ANALYSIS
By Alejandro Lichauco
02/26/2009
In its issue of Feb. 23, the Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) carried a full page statement of 10 military organizations and 30 individual signatories declaring that they have “formally united under the leadership of Brig. Gen. Danilo ‘Danny’ Lim.” They enumerated their reasons for their decision to unite. One is that they “aspire for the collective vision of a country of peace, progress and prosperity;” second, that they are fully aware that the country is “slowly being engulfed by the fires of poverty, war and corruption;” third, that they “concede the need to strengthen our ranks in the face of a ruthless enemy;” and fourth, “that they recognize our people’s longing for change and their desire for a new breed of leader.”
Then the statement proceeds to enumerate the reasons they chose General Lim. One is that “he has the essential leadership qualities to steer us toward our vision; second, that “he has the impeccable character to lead with moral authority; and third, that “he has consistently displayed uncommon valor and patriotism in the face of extremely difficult situation.”
The organizations behind the statement are the Bagong Katipunan the Nationalist Army of the Philippines; Soldiers of the Filipino People; Magdalo; Yes, Arms: YOU; Samahang Magdalo; Reblusionaryong Alyansang Makabayan and Guardians.
The statement carried a photo-sketch of Lim.
Needless to say, the statement was an open declaration presenting an alternative political leadership to the Filipino people. In and by itself it was open challenge to the regime and an answer to those who seek an alternative to this government.
The organizations behind the declaration are familiar enough names long associated with a movement within the military — which actually started way back in 1986 — for fundamental changes in political governance. And the individual signatories, too many to enumerate here for reasons of space constraint, are as prominent as they are familiar in the military.
Without question, the statement is fraught with explosive political significance. Never, to the knowledge of this writer, has a group of well known military figures and military protest organization banded together behind one military figure and proclaimed him as the alternative political leader of their choice. In this they have certainly outdone the political opposition which to this day hasn’t proclaimed their leader of choice.
To say that the statement was an open challenge to the incumbent regime is an understatement. It is actually a statement withdrawing their support to the chain of command and although the individual signatories are retired, the signatory organizations are known to harbor within their ranks elements still on active duty.
In openly rallying behind General Lim, who technically remains in active status, the sponsors of the statement have simultaneously rallied behind the ideology which Lim represents and which he articulated only some months ago in a statement read for him by, if memory serves, Bishop Tobias at a formal press conference. The statement, dated Nov. 16, 2008, was in Lim’s handwriting and titled “Not only to listen but to march.”
The statement was literally a call to arms against the regime. But more than a call to arms, it was a declaration of nationalist aspiration and a call for nationalist political leadership.
In that, the declaration differed radically from other statements issued by protesting military organizations against the government. It was, to be specific, more than the common place denunciation against corruption. It went far beyond the issue of corruption and called for a government that would actively promote the nation’s genuine independence from “colonial economic masters.” More particularly, it called for the abandonment of “obscene foreign debt payment policies.” It also called for a program of industrialization as well as a program of food independence. Above all, Lim called for a policy declaration and economic strategy anchored on what he said the principle that “this country’s patrimony and all of our abundant resources are solely for the Filipinos to develop and benefit from.”
The Lim statement was nothing less than a call for revolutionary nationalism. That is what makes the choice of Lim immeasurably significant. In rallying behind Lim, the statement sponsors were automatically endorsing Lim’s call for revolutionary nationalism. And that, you must admit, is without precedent in the history of the AFP, long reputed to be nothing more but the slavish annex of the Pentagon.
At the very least, the PDI-published declaration of the military opposition puts to shame, and renders irrelevant and even absurd, the political opposition, or whatever passes for a political opposition.
Are we seeing a military-led nationalist revolution?
Three years after: No end in sight for detained Marines and Rangers
By TESSA JAMANDRE
VERA Files
Exactly three years ago today, hundreds of Marines marched in full battle gear outside the Marine headquarters in Fort Bonifacio, defending their commandant who was then accused of mutiny. The soldiers and their officers said theirs was a legitimate cause: They were merely protesting what they said was the fraud-ridden 2004 elections which Gloria Arroyo won.
The lives of those officers and men have changed, and 28 officers of the Marines and the Army Scout Ranger remain detained for what government said was a mutiny. Yet so far, the prosecution has only presented seven witnesses who have yet to pin them to the charge. Today also marks the 36th court-martial hearing of the 28 officers.
It was the afternoon of Feb. 26, 2006, while the country was under a state of emergency, that 600 Marines protested the relief of their commandant, Maj. Gen. Renato Miranda, who was being linked to a destabilization plot. Thousands of civilians, including former President Corazon Aquino, also braved the emergency rule and showed up in Fort Bonifacio armed only with prayers and fighting spirit in support of the Marines.
The people knew there was more to Miranda’s relief as commandant. Armored personnel carriers suddenly rolled in front of the Marines headquarters and the six-foot-tall Lt. Col. Achilles Segumallian led the march of combat-ready Marines, saying, "Ang gusto lang naman namin ay isang malinis na halalan."
After Miranda accepted his relief, everyone returned to barracks except for nine officers, among them the only two living Medal of Valor awardees in the Marines: Col. Ariel Querubin and Lt. Col. Custodio Parcon. The nine officers, including Miranda, were detained along with 19 other officers from the elite Army Scout Rangers led by Brig. Gen. Danilo Lim whom the government also accused of "conspiracy to attempt to create and begin a mutiny."
Forty enlisted men of the Scout Rangers were also jailed, although only for over a year. But life in and out of detention, the enlisted men say, has not been kind to them. They were never given their day in court, and were dismissed for following orders from their superiors. Now out of jail, they say they cannot find jobs because they were dishonorably discharged.
For the 28 Marine and Scout Ranger officers, three years in detention at the Intelligence Service of the AFP and Camp Canpinpin in Tanay, Rizal has been marked by births, illnesses, and deaths in their families, and by livelihood ventures and spiritual enrichment.
At least five babies were born to the officers while behind bars. Army Capt. William Upano had no such luck for many years until he was detained. His second baby is on the way. Maj. Jason Aquino was blessed with another baby just when his daughter was already in high school. Lt. Col. Nestor Flordeliza, a Scout Ranger who is near retirement, can only be thankful for his first boy who celebrated his first birthday last week. And Capt. James Sababan’s only daughter — he has three boys — was christened last Christmas in Camp Capinpin.
When son Amiel was born two years ago, the wife of Capt. Ervin Divinagracia, Marlyn, wished her husband was with her in the hospital. Last November he was with her in the hospital; she died in his arms as she lost the battle to leukemia. Marlyn left him to raise their two children, a tall order for someone in detention at the ISAFP.
Also last year, Aquino lost a sister to breast cancer while in jail. He never got a chance to see her before she died.
Detention has denied the Marine and Scout Ranger officers a chance to see their sick loved ones. Capt. Allan Aurino wasn’t there to care for a wife who underwent surgery to remove a myoma, while Miranda can only wish to be with his wife who is undergoing treatment for breast cancer.
Miranda had issued two statements urging the release of everyone else, offering to face trial alone. After he retired from the service last December, he said the court has lost jurisdiction over him and sought to be released to the custody of a military defense counsel.
But the detained officers have been making the most out of detention, especially to help their wives who now bear the brunt of earning for the family. While the lieutenants make cheese pimiento spreads, the captains tend a vegetable garden and a tilapia pond and raise poultry in their detention facility in Camp Capinpin. The major and colonels held at ISAFP have tried soap-making.
Some of the detained officers in Tanay have also enriched their spiritual lives through the "Purpose- Driven Life" experience.
Three years in detention, however, has apparently not quenched the detained officers’ fervor for truth and justice. Last week, they issued a manifesto declaring that they have formally united under the leadershp of Lim.
Some have interpreted this to mean that they were prodding Lim to run for public office in 2010, just as detained Navy Capt. Antonio Trillanes IV did in 2004. Although a senator, Trillanes remains in detention at Camp Crame.
Lim has responded to the declaration of support through a statement released by his lawyer: "Not one to shirk away from the challenges and responsibilities, I accept the mantle of leadership bestowed upon me by the collective wisdom of the leaders and followers of the various reformist groups. I will do justice to the trust and I commit myself to the attainment of the aspirations for a country of peace, progress and prosperity."
(VERA Files is the work of veteran journalists taking a deeper look at current issues. Vera is Latin for "true.")
Acceptance Statement of BGen Danny Lim
STATEMENT
23 February 09
I am humbled by this expression of support.
Not one to shirk away from challenges and responsibilities, I accept the mantle of leadership bestowed upon me by the collective wisdom of the leaders and followers of the various reformist groups.
I will do justice to the trust and I commit myself to the attainment of our aspirations for a country of peace, progress and prosperity.
(Sgd) BGen Danilo D. Lim AFP
PROTECTOR OF THE PEOPLE, BE ASHAMED IF YOU DON’T ACT
(Convenor - Mandirigma laban sa mga Ganid, Mandaraya, at Abusado (MANDIRI GMA)
By: Ambassador Roy V. Señeres
It is deplorable that the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) is still unaffected in spite of the serial emergence of (as in “serial killer”) scandals in the country. These scandals have wreaked havoc to almost everything that the Filipinos hold dear namely democracy; good governance; morality; good customs and traditions such as delicadeza and amor propio; national pride; nation-building, and national unity.
The AFP either wittingly or unwittingly, is still clueless about what it means to be “Protector of the People of the Philippines.” It will serve them well to revisit two relevant provisions of the Constitution of the Philippines, to wit:
“Article II, Section 3 – Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. The Armed Forces of the Philippines is the Protector of the People and the State. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of its National Territory.” And---
“Article VII, Section 18 – The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion.
The phrase “Protector of the People” is clear and unambiguous. Needless to say, we the Filipino people are the Protectorate of the Protector, not any single individual even if he or she is Commander-in Chief or President of the Philippines, especially so if that President is under the glare of a noon-day sun, sitting on top of a towering mountain of excreta comprised of the Hello Garci Scandal; the Norberto Gonzales Venable Scandal; the Jose Pidal Scandal; the JocJoc Bolante Fertilizer Fund Scam; the Nani Perez Scandal; the Vicky Toh Scandal; the Diosdado Macapagal Boulevard Scandal; the North Rail Scandal; the Mikey and Iggy Arroyo Jueteng Payola Scandal; the extra-judicial killings; the rampant violations of human rights; the unceasing smuggling especially at the SBMA; the Joey De Venecia III expose of the ZTE-NBN bribery and overpricing; the Malacanang bribery scandal and many others that judging from the serialization of these scandals, are just waiting to emerge or be unmasked. And more especially so that a vast number of Filipinos are of the opinion that the incumbent President cheated her way to the presidency in 2004. Moreover, reliable surveys show the trust rating of this incumbent occupant of Malacanang is virtually zero. “Public opinion,” according to Charles Dudley Warner “is stronger than the Legislature and nearly as strong as the Ten Commandments.”
For the Ladies and Gentlemen of the AFP to fully fathom the length and breadth of their role as “Protector of the People,” they must not only revisit the two provisions of the Constitution as above-quoted, they must also absorb into their minds the in-depth analysis of the Armed Forces’ role, by Father Joaquin G. Bernas S.J., on page 59 of his book entitled “The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, A Commentary,” published by the Rex Book Store, 1999 Edition, relevant portions of which are quoted as follows:
“2. Role of the armed forces.
“The second and third sentences of Section 3 originally discussed by the 1986 Constitutional Commission under the General Provision, are meant to express the philosophy that underlies the existence of armed forces.” (Underscoring mine.)
“The two sentences, however, also yield a meaning which was not articulated during the Commission debates. When one reads them in the light of the unsuccessful military coups of 1987 and the reasons given for them, and especially in the light of the successful and civilian-approved coup of February 1986 which became known as the February Revolution, one cannot escape the conclusion that the armed forces can be a legitimate instrument for the overthrow of a civilian government that has ceased to be a servant of the people.” (Underscoring mine)
“Civilian supremacy, in other words is, in the final analysis, not a guaranteed supremacy of civilian officers who are in power but of supremacy of the sovereign people. The Armed Forces, in this sense, is the Protector of the people and the State.” (Underscoring mine.)
It is clear from the foregoing that where there is a conflict between the Protector of the people clause and the Commander-in-Chief clause of the Constitution, the former must prevail.
Notwithstanding Father Bernas’ counsel that the armed forces can be “A legitimate instrument for the overthrow of a civilian government”, I am not asking the AFP to stage a rebellion or sedition or coup d’ etat. After all, there is a completely legitimate, peaceful and bloodless way of terminating the reign of a government that “has ceased to be a servant of the people”, and that is by way of withdrawal of support.
Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) defines rebellion as “rising publicly and taking up arms against the government xxx.” To withdraw support, the AFP does not have to rise publicly or take up arms against the government.
Article 134-A says, inter alia, that a coup d’ etat is a “swift attack accompanied by violence, intimidation and threat, etc.” To withdraw support, the AFP does not have to swiftly attack anyone.
Article 139 says the crime of sedition is committed by persons who “rise publicly and tumultuously in order to attain by force, intimidation, etc.” To withdraw support, the AFP does not have to rise publicly and tumultuously.
Withdrawal of support is not a crime. Otherwise the Supreme Court would have said so. In the two landmark cases, the Supreme Court narrated the withdrawal of support from President Joseph E. Estrada of General Angelo Reyes, AFP Chief-of-Staff, and Director General Panfilo Lacson of the PNP. The high court repeated the phrase “withdrawal of support” 16 times but it did not say a word on whether or not it was improper, illegal, unconstitutional, or unacceptable. (Page 8, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34, “Joseph E. Estrada vs. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo G.R. No. 146738; and Joseph E. Estrada vs. Aniano Desierto et al., G.R. No. 146710-15)
It is noteworthy that Justice Jose C. Vitug even wrote a concurring opinion where, despite the withdrawal of support of Generals Reyes and Lacson, he declared: “The basic structures, the principles, the directions, the interests, and the spirit of the 1987 Constitution have been saved and preserved.” (Page 14, concurring opinion)
Sure of my thesis about the legality of withdrawal of support, I came out with a public statement in March 2006, that I was among those who personally advised General Danilo Lim to withdraw support from Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. After my public statement in support of General Lim, some of his comrades asked me to convince the others especially those who persistently goaded General Lim to withdraw support, to also come out with a public statement similar to mine as there was a great likelihood according to them, that thousands of soldiers might just come out of their barracks to come to the side of the detained General. I tried to convince some of them but to no avail. “Nag bahag buntot silang lahat,” according to General Lim’s comrades. The poor General Lim. He now suffers quietly in detention, abandoned by the men who inveigled him to do what he did that fateful morning of February 24, 2006. Indeed, there is truth to Kennedy’s woe: “Victory has so may fathers, defeat an orphan.”
General Danilo Lim did not commit any crime. He tried through the legitimate avenue of withdrawal of support, to unshackle the Filipinos from the grip of what he believed was and still is an illegitimate regime.
It is relevant to quote at this juncture Thomas Jefferson, circa 1787, thus :”I hold it that a little rebellion now and then, is a good thing and therefore, necessary in a political world as storms in the physical… it is a medicine for the sound health of government.”
The internationally respected Washington Sycip, appear to have agreed with Jefferson, when in a speech (published by the PDI on March 19, 2007) he said: “While western nations and financial institutions were critical about the last coup in Thailand, I, together with my Asian friends were glad that it took place. We saw that a coup, with the pre-approval of the King, would be bloodless and would enable the Thai government to correct the many abuses of the Thaksin government.” (Underscoring mine.)
I am sure Sycip and his friends also saw that Thaksin’s sins were not as numerous and humongous as those of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Thaksin was, comparatively, a juvenile delinquent.
But unlike Jefferson and Sycip, I am not asking the AFP to rebel or to stage a coup d’ etat. I reiterate, am only asking it to withdraw support.
Even before the emergence of this regime’s series of scandals starting mostly in 2006 with the Hello Garci revelations, F. Sionil Jose, national artist for literature, in 2004 already called for revolution. In an article he wrote for the Far Eastern Economic Review (December 2004 issue) entitled “A call for revolution in the Philippines,” he said:
“By what right do I have to urge revolution upon our people who will suffer from it? I have no such right, nor will I call it such. I call it duty, duty, duty, duty for all rooted in our soil who believe that freedom is our destiny xxx” “xxx look around us, at the thousands of Filipinos who are debased and hungry, who are denied justice. Be ashamed if you do not act.” (Underscoring mine.)
Protector of the People to the Philippines, be ashamed if you do not, at least, withdraw support.
By: Ambassador Roy V. Señeres
It is deplorable that the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) is still unaffected in spite of the serial emergence of (as in “serial killer”) scandals in the country. These scandals have wreaked havoc to almost everything that the Filipinos hold dear namely democracy; good governance; morality; good customs and traditions such as delicadeza and amor propio; national pride; nation-building, and national unity.
The AFP either wittingly or unwittingly, is still clueless about what it means to be “Protector of the People of the Philippines.” It will serve them well to revisit two relevant provisions of the Constitution of the Philippines, to wit:
“Article II, Section 3 – Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. The Armed Forces of the Philippines is the Protector of the People and the State. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of its National Territory.” And---
“Article VII, Section 18 – The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion.
The phrase “Protector of the People” is clear and unambiguous. Needless to say, we the Filipino people are the Protectorate of the Protector, not any single individual even if he or she is Commander-in Chief or President of the Philippines, especially so if that President is under the glare of a noon-day sun, sitting on top of a towering mountain of excreta comprised of the Hello Garci Scandal; the Norberto Gonzales Venable Scandal; the Jose Pidal Scandal; the JocJoc Bolante Fertilizer Fund Scam; the Nani Perez Scandal; the Vicky Toh Scandal; the Diosdado Macapagal Boulevard Scandal; the North Rail Scandal; the Mikey and Iggy Arroyo Jueteng Payola Scandal; the extra-judicial killings; the rampant violations of human rights; the unceasing smuggling especially at the SBMA; the Joey De Venecia III expose of the ZTE-NBN bribery and overpricing; the Malacanang bribery scandal and many others that judging from the serialization of these scandals, are just waiting to emerge or be unmasked. And more especially so that a vast number of Filipinos are of the opinion that the incumbent President cheated her way to the presidency in 2004. Moreover, reliable surveys show the trust rating of this incumbent occupant of Malacanang is virtually zero. “Public opinion,” according to Charles Dudley Warner “is stronger than the Legislature and nearly as strong as the Ten Commandments.”
For the Ladies and Gentlemen of the AFP to fully fathom the length and breadth of their role as “Protector of the People,” they must not only revisit the two provisions of the Constitution as above-quoted, they must also absorb into their minds the in-depth analysis of the Armed Forces’ role, by Father Joaquin G. Bernas S.J., on page 59 of his book entitled “The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, A Commentary,” published by the Rex Book Store, 1999 Edition, relevant portions of which are quoted as follows:
“2. Role of the armed forces.
“The second and third sentences of Section 3 originally discussed by the 1986 Constitutional Commission under the General Provision, are meant to express the philosophy that underlies the existence of armed forces.” (Underscoring mine.)
“The two sentences, however, also yield a meaning which was not articulated during the Commission debates. When one reads them in the light of the unsuccessful military coups of 1987 and the reasons given for them, and especially in the light of the successful and civilian-approved coup of February 1986 which became known as the February Revolution, one cannot escape the conclusion that the armed forces can be a legitimate instrument for the overthrow of a civilian government that has ceased to be a servant of the people.” (Underscoring mine)
“Civilian supremacy, in other words is, in the final analysis, not a guaranteed supremacy of civilian officers who are in power but of supremacy of the sovereign people. The Armed Forces, in this sense, is the Protector of the people and the State.” (Underscoring mine.)
It is clear from the foregoing that where there is a conflict between the Protector of the people clause and the Commander-in-Chief clause of the Constitution, the former must prevail.
Notwithstanding Father Bernas’ counsel that the armed forces can be “A legitimate instrument for the overthrow of a civilian government”, I am not asking the AFP to stage a rebellion or sedition or coup d’ etat. After all, there is a completely legitimate, peaceful and bloodless way of terminating the reign of a government that “has ceased to be a servant of the people”, and that is by way of withdrawal of support.
Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) defines rebellion as “rising publicly and taking up arms against the government xxx.” To withdraw support, the AFP does not have to rise publicly or take up arms against the government.
Article 134-A says, inter alia, that a coup d’ etat is a “swift attack accompanied by violence, intimidation and threat, etc.” To withdraw support, the AFP does not have to swiftly attack anyone.
Article 139 says the crime of sedition is committed by persons who “rise publicly and tumultuously in order to attain by force, intimidation, etc.” To withdraw support, the AFP does not have to rise publicly and tumultuously.
Withdrawal of support is not a crime. Otherwise the Supreme Court would have said so. In the two landmark cases, the Supreme Court narrated the withdrawal of support from President Joseph E. Estrada of General Angelo Reyes, AFP Chief-of-Staff, and Director General Panfilo Lacson of the PNP. The high court repeated the phrase “withdrawal of support” 16 times but it did not say a word on whether or not it was improper, illegal, unconstitutional, or unacceptable. (Page 8, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34, “Joseph E. Estrada vs. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo G.R. No. 146738; and Joseph E. Estrada vs. Aniano Desierto et al., G.R. No. 146710-15)
It is noteworthy that Justice Jose C. Vitug even wrote a concurring opinion where, despite the withdrawal of support of Generals Reyes and Lacson, he declared: “The basic structures, the principles, the directions, the interests, and the spirit of the 1987 Constitution have been saved and preserved.” (Page 14, concurring opinion)
Sure of my thesis about the legality of withdrawal of support, I came out with a public statement in March 2006, that I was among those who personally advised General Danilo Lim to withdraw support from Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. After my public statement in support of General Lim, some of his comrades asked me to convince the others especially those who persistently goaded General Lim to withdraw support, to also come out with a public statement similar to mine as there was a great likelihood according to them, that thousands of soldiers might just come out of their barracks to come to the side of the detained General. I tried to convince some of them but to no avail. “Nag bahag buntot silang lahat,” according to General Lim’s comrades. The poor General Lim. He now suffers quietly in detention, abandoned by the men who inveigled him to do what he did that fateful morning of February 24, 2006. Indeed, there is truth to Kennedy’s woe: “Victory has so may fathers, defeat an orphan.”
General Danilo Lim did not commit any crime. He tried through the legitimate avenue of withdrawal of support, to unshackle the Filipinos from the grip of what he believed was and still is an illegitimate regime.
It is relevant to quote at this juncture Thomas Jefferson, circa 1787, thus :”I hold it that a little rebellion now and then, is a good thing and therefore, necessary in a political world as storms in the physical… it is a medicine for the sound health of government.”
The internationally respected Washington Sycip, appear to have agreed with Jefferson, when in a speech (published by the PDI on March 19, 2007) he said: “While western nations and financial institutions were critical about the last coup in Thailand, I, together with my Asian friends were glad that it took place. We saw that a coup, with the pre-approval of the King, would be bloodless and would enable the Thai government to correct the many abuses of the Thaksin government.” (Underscoring mine.)
I am sure Sycip and his friends also saw that Thaksin’s sins were not as numerous and humongous as those of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Thaksin was, comparatively, a juvenile delinquent.
But unlike Jefferson and Sycip, I am not asking the AFP to rebel or to stage a coup d’ etat. I reiterate, am only asking it to withdraw support.
Even before the emergence of this regime’s series of scandals starting mostly in 2006 with the Hello Garci revelations, F. Sionil Jose, national artist for literature, in 2004 already called for revolution. In an article he wrote for the Far Eastern Economic Review (December 2004 issue) entitled “A call for revolution in the Philippines,” he said:
“By what right do I have to urge revolution upon our people who will suffer from it? I have no such right, nor will I call it such. I call it duty, duty, duty, duty for all rooted in our soil who believe that freedom is our destiny xxx” “xxx look around us, at the thousands of Filipinos who are debased and hungry, who are denied justice. Be ashamed if you do not act.” (Underscoring mine.)
Protector of the People to the Philippines, be ashamed if you do not, at least, withdraw support.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
