At
a closer look, there were two Apolinario Mabini's. The first was the Mabini before the Americans
exiled him to Guam, and the second was the Mabini who returned from exile. The first Mabini was pro-Aguinaldo, but the
second Mabini was anti-Aguinaldo. The
first Mabini was in favor of the execution of Bonifacio, but the second Mabini
criticized Aguinaldo saying his greed for power caused Bonifacio’s death.
These are conflicting views of the same person. How could a reputed intellectual and
so-called “brain of the revolution” entertain opposing opinions at the same
time without reconciling them? How could
this happen? What could have caused the change?
No one knows what happened to Mabini during his exile. He was in Guam with Artemio Ricarte, a loyal
supporter of Andres Bonifacio. Was Ricarte possibly instrumental in converting
the first Mabini to the second Mabini?
Were the Americans involved in his conversion? Did the Americans allow
Mabini to return from exile in exchange for favors he had to pay in exchange?
Hopefully, new historical facts would shed light on this mystery. Meanwhile, everyone should know that the
attacks by Mabini on Aguinaldo was made through the former’s book, “La Revolucion Filipina,” which the second Mabini wrote while in exile
in Guam.
In his criticism of Aguinaldo regarding the case of Andres
Bonifacio, the second Mabini says in his book, viz:
“The death of Andres Bonifacio had plainly shown in Mr.
Aguinaldo a boundless appetite for power.” (Mabini, 62-63)
However, back in June 1898,
after the declaration of Philippine independence, when Aguinaldo appointed the
first Mabini as an adviser, he decried
the cold treatment accorded to Bonifacio, saying that if it happened to him
(Mabini), he would have immediately applied summary judgment (Juicio
Sumaresimo) or shot without the benefit of trial on Bonifacio and his
companions. (Ronquillo, 27)
In the case of the killing of General Antonio Luna, the second
Mabini attacks Aguinaldo in his book, viz:
“…instead of killing Luna (allowing Luna to be killed), had supported him with all his power, the
Revolution would have triumphed, would be presumption indeed, but I have not
the least doubt that the Americans would have had a higher regard for the
courage and military abilities of the Filipinos. ….the Revolution failed
because it was badly led; because its leader won his post by reprehensible
rather than meritorious acts; because instead of supporting the men most useful
to the people, he made them useless out of jealousy. Identifying the
aggrandizement of the people with his own men, he judged the worth of men not
by their ability, character, and patriotism but rather by their degree of
friendship and kinship with him; and, anxious to secure the readiness of his
favorites to sacrifice themselves for him, he was tolerant of their
transgressions. Because he thus
neglected by people, the people forsook him; and forsaken by the people, he was
bound to fall like a waxen idol melting in the heat of adversity. God grant we do not forget such a terrible
lesson, learnt at the cost of untold suffering.” (Mabini, 63)
And yet, back in December 1898, when
Aguinaldo caused the printing of an appeal to his Filipino brothers to allow
him to retire and be replaced by someone educated and more capable, it was the
first Mabini who secretly ordered the seizure and burning of Aguinaldo’s
resignation letter knowing its adverse effect at a time when the fate of the
revolutionary government was hanging in the balance. (Saulo, 285).
The first Mabini was also very
critical of General Antonio Luna. In the
book of Jose P. Santos titled “Si
Apolinario Mabini Laban Kay Heneral Antonio Luna” (Apolinario Mabini
Against General Antonio Luna), the first
Mabini secretly wrote President Emilio Aguinaldo expressing his hatred and
hidden resentment against General Antonio Luna. He called Luna a despot, issuing
orders to kill without trial. He accused
Luna of not understanding the limitations of his position in the army and
interfering in government administration. The first Mabini even went as far as
secretly recommending Luna's replacement.
And yet, the second Mabini praised
Luna, he says in his book:
“All of Luna’s acts revealed
integrity and patriotism combined with a zealous activity that measured up to
the situation. If he was sometimes hasty
and even cruel in his decisions, it was because the army was in a desperate
position due to the demoralization of the troops and the lack of munitions; only
acts of daring and extraordinary energy could prevent its disintegration.”
(Mabini, 62)
But when Luna was killed, the first
Mabini wrote his friend, Galicano Apacible, telling him that losing Luna was
beneficial because it prevented the coming of the threatening upheaval. The first Mabini even said that Luna was
mistaken in perceiving Aguinaldo as a weakling like a mannequin because,
knowing Aguinaldo, he said if by chance
Luna's plan materialized, there would have been a fragmentation that would be
the end of all.
In all these conflicting narrations
of the two Mabini's about the characters of Luna and Aguinaldo, which should be believed and
considered the truthful one?
According to Santos, the first
Mabini’s opinion about the actions of Luna in his letter to Apacible should
prevail. It could also be mentioned that
the secret letters of the first Mabini to Aguinaldo will also stay over the
praises the second Mabini gave Luna in the book he has written for public
consumption. Santos should be right because words said to one's intimate
friends (or kaututang dila, as the Tagalogs say) are closest to one's
heart as compared to statements prepared for the public or for a big audience
to hear or know.
It is also mentioned by Gregoria de
Jesus (Oryang), the widow of Supremo
Andres Bonifacio, in her opening lines in the book of Santos that Mabini should
not be considered the “brains of the
revolution” (that
title should belong to Emilio Jacinto - Author) because Mabini was a late-joiner of the revolution.
Oryang further expounded that the food was already cooked and served on the
table when Mabini came; he tasted it and feasted it (Santos, 9).
So, here is the question: if, in the
perception of Mabini, both Luna and
Aguinaldo were bad, who should then be considered good? The answer, perhaps,
will not be far from what can be gleaned from the short narration of Oryang
about Mabini. She said:
I remember
when we once visited him (Mabini) I,
Bonifacio and Emilio Jacinto, were together with others. While we were walking
on our way home, I heard Emilio Jacinto say to Andres Bonifacio: 'This Mabini
is weird, criticizing Rizal which he should not say in front of us, to which,
Bonifacio replied, ‘That's true, but Mabini wanted to show us he was
greater than Rizal’, and the two had a good laugh. (Author’s translation of Tagalog text in Santos,
9)
Here is the author’s translation
of the Tagalog text of the third section of Jose Santos's book dealing with the
supposed contradiction in Mabini’s position on Aguinaldo and Luna, viz:
Who would say that Mabini, the famous paralytic and recognized as the brains of the revolution had two contradicting opinions?
If this was merely told to the writer of this book I might not believe it at once. But that is the truth. I have the evidence with me, that is why I do not have to hesitate.
In his widely
circulated book, La Revolucion Filipina
which he wrote in Spanish in Guam and also translated into English, he severely
criticized Aguinaldo with very bitter accusations. Let me read to you Chapter X of the English
version, viz:
Andres Bonifacio’s death had plainly shown Mr. Aguinaldo’s immeasurable ambition for power, and the use of clever intrigues by the personal enemies of Luna to exploit this weakness to ruin him. If Aguinaldo, instead of killing Luna, had supported him with all his might, it should be too much presumption to say that the revolution would have triumphed; but I have not the least doubt that the Americans would have had a higher idea of the courage and military capacity of the Filipinos. If Luna were living, I am certain that the death blow given by General Otis would have been checked or at least avoided in time, and Aguinaldo’s incapacity in the military command would not have been demonstrated. Moreover, to get rid of Luna, Aguinaldo availed himself of the same soldiers the former had punished for breach of discipline; then Aguinaldo killed the discipline, destroying his army. With Luna its firmest support, the revolution fell, and the ignominy of the fall, weighing entirely upon Aguinaldo, caused his moral death, a thousand times bitterer than the physical one; then Aguinaldo ruined himself, condemned by his actions. That is why Providence punishes the great crimes.
In this opinion of Mabini, it is clear that he regrets the death of Luna. That is for one work that he wrote which he wanted many people to read. But in solitude, in one letter he wrote to Mr. Galicano Apacible, who was formerly the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and a close friend of Mabini, who was then in Hongkong, he had a different perception of the death of Luna. Let me read the third paragraph of his long letter which was written in Rosales on July 25, 1899, and this is what he said:
“… while I regret and disapprove of the violent death of Luna, his disappearance banished a menacing danger. Luna aspired a great deal, convinced perhaps that he was better educated than Puno (Aguinaldo); and if he had not done anything, it was because he had not yet acquired the necessary prestige to put himself face to face with Puno. It was for this reason that he aspired to the presidency of the Council as Secretary of War. The confidence that Puno had in him contributed a great deal to feed his ambition; for since Puno (Aguinaldo) gave him a free hand, he thought that he could manage the president as an automaton. But as I know Puno (Aguinaldo) it would not be a risky thing to suppose that if Luna had secured what he wanted there would have occurred a division which would have annihilated us.”
Given the two contradictory opinions of Mabini, it does not come as a surprise that there would be hesitancy in accepting which one should be taken as true: whether it should be the one which is intended for the public, or the one that he purposely wrote in confidence
This is again another complicated puzzle that had to be referred to the famous oracle, Lola Basiang. (Author’s translation of Tagalog text in Santos, 23-26)
[Author’s note: Lola Basiang was the namesake of the anchor of a defunct popular radio program where listeners from across the islands could get answers through broadcast on practically anything.]
No comments:
Post a Comment