What follows is an excerpt of a talk I gave yesterday in Ateneo de Cebu in a forum entitled “Tayo ang People Power: Perspectives on EDSA @ 40.” The forum was organized by the Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines.
I start with this sharing of experience, or more accurately, non-experience. One of my regrets while studying in San José Seminary, Ateneo de Manila from 1983 to 1988 is that I missed the Edsa People Power Revolution. I was then in the Spiritual Pastoral Formation Year, that part of the seminary formation wherein we would have different immersion programs. When the Edsa Revolution started, my classmates and I were in Zambales, giving retreats. We could not return to Manila even if we wanted to.
But the Edsa People Power Revolt is part of a long struggle to restore democracy and to bring about justice. The struggle did not just start on Feb. 22, 1986. It started right after martial law was declared in 1972. The struggle was given an unexpected stimulus when Ninoy Aquino was assassinated in 1983. In this sense, I was part of the struggle. I joined the parliament of the streets, including the millions that brought Ninoy from Santo Domingo Church to his final resting place.
We always tried to relate our theological courses to the situation of the country. In a sense, the dictator Marcos was an unwitting formator of future priests. Many of those who show activism in their priestly ministry today were formed in that period of militant activism: Cardinal Ambo David, Frs. Danny Pilario, Albert Alejo, among many others. The spirit of those times contributed greatly to the formation of my convictions too. My activism is not on the same level as theirs, but I share their convictions. We wanted to be the opposite of what Marcos and Imelda stood for. I like to believe that, with God’s grace, I have tried to live by the same convictions. My commitment to the defense of human rights, including the freedom of expression, and my advocacy for transparency in leadership are still intact.
Part of the attempt to relate lessons in theological readings and the problems besetting the nation was the issue whether we have reached a point when it would be morally justified to use arms to unseat the conjugal dictator. Populorum Progressio of Paul VI rejects revolutionary uprising but grants an exception, “when there is a manifest, long standing tyranny which would do great damage to fundamental personal rights and dangerous harm to the common good of the country…” It is a reiteration of the just war theory which accepts violence but as a last resort. But the issue then was “have we reached a situation wherein the armed struggle was now justified under the context as described by Populorum Progresio?” Many in fact who went to the hills were inspired by their Christian faith.
Unknown to many, years before the non-violent revolution happened, there were already attempts to organize communities for engagement in active non-violence. This was led by Fr. Jose Blanco, SJ, who founded a cause-oriented group called Aksyon Para sa Kapayapaan at Katarungan. I am not sure if there is already a study to what extent this advocacy for active non-violence contributed to the readiness of the people to peacefully confront a ruthless dictator and his army.
The Edsa People Power Revolution later showed to us that our choices were not limited to either armed struggle or passivity.
A question in the invitation letter is asked about what commemoration of the Edsa People Power Revolt means to me as a Christian, a pastor and a theologian. To answer this question, I want to employ the theological concept of memory. One religious tradition that places so much importance to memory is the Judeo-Christian tradition. An essential element of Jewish identity is the memory of what Yahweh did to liberate them from the bondage of the Egyptian Pharaoh. Even some precept in their moral code is based on memory. For instance, the Jews were reminded, “Never oppress a stranger for you were once strangers in the land of Egypt,” (Exodus 22:21).
Christianity also values memory highly, or even more highly. For example, we are to remember what Jesus said and did. The Johannine Jesus told his disciples that the Paraclete would come to “bring to memory what he had told them.” At the scene of the empty tomb, the disciples were asked to remember what Jesus told them in Galilee (Lk. 24: 6). But more importantly, in every Eucharistic celebration, we are asked “to do this in memory of me.” Our memory should also form a part of our moral discourse as a community.