40 years after the declaration of Martial Law

Philippine Sunday Express front page issue about the declaration by Ferdinand Marcos of Martial Law.

Today, 21 September 2012 is the 40th anniversary of the declaration of Martial Law by President Ferdinand Marcos to suppress increasing civil strife and the threat of communist takeover following a series of bombings in Manila.

The justification of Martial Law started during the first State of the Nation Address in January 1970 after his second election in 1969. Protest happened at the first place as the rising of basic commodity prices like oil became rampant due to massive public spending by the Ferdinand Marcos to fund his electoral victory. The First Quarter Storm was the Philippine version by events of 1968 where the youths who born after World War II, had to clash the old ideas of their preceding generations.

The declaration of Martial Law became certain after the bombings during the proclamation of senatorial candidates of the Liberal Party at the Plaza Miranda in Manila which killed nine persons and injured ninety-five persons including the former Senator Jovito Salonga, who managed to survive from the small pieces of shrapnel that are still lodged in his body. According to Salonga in his autobiography book, the Communist Party of the Philippines led by Jose Maria Sison was the responsible of the bombings on which the CPP and Sison vehemently denied.

After the bombings, President Ferdinand Marcos suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus where any police authorities can detain civilians indefinitely. The declaration gained massive protests and later on 11 January 1972, Ferdinand Marcos restored the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Few days before the 21 of September 1972,  Juan Ponce Enrile was reportedly ambushed by communists while in his car, killing his driver but leaving him unscathed (Enrile later told the press that it was a fake to give a justification of Martial Law). The assassination attempt (which was later revealed as staged by the government), along with the growing threat of the New People’s Army and citizen unrest, gave Marcos enough reason to declare martial law on September 21, 1972 by virtue of Proclamation No. 1081.

Marcos, who henceforth ruled by decree, curtailed press freedom and other civil liberties, abolished Congress, shut down media establishments, and ordered the arrest of opposition leaders and militant activists, including his staunchest critics Senators Benigno Aquino, Jr. and Jose W. Diokno. Initially, the declaration of martial law was well-received, given the social turmoil of the period. Crime rates decreased significantly after a curfew was implemented. Political opponents were given the opportunity to go into exile. As martial law went on for the next nine years, the excesses committed by the military emerged.

As the 1973 was fast approaching and Marcos knew that he could not seek an another re-election unless he would revise the 1935 Constitution, he reconvened the Constitutional Convention for a new constitution that became the 1973 Constitution and maneuvered the proceedings to  adopt the semi-presidential form of government similar to France or South Korea. Knowing that it would be rejected by the electorate, Marcos decreed the creation of citizens’ assemblies which anomalously ratified the constitution.

During the Martial Law years, the Philippine economy grew a significant amount, with foreign investments and tourists playing a large part in the success, and GNP rising to a record Php 193 billion in 1980. During this time, the Philippines officially adopted the metric system as its standard, and has since fully implemented it in industries.

The economy during the decade was robust, with budgetary and trade surpluses. The gross national product rose from Php 55 billion in 1972 to P193 billion in 1980. Tourism rose, contributing to the economy’s growth. The number of tourists visiting the Philippines rose to one million by 1980 from less than 200,000 in previous years. A big portion of the tourist group was composed of Filipino balikbayans (returnees) under the Ministry of Tourism‘s BalikbayanProgram launched in 1973.

The first formal elections since 1969 for an interim Batasang Pambansa (National Assembly) were held on April 7, 1978. Sen. Aquino, then in jail, decided to run as leader of his party, the Lakas ng Bayan party, but they did not win any seats in the Batasan, despite public support and their apparent victory. The night before the elections, supporters of the LABAN party showed their solidarity by setting up a “noise barrage” in Manila, creating noise the whole night until dawn.

In order to appease the Catholic Church before the visit of Pope John Paul II, Marcos officially lifted martial law on January 17, 1981. He did, however retain much of the government’s power for arrest and detention.

Corruption and nepotism as well as civil unrest contributed to a serious decline in economic growth and development under Marcos, whose health declined due to lupus.

Following the lifting of Martial Law in 1981, protests against the Marcos regime became apparent as the opposition led by Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino, Jr. motivated to protest the abuses of the Marcos regime and the resistance became intense after the assassination of Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino, Jr. at the tarmac of Manila International Airport, returning after three years of exile and an heart surgery in the United States.

The assassination of Ninoy Aquino was the final coffin of the Marcos regime as Marcos opponents motivated to resist the regime and the intra-factional infighting of Marcos succession between Imelda Marcos and her minions and Juan Ponce Enrile and his subordinates that led the later to stage supposedly the military coup that turned into a bloodless first EDSA People Power that toppled the Marcos regime and brought them into an exile in Hawaii, United States.

References (some of the paragraphs of this article derived from the first link below):






Enrile and Trillanes word wars

Juan Ponce Enrile and Antonio Trillanes argued to each other, 19 September 2012.

Yesterday, Juan Ponce Enrile and Antonio Trillanes traded accusations over the bill seeking to divide Camarines Sur and the senator’s role as special envoy of the Philippines regarding the Scarborough Shoal dispute with China.

Trillanes first stood up by announcing his resignation from the majority bloc of Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile to join the minority group after he exposed the alleged caucus called by Enrile in his office in the Senate last July 24.

Tensions got worse when Trillanes called Enrile as a political lackey of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Another false association fallacy by Trillanes by linking Juan Ponce Enrile with Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as Enrile supports the creation of new Nueva Camarines. I do not know on why Antonio Trillanes wanted to associate his detractors to Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, even though the latter did not really push his detractors to destroy him.

Another was that, Juan Ponce Enrile countered Antonio Trillanes in return by saying that Trillanes told the ambasador to China Sonia Brady that the Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto del Rosario a “traitor”.

After Enrile’s statement about Trilliances’ conversation with the ambassador to China, Trillanes stormed out from the Session Hall as he cannot bear what Enrile said that his actions were potentially treasonous.

Through Brady’s notes, Enrile said it appeared that Trillanes was protecting China and even suspected the United States behind the Scarborough Shoal dispute. What, a conspiracy theory from Trillanes that the United States was behind the Scarborough Shoal dispute as many times the United States government stated that they are not interfering the Scarborough Shoal dispute between the Philippines and China.

What Trillanes did in dealing the Chinese government and stabbing our Foreign Affairs department for his personal ambitions were really disgusting that potentially threatens our national sovereignty and turning the Chinese off from our country because of our diplomatic weakness on dealing with the Chinese government. Trillanes should have not been a special envoy to China as his history being a military rebel against the government of then-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo will be used by China as the weakest link of the Philippines in justification for their more bullying of our country.

Anti-Cybercrime bill now a law; a threat to freedom of expression

A threat to freedom of expression

Last Wednesday, 12 September 2012, the Republic Act No. 10175 or more known as the Anti-Cybercrime bill has been signed by the President Benigno Simeon Aquino III and therefore be effective within 90 days after the signing.

The goal of this bill enumerated in Chapter II of the Republic Act No. 10175 is to curb the crimes committed online like cybersex, child pornography, cybersquatting and identity theft, spamming or unsolicited commercial communication, computer-related forgery, illegal access to a computer system and/or illegal interception of data, data interference, including intentional alteration or damaging of data; system interference, including damaging or altering computer data or programs as well as the use of viruses, the misuse of devices; and the use, production, sale, procurement, importation, distribution or making available without right of malware, passwords or codes.

However, there is a provision in Section 6 of that law that would threaten the harmony and freedom of internet in our country that is penalizing every internet users from expressing something dissent to whom you criticizing by strengthening the libel as a crime in the cyber place which is contrary on 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article III, Section 4 states:

“No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”

The passage of that bill will not address the problems of cyber crime, contrary on what the bill says as any persons who pisses off soon especially politicians and business corporations will use this bill to suppress any dissents of their actions and therefore suppressing dissents and criticisms would destroy the versatility and dynamics of the internet of our country. The passage of that bill will give a precedence for political tyrants in the future to restrict the Filipino people of internet access of all kinds of purposes like what China have right now.

Therefore, we the Filipino citizens who loves freedom, we must fight these politicians and their financiers until this law will be repealed.

Here is the entire copy of the newly-signed law:

11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks and its long-term effects


World Trade Center fuming after it was dropped by two hijacked commercial airplanes by the members of the Al-Qaeda.

Today is the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks at the World Trade Center twin towers in Manhattan, New York and at a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. These three successive suicide attacks with the first two at the World Trade Center and the last one at the Shanksville, Pennsylvania caused millions of dollars of damages and thousands of casualties.

The 9/11 attacks was also the start of the 21st century as the events before the attacks was the continuation of the unrivaled peace and prosperity of the United States for almost ten years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The economic, political effects and the American’s reaction of the 9/11 was the triggering reason for the War of Terrorism initiated by the United States and its allies like the United Kingdom and Australia to curb the spread of Islamic extremism through Al-Qaeda as a result of faulty American foreign policies regarding in Middle East, way back the Arab-Jewish partition of Palestine.

A month after the 9/11 attacks, the United States and its allies including the Philippines attacked Afghanistan in order to hunt Bin Ladin, the principal perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks and to dismantle the Al-Qaeda movement, Islamic extremist movement founded by Osama Bin Ladin.

At first, the Coalition Forces led by the United States succeeded in overthrowing the Taliban-led government in Afghanistan, the principal allies of the Al-Qaeda movement fighting the Coalition Forces. However, it did not bring an everlasting peace in Afghanistan until this moment as the newly-installed democratic government with the help of the Coalition Forces have to fight the militias sympathizing the causes of Taliban and the Al-Qaeda.

The goal of the Coalition Forces to capture Osama Bin Ladin had been failed as Osama managed to escape to Pakistan and had to hide in a safety compound near the capital of Pakistan, Islamabad. He was killed later by the US soldiers on 2 May 2011.

The second major war by the United States and its allies like United Kingdom, Australia, Poland, and Spain attacked Iraq led by Saddam Hussein with the objective of destroying the alleged weapons of mass destruction possession by Iraq which was later found out that there was not.

Second objective was to overthrow Saddam Hussein from power as he was allegedly collaborated with the Al-Qaeda to attack the US during the 9/11. The US and its allies fulfilled their mission as Saddam was overthrown from power, months after the start of the Iraq War due to decreasing support from Iraqis and continuous attacks by the US and UK forces. Saddam hid after his deposition in a compound in Iraq and captured in December 2003. He was tried before the court conducted by the Iraqi Interim Government and was executed by hanging for his crimes committed against the humanity.

The same as in Afghanistan, the deposition of Saddam Hussein from power did not bring everlasting peace in Iraq as ethno, political, and religious factions from the sectors of Iraqi society fought for control of the whole Iraq vacated after Saddam’s deposition.

The reactions after the 9/11 attacks by Al-Qaeda created more deaths than what happened during the 9/11 itself as the US and its allied countries had to spend money, waste soldier and civilian lives just to eradicate the Islamic extremism, indirectly created by the faults of the US, half centuries back.

The 9/11 attacks ended the US monopoly in cultural, economic, and political supremacy as the competing countries like China, and Russia used the 9/11 events to consolidate their respective strengths while the US was suffering from cultural, economic, and political downturns as a result of the 9/11 attacks.

The 9/11 attacks proved that the United States was not an indivisible country as they thought. It was proved also that the United States should not be forceful on spreading their cultural, economic, and political aspects in other countries especially Iraq and Afghanistan.

The United States should learn on how to work with harmonious diplomacy in these globalizing world where almost all cultures not just Americans spreads widely that conflicts are inevitable and be solved only with cooperation and diplomacy. In order for the United States to maintain its superpower status in a long-run, they should realize that they have to learn the sensibilities of other cultures while spreading their cultural, economic, and political aspects to them. 

We should remember that a more prosperous, peaceful, and open-minded United States leads into a more more prosperous, peaceful, and open-minded world.



Tito Sotto, you did it again!

SHAME ON YOU, TITO SOTTO! You never know what the sacrifices of Robert Kennedy to the American people just to achieve racial equality among Americans.

Tonight, my head has exploded once again with this another blunder of this plagiarist Tito Sotto by translating the 1966 speech of former New York Senator Robert F. Kennedy (the younger brother of the slain President John F. Kennedy), entitled “The Day of Affirmation” in South Africa. His staff translated RFK’s speech in Tagalog probably through Google Translator machine as the Tagalog version as I saw in his transcript through the official website of the Senate.

A certain Twitter user named @ChiliMedley first twitted this another Sotto’s plagiarized speech and suggests that it was derived from RFK’s speech in South Africa in 1966.

Here was the Robert Kennedy’s “Day of Affirmation Address” in South Africa in 1966 (sentences in brown were the one plagiarized indirectly by Tito Sotto’s staff:

Robert F. Kennedy
University of Capetown
Capetown, South Africa
June 6, 1966
(News Release Text)

I came here because of my deep interest and affection for a land settled by the Dutch in the mid-seventeenth century, then taken over by the British, and at last independent; a land in which the native inhabitants were at first subdued, but relations with whom remain a problem to this day; a land which defined itself on a hostile frontier; a land which has tamed rich natural resources through the energetic application of modern technology; a land which once imported slaves, and now must struggle to wipe out the last traces of that former bondage. I refer, of course, to the United States of America.

But I am glad to come here to South Africa. I am already enjoying my visit. I am making an effort to meet and exchange views with people from all walks of life, and all segments of South African opinion, including those who represent the views of the government. Today I am glad to meet with the National Union of South African Students. For a decade, NUSAS has stood and worked for the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – principles which embody the collective hopes of men of good will all around the world.

Your work, at home and in international student affairs, has brought great credit to yourselves and to your country. I know the National Student Association in the United States feels a particularly close relationship to NUSAS. And I wish to thank especially Mr. Ian Robertson, who first extended this invitation on behalf of NUSAS, for his kindness to me. It’s too bad he can’t be with us today.

This is a Day of Affirmation, a celebration of liberty. We stand here in the name of freedom.

At the heart of that Western freedom and democracy is the belief that the individual man, the child of God, is the touchstone of value, and all society, groups, the state, exist for his benefit. Therefore the enlargement of liberty for individual human beings must be the supreme goal and the abiding practice of any Western society.

The first element of this individual liberty is the freedom of speech: the right to express and communicate ideas, to set oneself apart from the dumb beasts of field and forest; to recall governments to their duties and obligations; above all, the right to affirm one’s membership and allegiance to the body politic – to society – to the men with whom we share our land, our heritage, and our children’s future.

Hand in hand with freedom of speech goes the power to be heard, to share in the decisions of government which shape men’s lives. Everything that makes man’s life worthwhile – family, work, education, a place to rear one’s children and a place to rest one’s head – all this depends on decisions of government; all can be swept away by a government which does not heed the demands of its people. Therefore, the essential humanity of men can be protected and preserved only where government must answer – not just to the wealthy, not just to those of a particular religion, or a particular race, but to all its people.

And even government by the consent of the governed, as in our own Constitution, must be limited in its power to act against its people; so that there may be no interference with the right to worship, or with the security of the home; no arbitrary imposition of pains or penalties by officials high or low; no restrictions on the freedom of men to seek education or work or opportunity of any kind, so that each man may become all he is capable of becoming.

These are the sacred rights of Western society. These were the essential differences between us and Nazi Germany, as they were between Athens and Persia.

They are the essence of our differences with communism today. I am unalterably opposed to communism because it exalts the state over the individual and the family, and because of the lack of freedom of speech, of protest, of religion, and of the press, which is the characteristic of totalitarian states. The way of opposition to communism is not to imitate its dictatorship, but to enlarge individual freedom, in our own countries and all over the globe. There are those in every land who would label as Communist every threat to their privilege. But as I have seen on my travels in all sections of the world, reform is not communism. And the denial of freedom, in whatever name, only strengthens the very communism it claims to oppose.

Many nations have set forth their own definitions and declarations of these principles. And there have often been wide and tragic gaps between promise and performance, ideal and reality. Yet the great ideals have constantly recalled us to our duties. And – with painful slowness – we have extended and enlarged the meaning and the practice of freedom for all our people.

For two centuries, my own country has struggled to overcome the self-imposed handicap of prejudice and discrimination based on nationality, social class, or race – discrimination profoundly repugnant to the theory and command of our Constitution. Even as my father grew up in Boston, signs told him that No Irish Need Apply. Two generations later President Kennedy became the first Catholic to head the nation; but how many men of ability had, before 1961, been denied the opportunity to contribute to the nation’s progress because they were Catholic, or of Irish extraction? How many sons of Italian or Jewish or Polish parents slumbered in slums – untaught, unlearned, their potential lost forever to the nation and human race? Even today, what price will we pay before we have assured full opportunity to millions of Negro Americans?

In the last five years we have done more to assure equality to our Negro citizens, and to help the deprived both white and black, than in the hundred years before. But much more remains to be done.

For there are millions of Negroes untrained for the simplest of jobs, and thousands every day denied their full equal rights under the law; and the violence of the disinherited, the insulted and injured, looms over the streets of Harlem and Watts and South Side Chicago.

But a Negro American trains as an astronaut, one of mankind’s first explorers into outer space; another is the chief barrister of the United States government, and dozens sit on the benches of court; and another, Dr. Martin Luther King, is the second man of African descent to win the Nobel Peace Prize for his nonviolent efforts for social justice between races.

We have passed laws prohibiting discrimination in education, in employment, in housing, but these laws alone cannot overcome the heritage of centuries – of broken families and stunted children, and poverty and degradation and pain.

So the road toward equality of freedom is not easy, and great cost and danger march alongside us. We are committed to peaceful and nonviolent change, and that is important for all to understand – though all change is unsettling. Still, even in the turbulence of protest and struggle is greater hope for the future, as men learn to claim and achieve for themselves the rights formerly petitioned from others.

And most important of all, all the panoply of government power has been committed to the goal of equality before the law, as we are now committing ourselves to the achievement of equal opportunity in fact.

We must recognize the full human equality of all of our people before God, before the law, and in the councils of government. We must do this, not because it is economically advantageous, although it is; not because of the laws of God command it, although they do; not because people in other lands wish it so. We must do it for the single and fundamental reason that it is the right thing to do.

We recognize that there are problems and obstacles before the fulfillment of these ideals in the United States, as we recognize that other nations, in Latin America and Asia and Africa, have their own political, economic, and social problems, their unique barriers to the elimination of injustices.

In some, there is concern that change will submerge the rights of a minority, particularly where the minority is of a different race from the majority. We in the United States believe in the protection of minorities; we recognize the contributions they can make and the leadership they can provide; and we do not believe that any people – whether minority, majority, or individual human beings – are “expendable” in the cause of theory or policy. We recognize also that justice between men and nations is imperfect, and that humanity sometimes progresses slowly.

All do not develop in the same manner, or at the same pace. Nations, like men, often march to the beat of different drummers, and the precise solutions of the United States can neither be dictated nor transplanted to others. What is important is that all nations must march toward increasing freedom; toward justice for all; toward a society strong and flexible enough to meet the demands of all its own people, and a world of immense and dizzying change.

In a few hours, the plane that brought me to this country crossed over oceans and countries which have been a crucible of human history. In minutes we traced the migration of men over thousands of years; seconds, the briefest glimpse, and we passed battlefields on which millions of men once struggled and died. We could see no national boundaries, no vast gulfs or high walls dividing people from people; only nature and the works of man – homes and factories and farms – everywhere reflecting Man’s common effort to enrich his life. Everywhere new technology and communications bring men and nations closer together, the concerns of one inevitably becoming the concerns of all. And our new closeness is stripping away the false masks, the illusion of difference which is at the root of injustice and hate and war. Only earthbound man still clings to the dark and poisoning superstition that his world is bounded by the nearest hill, his universe ended at river shore, his common humanity enclosed in the tight circle of those who share his town and views and the color of his skin.

It is your job, the task of the young people of this world, to strip the last remnants of that ancient, cruel belief from the civilization of man.

Each nation has different obstacles and different goals, shaped by the vagaries of history and of experience. Yet as I talk to young people around the world I am impressed not by the diversity but by the closeness of their goals, their desires and their concerns and their hope for the future. There is discrimination in New York, the racial inequality of apartheid in South Africa, and serfdom in the mountains of Peru. People starve in the streets of India, a former Prime Minister is summarily executed in the Congo, intellectuals go to jail in Russia, and thousands are slaughtered in Indonesia; wealth is lavished on armaments everywhere in the world. These are differing evils; but they are the common works of man. They reflect the imperfections of human justice, the inadequacy of human compassion, the defectiveness of our sensibility toward the sufferings of our fellows; they mark the limit of our ability to use knowledge for the well-being of our fellow human beings throughout the world. And therefore they call upon common qualities of conscience and indignation, a shared determination to wipe away the unnecessary sufferings of our fellow human beings at home and around the world.

It is these qualities which make of youth today the only true international community. More than this I think that we could agree on what kind of a world we would all want to build. it would be a world of independent nations, moving toward international community, each of which protected and respected the basic human freedoms. It would be a world which demanded of each government that it accept its responsibility to insure social justice. It would be a world of constantly accelerating economic progress – not material welfare as an end in itself, but as a means to liberate the capacity of every human being to pursue his talents and to pursue his hopes. It would, in short, be a world that we would be proud to have built.

Just to the north of here are lands of challenge and opportunity rich in natural resources, land and minerals and people. Yet they are also lands confronted by the greatest odds – overwhelming ignorance, internal tensions and strife, and great obstacles of climate and geography. Many of these nations, as colonies, were oppressed and exploited. Yet they have not estranged themselves from the broad traditions of the West; they are hoping and gambling their progress and stability on the chance that we will meet our responsibilities to help them overcome their poverty.

In the world we would like to build, South Africa could play an outstanding role in that effort. This is without question a preeminent repository of the wealth and knowledge and skill of the continent. Here are the greater part of Africa’s research scientists and steel production, most of its reservoirs of coal and electric power. Many South Africans have made major contributions to African technical development and world science; the names of some are known wherever men seek to eliminate the ravages of tropical diseases and pestilence. In your faculties and councils, here in this very audience, are hundreds and thousands of men who could transform the lives of millions for all time to come.

But the help and the leadership of South Africa or the United States cannot be accepted if we – within our own countries or in our relations with others – deny individual integrity, human dignity, and the common humanity of man. If we would lead outside our borders, if we would help those who need our assistance, if we would meet our responsibilities to mankind, we must first, all of us, demolish the borders which history has erected between men within our own nations – barriers of race and religion, social class and ignorance.

Our answer is the world’s hope; it is to rely on youth. The cruelties and obstacles of this swiftly changing planet will not yield to obsolete dogmas and outworn slogans. It cannot be moved by those who cling to a present which is already dying, who prefer the illusion of security to the excitement and danger which comes with even the most peaceful progress.

This world demands the qualities of youth; not a time of life but a state of mind, a temper of the will, a quality of the imagination, a predominance of courage over timidity, of the appetite for adventure over the love of ease. It is a revolutionary world we live in, and thus, as I have said in Latin America and Asia, in Europe and in the United States, it is young people who must take the lead. Thus you, and your young compatriots everywhere, have had thrust upon you a greater burden of responsibility than any generation that has ever lived.

“There is,” said an Italian philosopher, “nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.” Yet this is the measure of the task of your generation, and the road is strewn with many dangers.

First, is the danger of futility: the belief there is nothing one man or one woman can do against the enormous array of the world’s ills – against misery and ignorance, injustice and violence. Yet many of the world’s greatest movements, of thought and action, have flowed from the work of a single man. A young monk began the Protestant Reformation, a young general extended an empire from Macedonia to the borders of the earth, and a young woman reclaimed the territory of France. It was a young Italian explorer who discovered the New World, and the thirty-two-year-old Thomas Jefferson who proclaimed that all men are created equal.

“Give me a place to stand,” said Archimedes, “and I will move the world.” These men moved the world, and so can we all. Few will have the greatness to bend history itself, but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation. Thousands of Peace Corps volunteers are making a difference in isolated villages and city slums in dozens of countries. Thousands of unknown men and women in Europe resisted the occupation of the Nazis and many died, but all added to the ultimate strength and freedom of their countries. It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.

“If Athens shall appear great to you,” said Pericles, “consider then that her glories were purchased by valiant men, and by men who learned their duty.” That is the source of all greatness in all societies, and it is the key to progress in our time.

The second danger is that of expediency; of those who say that hopes and beliefs must bend before immediate necessities. Of course, if we would act effectively we must deal with the world as it is. We must get things done. But if there was one thing President Kennedy stood for that touched the most profound feelings of young people around the world, it was the belief that idealism, high aspirations, and deep convictions are not incompatible with the most practical and efficient of programs – that there is no basic inconsistency between ideals and realistic possibilities, no separation between the deepest desires of heart and of mind and the rational application of human effort to human problems. It is not realistic or hardheaded to solve problems and take action unguided by ultimate moral aims and values, although we all know some who claim that it is so. In my judgment, it is thoughtless folly. For it ignores the realities of human faith and of passion and of belief – forces ultimately more powerful than all of the calculations of our economists or of our generals. Of course to adhere to standards, to idealism, to vision in the face of immediate dangers takes great courage and takes self-confidence. But we also know that only those who dare to fail greatly, can ever achieve greatly.

It is this new idealism which is also, I believe, the common heritage of a generation which has learned that while efficiency can lead to the camps at Auschwitz, or the streets of Budapest, only the ideals of humanity and love can climb the hills of the Acropolis.

A third danger is timidity. Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality of those who seek to change a world which yields most painfully to change. Aristotle tells us that “At the Olympic games it is not the finest and the strongest men who are crowned, but they who enter the lists…. So too in the life of the honorable and the good it is they who act rightly who win the prize.” I believe that in this generation those with the courage to enter the moral conflict will find themselves with companions in every corner of the world.

For the fortunate among us, the fourth danger is comfort, the temptation to follow the easy and familiar paths of personal ambition and financial success so grandly spread before those who have the privilege of education. But that is not the road history has marked out for us. There is a Chinese curse which says “May he live in interesting times.” Like it or not we live in interesting times. They are times of danger and uncertainty; but they are also more open to the creative energy of men than any other time in history. And everyone here will ultimately be judged – will ultimately judge himself – on the effort he has contributed to building a new world society and the extent to which his ideals and goals have shaped that effort.

So we part, I to my country and you to remain. We are – if a man of forty can claim that privilege – fellow members of the world’s largest younger generation. Each of us have our own work to do. I know at times you must feel very alone with your problems and difficulties. But I want to say how impressed I am with what you stand for and the effort you are making; and I say this not just for myself, but for men and women everywhere. And I hope you will often take heart from the knowledge that you are joined with fellow young people in every land, they struggling with their problems and you with yours, but all joined in a common purpose; that, like the young people of my own country and of every country I have visited, you are all in many ways more closely united to the brothers of your time than to the older generations of any of these nations; and that you are determined to build a better future. President Kennedy was speaking to the young people of America, but beyond them to young people everywhere, when he said that “the energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it – and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.”

And, he added, “With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”

Here was the last part of Sotto’s speech:

Ito ang iiwan kong mga salita: Iilan ang magiging dakila sa pagbali ng kasaysayan, subalit bawat isa sa atin ay maaaring kumilos, gaano man kaliit, para ibahin ang takbo ng mga pangyayari. Kapag pinagsama-sama ang ating munting pagkilos, makalilikha tayo ng totalidad na magmamarka sa kabuuan ng kasaysayan ng henerasyong ito. Ang mga hindi-mabilang na iba’t ibang galaw ng katapangan at paninindigan ang humuhubog sa kasaysayan ng sangkatauhan. Tuwing naninindigan tayo para sa isang paniniwala, tuwing kumikilos tayo para mapabuti ang buhay ng iba, tuwing nilalabanan natin ang kawalan ng katarungan, nakalilikha tayo ng maliliit na galaw. Kapag nagkasama-sama ang mumunting galaw na mga ito, bubuo ito ng isang malakas na puwersang kayang magpabagsak maging ng pinakamatatag na dingding ng opresyon. Maraming salamat po.

Similar, a literal translation to Tagalog, indeed.

Once again, Tito Sotto, are showing to the entire world your stupidity, your lack of remorse, and your onion-skinned attitude. We Filipino people doesn’t need a people like you to be a senator of this country on which what he stands on a certain issue is really a plagiarized version from other person.  You should have been in silence not giving your trash privilege speech in front of the Filipino people.

If you really care with the Filipino people, you should RESIGN if you want to save your own face from further embarrassment.