Filemon Lagman.

Pursuant to said warrant of arrest, Filemon Lagman was arrested and detained by the combined teams of the PTFIC and agents of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) on November 12, 1996. On November 14, 1996, Filemon Lagman, et al., filed with this Court a petition for Habeas Corpus and Certiorari with a prayer for a restraining order and/or preliminary injunction. Acting on said petition, the Court issued a resolution on November 18, 1996, stating:

Acting on the petition for Habeas Corpus dated November 14, 1996, the Court resolved:

a) to ISSUE the Writ of Habeas Corpus;

b) to RETURN the writ to the Executive Judge of the RTC not later than November 20, 1996;

c) to ORDER the executive Judge of the RTC-Quezon City to conduct an immediate raffle to SET the case for HEARING not later than Thursday November 21, 1996 at 8:30; try and decide the same on the merits and therefore FURNISH this Court with a copy of the decision thereon;

d) the respondents to make a RETURN of the writ on or before the close of office hours on Wednesday, November 20, 1996 and APPEAR PERSONALLY and produce THE PERSON OF Filemon Lagman on the aforesaid date and time of hearing;

The executive judge of the RTC of Quezon City accordingly raffled off the case on November 20, 1996 to Branch 221 of the same court which proceeded to hear the case on the merits and thereafter rendered the decision, the dispositive portion of which we earlier quoted.

Recourse to the Court of Appeals proved to be unavailing. Thus, the instant petition.

Initially, the Court notes that the petition was filed 2 days beyond the 30-day extension granted by us which fell on March 13, 2000, even as petitioners asked for an extension of only 15 days. On this score alone, the petition may be outrightly denied.

Petitioners insist that the ruling of the Court of Appeals that a murder complaint for purposes of preliminary investigation with the prosecutor must be verified or sworn to is contrary to law and jurisprudence. Likewise, petitioners claim that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the preliminary investigation on the case against respondent was flawed on the ground that the investigating panel did not act on private respondent's motion to dismiss but instead promulgated the resolution recommending the filing of a criminal information; and in finding that the constitutional and fundamental right of respondent Filemon Lagman to due process was violated in the preliminary investigation of the complaint against him.

In regard to the first assigned error, the Court agrees with the Court of Appeals that it can not give credence to the petitioners' contention that the letter-complaint filed by the PTFIC need not be verified or sworn to before a person authorized to administer oaths.

Section 3 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court clearly supports the stand of the Court of Appeals:

Sec. 3. Complaint defined. - Complaint is a sworn written statement charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer or other public officer charged with the enforcement of the law violated.

Anent the second issue, the Court notes that when private respondent Filemon Lagman filed the motion to dismiss, a manifestation was made where he expressly reserved his right to file a counter-affidavit in the event that his motion to dismiss is denied. But, despite such manifestation, petitioners did not act on the motion to dismiss. Instead, they promulgated the November 6, 1996 resolution recommending the filing of a criminal information against Filemon Lagman, et al., violating private respondents' right to a preliminary investigation.

A preliminary investigation is required for offenses cognizable by the regional trial court under the procedure provided in Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. This procedure is to be observed in order to assure that a person is accorded due process.

It is a basis tenet that when the law provides for preliminary investigation and such right is claimed by the accused, a denial thereof is a denial of due process.

Consequently, the warrant of arrest which was issued pursuant to a flawed information is likewise fatally flawed. True it is, Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court provides that upon the filing of an information, the RTC may issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused. However, in the case at bar, where the information is defective for lack of a valid complaint and preliminary investigation, no warrant of arrest may validly spring therefrom. Further, any arrest made pursuant to such invalid warrant is, perforce, unlawful; any detention, illegal. It bears stressing that a flawed proceeding cannot ripen into a valid warrant of arrest nor detention.

The Court has ruled that it is axiomatic that where a deprivation of a constitutional right is established, the Court that rendered the judgment is deemed ousted of jurisdiction and habeas corpus is the remedy to assail the legality of the detention (Gumabon vs. Director of Bureau of Prisons, 37 SCRA 420).

WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Biyernes, Pebrero 6, 2015

Pamana ni Ka Popoy

PAMANA NI KA POPOY
ni Gregorio V. Bituin Jr.
11 pantig bawat taludtod

lumipas ang labing-apat na taon
ngunit aral mo'y sa diwa bumaon
habang namamahinga ka na roon
patuloy kaming nagrerebolusyon

kaya, Ka Popoy, hindi ka nawala
nariyan pa ang mga manggagawa
pinagpapatuloy ang iyong diwa
diwang hindi nailibing sa lupa

haligi ka ng sambayanang api
ng mga obrero't simpleng kawani
pagkat naiwan mong akda'y nagsilbi
sa manggagawang sa mundo'y kayrami

nasa langit ka man, buwan, o laot
malalalim na tanong ay nasagot
katwirang sa salapi'y bumaluktot
mga trapong may sakit na kurakot

pagkat mga akda mo kung basahin
pamana mo'y madaling unawain
sinliwanag ng araw ang sulatin
paliwanag mong kaysarap namnamin

saan ka man naroroon, Ka Popoy
binhing inihasik mo'y di naluoy
nag-ugat, nagbunga itong patuloy
at sanga-sanga itong sumusuloy

mga akda mo'y walang kamatayan
ikaw na lingkod ng sangkatauhan
gabay sa pagbabago ng lipunan
ang sosyalismong iyong tinanganan

6 Pebrero 2015

Huwebes, Mayo 22, 2014

Ka Popoy Lagman, binigyang-pugay sa ika-4 na Kongreso ng NCL

KA POPOY LAGMAN, BINIGYANG-PUGAY SA IKA-4 NA KONGRESO NG NCL

Pinagpugayan sa ika-4 na Kongreso ng National Confederation of Labor (NCL) si Filemon "Ka Popoy" Lagman (Marso 17, 1953 - Pebrero 6, 2001), dating pangulo ng sosyalistang Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino (BMP). Ito'y ginanap nitong Mayo 22, 2014 sa Magsaysay Hall ng SSS Bldg., sa East Avenue, Lungsod Quezon. Ang tema ng kongreso ng NCL ay "Sosyalistang Lipunan, Sagot sa Kahirapan".

Isa si Ka Popoy Lagman sa mga tagapagtatag ng NCL. Ang plaque ay tinanggap ni Ka Ronnie Luna, bise-presidente ng BMP. Pito pang magigiting na lider-manggagawa, kabilang ang tatlong abogado, na pawang tagapagtatag din ng NCL, ang nakatanggap ng plake ng pagkilala. At ito'y sina Atty. Ibarra Malonzo, Atty. Benjamin Alar, Atty. Gaston Taquio, Ka Dominador "Domeng" Mamangon, Ka Zosimo Carullo, Ka Rey Capa at Ka Angelito "Lolo" Mendoza.

Nauna rito'y nagbigay ng mensahe ng pakikiisa ang iba't ibang grupo ng paggawa, kabilang ang BMP, sa pamamagitan ng mainit na talumpati ni Ka Ronnie Luna, sa kongreso ng NCL.

Ulat at mga litrato ni Greg Bituin Jr.
Tinanggap ni Ka Ronnie Luna ang plake ng pagkilala kay Ka Popoy Lagman mula kina Atty. Arellano, pangulo ng NCL, at Glecy Naquita ng grupong Socialista at head ng secretariat ng NCL.
Nagbigay ng mensahe ng pakikiisa ang BMP, sa pamamagitan ni Ka Ronnie Luna, sa ika-4 na Kongreso ng NCL.
Naka-flash sa white board ang tema ng ika-4 na Kongreso ng NCL na "Sosyalistang Lipunan, Sagot sa Kahirapan"habang nagtatalumpati si Ka Ronnie Luna ng BMP.
Bahagi ito ng unang pahina ng 3-pahinang programa ng ika-4 na Kongreso ng NCL.
Bahagi ito ng ikalawang pahina ng 3-pahinang programa ng ika-4 na Kongreso ng NCL.

Linggo, Mayo 18, 2014

Konsyerto ng Pagpupugay kay Ka Popoy, UP Bahay ng Alumni, Abril 27, 2001

Balik-Tanaw sa Kasaysayan
 
Konsyerto ng Pagpupugay kay Ka Popoy, UP Bahay ng Alumni, Abril 27, 2001

Mula sa album na iniingatan ni Ka Jun Lacsa ng Teatro Pabrika, na kinunan ng litrato ni Greg Bituin Jr. para ilagay dito sa blog bilang bahagi ng kasaysayan. Naipresenta ang album na ito ng Teatro Pabrika sa kanilang reyunyon noong Mayo 10-11, 2014 sa Paradise Resort, Gen. Trias, Cavite.