by Angelo J. Aguinaldo
Up to this time, Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo has been vilified and seen as plain villain in the story of the revolution. As students of history were taught to blame the so-called failure of the revolution to one single person since he was president of the Republic, a lot of documents and reference materials are still available for reading. The story of the 1935 elections is one area that many should study. Meanwhile, the succeeding points are just a few notes to explain why Saulo noted a kind of historical writing "incompatible with our status as a free and sovereign nation " and create an image of Aguinaldo as someone who has done nothing for our liberation.
Renato Constantino wrote in one of his books: “Aguinaldo led the force that pre-empted the revolution. The elimination of Bonifacio assured the leadership to the elite. The result was Biak-na-bato, that shameful betrayal of people’s sacrifices…”
Aguinaldo did not pre-empt the Philippine Revolution. He even started it in Cavite on August 31, 1896. It began in Cavite on the day after the Katipunan revolt led by Bonifacio collapsed in the Battle of San Juan del Monte, which according to Zaide , resulting in 153 Katipuneros killed and about 200 taken prisoner. Aguinaldo turned the Katipunan revolt into a full-scale revolution. He salvaged the revolt by beating the best of Spanish generals in “fair combat.”
Bonifacio, himself, as presiding officer of the Tejeros Convention, also presided over the death of the Katipunan, a secret society. From then on, Aguinaldo continued the libertarian struggle against the Conquistadores until the inauguration of the First Philippine Republic on January 23, 1899.
Bonifacio was not eliminated. Such a statement has misled a lot of students since he was “executed” for sedition and treason against a constituted revolutionary government. He was tried by a military court which others refer to as “kangaroo court”. It could not be such as the military court was composed of Mariano Noriel as chairman, and with Tomas Mascardo, Mariano Riego de Dios, Crisostomo Riel, Esteban Ynfante, Sulpicio Antony, and Placido Martinez as members. Riego de Dios, Riel, and Ynfante even had to abstain from voting since they opposed the death verdict.
The elimination of Bonifacio assured the leadership to the elite is simply not true. It is a case of “appraising a past event in the light of present standards.” Historians have always failed to note that during the first phase of the revolution, there was no such elitism. As observed by Saulo (1987) everybody regardless of social standing joined the struggle out of sheer love of country. If truly, Bonifacio is not as poor as many had perceived him to be since he was for so many years labelled as the “great plebeian” and now that many historians debunk his being poor then clearly, Don Andres is also from the elite.
Biak-na-bato, is not a shameful betrayal of people’s sacrifices. Aguinaldo made the best of bad bargain. He accepted the Pact but made a secret agreement to use the Spanish indemnity to purchase arms abroad and resume their unfinished revolution. He did purchase arms and return to the Philippines to continue the revolution in May 1898. That could not be a betrayal.
And seemingly following the American colonial policy of denigrating anything that Aguinaldo did resulting into the Filipinos loss of respect towards him, Constantino went on to add that “ because Aguinaldo declaration was not a real independence proclamation, and because it is associated with a man whose revolutionary integrity is in question, June 12 should not be the symbol of our effort to achieve independence…”
With a man whose revolutionary integrity is in question ? Such accusation referred to the oft repeated issue on handling of the Spanish indemnity of Php 400,000.00. 43 Filipino revolutionary leaders in Hongkong already voluntarily signed an affidavit attesting to the honest handling of that amount on April 23, 1898 as noted by Taylor (1971). These leaders include Mariano Llanera, Miguel Malvar, Tomas Mascardo, Jose Alejandrino, Servillano Aquino, and Mamerto Natividad. American historian John R. M. Taylor who would have been biased to the American point of view, also had a good word for Aguinaldo’s handling of the fund. Jose Alejandrino also defended Aguinaldo’s integrity. Alejandrino emphasized that Aguinaldo “had the integrity and unselfishness to return to his country to expose again his life for an ideal which is the ideal of his people and his race.” Most ironically, Quezon in 1941 even mentioned that “Aguinaldo was as poor as he was when the war started” when he addressed the US House of Representative. Such integrity could not be in question. But politics soon would again change everything.
June 12 should be the symbol of our effort to achieve independence. The proclamation could not be associated with one man alone. June 12 is valuable to the birth of our nation as evidenced by the fact that we Filipinos succeeded in holding a revolutionary congress, writing and promulgating our own constitution and our own laws (which many of this generation do not even know), creating our own flag and national hymn, and most of all, establishing the First Republic in Asia!
With a man whose revolutionary integrity is in question ? Such accusation referred to the oft repeated issue on handling of the Spanish indemnity of Php 400,000.00. 43 Filipino revolutionary leaders in Hongkong already voluntarily signed an affidavit attesting to the honest handling of that amount on April 23, 1898 as noted by Taylor (1971). These leaders include Mariano Llanera, Miguel Malvar, Tomas Mascardo, Jose Alejandrino, Servillano Aquino, and Mamerto Natividad. American historian John R. M. Taylor who would have been biased to the American point of view, also had a good word for Aguinaldo’s handling of the fund. Jose Alejandrino also defended Aguinaldo’s integrity. Alejandrino emphasized that Aguinaldo “had the integrity and unselfishness to return to his country to expose again his life for an ideal which is the ideal of his people and his race.” Most ironically, Quezon in 1941 even mentioned that “Aguinaldo was as poor as he was when the war started” when he addressed the US House of Representative. Such integrity could not be in question. But politics soon would again change everything.
June 12 should be the symbol of our effort to achieve independence. The proclamation could not be associated with one man alone. June 12 is valuable to the birth of our nation as evidenced by the fact that we Filipinos succeeded in holding a revolutionary congress, writing and promulgating our own constitution and our own laws (which many of this generation do not even know), creating our own flag and national hymn, and most of all, establishing the First Republic in Asia!
